I doubt that any of the models could replicate the 1940 global temperature singularity. See my website.
Comment on Week in review by Alexander Biggs
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
They have a much larger central estimate of the forcing change than just that from CO2 since 1950 implying that the growth of other GHGs far exceeded the reduction effect of aerosols in this period. However, the error bars also easily cover the scenario where the CO2 forcing change can be used alone (as I did) with other GHGs and aerosols canceling giving the TCR as 2.0 C. This cancellation was what the central forcing estimate did before 1950.
↧
Comment on Week in review by ROM
How best can we use Natural Gas?
Perhaps the Americans should use what they have wherever they can for when the Russians get their colossal Bazenhov shale play underway, a Siberian shale deposit that is estimated to be 80 times the size of America’s Bakken deposit then along with China, Argentina, Australia with enough gas in just one of many shale deposits, the Canning Basin deposit to keep Australia in gas for another 400 years plus the UK’s immense deposits over 1500 feet thick plus the Japanese now on the verge of harvesting the immense deep water methane deposits which are located around most of the continental littorals, the world is swimming in energy sources and will be for a couple of centuries into the future.
You still have the whole of mostly unexplored Africa, most of South America, most of the central Asia to look to for even more shale deposits.
Plus the probability of very deep oil reserves right down the very ancient trough running down the east side of the Andes and possibly out into the Atlantic to around the Falklands, a geological trough that holds the immense heavy oil deposits in the Orinoco Valley in Venezuela which are close to the Saudi’s reserves in size but are a diabolical, full of nasties, oil source to try and extract and process.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK
JC said:
“The National Journal poses the question How Best Can We Use Natural Gas? Should We At All? There isn’t much to the main post, but the comments are really interesting.”
_______
Natural gas can be best used by making as much profit from it as possible. Don’t make it cheap by glutting the market. Cheap natural gas just encourages waste and hastens depletion of this precious resource.
Natural gas would be more profitable for mineral owners if the Federal government raised the depletion allowance on royalty income ( now a measly 15%) to 50%. Not many people know that as the oil and gas depletes, our royalty income shrinks and eventually disappears altogether. Then we are a left with a lot of useless holes in our ground, cavities that could in the future mess up our water and cause earthquakes.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK
ROM says ” Perhaps the Americans should use what they have wherever they can for when the Russians get their colossal Bazenhov shale play underway, a Siberian shale deposit that is estimated to be 80 times the size of America’s Bakken deposit…”
_____
So you think we should use up all our natural gas ASAP so we can then be dependent on Russia for natural gas?
That doesn’t sound like a good long range plan to me.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by John Robertson
Next year, carbon dioxide designated magic gas of the decades.
Warming in the 40s, cooling in the 60s-70s, warming to the 2000s, stagnation in the 10s and now? cooling in the teens?
Amazing what this gas can do.
Unless the theory of climate temperature sensitivity to it, is nonsense.
Then it is just a trace gas, vital to plant growth.
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by Chief Hydrologist
Sigh – perhaps the warminista problem is just functional illiteracy compounded by a utter lack of humour.
I wonder which part of Mexico JCH didn’t understand.
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by GaryW
Ian B,
You said “Your comment regarding the uncertainty range is much more closely related to issues of precision than accuracy. In most cases you can’t really estimate how close your central value is to being correct (i.e. accurate in the scientific sense), and your uncertainty range is based on the precision of your measurements.”
Now that is a tack I had not expected. Uncertainty range is based on the precision of your measurements? So you are saying you believe uncertainty bounds have nothing to do with the accuracy of a stated value. That is certainly not what non-GCM folks understand uncertainty limits to mean. When a statement such as “temperatures are going to rise 2.2 degrees Celsius with an uncertainty range of +3 to +1 degrees Celsius by the end of the century” is made, folks naturally will take that to mean you expect the temperature will rise by 1 to 3 degrees Celsius. They do not take it to mean “our computer output is precise to +/- 1 degrees Celsius but we can’t tell you how accurate our calculated value of 2.2 degrees Celsius is.”
Precision is how fine a measurement division you can obtain from your instrument, regardless of its accuracy (or in-accuracy). Accuracy is how close the measured value is to its true real world value. Presenting a precision value in a situation where folks will naturally expect an accuracy value is misleading. Justifying that with the use of the term “uncertainty” is not acceptable. I hope nobody else uses “uncertainty” in this way.
↧
Comment on Week in review by lolwot
“lolwot, how does no warming 1978-1997 constitute a “dominant warming trend””
Check the errors on that trend.
