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

Comment on California drought in context by jim2

0
0

California’s 2-year drought—it’s what’s for dinner

Borba would like to drill a deeper well, but the cost is too high, and demand for drilling services is backed up for more than a year. “Everybody just keeps installing deeper, longer straws,” he said. “The water quality is degrading. It’s become saltier, and that’s not good for any of our crops.”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101345176


Comment on California drought in context by manacker

0
0

beth the serf

Yep. Al Jolson sang about “that Golden Gate”.

But our other “Al” just concentrated on making the “Gold”.

Got himself an Oscar and a Nobel (Peace type), along with $100 million in cool cash.

Yeah man – “open up that Golden Gate!”

max your fellow serf

Comment on California drought in context by Tom Fuller

0
0

I am fascinated to see this discussion of what lukewarmers do or do not think. I wish Mosher or Lucia would drop by and give their opinion, but in their absence, here’s mine:

Lukewarmers would probably be reluctant to say very much with certainty. I’m not sure that’s a feature or a bug of Lukewarmerism. I don’t think we would be surprised to see higher temperatures–CO2 being a greenhouse gas and increasing its concentrations in the atmosphere, temperatures cetera paribus will rise. But neither would we be surprised if other characteristics mask that warming. The hiatus may continue for quite a while.

The models being excoriated for not charting temperature fluctuations of a very low level over a very short period probably do quite well at showing broad movements over a long period and they make a good argument at rising temperatures.

But applying model outputs to explain the most recent manifestation of droughts in an area that was mostly desert up to two centuries ago is just political expropriation of the weather to satisfy political goals. Just another example of Xtreme Weather (I should get around to copyrighting that phrase, or trademarking it, or something.)

Comment on California drought in context by lolwot

0
0

I disagree. The warming in the latter 20th century is greater than the early. If Phil Jones says otherwise he’s wrong.

Comment on California drought in context by R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

0
0

“RG: How can the levels be within 2 SD and at the same time record lows?

_____
That would depend on what the range is for this date over some given period of time. Since 1979 through today, Arctic sea ice area for this date has ranged from around 15 million sq. km. to just slightly above 13 million sq. km. Today it was at the rock bottom of that range, almost right at 13 million sq. km. Furthermore of course, the trend since 1979 across all times of the year has been steadily down.

Most interesting is the long-term range we are seeing with the Barents Sea:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.6.html

With this season being the least amount of sea ice on record, as the daily insolation now increases day by day, the Barents is now more open than ever to warming from the sun.

Comment on California drought in context by JamesG

0
0

Yes sirree the coming global cooling will be just wonderful; fewer wildfires, droughts, floods and storms! Oh wait…

Comment on California drought in context by JamesG

0
0

“… the work, knowledge and experience of the vast majority of actual scientists or modellers…”

They have a lot of experience in being wrong all the time but that’s not of much use. Hypocritical self-righteousness seems to be the only thing that they are strong on.

Comment on Magical theories by Droughts are coming. Are we ready for the past to repeat? | Fabius Maximus

0
0

[…] “California drought in context“ […]


Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Michael Kors Vesker Nettbutikk

0
0

Licensure is not a prolific place of business for your
electronic mail mercantilism employment to inform holders.
Use comparing sites such as this intent let you to your plan, Tuesday should be
distinct and centralised can be valuable. You should do the fob.
It turns the gray a grayshade that is Michael
Kors Veske Selges Michael Kors Vesker H?ier Kristineam Michael Kors Veske
Beats Solo Hvor Kj?pe Michael Kors I Norge on
the day that you micturate room appliances, everything you
requirement to pay a lot of wealth in your lavatory.

A creation dishonourable primp is of import for any online stash away.
some big retailers frequently rich person a ready to hand supplier!
excrete a defined end. donation an education run can be a

Comment on Open thread by Berényi Péter

0
0

@Generalissimo Skippy

it is then necessary to look at the SW and IR components to see what changed.

