Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by manacker

June 6, 2013, 1:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

Jan P Perlwitz

Let’s see if we can get this straight.

You accept that IPCC has listed the various projected effects and impacts from AGW, as I summarized citing specific references.

Good so far.

The observation that this has been generally referred to (by others – not IPCC) as “CAGW” seems to irritate you – but there’s not much either one of us can do about that.

But you object to the IPCC position being referred to as a “premise”.

The statements in the IPCC report are based on and backed with results from research, published in the scientific literature. I don’t see any argument by you for your assertion that those statements were mere “premises”.

There is nothing derogatory about the term “premise”, Jan.

premise
n.
1. A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.
2. Logic
a. One of the propositions in a deductive argument.
b. Either the major or the minor proposition of a syllogism, from which the conclusion is drawn.

This seems to fit pretty well.

One could also refer to it as a “postulation”

postulation
n.
1. Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument

Or how about “posit”?

posit
n.
A statement made on the assumption that it will prove to be true.

It’s all semantics, Jan.

“Premise” actually fits pretty well, as I see it.

One could also refer to it as a “hypothesis”.

Do you like that better?

Max

---

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Steven Mosher

June 6, 2013, 1:28 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by manacker

$

0

0

Martha

“Setting aside the location, would you say that poverty helps people respond to climate impacts? ”

Yes. I would say that poverty helps people respond to climate impacts. Dont argue by question. Stop it now. It doesnt work.

“Or that poverty increases resilience? ”

Of course it does. That’s obvious.

Or that climate change does not influence poverty?

Sorry. I don’t see how. You’ll have to make the argument and stop expecting me to guess at what you think.

You must send an email at once to Africa, and many nations all around the world, with your good news.

I did that. they wrote back and said thanks.

Pragmatically-speaking, it makes sense for mitigation, adaptation and poverty reduction to go hand in hand.

No it doesnt,since its not always possible to do all three.

Most people living in extreme poverty around the world don’t even have access to climate information, Steven.

yes they do. I sent them mail.

Two thirds of those are women and children, with little to no financial (never mind economic or political) means to move anywhere or secure other livelihood in the face of e.g. drought or flooding. Send them your email, too.

I did. they enjoyed it.

Where’s your common sense?

It’s right here. When people ask stupid questions I give them stupid answers. Congratulations.

In the United States, people living in poverty have a severely limited ability to avoid, adapt or recover from a sudden loss of physical assets, health, livelihood, etc… no matter where they live. A resilience-based policy response that includes poverty reduction efforts would likely result in increased coping capacity.

You haven’t been to new orleans

p.s. Your understanding of resilience is confused, the United States is not the rest of the world, and you have no idea whether I have ever been to Malibu.

You are wrong martha. As usual you tried to reduce the problem of resilience to the problem of poverty. The point of mailbu or the point of new york which you ignored is that their resilience problems are not caused by poverty or addressed by poverty reduction. It’s pretty simple. Poverty reduction is not a hammer and every problem is not a nail. Now to be sure there are places, as I argued, where poverty does play a role and rather than your one solution fits all mentality I suggest adaptive management. Or let me put in terms of the work I’ve been involved in recently in urban resilience in the US. The solutions have very little to do with economics. And in poorer parts of the world the same holds.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by manacker

June 6, 2013, 1:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Martha

The evidence seems to point to the conclusion that higher CO2 concentrations combined with moderately warmer temperatures have been (and will continue to be) beneficial for global crop yields, reducing famines and starvation.

Max

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Peter Lang

June 6, 2013, 2:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Philip Haddad

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by manacker

$

0

0

Manacker and Jan,

3. this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment from anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the range of 1.8°C to 6.4°C by the end of this century with increase in global sea level of up to 0.59 meters [AR4 WGI SPM, p.13]

4. resulting in increased severity and/or intensity of heat waves, heavy precipitation events, droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high sea levels [AR4 WGI SPM, p.8],

5. with resulting flooding of several coastal cities and regions, crop failures and famines, loss of drinking water for millions from disappearing glaciers, intensification and expansion of wildfires, severe loss of Amazon forests, decline of corals, extinction of fish species, increase in malnutrition, increase in vector borne and diarrheal diseases, etc. [AR4 WGII]

6. unless world-wide actions are undertaken to dramatically curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2) [AR4 WGIII]

IPCC AR4 certainly described catastrophe and used plenty of scaremongering adjectives. The only one it seems they did not use is “catastrophe”.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Philip Haddad

June 6, 2013, 2:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by mosomoso

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Jim D No one questions the fact that solar energy is the most important energy that the earth receives. The question is “how much additional energy beyond the norm, does it take to change the norm, and does it come from heat emitted from energy use or from CO2″. What’s his face calls me irrational and chooses not to actually debate the point.. I determined that the amount of heat released by energy consumption in 2008 was 16 TW which is enough to potentially raise the atmospheric temperature by 0.17*F.. The fact that the rise was much less (and there is now disagreement whether a rise exists at all), is due in large measure to the energy absorbed by melting of glaciers and photosynthesis. (Glaciers are melting at a rate of one trillion tons a year, and there is now evidence that the higher CO2 levels are increasing crop growth and causing some desert land to start greening. I am not saying my hypothesis is correct but it is at least more rational than the people who believe that CO2 was the cause of warming in the Paleo period. See “A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming” by NOAA. http://www.ndc.noaa/gov/globalwarming/temperature-change.html. If heat emissions are completely discounted, then any rational mind must agree that it is too late since stopping any additional energy use (CO2-free or not) will not slow down the continuing destruction of the glaciers and the undeniable temperature rise after that. I may not be right but I am rational and am willing to debate on a point by point basis sans the diatribes!

