It is completely plausible that CO2 changes the trajectory through the attractor, but does not cause a shift to a new attractor. In fact, this seems like the most likely outcome. Thereby making the anthro impact indistinguishable from zero.
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by Doug Badgero
↧
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by Rob Ryan
When people address the issue of why carbon dioxide levels go up AFTER temperature then we shall begin to make progress.
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
“That is such a ludicrous statement to make.”
Listen to Obama tonight, as he ludicrously calls for a renewed focus on “battling climate change,”
I didn’t think it was possible for the U.S. government to come up with anything more disastrously ill advised as its “war on drugs.” But the “war on climate change” is even more absurd, and potentially even more dangerous.
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by captdallas 0.8 or less
Springer, “A PhD geography student at University of Ottawa?”
that qualifies him to be a climatologist, urban planner and even a cartographer. Who knows, he might even have 24 hours of statistics.
↧
Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Canman
From “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, It’s surprising how unreproducable his code was. There was also a stepwise sequence. If that scrap of FORTRAN code was never found, I wonder how different things would have turned out. Would Mann have eventually agreed to release his code?
↧
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by Edim
“GLOBAL temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred GLOBALLY in the 1920s and 1930s.”
About right.
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
Ringo, I am a CSalty Nut that’s for sure.
The only thing I gravitate to is people that are willing to do some heavy lifting, like Mosh.
But guys like you that run off the mouth and can’t keep a beat, well you are good for some laughs.
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by David Springer
Mosher you spend an inordinate amount of time verbally abusing Cripwell. Did somebody’s great grandfather give you an ass whipping when you were in college majoring in English or something?
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by Generalissimo Skippy
Tony – my numbers come from that same EIA page. I rounded them down to whole dollars – other that that they should be exactly the same as the source – which I have linked to on perhaps a dozen occasions.
Prediction of future climate states is impossible – and PD’s are only theoretically possible. And I have a number of sources from the IPCC to Wally Broecker. Here is one of my favourites.
‘‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)
So the so called damage function of climate change is unresolvable. There are obviously health costs of fine particulates – but there are also implications for populations in declining productivity and GDP. I have done risk assessment and studied environmental economics – and with such imponderables the chances of detailed risk assessment reliably informing policy is zilch.
In an in principle risk assessment – low probability and extreme consequence events determine the overall level of risk. Climate is wild after all – and it seems imprudent to change the composition of the atmosphere with little idea of consequences.
The logical response is maximize social and economic development in a global multi-objective and multi-gas strategy in ways that build societal resilience to whatever the vagaries of climate brings. We have certainly not seen the anywhere near the limits of what natural climate extremes can bring in the past century – regardless of anthropogenic influences.
The other logical response is the accelerated technological development pathway.
↧
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by Don Monfort
Didn’t you see the announcement, philo? They are going to start next week incorporating heat emissions in all the GCMs. You can relax now.
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by timg56
David,
You link to two models.
Are there not 40 + models in use? It appears the majority of them are not trending well with observed data. Doesn’t that imply scientists should be weeding out a significant number?
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by Tony Duncan (@tonydunc)
Chris,
Yes captdallas, Tamino, instead of surrendering gracefully, had the audacity to post data about 21st century temps in the arctic.
Now he did NOT show Generalissos bizarre idea of some sort of 3°C difference in temps, but I didn’t see Tamino or any of the others suggesting such a thing.
If you notice our hosts reaction was to say” it’s my ball and I am taking it home. I won’t play with you anymore.” What a brilliant take down of Tamino’s presentation of actual research relating to what she actually said in her senate testimony, of which Mann said she was distorting the science.
Hmmm. me thinks we should start a fund to insist Madame Curry sue Mann for insulting her.
↧
Comment on The Big Question by philjourdan
Actually it is the opposite. How is it PREVENTING the climate from returning to a state that is not conducive to feeding and housing 7 billion.
Since no one knows the answer, the alarmist may be destroying that which they proclaim to support.
↧
↧
Comment on The Big Question by R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist
“skepticism is frequently neither a tool nor a destination, but an identity…”
___
Oh, I agree completely that some would wear the badge of “skepticism” like an identity, and in that, it becomes their psychological destination. A final resting place so to speak, for their mind.
↧
Comment on The Big Question by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Dagfinn,
Thanks for the correction! The distinction between endorsement of the person and the articles is important. Can you tell us a little about your relevant background?
Speaking as a layperson, I found this useful and illuminating — a clear description of a complex subject.
I have always wondered why the IPCC did not give estimates for the absolute temperature effects of the major factors affecting the surface atmosphere temperature. Esp since it should be an output of their models. Your article raises that as an important question. Let’s hope it gets attention, and perhaps answers.
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by Scott
Steven Mosher,
noaa data is not a fraud but has it been adjusted to within the error bar of the increased temperature. Pielke wrote some time ago that human impacts on temperature resutl from replacing natural cover with asphalt and airport jet exhausts. Is there a tracking of original measurements with adjustments?
Scott
↧
Comment on The Big Question by R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist
“Your warmist advocacy often borders on the propagandisti (“human Co2 volcano”). and your ongoing obsession with the evil Heartland Institute entirely revealing of your deep a priori bias…”
____
I am always willing and quite eager for any data, research or any such thing that would show that the massive human carbon emissions are not altering the energy balance of the climate system. Please, send them my way– but be warned, if you equate total cimate energy balance with tropospheric temperatures over a short time frame, I’ll consider you to be less than informed. In regards to Heartland, they are not evil any more than any paid advocacy (or shill) group is. It is good old fashioned capitalism with the rich paying to look after their interests. Why call this evil? Do you hate capitalism?
↧
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by Mi Cro
The problem Tony is that the Arctic is very poorly sampled, it is now, and was worse in the 30′s. The technically correct answer is that we don’t know the actual temps now or in the past.
But, politicians, the MSM, and alarmists has for more than a decade waved IPCC reports, and the various models of surface temps as proof of warming. In a 5 or 10 minute allotment of time before a Congressional panel, you don’t get the time to explain the technicalities, nor would most there actually understand what you were saying, it wouldn’t be sound bite worthy, and would just be ignored.
Pointing out that AR5 shows that the 30′s and the 90′s-2000′s have similar maximum temps is something they can understand, and was the claims of the IPCC.
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by Tony Duncan (@tonydunc)
Steven,
did you read Tamino’s response to this?
All I saw was posted research that ALL points to higher temps in the entire arctic now than in the 30′s.
Does not the idea that Judith did not post research for the most recent period seem odd?
this al came form Judith lamenting Mann saying she distorted science, and people coming to Mann’s defense by saying that THIS testimony was distorting the science.
she said “the 30′s were warming than now.” Certainly that is what was heard by the people in the senate.
Tamino posted research that says that is completely untrue for the information we have from both time periods.
to me that is distorting science and therefore Mann tweet was, in this case, accurate.
She THEN decides there in no point in further discussing the matter.
It sure sounds to me like a wrestler being pinned for 2 seconds and then saying “OK. Match over nobody won, but I am going to pretend that I did”.
what does any of this have to do with your long comment above?
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by jeffn
“1. Do we have time for a bridge fuel ( GAS) to the future or
do we have to switch rapidly to renewables?”
Good thing the warm have answered this definitively. They are willing to wait forever and they care not a bit about whether the things they wait for have any impact whatsoever on global CO2 emissions. When the warm become actually concerned about carbon, it could be an interesting issue. Meanwhile they’ll fly to various exotic locals in an annual half-hearted effort to define, much less address, “sustainable” and “climate justice.”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
