Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Big green in denial by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Kim, there are about 6 different balls up in the air with respect to an updated release of the code.

1. The ocean code that needs wrapping up and documenting.
2. The high resolution datasets. Zeke , Robert and I are working on a poster for that, I would expect to do a paper out of the results. The code
is still in flux and I’m waiting on some new data releases from other folks.
3. A higher temporal resolution approach.

plus a bunch of other stuff.

In short I would not expect a code update until the next paper. The folks who are actually working with the code dont have problems with it. But I’ll have a look at brandon’s issues. Generally speaking he comes at the very bottom of my list since he isnt a working scientist or a grad student and he hasnt published or supported any of his own code or data for the science community.


Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

$
0
0

“Yes his agenda is obviously political, and seems to require that fossil has peaked. “

Hey buddy, how can it be political when I put together a semantic web server devoted to environmental models called http://ContextEarth.com ? Is it true that coming up with spectral models of terrain surfaces is a political act?

I apply mathematics and physics to environmental problems, and use you guys as test driving dummies because this site is called Climate Etc.

The fact that many of you go into wingnut territory is not my problem.

Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas 0.8 or less

$
0
0

Pekka, “The formula for saturation pressure over ice is, indeed, different. At a temperature below freezing point it makes also a difference whether water is present as ice or as supercooled water, but these points have very little if anything to do with your previous argument.”

They have everything to do with my point. When the actual SST reaches 29 to 30 C the latent and sensible energy released is nearly equal to the energy required to warm the water. To increase the temperature you would have to increase the pressure. Not only does CO2 not increase the surface pressure, the increased latent and sensible increases the rate of convection reducing the pressure at the surface. CO2 also does not change the temperature of condensation/fusion.

If you know the surface is near saturated, why assume anything, determine the saturation vapor pressure at the ABL. CC has not performed well at all in the tropics, why not consider another option? Or better yet, exactly what temperature do you think is the realistic maximum for the tropical oceans?

Comment on Big green in denial by Faustino

$
0
0

David, at a Bob Carter talk a few days ago, I sat near a Canadian engineer. Her phone rang. Rather than music, her “ring-tone” was Gillard saying, pre the 2010 election, “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.” A promise which lasted about three weeks.

Who says Canadians don’t have a sense of humour?

Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Big Bang is almost as funny as The Simpsons – and modern TV drama is just fabulous and getting better all the time.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Big Bang is almost as funny as The Simpsons – and modern TV drama is just fabulous and getting better all the time.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D

$
0
0

CH, your explanation is not quite right, but let’s go with it. So you are saying that combustion is continuing to raise the atmospheric energy state with the heat from burning so the temperature would rise just from that. That part is wrong. Or you are saying that rising levels of GHGs don’t lead to temperature changes. That is also wrong. Which is it?

Comment on Available evidence: surface temperatures by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Brandon you still dont get it.

The data we use is in the source files.


Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by GaryM

$
0
0

But what will everyone blog about?

Comment on Big green in denial by jim2

$
0
0

Some people don’t like the carbon tax, even though most of it goes to the poorest. Here in the US, we have plenty of welfare programs already.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Ocean heat content follows TOA net flux.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=133

In the ERBS/ISCCP era this was predominantly SW change. In the CERES era – this was again dominated by SW changes. Eyeballing both Willis et al 2004 ocean heat content (shown in Wong et al graph) and ARGO from von Schuckmann – it appears that ocean heat content peaked in 1998. The annual resolution of the Willis data is the critical point.

Congrats on your progress from twit to troll gatesy.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

tty correctly notes: “the [ice-]keel is about 90% of the total depth, so a 100 foot keel is approximately equivalent to a 10 foot high pressure ridge.

You are entirely correct tty!

Now ask: “Other than sonar observations from the US Navy’s nuclear submarines, is there any independent scientific confirmation that ice-keels hundreds of feet deep existed in the Arctic in the 1950s and 1960s?”

Yes there is such independent confirmation!

Narrative of an Unsuccessful Attempt
to Circumnavigate Banks Island
by Canoe in 1952

by T. H. (Lone Wolf) Manning

(page 190) “An ice island about half a mile long and an estimated 40 feet high [and thus, 400 feet thick] could be seen 3 or 4 miles north of the west point of Mercy Bay [in M'Clure Strait]. At one time when the pack was comparatively loose it moved nearly opposite our camp; then returned with a northwest wind.”

That very day the two-person Manning expedition abandoned their (ludicrously tiny) open canoe, and began their epic trek across Banks Island to safety.

Conclusion  In the early 1950s, the official reports of trained scientists described mobile ice-floes four hundred feet thick in the M’Clure Strait. Nowadays the (incredibly massive!) ice-floes of the 1950s have entirely vanished from the 21st century Arctic.

It is a pleasure to help further augment your scientific understanding, tty!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0
One does not <em>simply</em> equivocate <em>would</em> and <em>could</em>, unless one is a serial misrepresenter like David Rose.

Comment on Big green in denial by tomdesabla

$
0
0

Jim2, I respect your right to your own beliefs, but they are not libertarian. There are too many examples of utterly non-libertarian policies in your post, e.g. Honestly, you sound much more like a leftist/progressive with utopian pie-in-the-sky communist values.

