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

Comment on Week in review by Fernando Leanme

0
0

I think many of you who dismiss the difficulties getting the unconventional hydrocarbons don’t grasp the details. Working offshore in deep water isn’t subject to Moores Law. Go read about Petrobras and their project to produce the presalt fields. And tell me, do you think methane hydrates are found in a nice little pile on the sea floor? Do you visualize something we can suck up with a vacuum cleaner?


Comment on Week in review by Fernando Leanme

0
0

Doc Martyn, I worked on gas to liquids in the 1990’s. It requires a cheap gas price to be feasible. That pathway meets a barrier when gas can be marketed as LNG to the Far East and Europe.

Thus what we see are increasing LNG trade flows and very little GTL. Also, do this exercise: find the gas reserves for a large player (use Russia), convert them to liquids using 30 % of the gas to fuel the process. Then compare those reserves to the Saudi Oil reserves. What you’ll find us that gas isn’t that plentiful if it’s used to replace oil.

Question: do you guys want me to show you the figures?

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by AK

0
0
@Jim D... It actually started with the <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/01/steyn-versus-mann-norms-of-behavior/#comment-634275" rel="nofollow">claim (by Michael)</a> that MM05 had <i>"showed a 1% sample and here are saying that it produced a HS, over “99%” of the time."</i> <blockquote>You’ll enjoy this – evidence of McIntyre’s deliberate dishonest and deceptive behaviour;</blockquote><blockquote>“We showed that the PCA method as used by Mann et al. effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns. Even from meaningless random data (red noise), it nearly always produces a hockey stick.”</blockquote><blockquote>Why – because it was a press release and they wanted to hype their report, and it’s wrong because it doesn’t “nearly always” produce HSs.</blockquote><blockquote>“In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockeystick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99%of the time.” – M&M</blockquote><blockquote>Wrong. Deliberate dishonesty? Fr@ud?</blockquote><blockquote>It’s pretty simple maths -they showed a 1% sample and here are saying that it produced a HS, over “99%” of the time.</blockquote><blockquote>Those qoutes are from their ‘backgrounder’ – probably the only thing most people read.</blockquote><blockquote>And yes, it complete BS.</blockquote><blockquote>Exactly, they claim that they get “99%” HS – I’m sure most people would assume they at least were referring to the entire 10,000 series, or possibly even all reconstructions, rather than just the cherry-picked subset.</blockquote>And so on. So I <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/01/steyn-versus-mann-norms-of-behavior/#comment-635148" rel="nofollow">demonstrated to him that he was wrong</a>, Then you jumped in with <I>"look! A squirrel!"</i> and insisted all your BS was relevant. Which it wasn't.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim D

0
0

Several factors can account for reduced forcing: increased aerosol (e.g. pollutant sulfates or volcanic), or reduced sun. Aerosols can also increase cloud albedo. I predict skeptics are going to resist the idea of reduced forcing and now go for trying to find the missing heat in the ocean.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim D

0
0

It is an energy budget. The energy thought to come in exceeded the warming seen. Either heat is missing or less energy came in.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim Zuccaro

0
0

“Several factors can account for reduced forcing: increased aerosol (e.g. pollutant sulfates or volcanic), or reduced sun. Aerosols can also increase cloud albedo. I predict skeptics are going to resist the idea of reduced forcing and now go for trying to find the missing heat in the ocean.”

Predictions…

But you did not answer.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim Zuccaro

0
0

” …or reduced sun.”

No. Who says that the sun is variable? Really, who says that?

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Jim D

0
0

AK, I saw this long argument about 1%, 99%, red noise, PCs etc., and checked the sources, which were from 10 years ago. Mann’s explanation was clear. MM dropped the ball in responding, game over for MM.


Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #152 | Watts Up With That?

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim D

0
0

For example, China’s emissions have doubled since 2000, mostly coal. It could well be that this would go with a large-area aerosol haze impact that would be negative, and that might only be part of the story. Increased forest fires, reduced sun, volcanoes all could play into it. I am just pointing out what the implications of this missing heat are if it is not found in the earth system.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rob Ellison

0
0

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

It is oddest that the BAMS 09 supplement showed all the gain in SW due to cloud cover decrease – the missing heat. But this changes and there is currently no missing energy.

Ocean heat varies naturally. A few years of data is not going to reveal much. There is some increase in the past couple of years which may associated with the peak in the Schwabe cycle.

Salinity doesn’t seem to change much – implying that the freshwater gains are matched by evaporative losses. Water is ending up somewhere.

Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.

It is all pretty pointless unless there is an appreciation of how things are actually changing in the global energy budget.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim Zuccaro

0
0

“The biggest uncertainty is aerosols. The more their negative effect, the greater the transient sensitivity. ”

What are the observations that let you isolate the effect of aerosols? You say that they’re are the “main difference between various observation-based estimates.”

What does that mean?! How large uncertainties?

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim D

0
0

Solar cycle 24 is the weakest one in a century when accounting for the extra-long minimum just before it. It could be a factor.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rob Ellison

0
0

Whoops – mixed up salinity and heat.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim Zuccaro

0
0

Jim D,

You are not saying anything at all, except that you are uncertain.


Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Faustino

0
0

But they did use simulation, too.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim Zuccaro

0
0

Jim D,

No. There is a numerator and a denominator.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Faustino

0
0

Steven, it is the policy debate which is important for the vast majority of humans. If the science went on quietly as an inquiring, exploratory endeavour, fine, it would get neither the funding nor the attention, and most posters wouldn’t be here in what would be a quiet backwater.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim D

0
0

Most people agree on the temperature rise, but some might dispute baselines for that too. So the main variation is in the assumed forcing. In AR4 the other GHGs roughly canceled aerosols, leaving CO2 as the main factor. In AR5 the central estimate now has the forcing 30-40% larger than that from CO2 alone, due to a reduced aerosol effect, but AR4 is still within the error bars where these cancel. Whether these cancel as in AR4 or the net now exceeds CO2 by 40% as can be inferred for the forcing since 1950 from AR5 (as a central estimate), makes large differences of 40% in the sensitivity to forcing. By assuming faster forcing changes you can get lower sensitivities even for the same temperature variation between two estimates.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Faustino

0
0

Is cloudiness like truthiness?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images