Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by David Springer

0
0

fizzy

The unspoken excuse is “the ends justify the means”. Ends include saving the planet from too many people, saving the gravy train of research funding, saving the gravy train of green energy initiatives, and political power over private energy markets.


Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by David Springer

0
0

Arctic warming has nothing to do with heat generation in the northern hemisphere, It has to with no continent covering the north pole giving the ocean conveyor belt the opportunity to extend circulation of tropically heated water all the way to the north pole. Anthropogenic heat is insignificant in comparison to total surface energy budget except in urban heat islands and those are miniscule in comparison to total surface area.

Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by David Springer

0
0

Doc

Global climate disruption. They floated the phrase a few years ago in anticipation.

Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by David Springer

0
0

pokerguy | December 6, 2013 at 10:39 pm |

“How many times do me and others have to set you guys straight?”

Just one time. But you have it straight yourself first. Therein lies the rub. :-)

Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by web hosting services india

0
0

Good post. I learn something totally new and challenging on
sites I stumbleupon everyday. It’s always useful to read articles from other writers and use something from other sites.

Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by David Springer

0
0

NW. All the models are right a lot of the time and terribly wrong a small amount of the time. Averaging them yields an ensemble that is a little wrong all the time. Hence the ensemble prediction of global average temperature has gradually drifted away from actual GAT. After 20 years the accumulated small error has pushed the ensemble prediction outside the 95% confidence bound. Not surprisingly to the well-informed objective observer of climate change hysteria amongst the climate science boffins and sycophants the model ensemble erred on the warming side. Catastrophic warming is actually beneficial warming.

You would be well served to write that down.

Comment on What we know with confidence by http://www.tvmetropolis.com/

0
0

Once you mine for iron ores, smith them into steel bars.

No matter what, getting used to this new feature will take a while, but it can
definitely be mastered. There have been a number of legendary Runescape characters.

Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by David Springer

0
0

There’s more than one way to tune a model, Bill. The observations can be tuned to match model outputs as well as model outputs being tuned to match observations. There’s a lot of both with increasing observation tuning with increasing temporal distance into the past. Our instrumentation is increasingly inadequate the farther back in time you go and so the opportunities for massaging the data (selection bias) increase the farther back in time you go. In one notorious case going back a thousand years or so the global average temperature record is taken from the width of tree rings in just several isolated cherry-picked trees. In the more recent period when the tree ring data could be checked against thermometer data and was found to be in disagreement the usual suspects simply stopped using the tree ring data circa 1960 and quietly stiched in the thermometer data which most scientists, under normal circumstances, would categorize as scientific fraud. See here for the full story:


Comment on Open thread by curiousnc

0
0

Btw, is she correct that Earth has warmed 1 degree C since pre-industrial times and that there’s been an increase in the height of the tropopause? Also wonder if Tyndall’s theory predicted the “pause?” I love these “dragon-kings” – was not aware of those. Again thank you all.

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by David Springer

0
0
Chief Hydrologist | December 8, 2013 at 2:09 am | <blockquote>Cold water sinks in a couple of places on the planet and rises in a few other places.</blockquote> Cold water sinks EVERYWHERE on the planet where there is less dense water beneath it. That's a phuck of lot of places. Do you bother to think about what you write, even for a moment, before you commit it to posterity?

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Jabberwock,

I think you are an intellectually superficial bombastic dimwit who imagines that everything you pull out of your arse is gold.

The real story on bottom water formation from actual scientists?

http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Deepwater.html

It is not difficult to get these things right in the interweb age but you manage time and again to stuff it up.

Comment on Open thread by curiousnc

0
0

Here is a helpful essay from Dr. Reddy too. It is argued by the IPCC that models that predict future temperature scenarios are based on physical principles but at the same time accepting the fact that there are several other localized or globalized factors contributing to it. Such factors are rarely accounted for in their models. Thus, there are no clear cut physical principles concerning global warming. It is basically statistical inferences that vary with data and period. The IPCC uses the number of people accepting the predictions to validate it. In science, unless they are verified by ground realities, they are generally termed as “hypothetical”, which has no meaning in science. The IPCC is sensationalizing the impacts based on such hypothetical predictions on several processes, including agriculture.

The IPCC, UN, Media, agencies like World Bank, Oxfam, CGIAR, etc. are using Climate Change as synonymous to Global Warming. This is not so; Global Warming is one component of Climate Change in which natural variations play vital role with extremes forming a part. The World Meteorological Organization of United Nations (WMO/UN) published a manual on “Climate Change” as far back as 1966. It dealt with methods to separate man-induced variations from natural variations. Natural variations are beyond human control, only we have to adapt to them. On the contrary, the impact of global warming must present a trend, increasing or decreasing to ascertain its impacts. The IPCC and UN bodies are talking about individual events that are part of natural variations as associated with increased global temperatures.

These are highlighted by the media with misleading headlines. By attributing the impacts associated with normal climate extremes within the limits of Climate Normals and rhythms present in meteorological parameters to global warming is dangerous.
Now the IPCC itself has agreed that 100% of the raise in global temperature is not associated with the raise in Anthropogenic Greenhouse gases and agreed that around 10% is contributed by urban-heat-island effects – this contributes to rise in night time temperature and lower layers of troposphere temperature. These are localized effects.