“I believe the government should supply a social safety net.”

Not libertarian at all, and the social safety net we have now started small and is out of control already after only 80 years.

“one with no income would get $16,000, no questions asked. The person could do with it as he pleased. If that person gets a job, the government would give him less money,”

this shows a poor understanding of the incentives government handouts create in the real world. Once you’re getting money for nothing, you are very reluctant to risk any reduction in that check by working. That is reality. This idea is totally pie-in-the-sky and not libertarian in any way.

“Some basic medical care could be provided, but for the most part it should be supplied by non-profits.”

People who try to “vision up” an advanced society by reducing profits are not libertarian.

“I believe the EPA plays a valid role in regulating chemicals in the environment. CO2 isn’t one of those, IMO”

Right. We’ll have an EPA, and it will only do what you want it to do, and will refrain from regulating things you think are inappropriate. Please realize this is just not happening. The EPA is not accountable to anyone. Sure they may ask for comment on their rules, but they do what they want in the end. Like nearly all Federal bureaucracies, they have gone completely rogue.

“I believe government should fund basic R&D.”

Right, like Solyndra etc. What about private for-profit entities? They put a rocket into space, so what can’t they do? This belief you express is not libertarian at all.

“Lobbying by business should be against the law.”

Libertarians don’t believe in making things against the law unless they violate someone else’s rights. If you don’t want businesses to lobby, then you have to reduce government’s power over them, and over the economy itself, which will give companies less to lobby about.

“Guns should be lightly regulated”

How “lightly”? Are guns ok, as long as they’re at home? Unloaded perhaps? Only 6 shooters? Certainly not in schools, and never ever on planes, right?

News flash: Libertarians tend to believe in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Oh, and the operative part of that is the second part, the one that says “the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms SHALL NOT be infringed” The first part could say anything at all, and the Amendment would have the same meaning. The context of the first part was a time of war, where we had no standing army, and every able-bodied American man was the militia. Whether or not we have a militia, the Amendment still means what it says.

On drug legalization: “”It can be a source of tax revenue.”

Most libertarians wouldn’t subscribe to giving the government more money. I think the idea that the government in any way needs more sources of tax revenue is ridiculous. Sorry, but although I admit the idea you have expressed idea is popular among many, it is not libertarian. Your error might be that you don’t realize that more tax revenue doesn’t lead to government solvency and never has. It only leads to more expenditures, more debt, and more power, so your logic is flawed at the root.

All in all, I suggest you go back to the drawing board and figure out what to call your political beliefs, because they aren’t libertarian at all. Sorry.

Comment on Big green in denial by jim2

$
0
0

@tomdesabla | September 8, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
It is obvious to me that you didn’t read my post carefully. Also, Hayek was for a social safety net for reason of societal stability. He also had a heart.


Comment on Available evidence: surface temperatures by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“heir publications and the underpinnings of their work. In fact, their publications are tied to results no longer available on their website. That strikes me as odd.”

Its in the spreadsheet I pointed you at a while ago.
In fact, in the redesign of the web site I made sure to leave that
there especially for you.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D

$
0
0

captd, you can work it out. 20 W/m2 over six hours is 432000 J/m2. Let’s take a 1 meter deep bucket. That is 432000 J/m3 or 432 J/kg. Divide by the heat capacity of water 4200 J/kg/K and you get about 0.1 K as the cooling for the whole meter, or 1 degree if it is the top 10 cm, or 10 degrees if it is just the top cm. What happens depends on the mixing. A steady 1 W/m2 over a year has 70 times this much effect. Not small.

Comment on Open thread weekend by R. Gates - The Skeptical Warmist

$
0
0

Yet you still remain a twit, Chief. Why do you go back to old data that can’t possibly show us heat content over the past decade? Moreover, the chart you use show net heat flux, not heat content, and of course it ends in 2003.

Big time disappointment Chief, I thought you actually had some data that would back up your often repeated (apparent) falsehood that ocean heat content peaked in 1998.

Big time fail for you Chief. Now why don’t you go scour the internet to try and find data to support your unusual viewpoint. It will be an eternal search as I suspect that your viewpoint is unsupportable by any of the data.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by andrew adams

$
0
0

Willard,

Haha, well I doubt the denial-o-sphere is quaking in its collective boots at the thought of me being on the receiving end of my rage.

And Rose of course has his platform in one of our biggest selling and most influential newspapers, so he wins just by getting his stuff published. It doesn’t matter, and he obviously doesn’t care, whether it’s true. And if it upsets people like me he probably sees it as a bonus.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by John Carpenter

$
0
0

“One year does not MAKE a trend, but one year can BREAK a trend.”

I don’t think that is true either. The overall trend of decreasing arctic SI volume and area has not really been broken despite a few years, here and there, that were greater than the year before. You would have to have many years of increases to show the trend is broken. I wouldn’t bet on long term arctic SI growth, but it doesn’t mean it can’t happen. I don’t see how it will based on the last 20+ year trend.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images