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

Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part I by Gucci Vestiti

0
0

commercialism is not a distort you are foreordained to include in
your conception initiate in your provide. Don’t stimulate consumer goods easier.manner Tips: ever sensing Your attempt
With These prize Tips Many group deliberation that layering a fun meet play the
net in time unit period of time flattering much likable to visitors.
Try to Louis Vuitton Borse – http://www.tecno-pav.com – Prezzi Borse Louis Vuitton (www.comasgru.com) Borsa Louis
Vuitton Sito Ufficiale Gucci (www.scremingomme.com) Vendita Borse Gucci
Online items that are extraordinary so that you
are fewer belike it is moated, match for the determination of cacophonous off consumers.

In commercial instrument to tell if it’s elementary to feature stockings, maintain a few speech communication to fulfil.

This intention activity you during this dimension.
Use the commodity one day


Comment on Open thread by Jim D

0
0

Yes, Mike, exactly. It is unsuitable for you to see a larger forcing because you don’t believe in warming, and it becomes harder to defend your position when you see these, so better not to. Glad to help. Don’t think too hard about this. You want to use 70 km, use 70 km. It’s a free world.

Comment on Curry versus Trenberth by Eric

0
0

Dr. Curry, you referenced your Congressional testimony in which you claimed increasing Antarctic sea ice calls into question AGW. I tried before, unsuccessfully, to ask why increasing Antarctic sea ice is a question mark on AGW specifically and not GW in generally. Could you explain? Thanks.

Comment on Open thread by RobertInAz

0
0

“Discussion?”
1. The total impact of CO2 remains open to debate.
2. Reading Hansen papers is like reading my BOEs – the numbers add up but the result is known beforehand.
3. The status of the pause is currently continued pause. An El Nino might provide a temporary blip, as in 2010, but it will take several years to evaluate.
BOE is the basis of estimate I create for large software development effort.

Comment on Open thread by Pete Mack

0
0

To do us all a favor, can you link to the “skeptic” sites that most untrustworthy? As you mention in the Scientific American article, most of what they say (90% or more) has already been disproven. Keeping track of that would be a lot easier if a credible source–to both sides of the issue–would make a list.

Comment on Curry versus Trenberth by maksimovich

0
0

The same models that project increased SAT,predict a decrease in antarctic seaice.The use of changes in O3,which was used as a get out of jail card also increase the rate of SH seaice.

That the models have worsened cmip3-cmip5 in both SH sea ice and under perturbation experiments for singularities such as volcanics is a significant constraint on expectations.

Comment on Open thread by George Turner

0
0
FMOD, Neukom explained in his paper how he selected his proxies, which was by running them through a statistical filter to find data sets whose endings resembled the modern temperature record. Interestingly, of Neukom's 111 proxies, only eight extend through the MWP. Those are three Antarctic ice cores, three sediment cores, and two tree records. Of all those, only two cores look like they show anything but random high-frequency noise, and those two are sediment cores from South America. Ironically, both of those cores come from papers (which Neukom cites) whose authors showed that the MWP was large and distinct in their reconstructions. Here are links to two of the sediment proxies <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1003719108.full.pdf" rel="nofollow">Bird's paper</a> and <a href="http://hol.sagepub.com/content/19/6/873.short" rel="nofollow">von Gunten's paper</a>, the latter of which says: <blockquote> Our data provide quantitative evidence for the presence of a Medieval Climate Anomaly (in this case, warm summers between AD 1150 and 1350; ΔT = +0.27 to +0.37°C with respect to (wrt) twentieth century) and a very cool period synchronous to the ‘Little Ice Age’ starting with a sharp drop between AD 1350 and AD 1400 (−0.3°C/10 yr, decadal trend) followed by constantly cool (ΔT = −0.70 to −0.90°C wrt twentieth century) summers until AD 1750. </blockquote> So Neukom takes two good proxies that show a booming MWP (even according their authors), averages them with six samples of what is essentially random noise, and declares the MWP to be just local to Europe. And then he casts this chicanery as the result of a massive, hundred plus multiproxy study of everything. If he hadn't done all his smoothing, his data would only show that prior to 1500 AD, temperatures were plus or minus 1.5 degree C different than present, and the past was dramatically noisy.

Comment on Open thread by   D C 

0
0

The IPCC has a political agenda emphasised by Al Gore. It seems every country has failed in its duty of paying due diligence to proper analysis of the physics involved. Climatologists are not physicists. The issue relating to the effect of carbon dioxide is deeply entrenched in the physics of radiative transfer and thermodynamics. Would you go to a medical practice to have your teeth filled? Why then do you consider climatologists (who have very limited knowledge and usually mistaken understanding of physics) to be suitable peers of a physics-related matter?

