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

Comment on The Big Question by Mark Lewis

0
0

Clive – “that assumes the models are a correct description of nature.”

Yes. The IPCC assumes that the principle factors in their models are correct descriptions of nature.

As R. Gates suggests, the physics of the basic factors in the model are reasonably well understood. The models use our best scientific estimates of those fundamental processes and combine them into a model to understand/explore/test how they work together.

Given confidence in the basic inputs of the models, the models as a whole are basically treated as correct descriptions of nature. There is additional energy being recycled (by GHG) into the system which is being absorbed by the system (Oceans). That energy must go somewhere and in the process it will change the variables that drive our climate.

Now, HOW does all of that happen? Our understanding is limited, but that does not mean it is absent. We are learning more as we go. However, the HOW energy builds up in the system is not as critical to the discussion at hand as the THAT it is building up.

Of course, one can certainly challenge the idea THAT GHG are causing more energy to be contained in the system. However, if your challenge consists of stating that “SOMETHING” is releasing the energy from the system “SOMEHOW” – and you don’t have a proposed mechanism (HOW) to describe the THING that is releasing the energy … your challenge can seem a bit weak.

Yes?


Comment on The Big Question by Danley Wolfe

0
0

And backcast testing for only ten years is truly meaningless to understand historical causes of variables in multivariate systems. History is the key to understanding future projections.

Comment on The Big Question by Generalissimo Skippy

0
0

The point was more the mixed zone – where temps are fairly constant – beneath which there is a thermocline and below that very cold water. There is no warmer water below the surface waiting to be brought to the surface.

Comment on Atlanta’s 2″ catastrophic snowfall by Tim

0
0

“why ask such a loaded question”

Because the history of claims is one of the few ways that the non immersed can judge credibility. Asking somebody to prove what anybody who remembers the time clearly recalls is just one more example of overly lawyerly responses to simple questions. I think a better response might be to prove that what is generally believed is incorrect.

But you run your propaganda program as you see fit.

Comment on The Big Question by Mark Lewis

0
0

Having said that – I think the real discussions are to be had in the HOW and the SOMEHOW.

HOW will the energy being absorbed into the system impact climate in terms of human thriving? How quickly will it happen? What will the initial impacts be? What are the cascading impacts? Will it be catastrophic? To whom, and how? Can we adapt? Easily? With great effort?

The size of attribution error bars Clive is questioning certainly fall into this HOW category.

What are the mechanisms (SOMEHOW) by which the system might release the energy and remain in balance? Is it as R. Gates asserts – that it is ONLY AFTER the system reaches equilibrium that the energy can be released through radiation (in amounts that counteract the build-up)? Or are the as yet unknown or poorly understood mechanisms that release energy to space AS the climate warms or GHG gases increase (Lindzen’s Iris, or…)?

Thank you all for adding to these discussions. They provoke much thought in me.

Comment on The Big Question by Walt Allensworth

0
0

Very interesting article Dr. Curry. Raised my level of thinking a bit.

So say that there is, in all actuality, a huge relentless climate sensitivity to CO2 of something like 4K/ln(CO2)/ln(2).

And say that this is being exactly cancelled by a non-anthropogenic negative forcing beyond our control and current comprehension, and we’re currently at a stalemate between the powerful forces of “wind and tide” in sailor parlance.

Say that’s where we are RIGHT NOW.

So say we somehow miraculously remove the CO2 forcing. maybe everyone goes nuke in the next 20 years, and pull all the ACO2 out of the air that we, bad us, put in.

Where does the temperature of the earth go then, when we’ve removed the ACO2 forcing? Back to the ice-age from whence it came 11,000 years ago? We’re already overdue. A mile of ice across the breadbasket of the US and China?

This would not keep bellies full. The complaints department would be swamped with nasty emails from the billions of people that starved to death.

