kim, that would make coastal tea-making easier, though the salty flavour might appeal only to Tibetans. Mmm, giving that they tend to be far from the coast, maybe no benefit.
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Faustino
↧
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Faustino
False advertising, Peter.
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Alexander Biggs
Too much attention is given to small changes in temperature that might occur in the future. When people packed their wagons with all their posessions in USA in the 18th and 19th centuries and headed west, did they worry that California might be more than 2C warmer? Every day people move from Melbourne to Sydney where the mean maximums are 3C warmer, yet no one complains. In fact some will move on to Brisbane where it is still warmer. The fact is that we humans are highly adaaptihle to climate change.
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Faustino
“The worst one can imagine” could be far from the realms of possibility. One might better ask “What is the worst case scenario this century in terms of your assessment of climate change.” But it would still make no sense to ask that, we can’t plan on the basis of worst case scenarios which we think of an extremely remote risk of happening, add up the worst case scenarios in different fields and you’ld use all of your resources in disaster avoidance, and still not have enough. Let’s look at what might be reasonably expected, and, irrespective of that, adopt policies which increase our capacity to make the most of whatever befalls.
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by mosomoso
I actually knew already that the 1600s were a period of climatic and political turbulence. (Mind you, I can’t nominate a century that wasn’t, but I’ll roll with the idea of a colder 17th century with its own nasty weather personality.) “Climate change occurs…”. I don’t mind someone pointing that out at some length. It’s good not to forget some things, however screamingly obvious. As to whether it’s a good idea to prepare for extreme weather…hell, my grandmother knew that before she could spell “resilience”. But good that professors in Ohio know it too.
Then this:
“Some people still doubt the second proposition (just as some people still deny that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer)…”
Just when you thought you’d found a grown-up!
Can I hear the swoosh-swoosh sound of many more thousands of wind turbines, making us ever more prepared and resilient?
↧
↧
Comment on What exactly are we debating? by Beth Cooper
Toro! Toro!
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Faustino
True, Alexander, but commonsense seems to be at a premium in this field.
↧
Comment on What exactly are we debating? by Myrrh
R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist, etc. | June 3, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Oh where to begin, ..
Answer: It is not past warmings that matter as much as each will have its own unique causes. The issue is, how much of the recent warming is anthropogenic and what sensitivity can we expect from a doubling of CO2.
Zilch and zilch.
Begin here:
A trace real gas with no heat capacity cannot physically drive global temperatures, it is absurd.
Absurd.
Even if it wasn’t heavier than air and so unable to accumulate in the atmosphere, and didn’t comes down to Earth every time it rained..
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by tempterrain
Unfortunately, the current debate on climate change favors procrastination because it confuses two issues: whether the global climate changes, and, if so, whether humans are to blame.
Just two issues being confused? Let’s be fair to contrarians. They manage to do much better than that!
Skeptical science has catalogued 174 “issues” so far:
↧
↧
Comment on What exactly are we debating? by w.w.wygart
WebHubTelescope,
Ummm… I think you have gotten me almost totally backwards.
If you think I am somehow in opposition to “free-thinking individuals” then you really have read me incorrectly. I’m all about the free-thinking, right acting, reality apprehending individual. I’m only in opposition to stupid ideas [not even stupid people]. What I said was:
Humanity does need to reform its resource extraction and consumption styles, but that will best work itself out in the domain of societal evolution, free will, and the free markets of ideas and goods as a whole rather than imposed from above by an elite in academia, the media, and government.
I see that I made one or two small typos [fixed]. I will rephrase in a way that I hope is a little clearer to you.
Humanity’s style of resource extraction, allocation and consumption is imperfect, wasteful and often in humane. Evolution is the pattern of organization underlying all existence. At the level of the domain of human society, the work of evolution is best left to human free will, free markets, and right acting human conscience. And, I mean free markets of all kinds – not just post-modern global consumer capitalist markets – because free markets produce more good choices than top down decision making imposed from above by an elite in academia, the media and government. This is especially true when decision making, is returned to the lowest practical level, the level of the individual being best when ever practical.
There is an article by Frank Van Dun [in English] for .pdf download: “Hobbesian Democracy”, that gives a good algebraic description of the relationship of decision makers to those affected by decisions that supports my basic position:
http://rothbard.be/artikels/350-bibliografie-van-dun
It’s pretty great Van Dun’s logic is so sharp he is able to formalizes his logic into a function that calculates a kind of ‘Democracy coefficient’, I programmed it into my HP27S – pretty fun.
There are of course the proper roles for academia, the media, and government, but as I point out I believe it is a disaster when one group – even when it has in essence good and high values – ‘others’ itself so completely from the rest of society that it feels it has the moral right to impose its will upon everyone else. The tyranny of the high minded is the result. That was what I was criticizing when I wrote:
The ‘climate science’ debate boils down to one group of people trying to impose their collective will over everyone else.
Another concept to check out is ‘Social Threefolding’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_threefolding
Yes, yes, I know it’s Rudolf Steiner, but if you’re an American and bite your tongue you’ll appreciate the concept of checks and balances that the scheme is based upon, and the best part is that it’s really not an ‘ism’, it’s just the formalization of how healthy societies actually work.
