Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on An unsettled climate by John S.

0
0

“So there is a lot of thermal energy entering the ocean surface in non-polar regions, moving downwards through the thermocline and exiting in the polar regions.”

As long as “climate scientists” insist on indulging in fantasies that have thermal energy moving down to abyssal ocean depths and then following a cold isotherm to exit where it rises near the surface, science will never be done–let alone be settled!


Comment on An unsettled climate by mosomoso

0
0

It’s like a Borgia pope relaxing with his mistress after a hard day’s piety. Pope Alexander had his plenary indulgences, Leo has his carbon offsets.

Each time Leo takes to the skies I’m sure there’s a tree planted somewhere…or at least a plan for a tree somewhere…or discussion of a plan for tree somewhere. But we mustn’t sweat the small stuff. It’s about the planet, dude.

Comment on An unsettled climate by Rob Ellison

0
0

Climate scientists Michael Oppenheimer and Kevin Trenberth also took issue with Koonin’s assertion about the impact of human activity, saying,
Warming is well beyond natural climate variability and projected rates of change are potentially faster than ecosystems, farmers and societies can adapt to without major disruptions. Many details remain to be settled, and weather and natural variability will always mask some effects, especially regionally. But economic analysis of these risks supports substantial action beyond “no regrets” strategies. To argue otherwise as Koonin does is to ignore decades of research results.”

Uncertainty is ubiquitous – but this does extend to simple metrics. The rate of change across natural climate regimes is some 0.07 degrees C/decade. The projected rates of change are less than or equal to zero for decades from 2002 in the current cool decadal mode. Kevin (surely it isn’t decadal) Trenberth continues to deny the most obvious scientific reality. It is decadal. This is not science – it is cognitive dissonance. .

And the objective is to take all of the no-regrets options more or less immediately – once we can get a critical focus on the real issue here. Including accelerating technology development. The alternative is higher energy costs, lower productivity and relatively more marginalized poor. Without much progress on emissions as there are no cost effective zilch carbon technologies ready to slot in on a big enough scale. We will now when there are – they will be deployed.

Comment on An unsettled climate by Richard (rls)

0
0

Here is what he said:
“But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.”

Comment on An unsettled climate by Rob Ellison

0
0

… does not extend…

Comment on An unsettled climate by Eric

0
0

The most recent data point says there has been warming. Where is the uncertainty?

Comment on An unsettled climate by PA

0
0

1. CO2 isn’t a control knob it is a slider – a different type of ActiveX control.

2. SM: “the argument goes that if you want to understand long term climate change ( see paleo ) then you need c02 in the explanation.”

People keep mentioning paleo.

The current ice age is due to:
1. Antarctica at the south pole.
2. An almost enclosed north pole.
3. The joining of the Americas.
4. The emergence of the Himalayas.

Antarctica took pole position about 30 million years ago, the cooling started the other things took place and about 2.6 million years ago the Americas joined isolating the oceans.

I suppose if someone were ignorant of historic physical geography they might need CO2… But that just means they are ignorant.

Comment on An unsettled climate by jim2

0
0

Some interesting news on the Monterey shale.
From the article:

A top official with the California Department of Conservation addressed the county board Tuesday about enhanced oil recovery practices – in light of Measure J on the coming ballot – while noting about half of oil production is from extraction methods targeted in the proposed ban but that smaller petroleum companies are slow in reporting required well data.
Jason Marshall, chief deputy director of the state conservation department, spoke to supervisors Tuesday upon request from Supervisor Margie Barrios. She publicly opposes the measure on the November ballot – aiming to ban fracking, cyclic steaming and acidizing countywide and all petroleum activities in rural residential zones near the two cities – and asked for a presentation to the board and public.
Marshall pointed out that his agency oversees regulation of oil and gas operations in the state and does not advocate for the industry. He talked about the state’s unique geology and how it affects industry practices; San Benito County’s current level of production; current restrictions from the state on such matters as water monitoring and disclosure of chemical use; coming, similar restrictions as part of an approved senate bill; the history of fracking in the state; and the potential of the Monterey Shale.

Marshall said as things stand, 51 percent of all oil production in the state is through “tertiary” mechanisms, or enhanced recovery methods targeted in the proposed ban as opposed to conventional forms of extraction. Those enhanced methods are needed due to the state’s faults and a need to fracture the shale vertically and not horizontally like in other places.

http://www.sanbenitocountytoday.com/news/agriculture/state-rep-enhanced-extraction-common-oil-companies-slow-to-report/article_272abca4-4351-11e4-a82c-0017a43b2370.html


Comment on An unsettled climate by pokerguy

0
0

“Co2 control knob”

If they’re going to go that way, they ought to at least make it a remote control so you can alter the climate from the comfort of your own bed.

Comment on An unsettled climate by PA

0
0

Laugh now – we get our innings during the La Nina next year.

Comment on An unsettled climate by pokerguy

0
0

(sorry, wrong spot above).
“Co2 control knob”

If they’re going to go that way, they ought to at least make it a remote control so you can fiddle with the climate from the comfort of your own bed.

By the way Joshua, what are your 2 projects you mentioned earlier?

Comment on An unsettled climate by Rob Ellison

0
0

Within the limits of precision for data – there is no uncertainty.

Nor is there any real doubt that we are in a cool decadal mode and that these persist for 20 to 40 years in the records.

Comment on An unsettled climate by Rob Ellison

0
0

wee willie loses again – is the only rational deconstruction possible – but having to deconstruct everything in order to extract any meaning at all is so tiring.

Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Matthew R Marler

0
0

stevefitzpatrick: The overall uncertainty is dominated by direct and indirect aerosol effects… and here there is a crying need for better data.

Why isn’t the overall uncertainty dominated by the uncertainties in the effects of land-use changes and natural variation?

Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Matthew R Marler

0
0

oops, that should be Steve Fitzpatrick.


Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by DocMartyn

Comment on An unsettled climate by Rob Ellison

0
0

The possibility of Brian providing credible information is remote in the extreme. Shame – Brian – shame.

Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Web,

You now say:

> I did my thing and verified that it was 3C based on looking at land warming.

I prefer “verified” to “demonstrated,” the only (?) word that has been challenged regarding what you said, not you nor the science itself. But I’d prefer something a tad weaker, like “I did my homework and my results agree with the established viewpoint”.

If you had something like “according to my homework, it is not plausible to get less than what I got, and here’s why,” then you’d have something that could directly challenge what Nic does article after article. Until something like that gets done done, nothing will prevent the lowest sensitivity justified disingenuousness can buy. And even if you do, it is to be expected that the smallest increment that circumvent your demonstration will be marketed.

Perhaps I am biased, for I like apps. But I doubt it.

Dick showed the way a long time ago.

Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Dan

0
0

I work with structural buckling which has similar bi-stable properties as you are showing. Theory shows a nice clean bifurcation when operating near the critical point but when one tries to reproduce it in the lab one observe a sloppy transition.

Rule of thumb is nature doesn’t like to operate near a critical point and will leak energy to move away from it. Some other process not modeled will take over and move the system in unpredictable sloppy path.

Might be wishful thinking but looking at history (ice core proxy) the climate seems to have a strong restoring mechanism that tends to like things cold. In spite all the positive feedbacks we are finding.

Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Scott

0
0

Don Monfort

Forgot offhand who said it but, “with four equations I can draw an elephant, and with five I can make the tail wiggle.”

But a good faith effort to engage in modifying model equations and input parameters to more closely match the observations. That is what they and we are supposed to do.

when models don’t match reality try to change them. Not the observations. Complicated by the past historical temperature changes cause those make the cats harder to herd.

Scott

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images