Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Rob Ellison  “[cherry-picked spin redacted]“

Rob Ellison, have you never heard the fundamental maxim of science?

The Fundamental Maxim of Science

“No one believes a theory (except the theorist); everyone believes an experiment (except the experimentalist).”

Consequence  The sole climate-change worldview that is solidly backed by both theory and observation is Hansen’s energy balance worldview.

That’s why the overwhelming majority of scientists embrace Hansen’s climate-change worldview.

That’s why the overwhelming majority of scientists reject denialist spinning, cherry-picking, and quibbling.

Pretty much *EVERYONE* nowadays appreciates this common-sense principle, eh Rob Ellison?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}


Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Little Audrey

$
0
0

FOMD touches on the truth – hardly any climate scientist today make pronoucements with any basis measurements or reality. It’s all about the models and what they do for political correctness now.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Stephen Segrest

$
0
0

Hi Beth — My comment is only within a context of our CE blog. Also, I balk in a big way how people use things like Climategate (where clearly some bad things were going on) as a “blanket” to cast over all Scientists that you (and others here at CE) don’t agree with. There are many Scientists with very high integrity (like Dr. Muller’s BEST team) that saw wrongs and have been trying extremely hard to fix it through their open access efforts.

Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

Rob Ellison wrote: “The US standard atmosphere environmental lapse rate is some 6.5 degrees C/km – the dry adiabatic rate is 9.8.

This suggests that other processes are in play – and I suggest that if you can get accurate numbers from your ersatz dry lapse rate then you are fiddling the books.”

This is a strawman argument for I never argued that the environmental lapse rate must match the dry adiabatic lapse rate or that adiabatic expansion of rising parcels of dry air is the only mechanism of heat transport in the atmosphere. However, the fact that the *dry* atmosphere never is convectively stable with a gradient that exceeds the dry adiabatic lapse rate, and the fact that it *is* convectively stable when the gradient is lower, are sufficient enough to demonstrate the the theoretical derivation is sound. That’s because the derivation is *about* the rate of temperature change as a function of vertical displacement within a rising parcel of dry air given the normal gravity generated vertical pressure profile. It’s not about something else.

Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Energy is conserved. It is absorbed at the surface and heats the air above. The mass rises turbulently converting the potential energy of buoyancy to kinetic energy – down to the molecular through micro eddies vibrating at thousands of times a second. Spinning up through the Coriolis force to travel at up to hundreds of kilometres an hour in the upper atmosphere.

Sure molecular diffusion happens – maybe. The process is subsumed in the roiling masses turbulently mixing as they rise. Ice crystals form and melt again and again. Water vapour condenses releasing energy and free falling to the surface to splatter with fantastic energies in miniature on the surface to run in rivulets and grand rivers through the landscape only to return to the sky. Here’s a formula.

P = Q + E + Δ S
where

P is precipitation
Q is runoff
E is evapotranspiration
Δ S is the change in storage (in soil or the bedrock)

Unlike the dry adiabatic formulation – it is conceptually precise. The dry adiabatic formulation sets energy gains and losses as well as energy due to buoyancy to zero and neglects phase transitions entirely. The reality is much more interesting.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by phatboy

$
0
0

…in fact, enough energy to heat the equivalent mass of water by 80 deg C!

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Stephen Segrest

$
0
0

Beth — The Marshall Institute is an example of what I’m saying. Many here at CE argued that some highly questionable historical positions that Marshall has taken should not be used as an ubiquitous “blanket” to cast and discredit their current efforts on AGW.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”

Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

We are even getting intriguing suggestions of low frequency climate variability from satellites.

‘Based upon the revised (Edition 3_Rev1) ERBS record (Figure 3.23), outgoing LW radiation over the tropics appears to have increased by about 0.7 W m–2 while the reflected SW radiation decreased by roughly 2.1 W m–2 from the 1980s to 1990s (Table 3.5).’ AR4 3.4.4.1

Yes we really like observations in Earth sciences FOMBS – happy to see you are on board with vigourous decadal variability for which a great deal of science exists. It is very bracing.


Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

“Unlike the dry adiabatic formulation – it is conceptually precise. The dry adiabatic formulation sets energy gains and losses as well as energy due to buoyancy to zero and neglects phase transitions entirely. The reality is much more interesting.”

You are simply changing the subject to something “more interesting” in order to avoid facing the problems with *your* account of dry adiabatic expansion and the violation of energy conservation within the expanding volume that your account entails.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by hunter

$
0
0

Confusing a google count of papers on Arctic responses to so-called global warming is to confuse an echo with a chorus.

Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Again – and definitely for the last time (I can;t help myself because you are a totally annoying pratt who couldn’t bring himself to let a poetic description go) no I am not – I derived the formula and discussed the inadequacy of the assumptions and departures from reality. That you insist on staying within the boundaries of unrealistic assumptions and mechanical analogies is bizarre – and to repeat the same whine over and over again is quite irrational.

