Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by Raving

$
0
0

Steven Mosher says:
1. Global warming ( land sea temps… as judith and I use the term in its historical meaning ) has stopped.
2. Global Warming is an increase in the global annual average heat content measured in Joules.

This says that … A) estimates of timescale and heat distribution have failed completely … B) Carbon dioxide is a GHG

The salient issue is of time scales, temprature distributions and such … Specifally as to converging to a runaway GW catastrophe.

Estimates of timescales juxtaposed against future human populations, carbon emissions and technological abilities are crucial here.

Indications ate that convergence to a runaway catastrophe will not occur.


Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by ordvic

$
0
0

rls,
Perhaps he meant Global Radiator.

Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by k scott denison

$
0
0

Cat got your tongue Gates? Or did you perhaps realize that the future is unknown, with or without the HCV?

Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0

> Nobody claimed the models need to rule out natural variability [...]

Of course not:

We have to use models that DONT GET NATURAL VARIATION CORRECT, to rule them out as a potential cause.

Models don’t need to rule out natural variability, but we have to use models that don’t get natural variation correct to rule them out as a potential cause.

Now, as much as I like Moore’s paradoxes, I don’t think scientists are allowed to express themselves with these.

And certainly not if they’re concerned about accuracy.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox

Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by Eric

$
0
0

Steven Mosher,
So words mean what you mean they mean, nothing more, nothing less. I will say global warming has increased and, based on your criteria, this is correct. You can interpret this as you want.

Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by HR

$
0
0

RGates says “Those of who have experienced “climate weirding” ”

From a UK perspective, I grew up in a period which from memory was dominated by hot, dry summers and mild, snowless winters. The next generation of my family is experiencing snowy winters and washed out summers. Go back in time a generation from me and we are in conditions similar to today. If that continues then presumably their weird will be my normal and my normal their weird.

I’m also not against the idea that all weather has some human fingerprint on it, it an idea well worth considering. I suppose I should be thankful in some small way to humanity for the great weekend of weather we just had, or should I be thinking it would have been that little bit better in an anthro-free realization? Maybe this is irrelevant but your comment made me think of a (possible) fact that has never left me. It is the idea that there isn’t a square inch of the UK that could be described as truly natural. That even the most isolated rugged and beautiful parts of those islands (and there are many) have been shaped by the action of man, his grazing animals or whatever. As a species we certainly make our mark, I think the problem with the age we are living through is that is often seen as a negative thing.

When it comes to weather (even the weird stuff) and climate the question still remains what proportion we attribute to humans or maybe more importantly what trajectory that puts us on. That seems a challenging question.

Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by Eric

$
0
0

R. Gates says, “The motivations so those who would not like to take advantage of this chance for giving deeper understanding are also interesting.”
Yes, it is interesting and goes back to one of Joshua’s points; why was Dr. Curry not more clear in her Congressional testimony? I will also add why are people such as Steven Mosher not more clear in public comments made?

Comment on ‘Global warming’ versus ‘climate change’ by suricat

$
0
0

I concur on the 30 yr point, as this is ~the ‘half wavelength’ for PDO and AMO, but this time-scale may overlook/ignore other intrinsic cycles. A longer time-scale that incorporates ‘cyclic’ events may well be more adaptive.

Best regards, Ray.


Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by Faustino

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by Joshua

$
0
0

==> “The skeptics using the pause and CO2 growth are guilty of assuming the correlation-causation argument more than anyone, if you think about it.”

Well, that is what I don’t understand about the “skeptical” argument about “the pause.” As far as I can tell, they’re assuming correlation equals causation because they don’t provide a plausible physical explanation to link the two.

They agree that ACO2 causes warming, but think that increasing ACO2 coincides with an “stop in global warming,” despite that (at least from what I’ve seen) they can’t provide explication for a plausible physical mechanism (other than a vague notion of natural variability). What is the proposed plausible physical mechanism by which an increased energy imbalance is reconciled if warming has stopped? Maybe Willis with his “homeostatis” argument? But others?

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by Faustino

$
0
0

I would suggest that the failure of temperatures to move with GHG emission levels throws doubt on the claim that there is a strong causative relationship, and further suggest that the unexpected nature of the pause indicates that proponents of AGW do not fully understand the drivers of climate. That seems to be the simplest lesson to draw. If you don’t agree, why not?

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by Joshua

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Roger Sowell

$
0
0

Dr. Curry,

Re: “I sure hope somebody has a plan for providing energy for unexpected cold winters or hot summers.”

There is a plan. First, coal-fired plants may not necessarily shut down. They can continue operating if they apply the carbon-dioxide capture and mineralization process from Skyonic, Inc. It would be necessary to reduce the CO2 production per MW from 2,750 pounds in a typical coal-fired plant to approximately 1,570 pounds per MW. This is a bit more than 40 percent recovery and removal of CO2. The technology is available; the question is whether coal-fired plant owners will make the investment. Skyonic’s website is http://skyonic.com The SkyMine (TM) process from Skyonic does not liquefy the CO2 for storage underground. Instead, it produces sodium bicarbonate for sale. It also produces hydrochloric acid (HCl) for sale. It uses quite a bit of electricity though, to electrolyze salt water to produce the sodium hydroxide, hydrogen, and chlorine. Skyonic has attracted private investment as well as a modest government grant, and has a commercial-scale plant under construction in San Antonio, Texas. Startup is slated for later this year.