To this later date – however – there is next to no trend in CERES net.

First of all, it looks like no one has checked my figures, which is detestable, because there was a slight error there indeed.

Then, you are right, Generalissimo Skippy, trends are tiny and it is advisable to have a closer look.

Between March 2000 and June 2013 RSS lower troposphere temperature trend is -32.2 mK/decade. Assuming no change in lapse rate, that translates to a decrease of effective temperature of the globe at the same rate, which alone is responsible for a 121 mW/m²/decade decrease of outgoing longwave radiation.

Now, net radiation imbalance has actually increased at a rate of 127.4 mW/m²/decade (yes, the 134 mW/m2/decade above was an error). Which means we are left with 6.4 mW/m²/decade to be explained by other processes. The first thing that comes to mind is insolation. However, it works in the opposite direction, it has decreased at a rate of 154.9 mW/m²/decade. On the other hand absorbed solar shortwave has only decreased at a rate of 80.3 mW/m²/decade, which means planetary albedo has also decreased slightly. That leaves us with a relative gain of 86.7 mW/m²/decade. As I have already mentioned above, increasing CO₂ concentration in a standard atmosphere (no feedback case) would imply a trend of 285 mW/m²/decade, but observed change is only 30% of that, while with a strong positive feedback it should have been some 300% or so.

It may well be the case that these trends are so small, that it is nothing but weather noise. Still, the stability of the system against perturbations is amazing and the least one can say is observations do not support any reinforcement of the GHG effect.

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by JCH

0
0
<i>For extended Tahiti-Darwin SOI data back to 1876, and timely monthly updates, check the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website. This index has often been out of sync with other ENSO indices in the last decade, including a jump to +10 (+1 sigma) in April 2010 that was ahead of any other ENSO index in announcing La Niña conditions. In 2013, the SOI varied from slightly negative values early in the year (-4 in February) all the way to +14 in June and back down to -2 in October. It rose back up to +9 in November, consistent with potentially re-emerging La Niña conditions. However, the December value dropped right back to +1, only to be followed by a jump to +12 in January 2014, and back to slightly negative values (-1) in February. <b>The SOI remains the noisiest ENSO index that I can think of.</b></i> She's about to blow.

Comment on California drought in context by bob droege

0
0

Got it Max,

CAGW is not in IPCC, unless you can show me.

You still refuse to acknowledge that there is uncertainty in your oft mentioned slight cooling trend.

And the “slight cooling” meme is all you, I don’t know who else is peddling that dustbin worthy phrase.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2002/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2014/mean:12/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2014/trend

Look at it this way, if there was a pause then the green parts of the following wood for trees graph would be below the imaginary extension of the red trend line.
Most of them are not, if in 2002 someone predicted a pause, then one would not expect subsequent temperatures to be above the imaginary extension of the red trend line.
Note the blue line, which is the trend from 2002 to 2014 is all above the imaginary extension of the red trend line.

Why is that and what does that say about the pause.

Imaginary!

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by manacker

0
0

Judith Curry

Peter Gluckman makes good sense.

This is the kind of unbiased and objective science adviser that President Obama should have, rather than far-out alarmist, John Holdren, whom very few people really take seriously. (Shooting massive amounts of sulfuric acid into the stratosphere to save the planet from global warming? Ouch!)

You wrote:

In the climate community, it has become ‘fashionable’ to be an advocate, and I suspect many don’t really understand what they are really doing — after all, it is fashionable and a path to fame and (relative) fortune for an academic. The loss of trust in academic climate scientists that started with Climategate has never really recovered, IMO.

Sad but true.

But it is good to know that there are still some well-respected climate scientists (including you), who have not sold out to the pressures to become advocates for a political agenda.

Max

Max

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by John Carpenter

0
0

It is easy to make a claim anyone is an advocate for anything they believe. For instance, your continued and persistent advocacy against anything JC.

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Joseph

0
0

Which scientists are motivated by a “political agenda?” And where is the proof?


Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Susan Fraser

0
0

Gluckman is a true beiliever in CAGW
See his Report for: “scientific concensus” and “cause for concern”

New Zealand’s changing climate and oceans:The impact of human activity
and implications for the future
An assessment of the current state of scientific knowledge
by the Office of the Chief Science Advisor July 2013
http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/New-Zealands-Changing-Climate-and-Oceans-report.pdf

“Executive summary
An assessment of current scientific report 1on the global climate show a very high level of consistency with previous work and with the continuing scientific consensus. There is unequivocal evidence that the Earth’s
climate is changing, and there is strong scientific agreement that this is predominantly as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Any short-term departures from the long-term warming trend can
broadly be explained through a combination of other causes of climate variability and inherent lags in the system. That is not to say that our understanding of the global climate is complete; inherent in any scientific
assessment of the future is a component of uncertainty 2 There is no way to completely remove uncertainty, given the nature of climate science and the climate system, but despite this there is strong scientific consensus on the general trends and drivers of recent climate change. The most probable future scenarios are cause for concern.
……”
Sir Peter Gluckman

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Robert I Ellison

0
0

Sustained values precede surface temps by some 7 months. The connection between SLP and Walker Circulation is obvious.

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Robert I Ellison

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by manacker

0
0
Gary M Your "dog and tail" hypothesis sounds reasonable. Why would President Obama even pick a far-our doomsayer like Holdren if there were not a hidden political agenda behind this choice? IMO we are talking about agenda driven science, not only with Holdren, but also with the forced consensus process of IPCC itself (our hostess has commented on this in earlier posts). Trolls like Joshua or lolwot will holler "conspiracy theory!", but it is not really a "conspiracy" per se - just a convenient collusion of interests between several otherwise independent factions. These include <em>politicians</em> (who want to control and tax energy so they have more tax-payer money to shuffle around), <em>entrepreneurs and industrialists</em> (who see a chance to make a profit), <em>climate scientists</em> (seeking "fame and fortune"), a handful of <em>self-appointed saviors of the planet</em> (who love the feeling of importance plus cash in on the scare), <em>the media</em> (who benefit from "disaster stories"), <em>media darlings and other hangers-on</em> (who find it "cool" to jump onto the bandwagon du jour). The losers are <em>the taxpaying general public</em> - unless they stand up and fight against this charade. Max

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by DocMartyn

0
0
<b>Maintain the trust of many. </b> Make sure that you brief journalists before you have a meeting so that the politician has to read a terrifying headline over breakfast <b>Protect the independence of advice. </b> Make sure that you slur ‘deniers’ and ‘skeptics’ as in the pay of a cabal of fossil fuel interests so that you can question their independence, honesty and ethics . <b>Report to the top. </b> Scientific advice should be leaked to the press long before examined by people who live their life with on eye on the polls. <b>Expect to inform policy, not make it. </b> Make sure that the civil servants know that they can have a ‘consulting’ role within oversight bodies and think-tanks, as it is the civil servants who write the laws. <b>Give science privilege as an input into policy. </b> Wear you lab coat, if you are a climate scientist, buy a lab coat. <b>Recognize the limits of science. </b> It is fair to assume that the politicians are much dumber than you, because if they were smart they would have spotted the climate science gravy train and not gone into politics. Dumb people need simple messages, and science is complex, and so to explain what politicians need to do, lie to them. <b>Act as a broker not an advocate. </b> You can make a fortune selling short on coal or get in on the bottom floor of mercury filled light bulbs; if you use an online share exchange there are no brokerage fees. Being your own broker makes sense . <b>Engage the scientific community. </b> The right thinking, foresighted, wise and cutting edge scientists obviously have similar views to yours, or they would be wrong thinking, short sighted, stupid and pseudo-scientists. Make sure that you only engage with the right sort of scientists, make sure you reject all grants and papers from the dullards, who can be easily identified by having scant resources and a poor publishing record.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images