It’s the overall trend that matters. Short-term flat trends are to be expected over sufficiently short periods. The 1998 ENSO jump shows the climate is getting warmer. Without the ENSO jump AGW would be falsified.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
Jim C.,
Gamble at your own risk then knowing the risks. There are good reasons that blogs try to maintain your anonymity. Volunteering your full personal information is discouraged and not a sign of bravery, anymore than walking around blindfolded on a busy highway would be seen as “brave”.
↧
Comment on Week in review by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
“They’re through making predictions…”
I’m betting Viner wishes he’d kept his mouth firmly closed on the subject of snow soon becoming a rare and exciting event. I’ve shoveled more rare and exciting snow in the last 5 years to last me quite a long time.
Maybe I should move to Israel. Or I hear Cairo has quite a nice climate…Oh, wait…
↧
Comment on Week in review by lolwot
Although Viner also said:
“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”
↧
Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Pekka Pirilä
Richard,
It’s very common that non-periodic variability leads to apparent periodicity over 2-3 “periods”. Thus HadCRTUT4 cannot tell that there is inherent periodicity, it can only tell that such a periodicity is possible. Different temperature data series tell about the same temperature history, thus finding the same periodicity in all of them does not prove anything more.
By “apparent periodicity” I meant that it’s in the data, but we don’t know whether that’s just accidental or of deeper significance.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Chief Hydrologist
Gatesy repeats endlessly this simplistic meme as if it were some profound and complex insight into the workings of climate. It isn’t – it is common knowledge that should be taken for granted in any sophisticated discussion of climate science – but is oddly warped in gatesy’s case by the need to make climate warrior points.
If is of course the simplest aspect of the science. Atmosphere and oceans are a coupled system but greenhouse gas theory starts in the atmosphere. The higher energy content results in a warmer atmosphere with increased kinetic energy of the molecules in the system – kinetic temperature. That there are minor terms in the energy equation I discussed in a little detail above.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/13/week-in-review-8/#comment-425272
The increased back scattering of IR photons in a warmer atmosphere decreases net IR losses from the surface – particularly important over oceans due to the large thermal inertia. The point at which oceans warm sufficiently to again increase losses – primarily as latent heat – is as I said a complex one. The available evidence – such as it is – suggest that oceans heat content increases while net TOA radiant flux is increasing and declines with declining TOA flux.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=157
Climate warrior quibbling about the simple aspects of climate is because this is all they understand – albeit it with odd warminista wrinkles. It serves to distract from the more complex and interesting aspects of Earth and climate sciences.
↧
Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH
The inability of the models to demonstrate a lot of things means that there are most definitely a whole load of things that need further ‘tweaking’. One could probably spend a lifetime trying to discover what these things were and their overall effect :-).
I’ll just stick with the data and ask questions about that (and maybe let IT suggest what the future might bring)..
↧
Comment on Week in review by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
Interesting article on research on CO2 and ocean heat content the last time CO2 was around 400 ppm over a sustained period:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0377839895000488
↧
Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Greg Goodman
Pekka: By “apparent periodicity” I meant that it’s in the data, but we don’t know whether that’s just accidental or of deeper significance.
===
The same can presumably be said of the apparent trend.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Dennis
Based on the Finns that I have met, the advantages are that they have a somewhat homogeneous society that highly values education. In addition, they have a huge sense of national pride and a significant part of that is a desire for the nation to be self reliant, aka SISU. And part of this is that they highly value education. In other words, they have a lot of smart parents who know what it takes to raise smart kids and understand how important education is to the future of the nation.
Any comment from the Finns here?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bob Ludwick
@ R. Gates
“Your assumption that the energy gain is constrained to the top 200m would be your first wrong assumption.”
You got me there. But I will have to admit that I am puzzled as to exactly how YOUR assertion, which I quoted (“Such a combination yields the range of 1 to 2 x 10^22 joules of energy per year the oceans will be storing down to 2000m as CO2 approaches this level in the atmosphere.”) morphed into MY ‘wrong assumption’. I simply took the figures that you provided and calculated the heat rise of the top 200 m of the ocean if ALL of the energy that you were postulating were CONFINED to the top 200 m. That provides the upper limit of the temperature rises of the top 200 m.
As you point out, of COURSE it would not be confined to the top 200 m and all the energy would not be 100% expended in raising the temperature, but would be partially dissipated through other mechanisms. Therefore, the 1-2e22 joules of energy that YOU postulated would, in the real world, raise the temperature of the top 200 m a lot LESS than the numbers I calculated. Again, my only ASSUMPTION in calculating the temperature rise for the top 200 m that would result from the addition of YOUR postulated 1-2 e22 joules of energy was that YOU accurately described reality.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
He asked if the IPCC is continuing to an AR6.
Maybe you are not interested.
↧
