Matthew Marler, the lapse rate already accounts for everything you mentioned including latent heating. This is why the tropics has a reduced lapse rate (more latent heating at higher levels).
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Joshua
I don’t defend the tribalism and vitriol on the “realist” side. Never have. Never will. It’s part of the problem, no doubt – but attributing a causality for the lack of clear policy direction to the behaviors on only one side of the battlefield is not only obviously just more identity politics, it also reverses the causal mechanism. The vitriol and antagonism exist because the issue is a proxy for identity struggles. Saying that people choose an identification because of the existence of the manifestations of those identifications (vitriol, tribalism, etc) gets it backwards.
Just look at this thread, and the identity politics that run through it. It’s as plain as day. Nothing stimulates the comments quite like posts that play out the identification battle.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Joshua
Climate change has become just another proxy for ideological battles and identity politics – where people are absolutely certain about the “facts” because they pick and choose the “experts” that they trust after first running them through an identity filter.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Joshua
Just look at this thread, and the identity politics that run through it. It’s as plain as day. Nothing stimulates the comments quite like posts that play out the identification battle.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Ishmael
Hell I got bored with pretending there was some kind of moral, political, scientific of humour equivalence years ago.
The persistent sniping by those with the intellect of crazed gerbils – on the basis of morally repugnant policy, extreme and fringe politics, cartoon science and smug condescension – seems something more to laugh at than regard seriously.
↧
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by David Young
Of course, Josh, there is plenty of blame to go around here. Usually, however, those advocating a policy accept some blame if that policy is a manifest failure. Just look at the collapse of the emissions targets and the lack of any real prospect of any being approved anytime soon. I don’t see how anyone can argue that climate policy has had any effect whatsoever. The US switch to natural gas has been the only thing that has really much reduced emissions.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by David Young
My take on Judith is that she has little to lose by being fully honest because as she has said her career has little upside potential at this point. I suspect she also is genuinely concerned about the truly despicable attacks on her integrity, honesty, and scientific credentials. It happens in this field, but in normal fields, one would expect the leaders to step up and defend her or at least tell the Manns to just leave her alone.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by GaryM
↧
Comment on Open thread by Peter Lang
AK.s comments are ridiculous. He’s never done any of the analysis to support his crazy ideas. But here is one that has, and estimated the costs as well:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/
Let’s see your fully supported cost estimate, AK. :)
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by beththeserf
Well, Peter, seems to this serf, that if ‘they,’ you know who
I mean, had genuine environmental concerns of… er…
dangerous CO two, they’d genuinly consider Nuclear
energy, wouldn’t ‘they?’
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Don Monfort
I like how the IPCC works out that equilibrium climate sensitivity thing, jimmy. From wikipedia:
“A committee on anthropogenic global warming convened in 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences and chaired by Jule Charney[12] estimated climate sensitivity to be 3 °C, plus or minus 1.5 °C. Only two sets of models were available; one, due to Syukuro Manabe, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 2 °C, the other, due to James E. Hansen, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 4 °C. “According to Manabe, Charney chose 0.5 °C as a not-unreasonable margin of error, subtracted it from Manabe’s number, and added it to Hansen’s. Thus was born the 1.5 °C-to-4.5 °C range of likely climate sensitivity that has appeared in every greenhouse assessment since…”
Very clever stuff.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Peter Lang
Yes Beth, we are in agreement (as the late Max Anacker used to say – I really miss his comments)
↧
Comment on Open thread by JCH
<a href="http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.4.28.2014.gif" rel="nofollow">end of april, 2014 - yellow</a>
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2010.5/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2010.5" rel="nofollow">end of April. 2014
<a href="http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.5.29.2014.gif" rel="nofollow">end of May 2014 - orange</a>
So when the May number is posted, Chef Multiple Personalties thinks the PDO is going to cool.
↧
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Don Monfort
I replied in the other place, but it went into moderation. I won’t bother writing it again. I just wonder why you can see through the climate scam, but you don’t see that your crowd uses the same tactics from the same playbook to impose on us their solutions for a wide range of pet progressive issues. My scotch is more interesting, so I won’t be looking for any reply.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Robert I Ellison
‘It’s enemies – Russia, China and the Vatican- the latter symbolic of it’s loss of moral ascendance – go from strength to strength and are forging the most powerful military and economic bloc in human history.’
