Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
Judith didn’t like the obvious implication that climate scientists are not pure. Sorry to ruin it for you, joshie. Take that crap over to attp, where it is appreciated.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
… 0.25C too low…
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tonyb
Jimd
Here is the global data from boreholes back to 1500
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
Temperatures have been rising since 1700 with substantial scillations annually and decadally. So you would expect that rise to continue.
If we could backtrack a few centuries the temperature would rise from around 850ad reach a peak around 1200ad and with a number of oscillations decline from around 1380
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan
Math based on faulty logic gives faulty results. Since when was (your numbers) 380/305 or 1.25, or 1/4 of the TCR, or 1.33/4 or 0.33C close to 0.49C Try harder. And also don’t cherry pick intervals like you did.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bob Ludwick
@ Dr. Curry
I followed Don Monfort’s link:
There’s Physics: Curry for dinner http://wp.me/p48oug-1am
And came away with the following: If anyone is not ALREADY terrified by CAGW, they will be once they visit the above link.
Nothing to do with the effects of ACO2 on the temperature of the Earth, of course (should any be detected in the future), but because of the realization that the folks who post there represent the ‘thinking’ of the lunatics who are setting the energy policies of Western Civilization in general and the US specifically.
If that doesn’t scare you, you aren’t paying attention.
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
You can compute the forcing change between 305 and 380 ppm for yourself, and this corresponds to the time period, that you claim is cherry-picked, by Lewis and Curry. From that forcing change which is 0.32 times a doubling, and using their 1.33 C per doubling, you get 0.42 C for that forcing change, which is 86% of 0.49 C. These are their numbers for the periods 1930-1950 and 1995-2011, except I had to get the CO2 numbers to correspond to their selected periods to obtain the CO2 part of the forcing, which they did not provide. You can check for yourself.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
damn – 0.1C/decade…
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
Wrong solar series.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
You are one of the people claiming the current warming rate is a delayed response to something the sun did 80 years ago when it already responded to it 80 years ago as is seen in the 1910-1940 warming. How do you get a pause and second rise from one solar increase? This is interesting physics that you are invoking, and somewhat implausible.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn
DocMartyn,
I got lost in the threading. You cast aspersions on dowsers, clairvoyants and so on.
I am shattered. I was just about to purchase a multi purpose climate modifier. This from the orgonite website –
“Don Croft has invented a device called a chembuster which combines the original cloudbuster’s basic operating principles with the advantages of orgonite.
A typical chembuster consists of 6 six-foot copper pipes embedded in a base of orgonite (typically poured in a paint bucket) with double-terminated quartz crystals in the base of each pipe to create an etheric energy vacuum effect which literally sucks the negative energy from the sky within a several mile radius into the orgonite base where it is then transmuted into harmless, beneficial positive energy. Unlike Reich’s cloudbusters, chembusters can be safely left in continuous operation where they will quickly restore and maintain atmospheric energy balance within an area. In drought-stricken regions of the globe, this always occurs in the form of rain sufficient to end the drought conditions. This has been successfully demonstrated in variuos parts of Africa, California and in many other locations around the world by various dedicated individuals.”
You can run it in reverse if you are in danger of getting too much rain, as well.
Actually, I was a little suspicious – I think there is really an N Ray generator at work here, disguised as a double terminated Quartz crystal.
Pathological science – marvellous stuff!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Week in review by D o u g
Rud. There is most definitely a slightly cooler region at least by 5m down, even No if only by a fraction of a degree. And ocean churning is not mixing all that depth perfectly. Even if you consider the whole region 200-300m it is warmer than the main thermocline below and so it must lose energy downwards by diffusion. Any upward transfer towards warmer regions will not happen adiabatically, because entropy would decrease, and churning in that region will do nothing but cool the surface layer, because none of the deeper water is warmer in normal circumstances.
Back radiation can only slow that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation. The cooling downwards and upwards by conduction, diffusion and convection, as well as evaporative cooling are not affected by radiation from a cooler troposphere.. They will accelerate and thus compensate for any slowing of radiative cooling. In any event, the incident radiation cannot raise the surface to the observed temperatures in the first place.
No I am not a member of PSI, but I have a far more correct understanding of thermodynamics than any of their vocal members, I assure you. It is the gravito-thermal effect which sets the surface temperature. The only radiation you can count is direct solar radiation. That has a mean of only 161W/m^2 at the surface, and even if the whole surface (including the oceans) were covered in asphalt paving (which has emissivity 0.93) the temperature would average about 235K – more than 50 degrees below actual means.
You cannot add the radiative flux from colder regions of the atmosphere to the solar radiative flux when using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to determine the surface temperature. That’s physics.
I suggest you read my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” and my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Tonyb, as I have said, borehole data is too diffused to see any details. You can tell by the curve that this is just heat diffusing down from the surface. The further down you go, the longer the averaging time it represents. At some deep level around 100 m down you are converging to millennium-scale averages that wash out anything less than that time scale.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
Disentangling natural variability from anthropogenic warming relies to first order on recognition of the timing of the regime changes. It is far from an exclusively PDO effect but the signal in the Pacific is the most obvious link to inflections in surface temperature trajectories.
It is about as certain as can be – the increase between 1994 and 1998 was 0.4C and is the maximum that can be attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. If one believed in such a thing – this would give a TCR of some 0.8C.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
whoops – 1944
↧
Comment on Week in review by CC Squid
Rud, you obviously do not know about submarines…
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
Huh.
You are off to a bad start when you can’t summarize an argument accurately. Try again. Better yet.. Read more comment less
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
<b>WikiGate!</b>
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Bob Ludwick, you can rest assured that the House Science committee is on top of it. Go to 3 minutes of this.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
