Good news for the terrified greenies still tossing and turning in their beds at night.
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by pokerguy
↧
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by kim
Hansen spies Shangri-La, but is forbidden admission.
==================
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by timg56
manaker,
I disagree with you on this. There is nothing wrong with trying to jump start new technologies. Do you really think we would have had an internet if the US had not developed DarpaNet? I work in wireless. Would my job exist without the money put into developing combat communications systems using cellular technology? (Government money.) Previously I worked in nuclear. Once again, an industry which received considerable governmental support to get started.
The issue should not be whether research dollars, subsidies and other incentives should be allowed or not. It should be on how these get decided upon and managed.
Where you start to have a point is when a field or industry has been subsidized to the extent that market forces should begin to be felt. At this point wind has been subsidized to having reached sufficient critical mass. If it it isn’t drawing capital, then maybe we need to look at why that is.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by timg56
Max,
I hate to tell you that as a tax payer, you have nothing in it. No equity. No share of stock, no discounted electricity coming your way.
If you get a feel good out of it, fine. Just don’t expect that everyone else should be feeling the same.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Max_OK
1998 (and part of 1997) was influenced by a record El Nino event.
This caused not only the temperature for those years to be higher than they “would have been without this event”, but it also distorted the entire late 20th century warming period (starting roughly ~1970 and ending ~2000).
Without the major 1997/98 El Nino plus a few other smaller ones, which occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, the late 20thC warming trend would have been lower by at least one-third.
But IPCC never bothered to remove these El Nino impacts when it postulated the anthropogenic cause for the late 20thC warming.
Removing natural impacts is dangerous. It becomes a can of worms when one does not even know what all those natural impacts really were.
And that is where we stand today, even by IPCC admissions.
IPCC concedes in AR4 that its
“level of scientific understanding of natural (i.e. solar) forcing is low”
and that
“clouds remain the largest source of uncertainty”
So if IPCC does not know the impact of the sun and clouds on our climate, it is obvious that there is no way that “natural factors” can be removed from the record, when we don’t even know what they are – right?
Max_CH
↧
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by captdallas 0.8 or less
Yep, if you consider the “true” surface, sea level, 0.8 C. Funny huh?
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by timg56
k scott,
Unless you are seriously invested in adding Max to your Christmas mailing list, can you drop the anonyminity (sp?) thing? It doesn’t add anything.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by grumpydenier
I’m glad to see the ‘science is settled’. It’s heartening to see the Government is about to confirm a carbon taxation policy based on all this. I will die of hypothermia safe in the knowledge that there are scientists keeping an eye on this for my grand-children.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by pokerguy
Why is it so hard to concede that this is encouraging news? That some of you can’t even so much as allow that there’s been a lack of warming for going on 17 years, is telling.
↧
↧
Comment on The Forest 2006 climate sensitivity study and misprocessing of data – an update by Pekka Pirilä
Joshua,
I think that it’s not uncommon to think that there are, indeed, objective priors and that those can be fond looking at the data. Even on this site, Nic is not the first to have discussed such ideas positively. I had a rather lengthy argumentation on that in another thread, where the point was even more central.
Here we have a Munchhausean bootstrap: Using the data to prove that that particular data is stronger than it is.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK
Hold on there, Phatboy. Two can play that game.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by timg56
willard,
Not really. I’m not all that coordinated.
I do however enjoy seeing good work. And on that score, Mosher has managed to pound the hell out of more than one person on these pages.
Note: I will refrain from using any terminology with ties to weapons or firearms, as that will require Bart R to mount his steed of moral superiority and toss snide remarks (along with the apparently obligatory charge of cherry picking) my way. I do wish someone would point out to Bart that the cherries he was referring to were picked by someone else. A Senator from California, I believe.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
I would expect people to go to every study that shows a high sensitivity and lop the last 10 years off to see the effect.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK
Max_Ch, I don’t want 1998 temperature removed from the record. My point is there would have been a warming trend even if the temperature in 1998 were no higher than it had been in 1997.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by kim
And if the sun gets into the act, all these numbers plummet.
Or rise. Not commanding the sun here, no sirree.
============
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Fred from Canuckistan
Well I,for one, am going to believe Kevin Trenberth.
Because he has always been correct in his predictions, he never fear mongers or goes all greenie-we-are-all-going-to-die hysterical theatrical like that Hanson or Mann fellows.
Go Kevin go. We all know we can trust every word you say. Because you work for the government and you are a Climate Scientist, a real, honest to goodness, honest Climate Scientist who would never, ever stoop to torquing up some pseudo science mumbo jumbo just to get a free ride on the taxpayer funded R&D Gravey & Fame Train.
Yo da Mann, I mean man.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK
Re Phatboy’s two questions:
And a couple of questions about 1998:
1) Where did all that heat come from?
2) Where did it all go to.
I think Max_CH just answered question #1. The 1998 heat came from a big El Nino. But he didn’t tell us where that El Nino got it.
I don’t know where the 1998 heat went. Maybe it went back in the ocean and will return in another El Nino. I’m not a scientist, so don’t expect me to know much about this stuff.
↧
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Pekka Pirilä
A feedback factor close to one would certainly lead to instabilities, if the feedback is even close to linear. Telling that the limit would be 0.4 requires some strong additional assumptions and probably a very simplistic model of the Earth system.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Wagathon
Until such time as we reach liberal Utopia — with a windmill on every roof and hash in every pot — be very careful of flames bursting suddenly from your faucets.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by DocMartyn
It is important Howard because one one discusses thermodynamics and uses the word equilibrium it has a specific meaning. It is a very special meaning and misuse shows that you are not describing the system correctly.
People are describing helium balloons when they are looking at helicopters.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
