The article is fabulous and the fifteen minute interview is well worth the watch(I hate watching video). Andrew Neil is amazingly objective about the science because his question is about the policy, and whether or not it should be reviewed.
Bully for the BBC and bully for Andrew Neil, but one wonders what took so long when the need for policy review has been imminent for as long as policy has been maddeningly panicked.
================
> You have to remember that this ‘citizen science’ [...] was based on reading abstracts.
Don’t forget the self-ratings of the PAPERS, Chief.
And don’t forget to look how explicit endorsement got defined in the ABSTRACT, Chief.
More than 50%.
Now, if an explicit and quantified endorsement states more than 50%, what does it implicate for emplicit endorsements? How do you think Cook & Al rated ABSTRACTS that minimizes AGW?
In fact, if you limit yourself to Cook’s ABSTRACT, you should dismiss Roy’s testimony and look at Roy’s ABSTRACTS.
Think, Chief. Why trust Roy’s beliefs when you have all this junk on the Iris hypothesis?
Oops, betting’s on Arrhenius, now. I’d call it Ockham’s Model, but have an ugly feeling my ignorance is leading me into an inapt analogy.
============
I hate to watch video, but now and then duty calls. I try to take it all philosophically. One takes the goods with some bads.
==========
If I did not have a day job with a fixed schedule and a fairly firm requirement that I show up rested and alert, my need for air conditioning might be negotiable.
One nice thing about the residential AC “issue” is the areas needing it are also the areas most suited for solar. My smallish solar system offsets all of my AC use and more. So, combined with almost no energy use in the winter, AZ ends up being a pretty green place to live.
“The warm apparently didn’t fare too well on the BBC show Sunday Politics.”
“The Warm…” I like that. Like the Borg. But it should be capitalized.
With minor edits, we could even use the Wikipedia entry for the Borg:
“The Warm are a collection of species that have been turned into internet blog commenters functioning as drones of the Climate Collective, or the hive.”
“We are the Warm. Lower your intellect and surrender your skepticism. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your economy will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”
Actual experment finds food chain primary producers increase 15-19% in mid-Atlantic when dissolved CO2 raised to anticipated level of 100-200 years from now. CO2 is plant food in the ocean too. Plants are animal food.
What’s the estimated economic benefit from greater biological productivity concomitant with rising CO2?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v388/n6642/abs/388526b0.html
Nature 388, 526-527 (7 August 1997) |
CO2 increases oceanic primary production
Mette Hein and Kaj Sand-Jensen
The regulation of oceanic primary production of biomass is important in the global carbon cycle because it constitutes 40% of total primary production on Earth1. Here we present results from short-term experiments in the nutrient-poor central Atlantic Ocean. We find a small but significant stimulation of primary production (15-19%) in response to elevated CO2 concentrations that simulate the CO2 rise in surface waters that will occur over the next 100-200 years.
And yet any evidence seems to emerge from the northern Pacific.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2008/anomnight.1.31.2008.gif
Maybe close to shore where elevation isn’t much higher. Otherwise you need pumps, well insulated pipe, and you’ll still not have much reach because pipe friction will heat the water as it moves.
I almost forgot to mention corrosion. Everything seawater touches has to be non-corrosive in saltwater which adds considerable expense.
Eli Rabbett: Google Scholar could be your friend Willis
Would you care to add some information to the thread? the % change that Willis quoted was indeed based on a model. You mentioned “proxies” for past CO2 — could you direct us to some published reports that you find enlightening, or confirm that you respect one of the reports linked here by others?
On another blog you made an unsubstantiated assertion that this thread is filled with ignorance. You have an excellent opportunity to improve the situation by linking to some evidence.
We had people complaining about our addiction to oil (President Bush also joined in).
Now it is our addiction to cool…
What about our addiction to food? Is that ok?
johanna | July 22, 2013 at 7:38 am |
You think Canberra is extreme? Seriously? Record low evah is like 14F in Canberra and record high is 108F. Where I grew up record low temp is minus 36F and record high evah is 97F. And annual rainfall in Canberra is 24″ where precipitation in my hometown is 48″ (counting 10 inches of snow as one inch of rain) so our heat was much more humid. Canberras’ weather is dull & mild in comparison.
On that thread, William Connolley wrote: But the last (and to me worst) part of all this is that JC is just spraying disinformation around.
Yet without citing any actual “disinformation” that Professor Curry has [sprayed]. Prof Curry started a discussion in which numerous people posted links to reports, and others read those links. All you have provided is a baseless insult.
William Connolley: (http://onymousguy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/guest-post-by-chem-prof.html by “Chem Prof” is fairly useful; at least it clears away our hostesses confusion about H+ and pH and 30%).
Well, it does go on and on about H+, pH and 30%. So there’s that. It hardly shows any evidence respecting change or causes of change at any particular site.
Don’t look now but congress is de-funding EPA in a big way. Huge cuts in anything related to climate science or renewable energy. This includes the Interior Department, U.S. Forest Service, the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Geological Survey.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-22/republicans-propose-limiting-obama-climate-plan-in-budget.html
Add this to the cuts in the Dept. of Energy last week and you can be sure there will be trickle down cuts coming to universities and schools who are doing climate research.
Maybe Dr. Curry’s students should be advised to seek new careers in a profession that has a future. Climate science looks like a dead end to me.
stefan…Thank you for educating me about coal from Australia. China is negotiating with a major mine in North Dakota which would have to build a railroad to a port in Oregon to ship coal to China. I know they use alot of coal. Here in the US, our CO2 emissions have been reduced back to 1992 levels. However, worldwide, CO2 emissions continue to grow. IF there is a ‘tipping point’, beyond which there may be global warming at in an accelerated way that cannot be stopped, our species may be doomed. I worry that my grandchildren may suffer horribly.
Jim,
Look at the graph again, it looks to me like, for the year overall, it has been slightly above averag, to my eyeball, the areas above the curve look larger than below.
As fro the Antarctic, Steig et all 2009 was about temperature, you should check out the results from the GRACE satellite data.
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/3703/2012/tcd-6-3703-2012.html
Come back to me when you have some actual science to dispute the simple math of ENSO temperature transitions in 1976/77 and 1998, cloud changes as shown in document 1 above didn’t occur or if you actually have a no regrets policy.
Its not surprising that additional heat would continue to be apparent in the upper ocean even in the presence of a real pause in forcing. the ocean may take centuries to catch up with “a pause” and in fact could mask a minor reversal. The heat remains missing. We know upper oceans have reduced their rate of warming when one would expect just the opposite if it were also accounting for the pause.
CH, you go with the Tisdale theory that ENSO blasts energy into the earth system from somewhere and it stays there. Interesting, but so profoundly wrong, which is why no one has a paper on it. It is just blog “science”. Don’t start quoting Tsonis again. Those are model variability papers with energy going up and down, not in one direction.