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by mosomoso

June 6, 2013, 4:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Philip Haddad

$

0

0

Indeed, Peter, they describe catastrophe but do not say the word. Their best trick – and all is trickery – is to give a bland title to their obscene snuff movie to sneak it past the censors.

How far did they expect to get preaching of tornadoes in Tornado Alley, hurricanes in the North Atlantic Hurricane belt, monsoon failures in India, floods in Bangladesh and searing droughts in Australia?

On the other hand, if the tornadoes, hurricanes, monsoon failures, floods and droughts came to a halt…now that would really be a climate change! But who’d give money for a snuff movie where nothing happens?

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

June 6, 2013, 4:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by mosomoso

$

0

0

“You have a really annoying penchant for dropping images in photobucket then using them as if they’re self-explanatory with no mention of where the image came from, why and how it was prepared, or what exactly it describes.

How about providing that with this one for a change?”

Springyboy is projecting. As a real engineer, I keep track of arguments on the net equivalent of an engineering notebook. I started this several years ago on this blog http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com; it culminated with an online book that combined the most original posts on oil depletion. More recently, I started a new one that also featured lots of climate science analysis http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com. I try to refer to this blog whenever possible.

It is only fair that I can explain this since the dude thinks that I am so annoying.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by JCH

June 6, 2013, 5:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

$

0

0

Tim – my Dad would never buy cattle south of Nebraska because they had too many diseases. Don’t know if that was superstitious or true. But in general he was a cow wizard.

The Dakotas are cold as the blazes. Never saw it as a problem. Have seen heat and drought kill plants in the ground by the billions.

---

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by lolwot

June 6, 2013, 5:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on DocMartyn’s estimate of climate sensitivity and forecast of future global temperatures by Alex Heyworth

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by JCH

$

0

0

What the science actually shows, and the IPCC reflects, is that because of AGW there will be significant changes in many aspects of climate and the environment over the coming century with the risk of some of these changes being very harmful.

This is of course obvious and common sense and climate skeptics can’t deny it. So they attack the strawman “CAGW” instead.

Comment on DocMartyn’s estimate of climate sensitivity and forecast of future global temperatures by Alex Heyworth

June 6, 2013, 5:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by ther

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by lolwot

$

0

0

“What I pay for energy is no where near what I pay in income tax”

At the moment. The implication of carbon tax replacing income tax is that your energy costs would be somewhat comparable to what you now pay in income tax (not as much, because a good deal of the carbon tax would appear as increases in other goods reflecting their energy content).

Nevertheless, it is an impossible dream. No government would replace a tax that grows with a tax that shrinks. Carbon tax receipts would inevitably shrink as that is what the tax is for – to discourage carbon-based energy production.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by ther

June 6, 2013, 5:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by captdallas 0.8 or less

≪ Previous: Comment on DocMartyn’s estimate of climate sensitivity and forecast of future global temperatures by Alex Heyworth

$

0

0

hello!,I really like your writing so so much! percentage we keep in touch more approximately your article on AOL? I require an expert in this area to unravel my problem. Maybe that is you! Having a look ahead to look you.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by captdallas 0.8 or less

June 6, 2013, 5:52 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

≪ Previous: Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by ther

$

0

0

lolwot, “What the science actually shows, and the IPCC reflects, is that because of AGW there will be significant changes in many aspects of climate and the environment over the coming century with the risk of some of these changes being very harmful.”

Right and the scientific models that are supposed to show the rates of change that will produce the significant impacts aren’t. The 95% confidence level means something. The fact that “climate” is closer to “we done good saving the world” projections instead of the BAU projections means something. Because of the BS “consensus” compromise, instead of a coin toss, we are stuck with this huge gray area of uncertainty that never should have existed.

Just say it, “Sensitivity” is most likely less than 3 C”. come on, it will do ya good. Once you cross that fabricated threshold, then the 1.6 and 0.8 will start finally making more sense. Those were the original, “rational” estimates.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

June 6, 2013, 5:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Jim Cripwell

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by captdallas 0.8 or less

$

0

0

Something disturbs me about Claes Johnson. As Springyboy points out, he is very heavily cited and has a very high h-index. On the other hand, in his writings an atmospheric science, he completely avoids talking about the differential response of GHGs to wavelengths in the blackbody spectrum.

