Yes you can. Most of us can grasp why. You are just being polite. ;-)
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Wijnand
↧
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Wijnand
Especially the ones where dogs can become esteemed members.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Richard Scott
Judy, welcome back
A quote Lincoln
If I were to read much less answer all the attacks made on me. …I do the very best I know how, the very best I can and I mean to keep doing it to the end. If the end brings me out alright what is said about me will not amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Stacey
Please please can someone explain the mechanism whereby heat hides in the ocean but does not increase the temperature of the ground and hence the air temperature?
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by climatereason
Stacey
Both ocean and ground temperatures have been increasing for hundreds of years and they have also warmed prior to this era. This concerns warmer oceans in the past;
“bserved increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.”
This concerns rising ground temperatures.
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
I think we need to know WHY ocean and ground temperatures have been warming for hundreds of years and have warmed previously to greater extents than today. This will help to put modern temperatures into their proper context
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Little Audrey
What common sense tells us, Fan…
… is that despite the growing disparity between models and what robust measuremrents we do have, the overwhelming majority of government-funded climate scientists endorse the alarmist worldview tells because that is what benefits their paymaster and ideological agenda.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by phatboy
I’ll see it when I believe it.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Pierre-Normand
Stacey, there never is any significant flow of heat from the atmosphere to the oceans. The Sun warms the oceans and the heat flows from oceans to atmosphere (only a small amount diffuses down) though conduction/convection, evaporation and radiation (and some also flows back directly to space). But this flow from the ocean surface is highly variable as a result of internal variability. When the rate of cooling of the oceans is temporarily reduced, the oceans heat up, because they don’t shed as much of the energy received from the Sun, while the atmosphere cools. This is what occurs, for instance, when there is a La Nina episode.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by peter2108
“uncertainty in itself is not a reason for inaction”. No, but in the UK it has played no role. Rather it has been assumed that dangerous global warming is certain and imminent. The resulitng panic renewable policy has not worked but has proved very expensive. Kick away the prop of approaching disaster (the “pause”) and it comes to look not only very expensive but very stupid. That is why amongst the policy elites a retreat is now underway.
↧
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Steven Sullivan
Speak for yourself, bacpierre. You certainly don’t speak for all ‘scientists remote from climate science but who follow the debate from (a)far”
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by phatboy
John Carter, people, being people, will see what they believe.
And nobody is immune to that particular bias – not scientists, not me, and not you.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Rob Ellison
Paleo climate sensitivity is conceptually simple.
dF = d(GHG) + d(albedo) + d(aerosols)
Greenhouse gases and aerosols are determined from ice cores. Albedo from modeling.
‘Unfortunately, we have no direct information concerning the past global surface albedo from the ice core data. Consequently, we have to rely on past modeling results. The radiative forcing due to the surface albedo changes (extent of ice sheets, sea ice and snow cover, exposure of a new land in a low sea level state, change in surface characteristics and vegetation cover) has been estimated by several authors to be between 3 and 4 W/m2 with most results clustering around 3.5 W/m2 [Hewitt and
Mitchell, 1997].’ http://www.iac.ethz.ch/doc/publications/Chylek-Lohmann-GRL2008.pdf
Aerosol forcing is treated as an unknown in 2 equations.
The problem is in both the ice core data and the modeling. If CO2 changes are underestimated then the sensitivity is much less.
The increase in temperature from 1944 to 1998 is 0.4 degrees C. If we assume 50% of that was anthropogenic we get a TCR of 0.9 degree C.
!944 and 1998 are of course chosen on the basis of climate shifts – involving changes in the trajectory of surface temperature.
Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
This suggests a whole new definition of climate sensitivity.
Michael Ghil’s model has two stable states with two points of abrupt climate change – the latter at the transitions from the blue lines to the red from above and below. The two axes are normalized solar energy inputs μ (insolation) to the climate system and a global mean temperature. The current day energy input is μ = 1 with a global mean temperature of 287.7 degrees Kelvin. This is a relatively balmy 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
The 1-D climate model uses physically based equations to determine changes in the climate system as a result of changes in solar intensity, ice reflectance and greenhouse gas changes. With a small decrease in radiation from the Sun – or an increase in ice cover – the system becomes unstable with runaway ice feedbacks. Runaway ice feedbacks drive the transitions between glacial and interglacial states seen repeatedly over the past 2.58 million years. These are warm interludes – such as the present time – of relatively short duration and longer duration
The model shows that climate sensitivity (γ) is variable. It is the change in temperature (ΔT) divided by the change in the control variable (Δμ) – the tangent to the curve as shown above. Sensitivity increases moving down the upper curve to the left towards the bifurcation and becomes arbitrarily large at the instability. The problem in a chaotic climate then becomes not one of quantifying climate sensitivity in a smoothly evolving climate but of predicting the onset of abrupt climate shifts and their implications for climate and society. The problem of abrupt climate change on multi-decadal scales is of the most immediate significance.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Rob Ellison
‘In a world of limited resources, we can’t do everything, so which goals should we prioritize? The Copenhagen Consensus Center provides information on which targets will do the most social good (measured in dollars, but also incorporating e.g. welfare, health and environmental protection), relative to their costs.’ Copenhagen Consensus
Within the range of actions developed by the Copenhagen Consensus are those have direct and indirect CO2 mitigation outcomes. These are no regrets options involving high priority social and economic objectives.
↧
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by PA
climatereason:“This concerns rising ground temperatures….
I think we need to know WHY ocean and ground temperatures have been warming for hundreds of years and have warmed previously to greater extents than today. This will help to put modern temperatures into their proper context”
Fun graph:
The chart illustrates the point that about every 1000 years it gets warmer for a decreasingly short period of time, then gets cooler again.
This time we have been warmer for about 130-150 years. I expect we have 50-100 years before it gets really cold again. And it will get much colder than the little ice age, barring interference by man.
I don’t know why there is a 1000 year oscillation in temperatures. Don’t have theory to cover it. But it is going to get colder – perhaps dangerously cold – perhaps catastrophically cold, unless we take some action to mitigate a potential future disaster. To stop catastrophic natural global cooling (CNGC) we need to pump out all the CO2 we can as a “precaution” to mitigate some of the effects of cold – which are much worse than the effects of warm.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by WFC
I find ATTP to be a thoughtful and polite (mainly) blog – certainly above the line.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by kim
Nor do you, but you sure speak like a lot of the alarmists do.
=========
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by kim
OK, we’re getting close. ‘a supreme bias’. In 20 words or less, what is that bias?
==========
↧
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by kim
And then there’s everything else.
=========================
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by kim
Given present evidence, we can’t pump enough to make much difference.
=============
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by WFC
If the heat has gone swimming then surely it is not “sequestered” or in “jail”. Nor is it a short or long term threat. If it has gone into the oceans, then it (or, rather, all but a tiny part of it) must have gone, permanently. Not “jail”, but the chair.
The reason is this. If 3 degs of atmospheric heat goes into the ocean, it will heat the ocean by only 0.003 degs (ish). If so, then the only heat that can or will be given “back” to the atmosphere from the oceans, therefore, is that 0.003 degs.
So the 3 degs of atmospheric warming will have been permanently changed to 0.003 degs atmospheric warming. Which is not in the slightest bit scary, nor worth spending a penny on to mitigate.
Am I missing something?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