Same is the case with changes in land use and land cover, known as Ecological changes. The majority of meteorological stations are in urban areas and thus urban-heat-island effect is going to be added to global warming component and on the contrary meteorological stations are sparsely located in rural areas that generate cold-island-effect due to increased activity of irrigated agriculture and spread of irrigation reservoirs is not going in to global warming component – however, this may create a trend in precipitation at local and regional scales like that seen in AP precipitation.

In all around 50% of raise shown under global warming is influencing the local and regional aspects but not national and global aspects like sea level raise, ice melt, etc. Southern hemisphere with less number of urban areas, with less ecological changes and with more area under ocean waters showed lower temperature raise over the average pattern. In the case of Northern Hemisphere with more urban areas, more ecological changes and with less area under ocean waters showed higher temperature rise over the average pattern.
It is a fact that in the last 17 years there has been no significant change in temperature, including ocean temperatures; ice melt in Arctic and Antarctic zones are within the standard deviation around the mean; no change in precipitation – monsoons, etc. In association with local conditions and natural disasters the sea levels show rises in some places, falls in some places, and no change in the majority of places.

Ice is confined to outside the South Polar Ring and inside the North Polar Ring. That means South Polar ice melt is the true reflection of global warming impact on ice melt. At present it is not showing any melt in the Southern Polar zones. The Southern Polar zones are on the contrary building ice. North Polar zones are losing the ice but this is within the long-term standard deviation around the mean – within the accepted statistical terms. In the North Polar zone, impacts other than climate are also contributing to ice melt.

Alaska shows a large fall in sea level. Along the USA coastlines, a large part showed a 0 to 1.0 feet fall, this may be associated with human activity along the coastal zones, tidal erosion, etc. [San Francisco airport does not show any sea level rise]. Also, error variations are far higher than the estimated rise, which is not statistically significant. In addition, all these localized natural variations play a vital role – even the global temperature showed a 60-year cycle – sine curve. Cyclonic activities including Hurricanes and Typhoons – and precipitation, all present cyclic variations. With the growing population of the planet, and building more structures in the path of cyclonic storms – that includes Hurricanes & Typhoons – and Tornadoes, and thus this makes ordinary storms more damaging.
Food production, food security & nutrition security are not affected by global warming. Floods and droughts are part of rhythms in precipitation, however, their impacts are modified by agriculture technology and ecological changes. Food includes not only agricultural products but also include several others such as Dairy products, Poultry products, Sea & Water products [fish & prawns], Animal products [meat], etc.

These are affected by agriculture technology and pollution components and not by global warming as crops adapt to temperature regimes which is evident from extremes in temperature given under climate normal data. These, along with ecological changes are the major contributors of destruction of biodiversity – on land, in water including oceans. Pollution, more particularly from new agriculture technology, is the major source of health hazards globally and not associated with Global Warming. Global Warming is in fact a brain-child to counter the Environmental Movement against pollution, more particularly agriculture pollution, initiated in late 60s and early 70s.

In the agricultural perspective, these matter: stop wastage of food; plan better utilization of water resources; shift from chemical inputs to organic inputs technology that help reducing pollution and public health aspects; do not forget that the losses due to intense weather systems increase with the population growth. Globally, cold waves are affecting many more vulnerable people than heat waves. Wild fires have nothing to do with global warming. Dry weather helps spread of fire over wet weather, which is nothing to do with global warming.

==============================================================
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=author_see&id=5178

Comment on Open thread by curiousnc

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@DS <i>Artificial photosynthesis has no relevance to synthetic biology except as a competitor.</i> Huh? According to <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/a-brave-new-world-of-fossil-fuels-on-demand/article621825/" rel="nofollow">this article</a>, Joule Unlimited "describes its manufacture of fossil fuels as 'artificial photosynthesis.' ". @DS: <i> The point about DNA computing was that clean renewable fuels produced by synthetic organisms is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg</i> I seriously doubt Joule Unlimited would claim any connection with Len Adleman's idea of DNA computing. JU is entirely into artificial photosynthesis via cyanobacteria. DNA computing is another thing altogether.

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@DS: Accept the simple fact that you were wrong about plants causing high partial pressure of CO2 in the past

Now you’re simply lying. The only reason I can think of for why you make up ridiculous statements like this is to goad people into calling you a liar. Well, congratulations, liar, you’ve finally succeeded.


Comment on Week in review by angech

0
0

Thanks Cap , read Gavin et al, now my head hurts.
Thanks Jim D, yes the ocean is 3 dimensional, just like a cup of hot water.
They even both have convection currents,
but
if the cup of water is hotter, the air over the cup of water gets hotter, if the cup is cooler the air gets cooler.
Overall, if the ocean is getting hotter, the sea surface and adjacent atmosphere must get hotter as well.
ENSO is just one current in that cup, it does not cause the change in the rest of the world, It is part of the change that is all happening together.

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@DS: You should STFU unless you enjoy me making you look more stupid each time you write something new.

Believe it or not, David, what I don’t enjoy is you making yourself look stupid with these angry outbursts of yours. This is no way to reach a meeting of the minds.

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@DS: Ah Vaughn Pratt now reveals himself as a bigot in an attempt to make me look like a bible thumping Christian…I’m an agnostic.

What? I never mentioned Christianity, and the only reason I can imagine for why you think Job has something to do with Christianity is that agnostics are ignorant about such things.

In any case I don’t care. All I care about is why you believe in your Theory 1, that the temperature declined for some other reason than that the CO2 declined. If it’s an article of faith for you, fine. If not, why did the temperature decline?

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by maksimovich

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Canman

0
0

Peter, thanks for those links.

Take that peak oilers!

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images