The only thing I can propose is that Claes has a blindspot in his physics understanding that has anything to do with electro-magnetic theory, and he lets his naive reading of thermodynamics get in the way.

“based on a new derivation of Planck’s radiation law,
that back radiation/DLR does not have any physical reality , as it corresponds actually to heat transfer from a cold atmosphere to a warmer Earth surface. ”

His cited work is almost exclusively on gas, liquid, and solid properties.

The other possibility is that he is simply pranking us.
He has a solid niche in his field, and he is likely treating it like a game that he can go outside this area and tweak climate scientists with his garbage theories.

It is a mystery, but one that is not all that uncommon among distinguished academics (Pauling, Shockley, etc).

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Jim Cripwell

June 6, 2013, 6:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by D Cotton

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

$

0

0

Capt, you write “Just say it, “Sensitivity” is most likely less than 3 C”.

Better yet, just say “No-one has the slightest dea what the climate sensitivity of CO2 is. There are guesses of indistinguishable from zero to 6 C or more, but there is no empirical data to support any specific number”. Then lolwot will be cloaser to the truth

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by D Cotton

June 6, 2013, 6:10 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by pokerguy

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Jim Cripwell

$

0

0

There is no “inevitable climate catastrophe” supposedly due to carbon dioxide, which does nothing but have a net cooling effect of the order of 0.002 C degree.

You all need to make a paradigm shift in thinking, and understand the real reason why temperatures are as they are on all planets, both above and below any surface.

I’m still waiting for anyone on any climate blog to try to explain the Uranus dilemma under the old radiative forcing / greenhouse effect conjecture.

It can only be explained by the new paradigm (in my paper on planetary temperatures in the PROM menu at PSI) which shows why planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures are all able to be calculated the same way, and are all supported by the process whereby thermodynamic equilibrium evolves spontaneously, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says it will.

---

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by pokerguy

June 6, 2013, 6:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by captdallas 0.8 or less

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by D Cotton

$

0

0

The pause denying lolwot writes with his usual breathtaking lack of reflection:

“What the science actually shows, and the IPCC reflects, is that because of AGW there will be significant changes in many aspects of climate and the environment over the coming century with the risk of some of these changes being very harmful.

This is of course obvious and common sense and climate skeptics can’t deny it. So they attack the strawman “CAGW” instead.”

I don’t get to use the word “flummoxed” all that often in everyday discourse, so I’m always grateful for your comments, lolwot. In what practical way does catastrophic warming differ from “very harmful” warming? Moreover (another word I like to slip in whenever I can) what’s obvious and commonsensical to people who can read a simple graph is likely different from those who can’t.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by captdallas 0.8 or less

June 6, 2013, 6:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by vukcevic

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by pokerguy

$

0

0

Webster, “Something disturbs me about Claes Johnson. As Springyboy points out, he is very heavily cited and has a very high h-index. On the other hand, in his writings an atmospheric science, he completely avoids talking about the differential response of GHGs to wavelengths in the blackbody spectrum.”

I personally think Claes is Clueless, but the issue with DWLR, Black Body Spectrum and GHG response is mainly due to extremely poor attempts at energy budgets. With Trenberth and company missing ~20Wm-2 of “atmospheric window” radiation of all things, the budgets were too far off to be used for anything. Depending on the reference level or “shell”, DWLR can take any value. The all sky absorption of ~189 Wm-2 is close to the radiant dominate portion of the atmosphere where DWLR actually means something. Having the cream of the climate science crop totally screw the energy budget created the “Claes’” and the Sky Dragon Slayers and the defenders of the BS like yourself.

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by vukcevic

June 7, 2013, 5:00 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by David L. Hagen

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by captdallas 0.8 or less

$

0

0

Understanding desertification

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by David L. Hagen

June 7, 2013, 5:06 am

≫ Next: Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by John Plodinec

≪ Previous: Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by vukcevic

$

0

0

timg56 Thanks re <blockquote> not on the merits of either energy independance or climate change. I’m of the opinion one has to be math challenged to think it has any merits on the latter two issues.</blockquote> The perverseness is that the renewable fuel mandate was sold on the basis of global warming and yet it has no global warming benefits while seriously harming those in extreme poverty. Oversized servings are a primary a problem on that 40% "waste", as well as on obesity. See <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20035274" rel="nofollow">Reducing portion size reduces food intake and plate waste.</a> <blockquote>This study shows that reducing PS (portion size) of a particular item in an all-you-can-eat environment results in reduced intake of that food for most individuals, and that reducing PS reduces PW (plate waste) and food production.</blockquote>

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by John Plodinec

June 7, 2013, 5:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by David L. Hagen

$

0

0

An interesting variant is the use of plants – primarily trees – that convert CO2 into inorganic carbon. This sequesters the carbon for much longer periods – potentially thousands of years. Many of the trees that do this are not particularly exotic (e.g., cottonwood and mulberry), and have a wide range globally (i.e., extensive planting of these should not lead to invasive-species-like consequences).