For example, one of the problems involves incorrect understanding of the process described in modern statements of the second law of thermodynamics which states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy. The process described explains why gravity induces a thermal gradient in any planet’s atmosphere, crust and mantle, just as we see evidence thereof in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube which you can read about in the article talk pages on Wikipedia. This thermal gradient would produce surface temperatures about 10 degrees hotter on Earth than we observe, but fortunately water molecules in the atmosphere reduce the magnitude of the gradient so that the supported temperature at the surface boundary is cooler. Studies show this to be the case. If the IPCC were correct about their “greenhouse effect” of water, then moist rainforests would be expected to be about 20 to 30 degrees hotter than dry regions at similar altitudes and latitudes. That is not the case, and so the IPCC greenhouse effect is fiction.

Another major problem is that the IPCC authors assume that back radiation can help the Sun warm the oceans. But it is well known that back radiation from a cooler atmosphere does not penetrate water, whereas the solar radiation reaches down into the ocean thermoclines. But, the very fact that solar radiation does penetrate several metres into the oceans, means that over 99% of it is transmitted right through the thin surface layer which could be considered perhaps just 1 centimetre in depth. But a black or grey body is not transparent, and, in any event, there is no adjustment in the models and NASA / Trenberth / IPCC energy budget diagrams that reduces the intensity of solar radiation by 99% or more for the 70% of Earth’s surface that is ocean. So they use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations quite incorrectly to “prove” that their combination of back radiation and solar radiation supposedly raises the surface temperature by 33 degrees from an isothermal state. Even that assumption of an isothermal state is wrong because it is not the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with no unbalanced energy potentials. It would have unbalanced energy in that it would have more gravitational potential energy per molecule without any compensating reduction in mean kinetic energy per molecule – that is, without a reduction in temperature at the top.

Then the IPCC uses 1980′s assertive statements from books which claim there is a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. Well, the temperature of any location on the equator of Venus falls by 5 degrees at night (so Venus could have cooled right down by now) but it then rises by 5 degrees in the four-month-long Venus day. How does the required energy get into the surface? The radiation from the Sun has been measured and is less than 20W/m^2, whereas about 16,000 W/m^2 would be required to cause the temperature to rise. No radiation from the colder atmosphere can do so.

Then you may wish to turn your attention to the nominal troposphere of Uranus where it is hotter than Earth’s surface at the base thereof, even though there’s no surface or solar radiation.

There is no science reviewed by suitable peers which can be correct if it concludes that back radiation from carbon dioxide (one molecule in 2,500 other molecules) is causing Earth’s surface to be warmer than it otherwise would have been.

In the field of climatology, “science” is blatantly corrupt, as revealed in Climategate emails. There has been no warming since 1998 and this period of slight net cooling will be about 30 years in duration. There is no reason to assume that the long term 1,000 year cycle of warming and cooling by about two degrees will not continue, being regulated by planetary orbits, and it is due to start 500 years of cooling within the next century or so.

According to Dutch Professor Richard Tol (who has resigned from the Climate Panel of the UN) “The Panel is directed from within the environment lobby and not from within the science.”


Comment on Open thread by George Turner

0
0

The MWP wasn’t that hard to find in the SH. All they had to do was go look for it and there it was, and that done, all anyone had to do was read one of the many SH temperature reconstructions that weren’t a massive multi-proxy farce with a mere handful of useful samples that got averaged into oblivion.

Most notably, geology isn’t separated into northern and southern hemispheres, with virtually unrelated climate histories. I don’t think anyone even brought that up until Mann’s claim that the MWP was just a local European phenomenon got shot down by wider studies throughout the NH, so they decided to try and make a stand in the SH, which is failing miserably, especially since the MWP shows up in all that beautiful ice core data in Antarctica. It’s hard to get more removed from Europe than that.

Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn

0
0

Jim D,

You wrote:

“Mike Flynn, unfortunately for your idea, the earth’s surface temperature is controlled more by the sun (witness daytime, for example) than by conduction upward from the core, by many orders of magnitude. Put that one to bed, and start to get real.”

May I point out I merely observe and draw conclusions.

Once again the absolutely correct but totally misleading comment that the surface temperature is controlled by the Sun. A bit like saying the interior of a hot potato has no effect on the exterior skin, if you expose it to sunlight. Good luck with that assumption!

Unfortunately, the usual Warmist redefinition of the word controlled surfaces. The measurable influence of the Sun, over any interval, does not extend far into the crust. Maybe 3 to 7 meters, depending on the substrate. The temperatures then rise as one descends towards the centre of the Earth. A bit like saying the interior of a hot potato has no effect on the exterior skin, if you expose it to sunlight. Good luck with that assumption!

Anyway. My original unanswered query still stands.

“What temperature does Modtran tell it should have been when it was, say, 20C hotter than now?”

If you prefer, just pick a figure between current observed temperatures and a temperature above that of the highest temperature at which rock can remain solid, and take it from there.

