Roper: Global warming is driving migrants north
http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/roper-global-warming-is-driving-migrants-north/article_d949747a-53fc-5c95-9b20-846a68fa9763.html
Comment on Week in review by brent
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
‘In this study the land–sea contrast, reflecting stronger warming over land than over oceans, was reinvestigated in observations and in a series of GCM simulations. Previous studies on this issue focused either on the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic forcings (e.g., Cess
et al. 1990) or on highlighting that this land–sea contrast exists in global warming scenario simulations beyond simple transient effects (Sutton et al. 2007; Lambert and Chiang 2007; Joshi et al. 2007). In particular Joshi et al. (2007) illustrated that this land–sea contrast in global warming scenarios is maintained by latent heat release in the free atmosphere and the associate atmospheric lapse rates. It therefore represents a mechanism that appears to be intrinsic to the climate system. A somewhat overlooked subject in the discussion of these previous studies is the implication that these findings have on the ocean–land interaction in natural climate variability, which was the focus of this study.’
Utterly dishonest BS from Jimbo. The extremes of dissimulation these people go to seems quite incredible. The open question is whether they actually believe it or are playing some game for obscure purposes to do with delusions of scientific credibility.
‘Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
That internal variability doesn’t result in large changes in TOA flux is another entrenched delusion. Do they read it – or does this just result in glazed eyes and does not compute?
↧
Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by popesclimatetheory
So you have much more experience than I at this (50 years is much more than 0), but it seems to me that your simplification of a complex dynamic (I quote above) is not particularly useful.
It worked for us at NASA. We went to the moon and back in ten years.
We did the complex analysis and we did the simple analysis. We tossed out or fixed anything that disagreed with what really was actually measured in the real world. If the simple analysis matches real data and the complex analysis does not match real data, toss the complex analysis or figure out how to fix it. Getting everything right is useful.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Alexander Biggs
“Richard Tol: First factual error in IPCC WG2 AR5 http://feedly.com/e/4CcMavkU ”
Many people are undernourished because of the civil war going on in their own country. Rulers know that they can control and enhance their own power by controlling the flow of food. The remedy? Use the internet to expose why the food is not getting through.
↧
Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by popesclimatetheory
The Little Ice Age does not continue, no matter what happens with CO2.
The Little Ice Age does not continue for the Same Cause that all the cold periods in the past ten thousand years did not Continue. Natural Variability always stops a cold period and a warm period always follows. We don’t even need to know what that is. It was and is.
That being said, I know what it is. Polar Ice Cycles cause more snow in warm times and less snow in cold times.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
A handful of the most poorly managed companies may go under.
↧
Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Rob Ellison
The relevant periods reflect trends and processes between climate shifts.
http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/klimavorhersagen-ueber-mehrere-jahre-moeglich/
The relevant trend is from 2002 – and this is likely to continue for a decade or more yet.
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
OOps! <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/09/week-in-review-23/#comment-616719" rel="nofollow">This</a> belongs here: A handful of the most poorly managed companies may go under.
↧
Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Rob Ellison
Here?
The relevant periods reflect trends and processes between climate shifts.
http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/klimavorhersagen-ueber-mehrere-jahre-moeglich/
The relevant trend is from 2002 – and this is likely to continue for a decade or more yet.
The land surface record has much too much evaporation artifacts to be much use for climate issues.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
The grown up strategy is R&D – perhaps a billion dollar global energy prize [...]
Rather than dragging the money out of tax-supported government funds, why not tweak the IP laws so people/organizations that develop appropriate technology can profit more from it?
In fact, wasn’t what the whole system of “intellectual property” was intended for in the first place?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Rational actors are against people not paying their fair share for network costs.
↧
Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by popesclimatetheory
In my opinion, Harold did not say that CO2 caused or can cause any warming. He is saying that if CO2 is responsible for warming, he has determined the upper bound of the warming, based on analyzing actual data.
The same thing that caused all the other warm periods in the past ten thousand years, did cause our current warming and the same thing that caused all the cool periods in the past ten thousand years will cause the next cooling..
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
The average in the atmosphere is 0.4%.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)
The best article I’ve read this year:
But Gnarr liked his weasely politician character. Sure, he was a rogue, but a cheery one. So Gnarr uploaded a few clips to Youtube. The clips were popular, so he created a website with a parody of a party. He called it the Best Party and promoted it with the compelling slogan: «Why vote for second-best when you can have the best?»
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ausland/europa/More-punk-less-hell/story/10069405
↧
Comment on Week in review by thisisnotgoodtogo
“Some say it could account for temporary swings of as much as +/-0.1 C on decadal scales which is enough to offset a decadal trend from external forcing changes.”
You mean to say that the shrill alarmists are dialing it back now? From .3 to .1?
Well done, people!
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
thisisnogood, removed what? Long-term trends removed the internal part because they cancel themselves out. I didn’t have to remove anything, just averaged over 30 years.
↧
Comment on Week in review by popesclimatetheory
In the upper atmosphere CO2 molecules outnumber H2O molecules.
Yes, but there is such a tiny number, why would Mother Earth Care.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Rob Ellison, you are quoting random snippets of papers again. Context is everything. What kind of modeling studies are these? Are you fully in agreement with these models and what they conclude because you didn’t quote a conclusion, only what looks like an introduction snippet. I was actually talking about temperature observations only, but you insist on quoting modeling studies. Isn’t it ironic?
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
The real answer is more nuanced; it depends on the time‐frame considered, how long we continue to use gas going forward, and if the sunk costs involved in developing natural gas infrastructure hinder or help the development of future near-zero carbon technologies. Those nuances are the subject of this paper. [my bold]
Question for you Steve…
Did my constant harping on methane generated from solar/electrolytic hydrogen (whether by existing processes or the bio-conversion I’ve been advocating) have anything to do with the bolded sub-subject?
Oh, and another question: why is that text so hard to copy/paste?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
thisisnogood, it could even be 0.5 C at annual scales for El Ninos, but when you average over longer times these diminish to 0.1 C on decadal scales, and almost nothing at 60 years.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