Well it’s lucky you don’t care because the rest of the world think you’re comical phuckwits stumbling about with a deadlocked polity, excessive debt, zilch foreign policy credibility and an inflated sense of entitlement.
If springer is the best answer you’ve got – you’re in deep merde. .
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by GaryM
“Gee, Don, I’m looking around–I don’t see the disaster…You’re kind of defining disaster down, aren’t you?”
“Dr. Sam Foote just retired after spending 24 years with the VA system in Phoenix.
…
Foote said that the number of dead veterans who died waiting for care is at least 40.”
40 dead veterans in one hospital alone. But that’s not a disaster.
Iraq descending in chaos with Islamists murdering people in mass beheadings in Obama’s 6th year, because he intentionally avoided reaching a status of forces agreement. But that’s not a disaster.
A new “healthcare” system that hasn’t insured anywhere near enough people to make the system work, not to mention they don;t even know how many are insured, and how many of those actually paid, and how many of those who actually paid are actually covered.. But that’s not a disaster.
The unilateral release of five top terrorists, with a fig leaf of a prisoner exchange for one American who was at best AWOL, and at worst a deserter collaborator. But that’s not a disaster.
Unemployment among black youth in Chicago, according to the Urban league, 92%. But don’t worry, it’s only 83% nationally. But that’s not a disaster.
A real national unemployment rate of 13% throughout this presidency, if you count the millions who have been unemployed so long they have stopped looking for work. But that’s not a disaster.
These are not disasters if you’re an employed progressive safely removed from the actual policies of the worst, most incompetent, most clueless president ever elected in the United States.
After all, it’s all Bush’s fault. 6 freakin’ years into the “fundamental transformation of America.”
Forget about murdered law enforcement personnel from Fast and Furious; a dead ambassador and four dead American heroes in Benghazi;the IRS intentionally targeting political opponents of the president;the Justice Department colluding with the IRS,and jailing film makers for the same reason; and serial lying on all of the above.
If you like your political myopia, you can keep your political myopia.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Jim D
The analogy I would use for imbalance is that adding CO2 creates a debt that can only be paid back with a surface temperature rise. This debt is increasing at a rate that the surface temperature can’t keep up with mainly due to the ocean heat capacity. The debt is the imbalance. Changes in ocean heat content don’t help at all with the debt (unless associated with a surface temperature rise), but provide the most important delaying mechanism for the payment. Without the ocean, the land would heat up fairly immediately with little debt left over. The imbalance is a result of the thermal inertia of the system that now can’t keep up with the forcing rate of change.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by beththeserf
Yes indeed, Peter.
Beth the serf.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Michael Mouse
It seems an appropriate response to the cartoon science from the Borg collective
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by cwon14
So the thread went right down the rabbit hole regarding “Name-calling” and every other distraction the likes of Joshua prefer to blather on about. Dr. Curry’s comments were an assist to the process by setting up the false priority. Calling people holocaust deniers is appalling but the standard MO, it’s more of a concern that substantial part of the AGW agenda supports think and believe along a particularly common political line, leftist, obfuscate the point at every turn, dominate the particular “science” niche in question and resent any inquire or observation of the fact. Of these two faults, name-calling or massive coordination and corruption along a political line from alleged objective “experts” which warrants more attention?? Why would Dr. Curry emphasize a comparatively minor abuse while remaining relatively indirect and obtuse to the most serious failing that the listed article is observing? The article wasn’t about name-calling but something far more important.
This partisan tilt—real or exaggerated—among the scientific establishment aggravates a general problem that afflicts nearly all domains of policy these days, namely, the way in which policy is distorted by special interests and advocacy groups in the political process.
The issue is that leftist politics aren’t peripheral to the AGW agenda but central, name calling is trivial in that perspective. It’s obvious why Joshua would thread-jack and get board grief for it. Dr. Curry writes many sensible things about “name-calling” but the actual content of the Hayward’s point are not commented on. Much of the board quibble with Joshua, ignore Dr. Curry’s obfuscation of the Hayward theme. So the main topic was trashed, Joshua is pleased and it’s fair to assume Dr. Curry is as well.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