Have I made myself sufficiently clear to you now?
Wygart the Witty Wight
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by manacker
Faustino
Tibetans may be “far from the coast” today, but with the sea level rise projected by Hansen et al. Lhasa will have seaside properties before too long.
Max
↧
Comment on What exactly are we debating? by manacker
Bart R
You assert that Peiser’s points are “wrong”.
When asked to provide evidence to support your claim, you simply repeat that Peiser’s points are “wrong” (but cite no evidence).
From this I conclude that you have no evidence to support your assertion and that it is simply hot air.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Max
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by kim
I’ve thought for several years that the Middle Kingdom has figured out that global warming would be good for it. Remember the Tibetan tree ring study? Michael Mann didn’t do that one.
=======================
↧
↧
Comment on What exactly are we debating? by Beth Cooper
Embracing guilt is
a serpent’s kiss
that leads ter
the abyss or
at least the slough
of despondency …
Whereas a lover’s
kiss can lead
ter its reverse.
B-t-s
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by kim
Ask Muller, it’s all Human GHGs since the LIA.
Without which it would be now several degrees cooler.
So which way does he want it? moshe?
=======================
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by kim
Maunder sunspots were large, sparse, and primarily southern hemispheric. There is a big clue there.
=============
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Girma
So while we argue over whether or not our climate is changing, and (if so) who is to blame, let us also anticipate—and try to mitigate—the sort of catastrophes that history shows are inevitable.
Agree.
Much better than trying to waste resources on a non existent problem.
↧
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Faustino
Bill, Murdoch started with his father’s paper the Adelaide Advertiser, which as far as I know has never been sensationalist. In 1964 he started a national newspaper The Australian, the country’s leading newspaper, the nearest thing we have to The Times. I think it has always run at a loss, to an extent it’s a public service. I think he bought the British tabloid The Sun after that, about mid-60s, and later The Times, and at some stage the sensationalist News of the World. I’m not sure if he had a US presence at that time.
Murdoch effectively saved the UK newspaper industry by taking on the printers’ unions. I was a journalist at times from 1961-64, I often hung out with printers at their main haunt, Mick’s Cafe in Fleet Street, while I was at LSE nearby, and I know first hand how bad the union rorting was. Murdoch has many detractors, I’m not one of them.
↧
Comment on What exactly are we debating? by manacker
Webby
Let’s go through that again – this time using the IPCC AR4 approach rather than your “ad hoc” method.
1.0C = No feedback 2xCO2 impact (Myhre et al.)
In AR4 WG1, Chapter 8 (p.630) IPCC states that the multi-model mean forcing and standard deviation for each feedback in W/m^2 °C is:
Water vapor +1.80 ±0.18
Lapse rate -0.84 ±0.26
Albedo +0.26 ± 0.08
Clouds +0.69 ± 0.38
On p.631 IPCC states:
“The water vapor feedback is, however, closely related to the lapse rate feedback, and the two combined result in a feedback parameter of approximately 1 W/m^2, corresponding to an amplification of the basic temperature response by approximately 50%.”
This would translate into a temperature response of 1.5*1.0°C = 1.5°C, excluding the feedbacks from clouds or surface albedo.
Including all feedbacks except clouds, IPCC estimates (p.633)
”…it can be estimated that in the presence of water vapour, lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, but in the absence of cloud feedbacks, current GCMs would predict a climate sensitivity (±1 standard deviation) of roughly 1.9°C ± 0.15°C (ignoring spread from radiative forcing differences). The mean and standard deviation of climate sensitivity estimates derived from current GCMs are larger (3.2°C ± 0.7°C) essentially because the GCMs all predict a positive cloud feedback but strongly disagree on its magnitude”
So, out of the mean estimate of 3.2°C, roughly 1.3°C are based on the predicted strongly positive net feedback from clouds.
IPCC does concede that ”cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty” [AR4 WG1 SPM, p.12]
Two studies since then have cleared up some of this “uncertainty”:
Spencer & Braswell (2007) showed a strongly negative overall cloud feedback with warming over the tropics, based on CERES satellite observations.
Wyant et al. (2006) used a model study using superparameterization to better simulate the behavior of clouds; this study also showed a strongly negative net overall cloud feedback at all latitudes (about the same order of magnitude as the positive feedback predicted by the IPCC models).
Correcting the IPCC AR4 estimate for this later data on the cloud feedback would put 2xCO2 ECS at around 1.0°C to 1.5°C.
On top of this, Webby, there have been several new studies (some at least partially based on actual observations, rather than simply model predictions), all of which suggest a much lower 2xCO2 ECS than was predicted by the models cited by IPCC in AR4. The average of these is around 1.6 °C, or around half the mean value predicted in AR4.
So I think you need to rework your calculation, Webby.
Max
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Faustino
Judith, I had a post at 12.10 in reply to Rud Istvan replying to me put in moderation, I can’t see any reason for that, I tried slight reformatting at 2.40, still modded. I hope that this can be resolved when you have time.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