It may be more economically attractive to gasify the coal, capture the carbon dioxide, then run the Btu-rich gas through a combined cycle gas turbine plant. This is the IGCC approach, for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. One such IGCC plant is under construction in Mississippi, another has been designed (by Fluor) for construction near Bakersfield in California. The Bakersfield plant would send the captured and compressed CO2 into a nearby oilfield (of Teapot Dome scandal, or infamy) for enhanced oil recovery.

Best regards.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by popesclimatetheory

$
0
0

It is sometimes asserted that if the major output of the model (the reason for its existence) shows high correlation with the real system, then the model can be regarded as an accurate simulation of the real system.

There has never been a model that showed high correlation with the real system. Look at the model output, all the models really suck.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by BobJ

$
0
0

Steve
Ah, but you forget that fallacy is that “the science is settled”–ergo the correlation R2 is 1.000. CO2 correlates to temperature which correlates to CAGW disasters. A believer accepts the hockey stick as gospel and accordingly, the amplification in the models yields the necessary conditions for disasters of biblical proportions.
That the data does not match the physical model merely indicates the data is faulty. Ask Tricia for FOMD.


Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by mosomoso

$
0
0

People assume there are institutions which will go on forever. They have felt that way about PanAm, Polaroid, Cliff Richard. Only Cliff is still standing.

So it is with the European Enlightenment, and its legacy of curiosity, observation, empiricism. We thought it was here for keeps. Yet there are now students of the natural world, in the field of climate especially, who are unlikely to stick their head out of a window and who spend much of their time fiddling figures and factoids to establish a case for modern climate exceptionalism.

A recent expedition to Antarctica which borrowed the glorious name of Mawson was quite frank about its purpose of going there to affirm a fashionable dogma. Quite frank about it they were, and nobody said “Wha?”. When they got stuck in ice the previously adoring media began to describe them vaguely as just guys stuck in ice, rather than climate scientists.

A drought, a hurricane, a flood, a heatwave, a wildfire occurs and a whole community of experts is right there to explain to us how “while we cannot attribute this single event to global warming or climate change, we can say with certainty that such events will increase in frequency and intensity etc etc.” You just know, before anybody opens their mouth, that the dogma is going to take precedence, and that the vague, manipulative language which is the necessary vehicle of dogma will not be questioned.

We seem to be constantly re-living the scene in Casablanca where Captain Renault is expressing his shock that gambling is going on…then someone hands him his winnings. Any drought or flood in my country – which is proverbially a land of drought and flood – will be portrayed as somehow unprecedented. We are supposed to be shocked, shocked, that drought is going on in our respectable establishment. Yet even in Australia’s brief history of two and a bit centuries, we have countless precedents. Extreme is what we do.

Ah well. Enlightenment. You either like it or you don’t. Deep down, some don’t. The temple priest are making their comeback. If the Nile’s not behaving, up those offerings.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by popesclimatetheory

$
0
0

Jusha, This is out of character with many of your postings. I will go back and read and think about what you wrote.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by maksimovich

$
0
0

The “pause” will be seen to be an example of a false negative following the next El Nino. The skeptics using the pause and CO2 growth
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1996.6/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1996.6/mean:12/trend

The 18 yr pause in the SH Temperature record is concomitant with an increase in the nh/sh lag rate from around 18 months to 4 yrs in the CO2 record.

It is also where we have a decrease in the SH westerly wind bursts in the southern ocean in the 21st century, an increase in SO sea ice,a cessation of the poleward excurison of the extratropical jet (and accompanying storm tracks) This suggests that the observations are not a statistical artifact.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by DocMartyn

$
0
0

Peter Mitchell couldn’t get funding back then, which is why he and his brother funded the research in Bodmin. He published his work, without peer-review, in the ‘vanity press’ as the Gray and Blue books.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by Joshua

$
0
0

Faustino -

Directed at me or at Jim?

Assuming it is me. I wouldn’t argue that the recent lack of warming coincident with increased ACO2 doesn’t logically bring into question the strength of a causal relationship between ACO2 and global warming/climate change.

I’m not convinced that the argument of a pause as “unexpected” really applies, as from what I understand, the underlying science related to a causality between ACO2 and increased temps/climate change does not suggest a monotonic relationship on a decadal scale.

Simplicity is nice, but not necessarily satisfying or reliable, IMO.

So then, I tend to reserve judgement until I see plausible mechanisms proposed. Correlations do, of course, “imply” causation, IMO. I would change the phrase to “Correlation does not equal causation. So imply away. It is unavoidable. It is hardwired into how we reason. But in the absence of proven physical mechanisms, plausible physical mechanisms increase the reliability of the causation that correlation implies. There is a plausible physical mechanism, as least as far as I can understand (or more accurately, at least as much as I can judge by relying on the probabilities that accompany the authority of “experts”), for ACO2 to cause higher temps. That said, then it seems to me that there needs to be a plausible physical mechanism for how a larger energy imbalance is reconciled.

Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images