All of the energy of the molecules is conserved as they spread and mix into the larger volume. It isn’t converted to anything else. It doesn’t do work and then that work is converted to some other form outside the artificial boundary. It remains as kinetic energy. But then other things are happening at the same time. Assume they aren’t all you like and stick to the assumptions – but I really can’t think of a more dumdass and pointless approach.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by AK

$
0
0
<blockquote><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=142" rel="nofollow"> Peer-reviewed skeptic papers by Judith Curry</a></blockquote><blockquote>This page lists any peer-reviewed papers by Judith Curry that take a negative or explicitly doubtful position on human-caused global warming.</blockquote><blockquote>• <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-011-0180-z" rel="nofollow">Reasoning about climate uncertainty</a> (Year: 2011, Journal: Climatic Change, Citations: 0)</blockquote>

Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by beththeserf

$
0
0

Rustling of cardinal silk in the corridors pf power,
indulgences penned by industrious scribes
inside the stone or glass- walled hive,
while on the slopes out-side,
peasants scrabble
for scraps from the priests’ table.

Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Peter Davies

Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Matthew R Marler

$
0
0

Jim D: Matthew Marler, the pause does not show up in 30-year trends because it was preceded by a sharp rise. If you are focused on 15-year periods, you need to consider natural variability more seriously because that time scale does not cancel them out as much. Just like if you look at annual averages you have to consider that you will see ups and downs due to ENSO. In the big picture these self-canceling oscillations are just distractions.

You have written that before, and that is why I wrote that you dismiss all of the “explanations” of the “pause”. You and other believers, not skeptics.

Whether the cancellations will recur in the future, like the question of whether the ca. 1000 year period represents a persistent process, we can’t tell yet.

Meanwhile, no one predicted the “apparent pause”, even people who now claim to believe in the reality of the short-term “self-canceling” oscillations. That is why WUWT and contributors deride the many explanations.


Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer

Science is not as John Carter imagines. The world is not warming. The Arctic – and the US and parts of Europe are cooling. Warming is not guaranteed. Climate is utterly unpredictable and climate surprises are inevitable. This is where science leads – time and again. It is not even clear that CO2 levels
are higher than early in the Holocene.

They are not capable of processing anomalous information and this is a symptom of the psychopathology.

The real issue comes from another direction entirely – from the dynamical mechanism at the heart of climate. There are rational responses to the issue – but they are about is transforming societies and economies. Rational response is not part of the plan. .

Rational responses include energy innovation. Building resilience to climate variability that will happen regardless remains a central objective of rational policy. Economic development is the core of building long term resilience. Fast mitigation is not merely possible with reductions in population pressures and emissions of black carbon, tropospheric ozone, methane, CFC’s and nitrous oxide – but are outcomes of health, education and economic development strategies. We may also reduce carbon emissions by building soil fertility on agricultural lands and conserving and restoring ecosystems. There are practical and pragmatic approaches that provide real no regrets policy options.

Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

I’d suggest a reality check but I don’t think he is capable of it.

Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Matthew R Marler

$
0
0
Jim D: <i>The trend at the end of the 20th century was twice the average trend of the 20th century </i> On the other hand, the trend of the 21st century is 0, which is twice the rate of certain selected previous intervals that had a warming rate of 0. You pick your ratios, then choose the intervals for which those ratios work out as you choose.

Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by beththeserf

$
0
0

PD probab’ly the one i sent u, :)

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by tonyb

$
0
0

John Carter

You said;

‘Doing things like talking about a mere “15 year” pause even though what the issue actually is – heat energy accumulation, continues unabated and is accelerating, focusing on ambient air temperature as if the issue, for all this highfalutin talk of physics laws, was about a linear, immediate, and direct correlation between atmospheric air temperatures and greenhouse gas levels, and the far more relevant, longer term, non linearly changing, and normally stable ocean, glacier, permafrost, and (current) carbon storage have little to do with it,’

You are aware that Judith used to be an out and out warmist? She has gradually changed her mind as the proof of what she had previously believed has been lacking (other than in equations) and great uncertainties abound.

For instance you talk about ocean warming. Well it probably has warmed over the shorter term. However the abyssal deep meme is unproven and I heard Thomas Stocker himself say we did not have the technology to measure the heat in the deep oceans-below 2000 metres. The average depth is 4000 metres.

We know that the previous high point of sea levels was around 1600AD (presumably due to melt/thermal expansion) and prior to that around 1300 and prior to that around the 6th Century.

We know that the arctic melts to some extent or another on a fairly regular basis, the last time being the 1920-1940 period. According to Phil Jones the warmest two consecutive decades in Greenland were the 1930’s and 1940’s. Prior to that there was a well documented warming around 1818 to 1860 and we know the 1730’s were very warm there through the annals of the Hudson Bay company and prior to that a few decades of melt around 1540 when what was probably the hottest year of the last 500 occurred.

What has changed is that in that intervening period we had the misnamed LIA. An episodic series of events which was the coldest period of the warming Holocene. It cooled the oceans and deposited vast amounts of snow and ice, locking up water by way of reduced sea levels.

This is now melting and the results are rising sea levels and diminishing glaciers and general warming.

Here are borehole temperatures which show we have been warming for some 300 or 400 years.

http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html

As can be seen proxies are extremely poor at showing annual and decadal variability, so many consequently have this idea that the climate was stable prior to around 1900. Not so. Giss etc are merely staging posts of a warming world, not the starting post.

We can see similar or greater warmth to the present in the period 850 to 1200Ad and to a lesser extent, as regards duration, in the 1730’s.

I have cited these and given links many times.

tonyb

Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images