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

Comment on Week in review by ianl8888

0
0

That’s why power corrupts, Jim

For a longer or shorter period, it (the exercise of power) has no accountability. Voting a change every 3-4 years cannot undo the careless damage done before

There is no sensible answer for any of this, it’s the human condition


Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by ianl8888

0
0

Nope

AGW aka Climate change has caused an increase in the rate of Ebola mutations

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by tonyb

0
0

John

This might provide some useful background. It concerns my attendance at the Exeter Climate conference around 6 months ago hosted by Exeter University and the Met Office which featured a panel of IPCC reviewers. I posted this at the time here; Much of it concerns ocean heat content.

——- ———

“I was allowed to ask my question on natural variability but got a poor answer (see attached link to RGates)

http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/16/reflections-on-bengtsson-and-the-gwpf/#comment-558243

Prof Stocker gave an interesting reply concerning ocean heat content (also in this comment link)

Obviously the uncertainties on measurement of ocean heat are very much greater than is normally publicly stated. You may remember that I commented to you that when I was reviewing the draft of AR5 that I complained that the IPCC refused 3 times to give me a reference to back up their stated assertion that the abyssal depths were well known to be warming. Apart from Purkiss (a very limited study) there appears to be no research at all to back up this claim and this seems to have been admitted to by Prof Stocker.
—— ——-

The simple answer is that we often just don’t know about many aspects of the Earths climate and that uncertainty increase in places we can’t get to, like the ocean. We also have a very poor idea as to how everything interlinks. ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t seem to be in the lexicography of many climate scientists who endlessly speculate on things that get presented as facts.

Lets repeat the take home message from the conference which is that uncertainty abounds and we DO NOT have the technology to accurately measure the deep ocean and really have no idea what is going on there.

tonyb

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by malcolm

0
0

Abstract: The global ocean stores more than 90% of the heat associated with observed greenhouse-gas-attributed global warming.
Stop right there. Does anyone else see a problem with this introductory sentence? I know Judith has written on this topic a few times but the physical processes involved exist only in the imaginations of those seeking to explain the absence of surface warming. Real Climate had a go at it but didn’t go much further than to say that heat flux from the cool skin layer becomes retarded as a result of ACO2 emissions. Fair enough. But has anyone attempted to measure and quantify this by reference to evaporation, SW heating of the surface, the effect of water vapour acting to reduce the temperature gradient of the surface and the cool skin layer etc…? Kittens sneezing into a gale comes to mind… Please help me understand where I’m going wrong in my thinking.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Fernando Leanme

0
0

I know this may sound crazy, but does anybody check the amount of salt water and heavy brine produced by the oil and gas industry? Some of the brines produced in locations such as the Gulf of Suez are completely saturated (150 to 180 thousand mg/liter), and the industry has been pumping a huge amount of water from these zones.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Alexander Biggs

0
0

The theory i have used is that a vertical column of water left to profile itself with the most dense water at the bottom. Density is a function of both temperature and salinity and accounts for the depths of the oceans being about 4C.

I have never placed much credence on the ‘missing heat’ theory because I never thought it was missing. This was a consequence of the failure of the IPCC to prpperly investigate the 1940 global temperature singularity. The sudden drop in global average temperature after 1940 was doe to the loss of neutrons from the CO2 molecule which reduced their ability to absorb IR (See my theiretical model underlined above).

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim Zuccaro

0
0

For 4 billion years there has been atmosphere. And there has been global temperature.

For fewer years there has been CO2 in the atmosphere. For those fewer years, there have been variations of temperatures and CO2 concentrations.

When there is atmospheric CO2, plants fix carbon from atmospheric CO2. Plants die. Plants decay, and return CO2 to the atmosphere.

Continents move, ice ages come and go.

Humans come along. For the last one hundred years humans affect the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Present human contribution to CO2 turnover (recycle) is 1/100th of the natural atmospheric CO2 flux.

Today, absent humans, there would be an atmospheric CO2 concentration. And there would be a global temperature trend. And there would be a “CO2 doubling sensitivity”. It would be an “AGW Sensivity” without the “A”. Global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have existed without humans.

So the first question is; have humans changed the the function (temp x time) in the last one hundred years?

