<blockquote>So. to narrow the range we need better measures of dO and better measures of dF. The uncertainty in dF is dominated by aerosols.</blockquote>But what about dO? Does it matter?
And another question: changes in aerosol due to biologic changes (<i>e.g.</i> vegetation cover changes): Do they count as part of dF?
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rob Ellison
Talk about over interpreting a schematic David. It shows a change in mean and variance – which is the definition of a non-stationary system.
T may even go down depending on the emergent system response.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by AK
<blockquote>Now it could be argued that warm water from the surface layer is getting injected into deeper layers, being replaced by colder water.
Were this postulate true, we would have noted a change in the atmospheric composition of CO2, due to warm (CO2 denuded) water being replaced by cool (CO2 rich) waters.</blockquote>AFAIK that's not how it works:
(Comparatively) small amounts of warm water are <b>always being mixed</b> into deeper layers by meso-scale turbulence, carrying large amounts of heat with them. This is counteracted by a much larger amount of upwards motion of the entire deeper part of the ocean, which mostly comes to the surface along west continental coasts. This occurs to balance, and is mostly determined, by the volume of cold water subducted at the poles. (Both the polar subduction and the general rise of deeper water represent an <b>upwards</b> flow of heat.)
The <i>"OHC changes"</i> are the result of differences between the downwards flow of heat due to turbulence, and upwards flow due to the general rise of deeper water (and polar subduction).
AFAIK there's no reason to expect any change to the rate at which cold water arrives at the surface. Or at least, no reason to suppose it has any relationship to the rate of downwards heat flow due to turbulence.
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by stevepostrel
I hardly think that genetics turned out to be “simple.” What with all the discoveries about epigenetics, RNA silencing, the functional importance of introns, etc., the picture has become increasingly complex and messy. As Craig Venter pointed out, we can’t even use genetic analysis to predict human eye color, one of the classic student exercises in pre-Watson & Crick genetics.
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by stevepostrel
One of the peculiarities of a proper CO2 tax is that it places a price on emissions equal to the estimated incremental social cost of that emission and then lets the market system rip. That presupposes a) that other policies and regulations allow the ripping to occur and b) that if the “answer” thrown up by the market is that at the true social cost people still want to emit a lot then so be it. I don’t think the green activists would countenance either a) or b), so most of the policy advantages of the ideal CO2 tax would be lost even if it somehow passed globally..
↧
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by willard (@nevaudit)
That would be two points, Matthew.
I'd call these <em>arguments</em>.
Arguments to reach a <em>conclusion</em>.
A <em>point</em> is usually a conclusion.
The conclusion is not about how to call what Mike did, but if we're to focus on words, then we ought to call what Mike did by what Brandon believes is the proper word.
What's that proper word, again?
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by brian
The Heartland Institute. Yet another non partisan bastion of scientific and public policy integrity. Why don’t you just post Exxon’s official rebuttal?
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by stevepostrel
Your love of gimmicky inventions is always interesting. In this case there’s a real Everyman’s Ark, Kon-Tiki-style appeal.
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by stevepostrel
Seriously? That would look impressive if it weren’t time-series data where higher CO2 is always later. Time trends, ARIMA processes, spurious correlation, etc,?
↧
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by stevepostrel
Brian seems to think that the validity of an argument depends on who makes it or what that person’s motivation is. The N*z*s were anti-smoking pioneers but that doesn’t mean all good people should puff on cancer sticks.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by DocMartyn
Carrick, you want to do an ATL post on the kinetics of carbon fluxes into reservoirs and into mineralization (true) sinks?
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Alexander Biggs
I am surprised that anyone went along with the deceitful and foolish Copenhagen decision to define climate temperature by itself. I refer to the decision to define sensitivity as the supposed temperature rise due to a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide. It w=as deceitful because no one could check it until a century hence when CO2 would supposedly be doubled and the 1940 singularity showed that climate had an on/off character that precluded labelling it as a constant.
Of course this foolish decision was made on the back of another foolish decision: that climate science was ‘settled’. So the whole structure will collapse like a house of cards, pretty soon.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by maksimovich
Now it could be argued that warm water from the surface layer is getting injected into deeper layers, being replaced by colder water.
Were this postulate true, we would have noted a change in the atmospheric composition of CO2, due to warm (CO2 denuded) water being replaced by cool (CO2 rich) waters.
Oh you mean like the SH mid latitude stations,where the co2 growth rate has decreased ,and the lag rate from MLO ( the interhemispheric gradient ) has increased from around 18 months to 48 months.
Suggested reasons are.
i) a decrease in mid to high latitude winds in the 21st century.
ii) increased southern sea ice.
iii) increased efficiency of the SO sinks.
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by DocMartyn
Rob, are you aware that quantum is generally used to describe very, very, small things like very, very small particles, distance and energy states and not, say, a planet that weight 6 time 10 to the 24 kilos?
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Steven Mosher
Skip
“However, the seemingly plausible “justified true belief” formulation has been under serious debate over the past half century, since Gettier (1963). This review (link below) by a prominent philosopher does not accept that Gettier ultimately carries the day, but this is one of the more well known debates in recent epistemology, about “justified true belief” —”
Dont expect Brandon to keep up on things.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by NikFromNYC
Mosher pleads: “By giving up the hoax crap, by ignoring Mann, and by working within the framework that the Equation describes.”
Mann is pivotal here for in 2013 an utter fraud of a new Mann-vindicating hockey stick garnered wide media attention, and in doing so further exposed the core climate “science” theory that recent warming is unique, wheras with the fraud revealed we have precedence many times in the past in a way that suggests recent warming could also be mostly natural as negative feedbacks and a near permanent ocean heat reservoir entropically disperses captured greenhouse heat into mere hundredths of a degree that Curry pointed out cannot by the law of entropy come back out again in concentrated multiple degree fashion. Wouldn’t Mosher’s ongoing career and reputation ever be helped by covering up the Marcott 2013 fraud that exposes all of climate “science” as fully peer review and ethically corrupted! In fact *only* skeptical papers stand the rigor of normal science exactly due to biased peer review against them, yet they still get published. All other climate papers stand highly suspect until Marcott is retracted and the investigators involved all are fired. That’s exactly what would happen in genetics or AIDs or cancer research for the equivalent level of outright positive result fabrication, sometimes with criminal charges added.
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by DocMartyn
Rob this must be wrong 1361.5 W/m2!
It is closer to 1365.5 W/m2
How could you be out by 4 W/m2? Thats more than a CO2 doubling.
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by DocMartyn
That isn’t writing at all, it’s typing.
Truman Capote
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Matthew R Marler
Rob Ellison: <i> You may dance around the issue all you like Matthew. </i>
whatever
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by brian
That’s because it does. If the Nazi’s published a scientific paper on alleged inferiority of Jews woudl tha be credible? Was the tobacco industry’s research on the health benefits and later harmlessness of smoking credible? You cannot ignore the human element. Well, you can, but you won’t get to the truth. Vested interests. Vested interests. Don’t be a sucker.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