So just maybe we’d better figure this out before we do something globally rash like take the ACO2 out of the air just because we put it in…

Comment on Atlanta’s 2″ catastrophic snowfall by jeffn

0
0

Aaaaand, it’s all over.
There’s only one thing all the Klimate Koncerned “realists” insisted on getting this year and Obama just told them “no”.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/us/politics/report-may-ease-way-to-approval-of-keystone-pipeline.html?emc=edit_na_20140131&_r=0

Good for him. He joins in Europe in paying lip service over his shoulder while hurrying away from the CAGW crowd as fast as he can. The activist class will be along any minute now to deny this was ever an issue of any importance to them. Now if the president were a Republican…
For those of you excited about Obama’s go-it-alone pledge, good luck. The “specifics” are basically to study the possibility of maybe doing something that might, possibly, take effect in Hillary Clinton’s second administration.
No Democrat wants to be facing headlines about Obama energy price hikes after the Obama health care price hikes.

Comment on Mann versus Steyn by qbeamus

0
0

Substantively, you are precisely correct… except for your attribution. This standard is not “espoused by the judge”–it was pronounced, by the the Supreme Court, and he is obligated to obey. (Though, as a practical matter, the only consequence for disobedience is that he will be reversed by the Court of Appeals.)

Such are the peculiarities of libel law the the U.S., since 1964.


Comment on Open thread by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

0
0

Dagfinn, the difference is that the grizzly can cause you real damage.

Comment on Open thread by Joshua

0
0

Paul -

I’m not here to entertain the fallacy of argumentation from the general to to the specific.

Fair enough. Cheers.

Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

Comment on Open thread by Don Monfort

0
0

Don’t you care about chickens and sheep, lollie? How many gazillions of those poor creatures have been massacred for man’s self-interest? And don’t get me started on the unfortunate multitude of mosquitoes, cockroaches and viruses that have been wiped out for mankind’s comfort. I guess the planet would be a much more kind and peaceful place without the scourge of humanity.

Comment on The Big Question by January top climate sites & articles from uClimate.com | ScottishSceptic

0
0

[…] [19] Judith Curry: The Big Question […]

Comment on Open thread by mosomoso

Comment on Open thread by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

0
0

Don, I very much appreciate Pekka’s contributions, he has a very good background from which to comment on the science and issues here and has given them great attention. I might be wrong, but I took kim’s initial remark to suggest that over some years Pekka has moved somewhat towards the position held by kim, me, et al. This appears to me to be the case, but Pekka has denied that he has shifted.

(Hard to think that kim might be making a comment which is not good-hearted …)


Comment on Open thread by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0


It’s amusing seeing how skeptics get so irked by what you are doing. They really don’t like their “barycentres”, “waves” and “natural cycles” being quantified as to their influence on global temperature.

lolwot, You nailed it exactly. Skeptics of that ilk don’t like to eat their own dog food.

They would much rather keep their theories rather nebulous — that way they can maintain FUD while being somewhat immune from direct attack. Consider that if they never put an equation down on paper, or never actually tried to validate their results, they can maintain a lofty perspective and keep on pontificating from on high.

It’s also entirely possible that some agenda-driven skeptics have already discovered what I have found, but won’t show it because they don’t like the answer. It’s not anything complicated, after all, it just doesn’t serve their agenda.

Comment on Open thread by Joshua

0
0

Faustino -

I might be wrong, but I took kim’s initial remark to suggest that over some years Pekka has moved somewhat towards the position held by kim, me, et al. This appears to me to be the case,

Surely you must have evidence to support this opinion of yours. Because if there’s one think we know to be true about “skeptics,” it’s that they don’t formulate opinions w/o carefully quantified and validated data.

In what way have Pekka’s opinions moved closer to yours? What did he used to believe that he no longer believes? What does he now believe that he didn’t believe previously. Do tell.

Comment on Open thread by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

0
0

But, moso, that’s “good” “Green” oil that was spilt, you can’t confuse it it with bad, capitalist oil!

Comment on Open thread by Don Monfort

0
0

Fauastino, kim has graciously admitted to a momentary lapse in kim’s goodheartedness. Let’s get back to the overriding moral issue of our time, according to lollie: Mankind is eating up all the animals on the planet. And let’s not forget the sardines and eggplants.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images