Absent humans, what would the ‘doubling sensitivity’ exactly be today? With humans, it is a number that is ‘perhaps’ something slightly different from the prior, non-human extant, number.

If humans have changed the number, is that good or bad?

What is the trend, what is the future? Glaciers will cover Chicago and Seattle, sooner or later.

Is later better than sooner?

Going forward, global temperatures will increase or decrease.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by nottawa rafter

0
0

Jim D
Keep guessing. Just think what a wonderful life you have ahead of you. Trying to explain why things aren’t working out as they are supposed to. Can’t get any better than that. Never running out of new material. A comedy writer’s dream.


Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Fernando Leanme

0
0

Tonyb, do the models you use consider the geothermal heat influx? I read a reference somewhere this energy input was ignored in the analysis. Intuition tells me geothermal heating has a significant influence on the ocean turnover rate (or am I missing something?).

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by nottawa rafter

0
0

As an aside, I am looking forward to CU
updating their 5-23-2014 data and graph. Apparently, it is not done on any consistent schedule.

Comment on Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior by Nick

0
0

It’s true, Steyn is an attention-seeking parasite who just saw some mileage in attacking Mann. Steyn did not know the first thing about the issue and just parroted others wrongness…probably knows very little still.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Gareth

0
0

So do we read “observed estimates” as “estimates based on direct observation”? And how to you measure ocean warming in dbar, which is usually an abbreviation of decibar, a unit of pressure?

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Curious George

0
0

Steven – how much thermal energy does the solid Earth surface store? Would it be much easier to measure than the oceans? .. of course, that makes the oceans a prime candidate for anything missing.

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Howard

0
0

Jim D | October 6, 2014 at 6:56 pm | Reply

The bottom line would be that the missing heat was in the poorly sampled southern hemisphere</blockquote
In other words… it's still missing and the southern oceans are our best new guess because the data sux there.

Comment on Week in review by Faustino


Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Curious George

0
0

Take an advice from an old hiker: When the terrain disagrees with your map, trust the terrain.

Comment on Week in review by Jeffn

0
0

Speaking of politics, Democrats are campaigning on the promise that they won’t do anything about global warming. And hoping folks like you and JimD assume they’re just lying to get elected.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/grimes-staffers-suggest-kentucky-dem-lies-about-coal-support/

Now, this must be puzzling to you: seeing as how the Republican position is so far out of the mainstream, why would Democrats think the only way to get elected is to adopt the Republican position?

Comment on Week in review by jim2

Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by stevefitzpatrick

0
0

David,
As Richard Linzen (and others) have pointed out, all “corrections”, adjustments, and revisions tend to go in one direction…… toward claims of high sensitivity. Lewis and Curry used the IPCC values for their calculation. You could add another 5% to 10% if you are sure Cowtan and Way are correct, but that doesn’t change the message: a simple heat balance based on IPCC estimated ranges yields MUCH lower sensitivity than the GCM’s. There are many who are unhappy with that reality, but reality it is. You can count on the models being eventually adjusted downward, probably with adjustments in cloud parameters. In the mean time, they are approaching truly silly, as are demands for draconian, immediate reductions in FF use. That is not going to happen any time in the next couple of decades (listen to the Indians and Chinese). Give that CO2 emissions are not going to be reduced any time soon, I would imagine lower estimates of sensitivity would please you. Guess not.

Comment on Week in review by Faustino

0
0

AK, you might have noticed that I am very sceptical about any attempts to predict the future. In this context, considering potential technological advances and pricing, I recall a 1985 assessment at Australia’s Bureau of Industrial Economics. In 1975, BIE (or its parent department) forecast which ten industries would grow fastest in the next decade. In the event, none of the industries which grew fastest from 1975-85 (all in microelectronics) were on the list, as they did not exist in 1975. I say again, I say again, we must pursue policies which enhance our capacity to deal best with changing circumstances, whatever they may be, rather than putting unwarranted faith in projected and possible futures, particularly those predicated on technological change (or, of course, imperfect modelling of possible temperature rises). Peter Lang has asked me (below) to look at some work on discount rates, if I manage to comment, it might be relevant to this sub-thread.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images