Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim Cripwell

0
0

Willard, you write “Please tell us about the future, Jim.
How can you verify that the Sun will rise tomorrow?”

What on God’s Green Acre has telling about the future got to do with running a controlled experiment? Apart from absolutely nothing.


Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas 0.8 or less

0
0

3*ln((283+25)/283) = 0.25C
3*ln(2)=2.08 C per doubling.neglecting any other factor that may have contributed, like ~0.9C recovery from a cooler period to be renamed later.

Comment on Open thread weekend by lolwot

0
0

“a respected paper that’s done nothing but support the “consensus” in bright green Denmark”

What’s your evidence of that? Please tell me you aren’t just swallowing that line from WUWT or some other skeptic blog. These blogs always exaggerate stuff like this to persuade readers that their posts are more important than they actually are. The thinking presumably being that people like you thinking the story is earthbreaking will go around the internet breathlessly posting it to places like climate etc.

Comment on Open thread weekend by lolwot

0
0

All the evidence is that CO2 is a climate control knob.

Even if we go with 1C warming per doubling of CO2, and CO2 rises from 280ppm (preindustrial) to a future level of 800ppm (if we keep burning it all), that’s 1.5C warming.

Almost twice the total warming of the 20th century and a lot of that would have been due to CO2.

So then natural variation is much smaller than the effect of CO2. Natural variation is a few tenths of a degree C up or down each century. CO2 is 1.5C upwards.

The control is obvious, and this assumes a low climate sensitivity of 1C per doubling.

Comment on Open thread weekend by DocMartyn

0
0

Hansen:-
“Our calculated global warming in this case is 16°C, with warming at the poles about 30°C. Calculated warming over land areas averages ~20°C. Such temperatures would eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world . Increased stratospheric water vapor would diminish the stratospheric ozone layer .
More ominously, global warming of that magnitude would make much of the planet uninhabitable by humans.”

Interesting that Hansen ignores aerosols in his ice core data analysis, yet most modelers are captivated by the ability of modest changes in aerosols to drop global temperatures. Oddly, the dust levels recorded in the ice cores show that the levels vary by three orders of magnitude, with high levels during the ice ages, global dimming, and levels equal to those at present during the warm ages.
One gets the impression that Hansen is a big a fraud as Fan.

Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker

0
0

kim

Bart demands their money, too.

Yeah.

But he needs to do so more forcefully to be effective (say like from behind a 357 Magnum instead of only a big surly mouth).

Max

Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by DocMartyn

Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker

0
0

lolwot

Go right ahead and believe in the CO2 control knob dogma.

Doesn’t say too much for your smarts, though.

Max


Comment on Open thread weekend by Bob Droege

0
0

Just a reminder that the floating ice shelves hold the glaciers that feed them back, so it’s not the ice from the floating ice shelves that add to sea level rise, but the increased flow from the glaciers behind them that do.

Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker

0
0
Jim D When you discuss a "trend of X degrees C per <em>decade,</em> you should look at the change per <em>decade.</em> And that was slight cooling of around 0.05C for the most recent <em>decade</em> (where IPCC had predicted GH warming of 0.2C per <em>decade.</em> 30-year averages are tiny "blips" in the overall record. Look at the entire 160+ year average for a better picture. Or, better yet, using CET as a proxy, for example, at the past several hundred years. It will tell you more than a mere 30-year "blip". Max

Comment on Open thread weekend by Bob Droege

Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

Willard asked Cripwell:

“How do you explain dinosaurs, btw?”

That’s directed at the wrong guy. The Intelligent Design bodyguard/bouncer David Springer is your man for questions on this topic. Dinosaurs spring from intelligence, apparently.

Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Ragnaar

0
0

“The climate was indeed highly variable during glacial times and switched abruptly and frequently between cold and warm modes. Ganopolski and Rahmstorf (2001) proposed the following mechanism. The present-day climate state is characterized by a warm (switched-on) mode of the thermohaline circulation (THC) being interpreted as an equilibrium state of the underlying dynamics.” – NONLINEARITIES, FEEDBACKS AND CRITICAL THRESHOLDS

Kininmonth
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/the-deep-oceans-drive-the-atmosphere/

Both of the above seem to agree on thermohaline circulation. And Kininmonth is the misinformer.

Thanks Chief, this is a lot easier to follow. The Rial, Pielke, et al one.

The paper talks about Greenland and the Thermohaline as possibly being connected. Greenland seems to be a bellweather.

Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0


captdallas 0.8 or less | August 10, 2013 at 3:15 pm |

3*ln((283+25)/283) = 0.25C
3*ln(2)=2.08 C per doubling.neglecting any other factor that may have contributed, like ~0.9C recovery from a cooler period to be renamed later.

The global average temperature has been on a decline since 7000 years ago, so your compensation has the wrong sign.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D

0
0

So when it comes to attribution for the 0,7 C rise in the 20th century, 0.2 C is from a solar increase, 0.9 C is from CO2 and -0.4 C is from aerosols. “Skeptics” often forget aerosols even though they are looking actively for negative effects.


Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

“If your position is that the climate sensitivity is only 2 degrees, then I am afraid that you are going to be classified as a ‘Denialist’.”

The 2C per doubling is a rough transient value that doesn’t apply to the eventual steady state, which would be about 3 degrees per doubling of CO2.

This is not just a theoretical exercise since the 3C sensitivity does apply to land regions but without the long lag of ocean temperatures. I use 2C per doubling because the chart of temperature rise shown used both ocean and land data, and ocean contributes 70% of the weighting.

This is a hard concept for the 3% to grasp.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D

0
0

The 30-year running average has increased by 0.17 C over the last decade. No small potatoes.

Comment on Open thread weekend by RC Saumarez

0
0

Even if one is a sceptic, one could answer your questions if you could put them into an intelligible form.

I suspect that “fan of more….” and “lolwot” are basically sociologists so they are incapable of rational scientific or technical thought.

Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2

0
0

“Announcement: WUWT success earns an invitation to “Enterprise”
Posted on August 7, 2013 by Anthony Watts

You are probably aware of the ongoing improvements to WUWT I’ve made. They seem to be paying off. Lately, things have been looking up for WUWT:

Alexa_WUWT-compare_8-7-13

Source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com#trafficstats

WUWT has been in the top 5 on wordpress.com lately, and recently often in the top 3. Today, we are number 1 in all the millions of wordpress blogs out there and we are number two for all posts system wide:”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/announcement-wuwt-success-earns-an-invitation-to-enterprise/

Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by Adam Gallon

0
0

Ans many climate catastrophists who post here at Climate Etc are left-wing ideologues?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images