Traditional peer review may be more passe than truly broken, but I like the irony that the compound brokeness of climate science peer review has helped midwived an improved method of review. With an instrumental delivery by an inept obstetrician, climate science has delivered a mangled body but a brain summering indominably.
==============
Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by kim
Childhood’s End.
=============
↧
Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
This Lewis guy does not know how to estimate TCR based on the observational evidence of over 130 years of warming. His 1.3C is laughable.
http://imageshack.com/a/img823/7237/wif.gif
↧
Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by kim
Heh, the current carries us on.
=======
↧
Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by Jim Cripwell
+1000
↧
↧
Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by kim
It’s probably deeper when smoother and shallower when rough. Dynamic thermal actions and winged butterflies strangely attracted.
=======================
↧
Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by Bob Ludwick
@ Alan Millar
Climate Science tells us that:
a. Atmospheric CO2 is the ‘control knob’ for the Temperature of the Earth (TOE).
b. It has been rising monotonically, except for periodic seasonal variations, since we began measuring it.
c. The ostensible cause of the rise is the injection of ACO2 into the atmosphere as a byproduct of producing the energy required to maintain our civilization.
d. The ACO2, by raising the concentration of atmospheric CO2, is causing the TOE to rise precipitously and dangerously.
e. Recent TOE data has shown that the slope of the TOE trend is near zero, with ongoing debate as to whether it is slightly positive or slightly negative, for the last 17 years. And counting.
f. The official explanation for the ‘pause’ is that ‘natural variation’ has masked the precipitous rise in the TOE that is driven by ACO2.
f. appears to contradict a. and implies that if CO2 DOES influence the TOE, the influence is minor compared to natural climate fluctuations. A control knob which, when turned in one direction, can result in a output which goes up, down, or remains the same is not much of a control knob.
All of the above is supportive of Jim Cripwell’s oft stated opinion that if the sensitivity of the TOE to CO2 is other than zero, it has not been demonstrated by empirical TOE data.
↧
Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by kim
Oh, sorry, it’s ‘ummmm’, not ‘ommmm’.
===================
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: technical discussion thread by David Springer
The sawtooth reflects growing season north vs. south hemisphere. Twice the landmass in the north hemisphere makes plants take up a bit more in NH summer than SH summer.
Worldwide fossil fuel consumption is pretty close to a straight line growth too: http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/images/world-fossil-fuel-consumption.jpg
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: technical discussion thread by David Springer
At the risk of interjecting some informal logic where it probably won't be understood...
Doug Badgero | March 6, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
<blockquote>I agree with SM that there are no viable alternatives to the existing </blockquote>
You agree with Mosher's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance" rel="nofollow">argument from ignorance</a>. Precious.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by Michael
“A sensitive matter: How the IPCC buried evidence showing good news about global warming” – Lewis et al.
Seems to be a feature of the ‘skeptics’ – the immediate assumption of bad faith, where they may be other plausible explanations.
Maybe the idea is to get people off-side straigthaway and use terse responses to such accusations as an opportunity to play the victim-card.
Claiming victimhood seems to be important in the Climate Ward.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: technical discussion thread by Antonio (AKA "Un físico")
The fact that IPCC, Armour, Lewis or anyone else labels climate sensitivity as “caused by energy imbalance”, “calculated with regional feedbacks”, “instrumental or proxy derived” or “estimated from a slab ocean version of the model”; do not mean that the climate sensitivity value obtained by all these methods is a scientifically valid value.
In fact, the value of climate sensitivity due to CO2 doubling is by any of those ways ending up in tuning, so then, ECS in the range [1.5 - 4.5]K is a fictitious value.
Judith Curry, as I sent you 3 pdfs and you have not posted them in your blog, the best thing I can do is to update my “Refuting …”:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA
with the basic ideas in those 3 pdfs + those 3 more ideas to come, and upload that update into google docs. There anyone could read my ideas: about ECS and attribution uncertainties; about timescales; about reliability of models; about proxy uncertainties and about manipulation. Let’s see if the readers of this blog are then ready for a “technical discussion” that you Judith could host.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: technical discussion thread by Peter Davies
Poor orphan Beth! Someone has upset the moderator.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: technical discussion thread by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
<strong>JC SNIP</strong> Of course the excursions of the SOI are related to the pause. However it is not an integration that shows the average excursion but a running mean with the appropriate window size.That is also a lagged filter and I use 6 months to get the best fit. It is well known that global temperature spikes lag the SOI spikes by about 6 months.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by philjourdan
Mustn’t upset the Muslims.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: technical discussion thread by aaron
This raises another question, how much snow mass is accumulating in the antarctic?
I’ve seen suggestions that the antarctic is losing ice mass. Are they talking just ice, and over land? What is the total amount of sea and land ice? Plus snow? Trend?
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: technical discussion thread by David Springer
I don’t think the mainstream has anything to say about why SST is capped at 30C. It was actually Willis Eschenbach that got me thinking about it. He wrote an article about ARGO a year or three ago and noted that with rare exceptions SST doesn’t exceed 30C. Readings up to and including 30C are quite common then there’s a rare few scattered readings between 30C and 35C and none over 35C. 35C happens to be the highest mean annual temperature ever recorded and it was in 6 consecutive years in a tropical desert in Africa around 1960. Notably CO2 growth since 1960 has not enabled the breaking of that record which is also interesting. Yet more of interest is that a blackbody at 35C has a radiant emittance of 511W/m2 which is almost precisely the average insolation falling on the surface of tropical deserts. Even more interesting is that the ocean’s average basin temperature is 4C and the radiant emittance of a blackbody at that temperature is 334W/m2 which is almost precisely the solar constant of 1366W/m2 divided by 4 which is the divisor when the light is projected onto a rotating sphere. Yet something else to think about is that a deep body of water illuminated from the top has the essential characteristic of a greenhouse gas that distinguish them from non-greenhouse gases i.e. transparent to shortwave and opacity to longwave thus shortwave energy from the sun penetrates at the speed of light unimpeded (impurities in the water, not the water itself eventually absorb and thermalize the energy) to a depth of hundreds of feet and then that water must be mechanically lifted to the surface in order to lose the thermal energy (easy in, not so easy out; classic GHG effect). I rather think the global ocean is more responsible for greenhouse warming than is the atmosphere.
Lastly I have to consider what happens if the ocean is entirely or almost entirely frozen over which has happened more than once in the earth’s history. This would effectively shut down the vast majority of the GHG effect as water vapor is frozen out of the atmosphere everywhere and shortwave cannot penetrate the ocean. Precipitation would stop. CO2 sinks would stop working. Volcanoes however would continue belching soot and CO2 and after millions of years would darken the frozen surface and build atmospheric CO2 level the combination of which would eventually cause a melt.
Stuff to think about. Just sayin’
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by philjourdan
He also likes to stalk you if you disagree with him. He has been known to do it to other bloggers.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by Joshua
<blockquote>Seems to be a feature of the ‘skeptics’ – the immediate assumption of bad faith, where they may be other plausible explanations.</blockquote>
Two words: Persecution complex.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: technical discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo
Mosher, because you said
“Judith: it seems a bit odd that we have to wait until AR6 to have the best and brightest review the state of the science…”
and ” An annual assessment of the state of the science would be a welcomed addition”
It would seem that annual IPCC reports is what you were suggesting.
Had you said “It’s a bit odd that we depend on IPCC to have teh best and brightest review…”
…you’d have a leg.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
