Steven Mosher: <i>one could argue that energy balance models do this for us already. </i>
No energy balance model published to date has demonstrated a sufficiently accurate prediction for cloud and other water vapor feedbacks.
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Mattstat, there is one energy balance model that has done a very good job without going into all dynamic details.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/26/guy-callendar-vs-the-gcms/
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison
I have quoted from the closing minutes of the Hamburg address – please feel free to provide a similar quote or I will be entitled to believe that you are full of it.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Alexander Biggs
Mathew: A car engine is a man-made object designed to operate over a range of rpm, nature could never provide anything like an internal combustion engine. On the other hand nature can provide repetitive evends with a strict cycle, like day and night. Anything with mass and elasticity in a gravitational field can vibrate or oscillate
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Jeff Glassman
David L. Hagen, 8/26/14 @ 2:56 pm said, <i>Haynie … [l]ike Salby, he finds CO2 dominated by natural sources.</i>
Can’t tell if you think of that as positive or negative. However, Salby got the right, or at least a better, answer, but for the wrong reasons. His right answer, he claims, didn’t help his career. His wrong reasons doesn’t help science debunk the AGW movement.
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Agnostic
This was a really really good post. Thank you.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Wagathon
What we now know about the sun explains can everything about late 20th century warming. As it turns out, “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19–23, i.e., 1950-2009),” says Ilya Usoskin, “was a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.” [Usoskin et al., Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity, A&A 562 (2014) ]
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by jim2
Rob – has it been proven that climate is chaotic? Climate does appear to spot some chaos, but isn’t that really a hypothesis? The biggest swings in climate seem to be due to orbital elements, which themselves might be chaotic, but that is an external force on the climate, and the climate follows it.
So, wouldn’t the idea that climate is chaotic be better described as a hypothesis?
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by jim2
“spot” should be “sport”.
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison
The biggest swings in climate are due to runaway ice feedbacks to changes in thermohaline circulation – in periods of low NH summer insolation.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by RiHo08
Rob Ellison,
I am a fan of the abrupt climate change paradigm. In my mulling over such balancing forces, I have come to realize that there have been boundaries in temperature swings which have persisted for millions of years. You have told me, and I believe, that the oceans have kept temperature swings within a narrow 5 +/- C region for these oh so many years.
When we add the abrupt climate change paradigm to the climate change question, these temperatures also seem bounded. Is there some signal that we have yet to deduce that says: ” swing in the opposite direction sending temperatures headed into a lower regime? Otherwise, I would expect a continuance in one direction or the other, which does not seem to be the case. What causes the change? Saying internal variation only provides a label, not a mechanism.
How far off am I?
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Rob, “The biggest swings in climate are due to runaway ice feedbacks to changes in thermohaline circulation – in periods of low NH summer insolation.”
How much more ice ya think is left for a runaway to the high side :)
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by kim
If it takes more than
Just seventeen syllables,
You need to think again.
=================
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Matthew R Marler
Thanks for the link. I thought it was worth reading, and would be worth disputing and debating. I don’t comment at RealClimate any more because they censored what I thought were valid and reasonably worded comments.
I think it is clear from Gavin Schmidt’s post where he disagrees with Judith Curry and why.
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by kim
This way for the eagers.
============
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by Wagathon
In the linked article, reporters on ‘TheHill’ say, [Obama's] administration is in talks at the United Nations about a deal that would seek to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by ‘naming and shaming’ governments that fail to take significant action,” and “that the plan is to come up with a treaty that would not require Senate confirmation…”
Is Obama’s version of the democrat party’s New Deal a domestic program to help continue the hiatus in polar bear death and sea level rise or the hiatus in job and economic recovery?
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by kim
It’s quite blatant the need for the tactic to dodge around the sixty-seven votes needed.
The founders made declaring war the role of the legislative and making war the role of the executive because getting into a war is a Hell of a lot easier than getting out of one.
================
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by kim
Heh, Great Leader takes himself into this one, and then takes himself into the rough. Decisions, decisions.
========
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by kim
Oh, please, kim’ ‘papal’. Whatsamatta wid U?
===========
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by Tonyb
Obama? Is he still around? He hasn’t been seen on the world stage for a couple of years now.
Tonyb
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
