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

Comment on Open thread weekend by angech

0
0

consensus science, nice, safe, dependable consensus science.
Lighten up a little, look over the fence , take a walk on the wild side. enjoy life and think for yourself, Don’t let consensus science do your thinking, WHT. You could be so good with a black hat on.


Comment on Open thread weekend by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

0
0

Bob D. said:

“I would bet it would go back into record low territory before getting back to average.”
——-
The odds are strongly against you.

Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas 0.8 or less

0
0

Webster, “I won’t go near Wilson’s claims of optical depth and CO2.”

I am not surprised since the rapid adjustments producing the nearly “fixed” lapse rate above the atmospheric boundary layer are actually interesting and likely caused by combined regulating effects of H2O and CO2 equivalent gases in the free troposphere.

To enjoy getting into those claims you would have to consider the impacts of differing rates of advection in the different ocean and atmospheric layers from the stratopause to the deep oceans. Then you would end up getting into the whole greenhouse fluid effects and variations in mixing efficiencies between boundary layers.

Comment on Open thread weekend by kim

0
0

I tend the garden; then I wanna see what’s over the next hill.
===========

Comment on Open thread weekend by DocMartyn

0
0

Pekka, the lapse rate is a very practical demonstration of the photonic recycling mechanism of molecules with a strong absorbance in the IR.
As one measures temperature, up the gravity well, from sea level, the temperature drops even though solar flux is constant.
We know that data was gathered, and tables were prepared, of the planets lapse rate prior to large changes in atmospheric CO2 caused by fossil fuel burning. It would be a trivial exercise to compare the present day relationship between temperature, humidity and height above sea level, when [CO2] is 400 ppm with the data collected when [CO2] was <[300] ppm.
We can be sure that the optical properties of H2O and CO2 have not changed, and we also know that the old school physicists were very, very careful.
This would provide experimental evidence for the postulated level of photonic recycling of CO2, which is generally considered to be incapable of either measurement or of being determined by any means other than modeling.
Should the water amplification mechanism of CO2's GHG effect be true, one would also expect to see an increase in the humidity, at altitude, at the same light flux.
However, as this would be very much old school science, collecting and analyzing data, I can understand why no modern day physicist has bothered.

Comment on Open thread weekend by kim

0
0

Human culture would be smart to worship an entity which provides yoghurt and shortening from its mammary glands, fuel from its alimentary tract, and cleanses the environment with its browsing mouth. Deifying it might give it a little protection during famines.
=============

Comment on Open thread weekend by TMJ

0
0

stevepostrel, excellent post on mobbing.
However, as a Prof. of Music I feel compelled to point out that our standards are unambiguous and are at a very high level. No post modern shenanigans here :-)
Our undergrads are expected to practice 5 hours a day 7 days a week in addition to a full academic load in theory and musicology. And then there is piano, ear training and sight singing.
I have had a number of undergrads go on to law school and med school. They all remarked on the lesser workload of those studies.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

Doc,

What do you mean by “photonic recycling”?


Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

No problem that warming spikes that occur during ENSO add water vapor to the atmosphere. So does the warming due to the CO2 control knob raise the specific humidity.

Comment on Ringing out 2013 by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

0
0

“We have been waiting quite a while for those “stronger and more frequent El Ninos”, gatesy.”
—-
Best to not put your hopes in one climate model’s output. It is far too chaotic a system to know exactly how ENSO behavior will change as GH gases double. To be sure, ocean heat content will increase, but whether that means stronger and more frequent El Niños is quite speculative. Some Paleoclimate data even shows persistent La Niña conditions, with more energy being advected to polar regions via ocean currents as opposed to latent and sensible heat flux near the equator.

Comment on Ringing out 2013 by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

0
0

“Trusting government climate science, is even crazier than trusting tobacco company science on the health implications of smoking.”
—–
When the science and physics and data are not on your side, all you have left are conspiracies.

Comment on Ringing out 2013 by A fan of *MORE* discourse

Comment on Ringing out 2013 by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

0
0

“-And, as already seen, even if it turns out the total energy has been increasing, for the last 17 years this cannot have been due to AGW, since AGW works by warming the atmosphere, and for this period the atmosphere hasn’t been warming.”
—–
This statement typifies what is either an intentional or honest lack of of fundamental understanding of the basic ways that energy flows through Earth’s climate system. It cannot have been made by someone who has studied ocean to atmosphere sensible and latent heat flux.

Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2

0
0

After reading the article and some of the commnets – the same warming memes are there:
1. We can’t explain the warming other than that it must be CO2.
2. “Deniers” are funded by Big Oil.
3. Extreme weather events are due to CO2.
4. Water vapor is a positive feedback. (But what about clouds and the fact that it is a condensible gas?)
5. 97% consensus.
6. No mention of the pause.
7. No mention of the missing tropical hot spot.
8. No mention of natural variation.

This reaction is like that of my father-in-law when I wanted to show him some global temperature charts. He got mad and said he “believes” in global warming and that’s that! Period!

The catastrophic global warming hypothesis hasn’t been proved.

Comment on Ringing out 2013 by angech

0
0

Steve F What data would lead you revise your current thinking on the severity/importance of global warming?
great question,great response from both sides of the team.
lolwat, great responses , you deserve a medal, I didn’t think you had it in you
Worth a post or two on its own this question, Judith with lolwat responses discussed.
Now to Mosher, whom I respect.
Increased CO2 warms the atmosphere.
, I get that, I think, as do most commentators on both sides.
Repeating it frequently will not change the non believers.
but we are talking about a complex system here, not a glass jar in a laboratory.
The bottom of the jar is composed of stable salts, not acids or bases, covered by a thin layer of water and a thinner layer of air.
This has stayed remarkably stable through a number of serious events over several billion years, as evinced by the survival of life over this time frame. There is a reversion to the mean to changes in the atmosphere and ocean that prevent runaway warming and cooling.
Yes, CO2 addition heats up the air, but it isn’t being shown to have done so. Natural variation is a cop out to say wait and see, it is happening, really.
It is not warming and this is a great travesty for you as well as Trembath.
Something else is happening to negate the effect of the CO2.
Perhaps greater heat, more clouds , more reflection of heat, who knows?
Them that cannot investigate must discuss.


Comment on Ringing out 2013 by Bob Ludwick

0
0

@ Latimer

“And the public aren’t fools.”

In a sane world, your post would be accurate; in the real world, if the US were an individual, it would be locked up for its own protection.

As it stands now, it simply doesn’t matter what the public thinks. The government bureaucracy WILL continue to issue regulations whose primary purpose is to demonstrate that they are now for all practical purposes impotent (EPA, HEW, DHS, ad infinitum). And the public WILL obey them. Or else.

Comment on Ringing out 2013 by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

> in a conversion I had with Pekka so…

Judy’s comment section as a Forex of the mind.

Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2

0
0

And also, no mention of clouds and the 31C limit on tropical sea surface temp. That will limit in turn feedback via water vapor. Maybe that’s why there is no tropical hot spot.

Comment on Ringing out 2013 by steve fitzpatrick

0
0

In fairness, I should at least answer my own question, since so far the answers seem to be in the vicinity of “never”.

Based on all the data I have seen, I think the most likely transient climate sensitivity is about 1.3C-1.4C per doubling, and the most likely equilibrium sensitivity is in the range of 1.8C-1.9C per doubling. The transient sensitivity has less uncertainty than the equilibrium value because there is at least some chance that non-linearity in the temperature response at somewhat higher temperatures will increase the equilibrium value (there is very little hard evidence for non-linearity, only the projections of some, not all, climate models).

Based on all the data I have seen, the most credible negative future consequence of warmer temperatures will be a continued sea level increase. I have have spent a fair amount of time looking at this issue and believe the IPCC projections of ~0.5 meter by 2100 are plausible, but I think a little higher than than will actually happen. I find very rapid increases (eg 1 meter or more by 2100) not supported by the data. Other consequences (catastrophic ocean acidification, ecosystem collapse, vast loss of farm productivity, rapid extinctions of species due to warming, etc… the list is very long) not at all credible due to a complete lack of evidence, and in many cases, not even a plausible rational.

What would change my mind on these things? 1) A clear upward trend in surface temperatures at a substantially more rapid rate than today for a decade or so. 2) A clear acceleration (not flat or deceleration) in the rate of sea level rise. 3) Other clear data supporting negative effects from warming with important consequences.

Comment on Ringing out 2013 by mkantor

0
0

Dr. Curry,

Thank you for your work. Best wishes for the remainder of the holiday season and 2014.

You wrote “I will try to drum up some new topics.” I suggest three for your consideration, all relating to the “Etc.” in the title of your blog.

