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

Comment on Open thread by Ragnaar

0
0

Another things will be Okay article, at least it looks that way:
http://blogs.plos.org/models/no-need-to-worry-about-greenlands-waterslides/

Part of it says excess meltwater tunnels through the ice and drains. Less meltwater does what Minnesotan’s call frost heaves. Water in things like rock or pavement freezes and gains area. It in effect lifts what is above it, promoting movement. Their model found what I’d call a number of negative feedbacks.

It interesting to ask, why does the earth stack ice on Greenland and then unstack it as it is doing now? During an ice age it’s pushing the cold as far away from the equator as it can, similar to what a heat pump does. The oceans are freezing but they are first transported to the land. So I guess the oceans are unfreezing at the moment.


Comment on Consensus angst by Jim D

0
0

Bengtsson and Schwartz (2013, Tellus) have put a lower bound at 2 C per doubling. These are lukewarmers who remain skeptical of models. They say in their abstract
“Transient and equilibrium sensitivity of Earth’s climate has been calculated using global temperature, forcing and heating rate data for the period 1970–2010. We have assumed increased long-wave radiative forcing in the period due to the increase of the long-lived greenhouse gases. By assuming the change in aerosol forcing in the period to be zero, we calculate what we consider to be lower bounds to these sensitivities, as the magnitude of the negative aerosol forcing is unlikely to have diminished in this period. ”
Bottom line
“With these data, we obtain best estimates for transient climate sensitivity 0.39±0.07K (W m−2)−1 and equilibrium climate sensitivity 0.54±0.14K (W m−2)−1, equivalent to 1.5±0.3 and 2.0±0.5K (3.7W m−2)−1, respectively.”

Comment on Consensus angst by RiHo08

0
0

FOMD

“So if ‘the pause’ ends, then denialism perishes!”

I am not sure how your logic got from: if the pause ends and denialism perishes.

The pause will end sometime. What comes after the pause ends: rising, declining, more of the same temperatures is presently a conjecture. We have to await the outcome and then allocate the marbles to those partially right, mostly right, really really right. The losers go home empty handed. As to those “all in” for the subsequent warming scenario, precaution is thrown to the wind. All or nothing. I am afraid though, that the likes of Mann, Trenberth, Schmidt, etc. they will say they were misunderstood. What they really meant was…… The consensus participants can never say….I was wrong. Admissions of colossal failure only come after some armed struggle where the looser is vanquished and forced to such public utterances. Peasants, pitchforks, and night seem to be in the current script.

What is keeping the consensus from admissions of failure? peasants, pitchforks, and night. Angst. furtive glances over one’s shoulder.

Comment on Open thread by R. Gates

0
0

“During an ice age it’s pushing the cold as far away from the equator as it can…”
—–
This makes no thermodynamic sense and is in fact not true at all. The high and mid-latitudes both cool during a period global glacial advance. During warm periods the opposite is true.

Comment on Consensus angst by Aphan

0
0

Ok. Now you’re just being completely hysterical. Some facts-

*92 degrees is not “baking”.
*The Pacific ocean has no “hot water” in it.
*Hansen and many other climate scientists have not “long predicted” a ‘pause over’…whatever the heck a pause over is.
*Only TWO of Seattle’s 4 airport weather stations recorded 90+ temps today. The other two recorded high temps of 89 F and 82F today. And the vast majority of the reporting stations recorded temps in the 80′s, perfectly normal for Seattle at this time of year. See for yourselves:
http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/US/WA/Seattle.html

Hansen’s paper in 2006 compares his famous “Three Scenarios” predictions with actual measurements and assures us that his predictions in Scenario C were pretty much right on the mark. Except that (from his own paper) ” Scenario C was described as “a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined,” specifically GHGs were assumed to stop increasing after 2000.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full

Not only did Hansen NOT predict a pause, but his “best case scenario” predictions (Scenario C) were based on something that did not even come close to actually happening-a drastic curtailment of emissions, specifically that GHG’s were assumed to STOP increasing after 2000.

Tell me also, about how the higher standard of living and economic benefits for all , as evidenced all over the world since the industrial revolution, did not happen. I need another laugh.

Thanks for helping me broaden my experience with illogical and hysterical arguments. You are appreciated!

Comment on Open thread by R. Gates

0
0

“It’s like a zoo over there.”

Not like a zoo…is a zoo with Watts as the zookeeper of his echo-chamber creatures.

Comment on Consensus angst by Rob Ellison

0
0

The theory of abrupt climate change is the most modern – and powerful – in climate science and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond. A mechanical analogy might set the scene. The finger pushing the balance below can be likened to changes in greenhouse gases, solar intensity or orbital eccentricity. The climate response is internally generated – with changes in cloud, ice, dust and biology – and proceeds at a pace determined by the system itself. Thus the balance below is pushed past a point at which stage a new equilibrium spontaneously emerges.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/mechanalogy.jpg.html?sort=3&o=214

Many simple systems exhibit abrupt change. The balance above consists of a curved track on a fulcrum. The arms are curved so that there are two stable states where a ball may rest. ‘A ball is placed on the track and is free to roll until it reaches its point of rest. This system has three equilibria denoted (a), (b) and (c) in the top row of the figure. The middle equilibrium (b) is unstable: if the ball is displaced ever so slightly to one side or another, the displacement will accelerate until the system is in a state far from its original position. In contrast, if the ball in state (a) or (c) is displaced, the balance will merely rock a bit back and forth, and the ball will roll slightly within its cup until friction restores it to its original equilibrium.’ US NAS

Unlike the simple system above – climate has many equilibria. The old theory of climate suggests that warming is inevitable. The new theory suggests that global warming is not guaranteed and that climate surprises are inevitable.

