For CO2, most of its emission to space comes from very high up where the air is thin, and it is the emission to space that affects the earth’s energy budget.
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
Chief,
That is why nuclear would be needed.
Tesla’s Model S has a 265 mile range you can easily go from LA to San Diego and back. There is also 170 super caharger stations around the US. You can now go coast to coast in the US. It takes 20 minutes for half a charge. You’d think that would improve in 15 years.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
The residual from the mid 1940’s – when emissions took off – is some 0.07 degrees C/decade. This is not likely to persist in this century.
↧
Comment on Week in review by ghl
………..projections.
↧
Comment on Week in review by thisisnotgoodtogo
“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.”
Sure you did, removed SST.
“Meanwhile the land is doing this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1970/mean:12/trend/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1970/mean:12
Even “cold” years now are warmer than anything before 1995.”
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by thisisnotgoodtogo
“thisisnogood, it could even be 0.5 C at annual scales for El Ninos”
I was talking about .1 cancelling out decadal warming from external forcing.
It was ..3 decadal from the shrill alarmists. A .1 wouldn’t cancel it.
Now you’re all calming down. that’s a good sign. Good work, people!
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Let’s rehearse some essential facts about natural variability. The inflection points in the surface record are around 1910, the mid 1940’s, 1976-1977 and 1998-2001.
Causality is not in doubt – nor that it involves large changes in cloud radiative forcing. This coincides precisely with changes of state in both the north and south Pacific. The residual warming between the mid 1940’s and 1998 was some 0.07 degrees C/decade. This gives a worst case scenario for anthropogenic effects. As the Sun cools fr om a 1000 year high – the residual over this century is likely to reflect this.
Abrupt shifts every few decades – e.g. http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/klimavorhersagen-ueber-mehrere-jahre-moeglich/ – are not predictable and can lead to substantial change in climate states.
↧
Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by AK
Let me try to simplify this, or at least put some semantic boundaries around what we're arguing about.
You are saying (hypothetically and for example) that the burning of fossil carbon is a problem, and we need to solve it by method 'A'. (Actually, of course, <i>"method 'A'"</i> is a whole <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil_%28mathematics%29" rel="nofollow">pencil</a> (speaking metaphorically) of similar and related <i>methods</i> that share a few qualities, including the need to drastically and immediately reduce burning of fossil carbon, preferably in conjunction with equally drastic and immediate rises in the cost/price of energy.)
Now, I can agree that <i>"the burning of fossil carbon"</i> is a problem, whether or not I agree about its parameters. (Or, perhaps, I could disagree, but that's not relevant to this specific discussion.) Even so, I can disagree over the claimed <i>"need to drastically and immediately reduce burning of fossil carbon, preferably in conjunction with equally drastic and immediate rises in the cost/price of energy."</i>
In effect, I can say "Yes, it's a problem, but there are solutions that don't impact me the way yours does." At this point, if you start talking about <i>"good for me"</i> vs. <i>"good for the world's economy"</i> you're in effect saying <i>"Look! A squirrel!"</i> Or, as I prefer to phrase it, you're introducing a <i>"red herring"</i>. You're distracting away from the discussion of <b>solutions that don't impact me the way yours does</b> to claiming that any effort to find alternatives to <b>your solution</b>, which does impact me, very badly, is contrary to the <i>"good of the world's economy"</i>.
At this point, I'm entitled to suspect you of ulterior motives, especially that of pursuing a socialist agenda under the cover of "climate change", or concern thereover. (Is that a word? Well, it is now.)
This is where the "catastrophic global warming" alarmists are now. If they were really just interested in solving the problem of fossil CO2, they would be open to arguments about the relative time-scales of mitigation-based solutions (3-7 decades per the IPCC) and solutions based more on removal and sequestration.
Some of them, admittedly, are. Others clearly aren't. Despite your efforts to cloak your agenda behind a façade of "impartial auditor", you are clearly among those who aren't. Anything less than full support for the <i>"solutions"</I> that involve shutting down the Industrial Revolution, <b>and nothing else,</b> draws your fire. Like the majority of leftist CAGW alarmists, you participate in the denigration of anybody who questions this socialist agenda (item) as <i>"deniers"</i>, and other epithets.
We all* know what you're up to, both your allies and contemptuous enemies/victims/bystanders. Some speak up, some don't, especially among CAGW types. But the latter are cut from the same mold (heh).