1. The usual means of addressing perceived climate change is to seek controls over usage of energy from petroleum sources. That is the same means regularly recommended and employed for addressing health issues from automobile and powerplant emissions (AKA pollution). The mechanisms for addressing perceived climate change and addressing health (as well as environmental diversity) issues from pollution overlap to a considerable extent. However, I see little discussion of what that means for the climate change debate, either with respect to the introduction of measures that will mitigate CO2 releases or the impact of health-driven regulatory measures on the role of climate change-driven regulatory measures, including cost-benefit analysis. The extraordinary air pollution problems in Chinese urban areas illustrates why health-driven measures may, if implemented, have a significant impact on emissions that are the focus of climate change regulatory measures as well. It would, I believe, be useful for the blog to address this overlap of health-driven regulatory measures “in the pipeline” and proposed regulatory measures driven by climate change concerns.

2. The blog could occasionally discuss the economics of climate change. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006) has come in for considerable criticism. “The Review proposes that one percent of global GDP per annum is required to be invested to avoid the worst effects of climate change. In June 2008, Stern increased the estimate for the annual cost of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550 ppm CO2e to 2% of GDP to account for faster than expected climate change.”

It has now been a number of years since that Review was concluded. There has been a great deal of work done on the subject in the economics and business professions, which readers of this blog might usefully learn about and dissect as appropriate. I suggest the blog (either you or guest poster(s)) occasionally address the topic of the economics of climate change and regulatory measures, particularly in light of (a) possible changes in climate sensitivity, (b) a better understanding of weather-related catastrophic losses (e.g., Dr. Pielke Jr.’s work) and (c) possible alternate discount rates for present-valuing future streams of costs.

On discounting, as we all know, Lord Stern famously argued that Stern accepts the case for discounting, but argues that applying a pure rate of time preference (PTP-rate) of anything much more than zero to social policy choice is ethically inappropriate. The mandated US Social Security Administration Board of Trustees 75-year time horizon forecasting social security trust funds (which also implicates inter-generational ethics), however, does not use that approach.

For US Federal regulatory agencies, OMB Circular A-4 (Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Primer) sets out OMB’s requirements for how regulatory agencies should approach discounting alternates. Climate Etc. might usefully discuss the impact of the “alternatives” approach required by OMB. Those requirements describe (but do not entirely resolve) the question.

To provide an accurate assessment of benefits and costs that occur at different points in time or over different time horizons, an agency should use discounting. Agencies should provide benefit and cost estimates using both 3 percent and 7 percent annual discount rates expressed as a present value as well as annualized. These are “real” interest rates that should be used to discount benefits and costs measured in constant dollars. Unlike typical market interest rates, real rates exclude the expected rate of future price inflation.

****

Special considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across generations. Although most people demonstrate time preference in their own consumption behavior, it may not be appropriate for society to demonstrate a similar preference when deciding between the wellbeing of current and future generations. Future citizens who are affected by such choices cannot take part in making them, and today’s society must act with due consideration of their interests.

Many people have argued for a principle of intergenerational neutrality, which would mean that those in the present generation would not treat those in later generations as worthy of less concern. Discounting the welfare of future generations at 7 percent or even 3 percent could create serious ethical problems.

****

At the same time, some economists have cautioned that using a zero discount rate could raise intractable analytical problems. They have argued that with zero discounting, even a small improvement in welfare, if permanent, would justify imposing any cost on current generations since the benefits would be infinite.

If the regulatory action will have important intergenerational benefits or costs, the agency might consider a sensitivity analysis using a lower but positive discount rate, ranging from 1 to 3 percent, in addition to calculating net benefits using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.

3. The blog could occasionally discuss the impact of uncertainty as to the rate of technological change and implementation on climate change measures, particularly in the areas of introduction of natural gas as a replacement fuel instead of coal for powerplant emissions and introduction of electric vehicles. The dramatic and unanticipated increase in US natural gas production since 2005, arguably displacing coal in US power production but also arguably causing US coal exports to displace other fuels outside the US, illustrates the importance of this issue. The “technology forcing” regulatory measures in California are another illustration, both as to whether they are effective at all and, if so, how and when. If the range of climate sensitivity proves to be lower than some of the higher estimates, then the rate of technological change becomes an even more important factor in thinking about regulatory measures and related timetables. There has been considerable work on these subjects, which again readers of this blog might usefully learn about from you and guest posters, and dissect as appropriate.

I hope these topics are interesting.

Regards,

MK

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images