As I understand it, the hockey stick graph purports to overturn a long established consensus concerning the MWP and LIA. Under normal circumstances, one would expect such a paper to be met with at least initial skepticism. Precisely the opposite happened. Instead of skepticism, it was welcomed with something close to jubilation.
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by DaveW
Thanks for another interesting post. Also interesting that Christy’s doctoral supervisor was Kev Trenberth and also how far Trenberth has sunk since his famous Climate Gate quote: from realizing that it is a travesty to eye-hurting bright red power points of doom.
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by timg56
Dr Curry,
I think it’s more like +100.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Wagathon
Global warming academics need not even tell the truth to be quoted in the mainstream media. “Overall,” says Wegman, “our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Bart R
Exodus 20:16
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Wagathon
No probability forecast is complete without an estimate
of its own irrelevance. ~Leonard Smith
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Wagathon
Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.
~Klaus Eckert Puls
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by timg56
Bob D,
Here is where a history degree comes in handy. History can provide us with understanding. What happened before can (and often does) happen again. In this instance, people were sure about something and were proved wrong. The part about ignoring history increasing your chances of repeating past mistakes comes to mind.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by AK
References. No scientific publication deserves reverence.
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Marc Blank
The comments are settled.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by ianl8888
And why is that issue confined only to AR5, exactly ?
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by DJC
Fly a helicopter to the top of Mt Everest in summer (July) and lower a large drum of very salty water (heated to near boiling point and opened at the top) onto the surface at the start of a nice sunny day – as it would be above the clouds up there. We will assume there is enough salt to lower the freezing point to -10°C. In July, the warmest month, the average summit temperature is -19°C. Will the water freeze? Yes. So how good is the Sun at raising ocean temperatures below the clouds with all its direct radiation? How absurd is it to imagine that the 1cm thin transparent surface layer of the oceans is warmed to 15°C by direct solar radiation? How absurd then are all the models which use ocean emissivity in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations and expect to get the temperature due to absorption?
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by manacker
AK
Relax. Don’t get your bowels in an uproar.
The late Ordovician glaciation and extinction has been referred to as a “snowball Earth” event.
It occurred during a period of high CO2 concentration.
Of course, the entire “snowball Earth” nomenclature (including earlier “snowball Earth” events) has been questioned, including just when a major global glaciation is referred to as a “snowball”.
But the point is that it was extremely cold when CO2 was 10x that of today.
And that was my point.
But, AK, you should really watch your temper. It’s not good to get all excited like that.
And being nasty to other bloggers just makes you look silly.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Jim Cripwell
Rick A, you write “This led me to infer his range was 0.0 – 0.9.
Jim – is that correct?”
No. My statement was that there is evidence that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 added to the atmosphere from recent levels, is 0.0 C to one place of decimals. or two significant figures.
↧
Comment on Time-varying trend in global mean surface temperature by MaColoC
It is the responsibility of the client to maintain
and control their servers within their rack space.
The current roof fan system that has been installed in the main datacenter consists of six fan intakes drawing air from the outside,
which is then drawn through the data center and out of the facility via one large outtake fan.
Before we jump in let’s make sure that you understand
the phrases and terms in cloud computing, even us IT professionals are having problems completely
understanding the actual definitions of what this is.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Alexander Biggs
Herman: Thank you. I agree.
I should have added that they ignored the low pass filter provided by the oceans. This is a filter between atmospheric temperature and water temperature and works both ways: To both cool the air or heat it at different times in the cycle. The net affect is on/off global warming which the IPCC can’t account for, and therefor can’t predict future temperature.
↧
Comment on An opening mind by NetBet bonus
I simply couldn’t depart your site before suggesting that I extremely enjoyed the standard info an
individual provide to your visitors? Is
gonna be back regularly to check out new posts
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Peter Lang
Rob Starkey said:
The basic physics don’t change. More CO2 will lead to warming if other conditions remain unchanged.
The question(s) are:
1. How much and when in the actual system? (since it is dynamic) Answer- still unknown, but seemingly much slower than was thought a few years ago as the warming theortically caused by CO2 could be overwhelmed by other conditions in the system and not relavant to humans.
2. What other conditions will change and when as a result of any warming that occurs? Answer- Nobody has reliable information on this.
3. Can the conditions in #2 be avoided cost effectively by humans reducing CO2 emissions? There is no reliable information.
I’d go further. Policy relevant information is what we need. Therefore, these are what I think we need to know before spending large amounts of money on policies that have near zero probability of delivering the claimed benefits (where ‘benefits’ means climate damages avoided):
1. What is the value of ECS and TCR?
2. Is ECS and TCR relevant given that climate changes suddenly, not as portrayed by IPCC’s smooth projections?
3. What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2-e concentration have on the climate – will it make the next sudden change happen sooner or later? Will it make the next sudden cooling happen sooner or later? Or will it cause a sudden warming event?
4. Will it make the next sudden climate change less or more severe? (e.g. delay the onset of the next cooling and/or reduce its severity OR make the next sudden warming happen sooner and make it more severe)?
5. What would be the consequences of warming? What would be the consequences of cooling?
6. What is the probability that the advocated mitigation policies would succeed in delivering the claimed benefits (climate damages avoided), given real world issues with implementing and maintaining such policies (e.g. carbon pricing)?
• To answer question 6 we need to understand the short- and medium-term economic impacts of the proposed policies for each nation state, and consider how each will respond so as to maximise its advantage (game theory) through the situations that could occur over the next century or so.
7. What is the probability that alternative polices are more likely to succeed (such as removing the political and regulatory impediments that are preventing the world from having low cost nuclear energy and allowing lightly regulated markets to deliver the benefits at least cost)?
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Wagathon
Fly a dozen climatists to the top of Mt. Everest and leave them there until they realize the official temperature of the grid that contains the top of Mt. Everest and the average global temperature that is comprised of such grids is as meaningful to their survival as an average of all the telephone numbers in NYC.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Matthew R Marler
A fan of *MORE* discourse: Many of the particular claims in that review have been addressed here from time to time. It is rather a mishmash. They are a little “indirect”, shall we say, in telling us just how long the 3 – 4 degree increase they expect will take; and how much water such a large increase would (improbably) evaporate if maintained. Clearly the rate of the non-discussed non-radiative transport of heat from the surface to the upper troposphere and thence to space would be dramatically increased — is even a 3.7W/m^2 increase in surface radiation (from a doubling, not merely a continuation of the current 400 ppm) enough power to do that?
Here is a selection: Health impacts of climate change are in addition to direct effects of air and water pollution. A clear illustration of direct effects of fossil fuels on human health was provided by an inadvertent experiment in China during the 1950–1980 period of central planning, when free coal for winter heating was provided to North China but not to the rest of the country. Analysis of the impact was made [140] using the most comprehensive data file ever compiled on mortality and air pollution in any developing country. A principal conclusion was that the 500 million residents of North China experienced during the 1990s a loss of more than 2.5 billion life years owing to the added air pollution, and an average reduction in life expectancy of 5.5 years. The degree of air pollution in China exceeded that in most of the world, yet assessments of total health effects must also include other fossil fuel caused air and water pollutants, as discussed in the following section on ecology and the environment.
That does not have anything to do with CO2. It is part of a case, perhaps, for “clean coal”.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
