Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by Kneel

$
0
0

After talking about how biased JC is, how it’s the science what matters, how the data is clear etc, we get this:

“Plus, FWIW, if your 5 – 95% interval for the ECS includes 1 degree, that always makes me think that the method is clearly an underestimate.”

Note that the result being unexpectedly low indicates the method is biased low – “clearly” so. No mention of checking the methods sensativity to several factors, or any other means to confirm the truth or otherwise, just a simple appeal to authority – “everyone else get a bigger number, therefore you are wrong”.


Comment on Week in review by Jim D

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

‘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.’

Yeah – like I said – expelled from the skydragons.

Heat transport vertically in the oceans is a balance between turbulent mixing and warm water buoyancy. The surface is of course warmed by the Sun and the depth varies with turbidity. I have been in water where it was pretty murky at 3m – and water that was brilliantly lit at 30m. In the daytime in relatively still conditions – especially in the tropics – there is warm layer a few metres deep.

But warm water mixed turbulently into deeper water will tend to want to rise again.

Comment on Week in review by rls

$
0
0

Matthew: Doesn’t appear that those Carnegie Mellon scientists read AR5 WG1 Ch7:
“The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling effect of clouds on the climate”

Comment on Week in review by AK

$
0
0
That doesn't mean WikiGate isn't interesting. The Daily Beast: <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/19/the-right-s-war-on-neil-degrasse-tyson.html" rel="nofollow">The Right’s War on Neil deGrasse Tyson</a><blockquote>Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has long been a despised figure among conservatives—and now the right is accusing him of being a “fabulist” and making up quotes.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>“The more I dug into it, the more I found a history of fabrication—to make points that he didn’t need fabrication to make,” Davis told The Daily Beast. “As someone who writes and publishes for a living, I take exception to people who go out and make money based on fabrication.”</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>“People on the right have the sense that there’s something cultish about [Tyson], that his popularity is based on the image of being seen to like him,” said Greenfield. “It’s supposed to be about the ideas, when you have this kind of hero worship, people are refusing to discuss the merits of [The Federalist’s report]. It becomes unreasoning, which is the opposite of science.”</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>The conservative blogosphere’s latest allegations aren’t deeply damning, and certainly don’t discredit a lifetime’s worth of work in science and education. But Tyson hasn’t been eager to discuss the topic or correct his mistakes.</blockquote>As far as I can tell, the Daily Beast is actually pretty liberal. Or perhaps very liberal. Or perhaps...

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

It is the latest reconstruction from the SORCE TSI page. So it is not the wrong solar series mad, naked Emperor Moshpit.

We have one factor amongst many – solar TSI – that peaked in the later half of the 20th century. It warmed in the early part of the century to 1950 obviously and stayed high for rest of the century – with one obvious dip. It seems pretty obvious that surface temps will continue to rise while the oceans equilibriate.

There are other factors and there is no sense in which the regimes – from 1944 to 1998 – should zero out. Hugely unlikely in fact. Could we see a shift to yet cooler conditions as the Sun cools this century?

Comment on Week in review by AK

$
0
0

@Jim D…

Any questions?

Yeah! See that thing sticking up from the back-right of the cloud? What do you suppose that is?

I made a point of demanding peer-reviewed links because sites like yours too often simplify – and get it wrong. Or fail to provide enough information to keep you from getting it wrong.

Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn

$
0
0

I have a barely used Orgone Generator I could let you have cheap.


Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$
0
0

AK, you don’t need peer-reviewed science for this. It has made its way into cloud-spotter guides and school books. Be specific what you are saying. Are you saying anvil clouds are not made of frozen particles? Also it is easy to Google these things on the WWW, and I predict you won’t believe any links I send you anyway. Research for yourself. Here’s a start.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~baum/Cirrus/TropicalCirrus.html

Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan

$
0
0

Doc, some of us older Vietnam trained folks see it slightly differently.
And some of us also carry confirming scars. Like me.
So we are likely to play it differently. Hope you enjoy the next book, which with Judith’s foreword blessing plays it differently.

Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

Comment on Week in review by CC Squid

$
0
0

I have been at a depth in excess of 125M an taken rolls at 20+ degrees on either side of zero. I have been at periscope depth and dropped in excess of 150M in seconds. We happened to move from cold dense water into a warm current. So.. I can attest that there are warm water “rivers” in the ocean.

Comment on Week in review by maksimovich

$
0
0

The 15 heads of the science academies suggest that allocation of emissions from sources and sinks is indeed a problem.

The net sum of human and natural sources and sinks can be estimated using atmospheric and/or oceanic measurements (including remote sensing from satellites) of the gases and state-of-the-art mathematical models of air and water flow. These methods offer an opportunity to provide an independent check on inventory estimates. However, they cannot yet be used to estimate greenhouse gas emissions and sinks with sufficient accuracy at the national level, because of: transport error; large and incompletely understood background fluctuations of natural emissions; and the small number and uneven geographic distribution of sampling stations. For example, current atmospheric sampling grids largely avoid major emitters like cities, making it difficult to interpret satellite observations. Moreover, air samples are not analyzed for all isotopes of interest: for example, measurements of radiocarbon [14C] would enable fossil-fuel CO2 emissions to be separated from non-fossil-fuel sources and sinks

This is important from both negotiating a treaty framework without ambiguous measurement and correct appropriation.Marland 1998,2008 suggested that the 0.9% absolute difference in the two common measurements of emissions for the US alone is greater than total emissions from 147 of the 195 countries analyzed.

There are substantive suspicions the LUC effects are substantively greater then suggested by the IPCC.

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

Comment on Week in review by AK

$
0
0
<blockquote>AK, you don’t need peer-reviewed science for this. It has made its way into cloud-spotter guides and school books. Be specific what you are saying. Are you saying anvil clouds are not made of frozen particles?</blockquote>Actually, I don't need anything. I've understood the basics since I was in high-school, and kept up. I was hoping you'd realize how abysmally ignorant you are, for instance in saying:<blockquote>The top half of every thunderstorm is ice, and all the cirrus clouds and lots of polar clouds.</blockquote>Perhaps, to give you the benefit of the doubt, your idea of <i>"top half"</i> is the cirrus shield that <b>often</b> forms through detrainment. I've looked around a little, and haven't found anything specific about the time-frame involved in conversion from supercooled liquid droplets to ice crystals during detrainment, but certainly your original simplistic idea that the water droplets that make up cumulonimbus clouds freeze and turn to hail demonstrates your ignorance. If you want to correct your ignorance, a little, you might might do worse than to start <a href="http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~bstevens/Documents/annurev.earth.33.092203.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I haven't had a chance to fully review it, but it comes well recommended from other peer-reviewed sources, and provides the basics.

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$
0
0

captd, no there are liquid topped clouds too, just thunderstorms aren’t and they are the major ice-topped ones, hence my remark. How much warming does it take to make a lot of the ice-topped clouds liquify was the question. Must be a lot, no?

Comment on Week in review by bob droege

Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

DocMartyn,

Thank you for most kind and generous offer. The last slightly used Orgone Generator I bought, to alleviate ” . . . depression, mental illness, cancers, fibromyalgia, diseases, asthma, birth defects, and subliminal mind control.”, didn’t seem to work all that well. I suspect someone had siphoned off the zero point energy to power their free electricity plant. LOL!

And now for something silly.

I think the R W Wood who debunked N Rays, also debunked the CO2 greenhouse effect.

Does this imply that greenhouse believers must therefore believe in N Rays? Or is this another example of selective debunking belief? This could be a whole new field of research for Ludicrous Lew, Creative Cook and all the rest.

Apologies for wasting your time, but it’s Sunday morning.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images