The question is then – what do we do about it? The complexity of climate may be a problem that is far more intractable than many imagine – but the essential solutions to social needs and to human changes to the atmosphere and the environment may be reduced to a human scale.

To that end my new project is based on the UN Millenium Development Goals in the context of rigorous cost benefit analysis such as is undertaken by the Copenhagen Consensus as well as analysis of our technological capacity to produce objectives suitable for implementation by either top down aid provision or bottom up polycentric development strategies.

The new theory of climate change suggests that the system is unlikely to shift again for decades – although the timing and scope of change is unknowable with current science. It comes with a certain instability – but what we really need to get ahead of is uncritical anti-business rants.

The short term solutions are simple enough in principle.

e.g. http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/26/food-for-people-conserving-and-restoring-soils/

and, http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/30/black-carbon-a-health-and-environment-issue/

I think I will do a post on how to address population issues through development, health, education and resilience. The CO2 question is best addressed through population pressure reduction and technological innovation.

This problem has gone so far off the tracks of rational discourse – that I am thinking that attributing rational motives to progressives was the first mistake.

Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by NCDC responds to concerns about surface temperature data set | Climate Etc.

0
0

[…] in the previous post Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? Politifact assessed Goddards claim as ‘Pants on […]


Comment on Open thread by Ragnaar

0
0

I was thinking of the transport of heat and water. Suppose we have ocean water that can only go to – 2.0 C. We move it to Greenland where it can go to a lower temperature, meaning heat must pop out somewhere in the system. Let’s also say the hydrological slows down as you can’t get much slower than the Greenland icesheet. We happen to be able to see an interglacial and I think the glacials provide context and hints about these polar/equatorial movements

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

jim2 wonders [utterly wrongly] Did you happen to notice this is a  first-person  third-hand account?

Error by jim2, correction by FOMD!

Why yes, jim2, pretty much any scholar *WOULD* notice that your quotation was third-hand: namely reporter Suzy Hansen <= from reporter Bob Reiss <= from scientis James Hansen.

That *IS* correct, eh jim2?

For a first-hand account of Hansen’s opinions circa 1988 (or any year), NASA’s bibliography of James Hansen’s publications is a convenient source.

Conclusion  In view of 2014′s rising seas, heating oceans, melting ice-caps, and ending ‘pause’ … pretty much *ALL* of James Hansen’s publications are looking mighty strong, beginning with Climatic effects of atmospheric aerosols (1980) and extending to Climate forcing growth rates: Doubling down on our Faustian bargain (2013).

It is a pleasure to clarify your understanding of “first-person”, jim2

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by rls

0
0

Just read Christy’s congressional testimony. Mann’s manipulations at the IPCC were despicable. Over/under confidence does not fit. It needs a forensic psychologist to diagnose his actions.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by jim2

0
0

Nevertheless, he’s a climate scientist and he said it. You can twist it all you like.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Jim D

0
0

75% of the CO2 has been added since 1950. The CO2 forcing change since then is about 1.36 W/m2 while the temperature change is 0.7 C giving an effective sensitivity to CO2 of 2 C per doubling. If other GHGs grow faster relative to aerosols in the future this would be higher, and if aerosols grow faster than other GHGs relative to this period, it would be lower, so this is a middle estimate, although most would suspect aerosols won’t keep up with CO2 as much in the future. Prior to 1950, the CO2 rise was at a weaker rate, but there was a rapid aerosol rise through that period too, being closer to balancing, but now with CO2 outstripping aerosols we see a larger effective sensitivity post 1950, and especially since 1970 where the CO2 rise has become the dominant part of the temperature trend. Just taking dT/dF in the past 30 years we also see 2 C per doubling (4 C per doubling if you just take land, but that is a different story).

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

R. Gates notes “The uncertainty monster cuts both ways.”

LOL … yes it is the two-headed uncertainty monster!

One monster-head embraces personalities, conspiracy theories, and “twitter”  the other monster-head publishes in Daedalus and PLOS.

The former is (arguably) more entertaining; the latter (arguably) a superior role-model for young researchers.

That’s obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Ragnaar

0
0

Some taxpayers aren’t buying their confidence. Perhaps overconfidence is hurting sales. It’s happened before. I don’t think people want that much confidence. Confidence can get a salesman that first sale. If the customer isn’t happy with the results, replaying that confident tone to the customer is going to probably lose the next sale. With an apology, they might make the second sale.


Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Curious George

0
0

Can I get monthly anomaly data for oceans?

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by James

0
0

Mora and his co-authors’ overconfidence isn’t that of climate scientists…their disciplines are ecology and geography, and actual climate scientists corrected their mistakes.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by rah

0
0

Alistair: “We” didn’t create it. They did! By “they” I mean those cloistered and protected in Academia who sold their soul to the almighty dollar. The flower children of the 1960′s created what we see now and some of them are still in charge and as we see now they have become 10x worse than “the establishment” they protested. At least that is the way it seems to this guy that was born in the 50s.

Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps the same endless nasty bickering went on about every subject under sun in a given field in the ivory towers for as long as there have been ivory towers. But that was before the internet and the 24/7 news cycle. That was before public and outrageous declarations of doom in the obvious quest for some notoriety went around the world in seconds as we see now by some people with Doctorates. But I sure didn’t notice this while a student of IU in Bloomington which was back in the 70s it’s own little Berkley in southern Indiana.

As far as I am concerned, and I doubt that I am a minority in this opinion; Academia lost any claim to having class long ago and it has been Climatology that has led the way in creating that perception.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by jim2

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

Remarkably … the temporal stability of the (phase-locked!) RF-oscillators on the GRACE satellites is quite a bit *BETTER* than the temporal stability of the GPS satellites!

That’s how we see that the polar ice-melt is accelerating!

It is a pleasure to help assist your physics comprehension Alistair Riddoch!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images