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

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Michael

0
0

moshpit plays dumb.


Comment on Week in review by Michael

0
0

Mike,

That was positively Watt-esque.

Re Mann ; the latest post by Judith may be relevant to your queries.

Comment on Week in review by Alexander Biggs

0
0

How long is this charade on future climate to continue?. The partial theories about ‘greenhouse’ gases continue to effect international policies to the detriment of many countries. It is time for the US president to admit tat the path he had chosen for fossil fuel was misguided and not supported by the evidence. The scientists’ professions have been misguided by the UN’s ICCC and IPCC and I humbly apologise for following their advice.

In truth we know no more about future climate than what we did 30 years ago.

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by George Turner

0
0

Figure 1 in the paper makes me think the system is resonant, and that what happened in 1975 might be mostly a result of what happened in 1910, so that it might not take much unusual forcing to keep the AMO oscillating.

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

0
0

I have just shown an ability to admit error in speaking far too quickly about something that had not crossed my horizon previously – when 2 minutes on Wikipedia would have at least suggested some deeper issue.

I have shown that I can get to the core (ha ha) of the issue quickly – http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html

Flynn the Dingbat has no such ability to self correction or talent for following the evidence.

‘It is a kind of direct temperature – temperature study. Therefore, it is free of any uncertainties due to conversion from proxy data to temperatures.’ http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/approach.html

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

The leading “wave” for the last rise starting in 1970 was CRUTEM4 NH (NH land) which is not included among the stadium wave indices for some reason. With land leading, this implies external forcing. 45 years after the turn, the land is still showing no signs of slowing, which as the leading index portends that the other indices won’t turn any time soon either. All the stadium wave modes will be stuck in this end warming mode for the foreseeable future.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vnh/mean:240/detrend:0.8/offset:0.5/mean:120/plot/esrl-amo/mean:240/mean:120/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:240/mean:120/detrend:0.8/offset:0.5

Comment on Week in review by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

Tonyb
thanks for saying this
this seems to me like one of the odd ignored issues in this debate
Still looking for something that convinces me that these 500-1000 year reconstructions can be that accurate
I don’t see anyone offering a direct answer

Like your question about which happy climate period we might return to and “sustain”

Actually, from my reading our industrial CO2 period looks pretty good
warmer periods seem to correlate with more societal stability, technical and economic growth

(oh wait … forgot … economic growth is bad for the climate)
:)

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison


Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn

0
0

Michael,

Am I correct in assuming you have no evidence that Mann is other than a delusional psychotic, who has contributed nothing to the general community other than giving the world at large the opportunity to indulge in merriment at the posturings of a balding bearded buffoon?

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Jim D

0
0

The leading “wave” for the last rise starting in 1970 was CRUTEM4 NH (NH land) which is not included among the stadium wave indices for some reason. With land leading, this implies external forcing. 45 years after the turn, the land is still showing no signs of slowing, which as the leading index portends that the other indices won’t turn any time soon either. All the stadium wave modes will be stuck in this end warming mode for the foreseeable future.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vnh/mean:240/detrend:0.8/offset:0.5/mean:120/plot/esrl-amo/mean:240/mean:120/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:240/mean:120/detrend:0.8/offset:0.5

Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #151 | Watts Up With That?

Comment on An unsettled climate by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #151 | Watts Up With That?

Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn

0
0

Rob Ellison,

Just a couple of points.

Is the P D Jones and his colleagues at the University of East Anglia the same Phil Jones who loses his data and apparently suffered from spreadsheet comprehension impairment?

The temperature at Thornton appears to have dropped by 2 C odd in the period 1500 – 1900. It’s the only one I looked at. I presume you have a nifty explanation for cooling being recorded to support warming? Or have I read the graph incorrectly?

I suppose that 97% of borehole climate resurrectionists agree that anybody disagreeing is a fool. You might notice the disclaimers attached to the graph. The researcher clearly states the technique used does not necessarily provide a correct answer. What a surprise!

Keep up the good fight!

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by AK

0
0

[W]ith the advent of climate models and “new era” of CMIP experiments, providing “physical understanding” of an observed phenomenon has somehow become synonymous with the ability of the models to reproduce this phenomenon in the first place. Yet, it is not a matter of argument that these models, while very useful and skillful in simulating a wide range of climatic processes, are imperfect and may easily “miss something.” The latter statement, while obvious, is often overlooked and the model experiments are in a sense given disproportionately large weight as the primary method for climate analysis and prediction. In contrast, we think that a symbiosis between climate modeling and observational analysis is absolutely essential in trying to reconcile models and data.

Throwing down the gauntlet?

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

JimD, it is much more interesting than that.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vnh/mean:240/detrend:0.8/offset:0.5/mean:120/plot/esrl-amo/mean:240/mean:120/plot/hadsst2sh/mean:240/mean:120/detrend:0.8/offset:0.5

The ocean basin that has the best correlation with “global” temperature is the Indian ocean Which WFT doesn’t have. Since the IO have less THC throughflow, it should be a better index for “global” forcing.

Pretty similar huh?

The IO also seems to have some influence on the Sudden Stratospheric warming events and Arctic winter warming thanks to the Tibetan Plateau that should have a bit of influence on Arctic Sea Ice, so I believe you would have to get into a little finer detail to eke out what “causes” what. My money is on a combination of volcanic and solar with very long term persistence. Plus some Anthro thrown in just to make things more interesting.


Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by GaryM

0
0

“The point raised by Mann and the alternative perspective provided by our paper does raise the broader issues of whether you can separate forced from intrinsic variability, and if so, how to do this.”

And if you can’t separate forced from intrinsic variability, doesn’t that mean you can’t determine attribution and therefore can’t determine climate sensitivity?

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by AK

0
0
<blockquote>The ocean basin that has the best correlation with “global” temperature is the Indian ocean [...]</blockquote>But <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00471.1" rel="nofollow"><i>"the western tropical Indian Ocean has been warming for more than a century, at a rate faster than any other region"</i></a>

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

AK, The western tropical Indian ocean would be part of the Indian Ocean which has been warming for more than a century, based on the IPWP, since around 1700. Not in my mind a “fingerprint” of CO2 forcing. So I don’t see a need for the but.

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Mike Flynn

0
0

I note the paper states “There are two possible explanations for this documented inconsistency between climate model simulations and observations.”

I don’t wish to give offense, so please take none, but is it possible there are more than two possible explanations? If so, what might they be, and if not, why not?

When there is a discrepancy between observation and theory, a raft of things need to be considered, which I will not expand on here.

It just seems a bit limiting, and I think I understand why. I am not sure, however, hence my query.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Week in review by jim2

0
0

So for over 100 years, since the beginnings of earnest industrialization the surface temp is up 0.6 C?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images