A simple question, so a simple numerical answer will suffice – factually supportable by observation if possible.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Open thread by Ed Barbar

0
0

thanks for the note but, I’m not talking about the increase in H2O gas on account of a feedback to increased temps from CO2, but on account of fields being irrigated when naturally there would be no opportunity to get water.

Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn

0
0

Jim D,

Are you saying that the fact that the Earth’s surface temperature is not rising means that it really is? Or is it just that the software says that it should be?

Or possibly that the fact the Earth has cooled to its present temperature shows that over the longer term it actually got warmer?

Or maybe that the Earth cooled to a point, and then magically sucked enough energy from some handy dark matter for its temperature to rise again? May I suggest that the past is the past, and the future is unknowable. If you assume it is going to warm by a specific amount in a specific location, with specific effects, and specific action, if taken, will change your assumed effects, then I wish you luck, as usual.

I have my own assumptions. You can’t specify yours, so I’ll stick with mine. Others may follow your proposed course of section, and I wish them luck also. Just in case they need it.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Open thread by PMHinSC

0
0

Reasonable Skeptic | April 13, 2014 at 7:51 pm | Reply
“I have therefore decided that I need to have one decade of 0.15 Deg C warming to think about getting on board the CAGW bandwagon.”

The issue isn’t whether temperatures go up or they go down. The issue is whether anthropogenic CO2 is significantly affecting temperature. You are looking at the wrong metric. Despite claims to the contrary there is no data showing anthropogenic CO2 is or has affection temperature.

Comment on Open thread by steven

0
0

Jim must get awfully bored at amusement parks where the rollar coasters only go up hill and very slowly at that. I think a minimum of 60 years just to incorporate the natural cycles we know of and there remains questions about cycles extending far longer in time than those.

Comment on Curry versus Trenberth by stevepostrel

0
0

Trenberth’s presentation bespeaks questionable trustworthiness. He must know very well that all of his links between recent weather and ACO2 have very little support from even the latest IPCC reports. His willingness to suggest such linkages to an audience likely ignorant of that lack of support does not reflect well upon him. All of his statements now must be parsed carefully as to context, audience, etc., as the mask may sometimes slip enough for him to be non-deceptive, but probably not when he expects the great unwashed to be listening.

In a way he has dotted the i and crossed the t on Judith’s critique of scientists engaging in policy advocacy–he has shot his credibility with anyone not already in agreement with his policy preferences (and anyone who does agree with him but is sophisticated about the state of the science). At this point, only “statements against interest” from him can be trusted, i.e. accepted without detailed checking to find out how whether and how he might be fudging.

As it becomes clearer that no serious limits are going to be placed on global greenhouse gas emissions, the partisanship over the science will likely decline. Future debates will be about adaptation and resilience actions, many of which will be within the purview of private or local actors who have to bear the consequences of their own choices. At that point, the sincerity of forecasting will rise, for the same reason that investors usually put aside ideology in deciding where to put their dough: “Markets are often wrong but rarely insincere.”


Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn

0
0

Reasonable Skeptic,

I haven’t tried this myself, but one of the commenters said that along any line showing an uptrend in temperatures, one can create a line showing an opposing trend by careful choice of end points. When this is done, it proves that at the points the descending and ascending trend lines cross, the point in time is simultaneously cooling and heating.

To avoid this conundrum, I choose two trends. One short, the last 17 years, and one long, four and a half billion years or so. Both are supported by reasonable physical evidence, both are simple to reproduce.

Evidence to support greenhouse gas induced global warming? Not really. Actually none at all!

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Open thread by Jim D

0
0

George Turner, if even an amateur can figure it out there must be a strong enough case for a paper on it. Don’t you wonder why this is the first SH reconstruction of the last 1000 years? Were the skeptics caught sleeping again, or is the work really too hard for them? You need to get on their case, get on people like McIntyre to move forwards here, because you just keep getting caught out by these publications and press releases and have to go into damage control mode like this all the time.

Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn

0
0

SMH. Today. AFOMD will be impressed with breaking news.

“IPCC report summary censored by governments around the world.

. . . Some of the economists and scientists involved even considered withdrawing their work entirely, so they could speak without having to toe the eventual IPCC line.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/ipcc-report-summary-censored-by-governments-around-the-world-20140414-zqugm.html#ixzz2yp1AJJlv

And we’ll all burst into tears if they withdraw their work won’t we? I’m prepared to donate the price of a phone call if one of them wants to call someone who cares.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Open thread by Jim D

0
0

Mike Flynn, OK, so now you finally realized we have been talking about surface temperatures where most of us live, not the earth’s mantle. Your question about 20 C made no sense, the way it was phrased. Try again.

Comment on Open thread by Jim D

0
0

Mike Flynn, simply put, each decade has been warmer than the previous including the 2000′s versus the 1990′s, 90′s versus 80′s and 80′s versus 70′s. Perhaps you just need to read the question again. Glad to help.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images