Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on On academic bullying by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

“How do you think CO2 is accumulating if there is only a 5-year residence time?”

It is true that the residence time is 5 years (or even less). But whoever wrote that part of the NIPCC report was confused and severely misinformed. The residence time applies to individual CO2 molecules. It is the average time that they remain in the atmosphere before moving to another reservoir. It has little relevance to the time that it takes for some imbalance to be restored. The latter is a function of partial pressure both in the oceans and in the atmosphere (and the balance with the biosphere).

For instance, when everything balances, there is no net exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere, but the residence time still is 5 years. In that case, whenever x molecules move from the atmosphere to the oceans, an approximately equal number of molecules move in the opposite direction, so there is no net change.

The time required for some fraction of a CO2 excess in the atmosphere to be captured by oceans (and/or terrestrial biosphere) depends on the difference between the fluxes, and it is much longer than the residence time and it depends very much on the differences in partial pressures.


Comment on On academic bullying by phatboy

$
0
0

Joshie, a consensus is, by definition, predominant, so it makes no grammatical sense to call it a “predominant consensus”.
It was a typo – get over it!

Comment on Open thread by Rhyzotika

$
0
0

@freeHat – Plenty o’ tables tabulating all kinds of stuff, but not the one I’m seeking. Tried “Climate Feedback Table” & “Climate Feedback Comparative Table”. & other variations previously. I mean, maybe 10 or 20 or 50 layers down it could be buried… but it makes my eyes hurt.

The Image search did turn up “Understanding Climate Feedbacks,” a NRC report from 2003. Looks like fun beach reading ;-) But a scan thru all 100+ pages of even that document does not give a simple comparative table.

I suppose someone will tell me its on page 259 of AR4 or something… http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309090725 (Free!)

BTW the Royal Society London is hosting an event on Feedbacks Dec 8-9:
https://royalsociety.org/events/2014/feedback-climate-system/

Actually something else I’d like to see is an interactive animated graphic showing all the human & natural CO2 fluxes, allowing the user to manipulate various ranges & uncertainty levels & interactions and see what happens. Maybe executable in Wolfram’s Mathematics? Or is that too many variables for a simple java application that would run on anyone’s browser? I know there are a bunch of coders hanging out on this blog… (hint hint)…

Comment on On academic bullying by Tuppence

$
0
0

The systemic bias and dishonesty unpinning the consensus must surely add to strain too, all the time wondering when someone will blow another whistle.

Comment on On academic bullying by Tuppence

$
0
0

And Yes, being asked to come clean by satisfying FOI requests is how the consensus views “bullying”.

Comment on On academic bullying by phatboy

$
0
0

Besides which, it’s not required of a “leftist consensus” for all its participants to be leftists.

Comment on Open thread by Barnes

$
0
0

The SCC is simply a political tool invented by a leftist administration to be used to further damage our economy. The MSM will obediently cite SCC as the reason that the administration and the EPA are taking action in the war on co2, environmentalists will scream that the SCC figures are too low and should be raised, while few if any of the aforementioned groups have actually read the document much less critically examined it. The left does not need or use real science to drive policy, simple emotion and low/no info voters seems to be working for them.

Comment on On academic bullying by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

No one is confused but Jimmy D and PN. It is just one of these 1st order effects that have no bearing other describing a small part of actual carbon dynamics.

If you actually went into it carbon – I am sure there would be an adequate carbon budget and not an inadequate and derivative quibble about something that is one of the more basic ideas.


Comment on Open thread by Barnes

$
0
0

Excellent – thank you for posting.

Comment on Open thread by Jacob

$
0
0

A carbon tax is actually a fuel tax. We already have plenty of those, like gasoline taxes, which are very high in Europe. It didn’t, and won’t, have any discernible impact on emissions.

Emissions will be reduced when we have emission free energy sources. We don’t have them now, and taxes won’t create them.
Taxes create poverty, and poverty isn’t good for the environment or our ability to adapt.

As to “revenue neutral” – nice utopia concept. I don’t believe in it’s political and ideological feasibility. I lost my confidence that tax and spend power hungry politicians will be so nice as to give taxpayers money back. Taxing is a one-way highway.

Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by omanuel

$
0
0

The Pentagon may be interested in the new book Bill Streifer will coauthored with a Stanford physicist, “Dr. Fritz J. Hansgirg: Heavy Water and the Secret History of the Atomic Bomb.”

Bill gave me permission to say the book provides independent evidence of the nuclear energy covered up that Galen Winston discusses in this video:

Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by dp

$
0
0

It used to be a green general only lost battles and got soldiers killed. Now they’re tearing down global economies. Well, destruction is what they do best.

Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by Don Monfort

$
0
0

You are a foolish little dude, joey. I don’t have time for you.

Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Jan P Perlwitz

$
0
0

Not too far from the topic here, a new paper on the comparison between CMIP5 climate model simulations and observations has just been published:

Risbey et al., “Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase”, Nature Climate Change (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2310

Abstract:
“The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.”

Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Yes, they are calling it the Risible Risbey et al. paper. Let’s pretend that our post hoc data snooping analysis shows that 4 of the multitude of models are good, therefore they are all good. Brilliant use of extrapolation. Whatever it takes to keep hope alive and the grants rolling in.


Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by ClimateGuy

Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Jan P Perlwitz

$
0
0

Utter rubbish. Nowhere in the paper is this the presented reasoning, and that is not what the paper is about at all. Where did you get this nonsense? Or you are just making things up yourself. It is obvious that you haven’t read the paper and that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Jan P Perlwitz

$
0
0

The paper doesn’t make any such statement that 4 models were “good” (and the others weren’t.)

Who told you such a thing was stated in the paper?

Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by phi

$
0
0

Jan P Perlwitz,

“What exactly do you want from me?”
Just that you bring proof of what you claim.

Ah, but you already had dismissed the study with the claim that the data in these studies were “doctored”
Certainly not. I did not read it. Thank you for the link but the paper is not freely available.

Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by phi

$
0
0

Steven Mosher,

Stephen Rasey replied on the essentials.

But I thank you in advance if you could point me raw data of proxies with annual resolution that would confirm the alleged evolution of temperatures in the twentieth century.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images