*With a few naive exceptions among newcomers.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
ghl, predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
thisisnogood, I showed land temps because skeptics forget that their warming rate is 0.3 C per decade sometimes, and land temps lead global temps, and at least now you know why.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
Jimd all predictions have an implicit or explicit IF
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
They are very careful to say that GCMs are not giving predictions because the GCMs are being given the forcing change according to a scenario. What might be a prediction is if I said I predict 1 C of warming per 100 ppm added, because there you have the main conditional. What I don’t think anyone can predict is how much CO2 we will have in 2100, because that depends on societal factors, and therefore no one can predict the temperature in 2100, and I don’t think anyone has claimed to have.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
I quoted from the conclusion – from a paper based on both observations and slab models. The paper was about land temps being forced by the oceans. That is clearly in the ‘snippets’ provided – along with the comments on the physical mechanisms of the land/oceans contrast.
This is clearly in stark contrast to Jimmy’s delusion hand waving in the direction of imaginary physics. They can’t admit to being wrong – because this suggests that they are much dumber than the climate pragmatists they have denigrated for so long. There is no science – there is no physics – and the relatively simple message from actual science must be misinterpreted because it doesn’t agree with the meme. Jimbo’s stock in trade is obviously nothing more than a delusional narrative.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Rob Ellison, so why do you think the land started warming before the ocean and is rising twice as fast? What do your modeling studies tell you about that? As I said, there is a simple mechanistic explanation and you don’t need a model, just physics.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
There is a simple mechanism for the land/ocean contrast – and this is as stated in many studies. Try reading some instead of peddling non-specific – let alone referenced – appeals to supposed simple mechanisms. Jimbo’s credibility is zilch.
↧
Comment on Week in review by thisisnotgoodtogo
“I showed land temps because skeptics forget that their warming rate is 0.3 C per decade sometimes, and land temps lead global temps, and at least now you know why.”
No, Jim, the predictions were for global, and we will not forget, thank you!
0.1 doesn’t cut it for negating a 0.3 prediction.
So you tried to make it look like the predictions are for land only and not global?
That’s just sad, Jim.
↧
Comment on Week in review by thisisnotgoodtogo
Jim D said:
” These are not forecasts because they presuppose a scenario, whether likely or unlikely. ”
and
“When we get to the later time, CO2 will have increased by maybe 100%, so that projection actually was a prediction, but we only know that in retrospect.”
and
”
No, Jim.
Predictions are not made in retrospect. :)
IPCC:
“Projection
The term “projection” is used in two senses in the climate change literature. In general usage, a projection can be regarded as any description of the future and the pathway leading to it. However, a more specific interpretation has been attached to the term “climate projection” by the IPCC when referring to model-derived estimates of future climate.
Forecast/Prediction
When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.”
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by maksimovich
It may be useful for the climate community to actually have a good understanding of the sun.
Recent solar excursions ie fast changes in the Bartol rotation have exhibited large changes in amplitude over short periods.
http://sidc.oma.be/news/261/Picture1.png
The quiet sun event (a spotless sun) causing a 1.6 wm^2 excursion in TSI.
a persistent sun ( of a lower amplitude ) over the next 2 SC is a game breaker.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wagathon
What that means is 99.72% of all greenhouse gases are … Natural
So, if you like au naturale go for it! Polar bears could care less
Water Vapor accounts for 95% of all greenhouse gases
CO2 accounts for just 3.5% of greenhouse gases–mostly natural…
Based on concentrations
(ppb) adjusted for heat
retention characteristics……..% of All……% Natural….% Man-made
Water vapor………………………..95.000%…..94.999%…….0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)…………..3.618%……..3.502%……0.117%
Methane (CH4)…………………….0.360%……..0.294%……0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)…………….0.950%……..0.903%……0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC’s, etc.)……….0.072%……..0.025%……0.047%
Total…………………………………….100.00%…….99.72%…….0.28%
“There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050.”
[Source: Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal]
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wagathon
There is very little water vapor in the coldest, driest most inhospitable places–e.g.,
For all of the extremes one can find on this planet, there are few places more extreme and inhospitable than the continent of Antarctica. Where, then, is the most extreme locality on the most extreme continent? Last year, American and Australian scientists believe it they found it about 1 000 km from the South Pole in Australian-claimed territory on the Antarctic Plateau using satellites, ground stations and climate models. The site is simply called Ridge A, and the numbers behind it are staggering.
The ridge itself lies at an altitude of 4 053 m above sea level, 144 km (89 mi) from the nearest sign of human impact, an automated Chinese space observatory (the loneliest one in Antarctica). The average winter temperature is around −70°C (−94°F), and there is so little water vapour in the air that one column of air has less water vapour content than the thickness of a human hair. It is also the centre of the polar wind vortex; perennially in the eye of the storm as winds circle around it but never over it… [http://basementgeographer.com/ridge-a-the-coldest-driest-quietest-calmest-place-on-earth/]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
