Obviously triggered something in 2 very different comments.
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Rob Ellison
↧
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by stevefitzpatrick
Making predictions is hard, especially about the future. The 2C or ‘bad things will happen’ prediction will be walked back, along with James Hansen’s and many other silly predictions. Betts is smarter, but if you substitute “it would be nice if” for “we are going to cook in our own juices”, there is some, ahem, loss of impact. Nothing is going to reduce CO2 emissions any time in the next 15 or 20 years. Predictions of doom (more or less shrill) are not going to make a bit of difference. The ‘climate concerned’ should hope Lewis & Curry are right about low sensitivity. ;-).
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by DocMartyn
Gates, it is funny that all the warming is happening where there are so few people and stations. But don’t worry, it isn’t going to be record breaking, nor in the top five years. Going to get colder too.
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Faustino
ordvic, taking a number from a hat would be much too daring for the IPCC, it might not provide the required scary number.
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Rud Istvan
+1+
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Davies
Matthew +1. Reforestation would be the best action that humanity could ever do. IMO regional deforestation (especially in the tropical areas) has a much stronger correlation to the recent “global” warming than CO2.
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Rob Ellison
2014 – and September in particular – is not close to being the warmest anything.
When making claims about surface records it is certainly more credible to account for latent heat. Not that Randy has a credibility problem – he doesn’t have any.
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by stevefitzpatrick
Almost forgot: L&C probably are right…
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Groty
They tell us that if we drastically cut back on fossil fuels, then we will avoid economic, environmental, and ecological catastrophe. But we can not run the counter-factual. There’s no way to know what the future will look like – whether we change how we live now via government force or not. It is entirely possible that the next 100 years could be like the last 100 years. That is, we become increasingly prosperous as a society if we allow competitive market forces to work and adapt to whatever the climate throws at us.
I think many of the alarmists really believed the catastrophe scenario back in the late ’80s/early ’90s. But when the facts changed with the pause, they didn’t change their mind. That tells me it’s more about ideology and politics than science. They are so ideologically committed to the catastrophic outcome scenario that they can not renounce it now. Careers and money are at stake. Besides, there is no way to hold them accountable if the counter-factual scenario is the right one.
↧
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by R. Gates
“But don’t worry, it isn’t going to be record breaking, nor in the top five years. Going to get colder too.”
_______
Wow, it will certainly have to get much colder very very fast to knock it out of the running. Where is all the record high ocean heat content going to go so rapidly between now and Dec. 31st? Climate 101: Ocean’s drive the climate. Oceans saw no “hiatus”. The planet continued to gain energy just as basic GH theory tells us should happen.
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by DocMartyn
Gatesy, why no plot ‘average temperature’ and log([CO2]) on the same axis?
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison
Yes – it takes a representative element in the column.
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by R. Gates
The problems with satellite temperature data and especially the plotting of surface temperatures has been so widely discussed on the internet that it is more than embarrassing to see it brought up here as a “proof” that 2014 is not among the warmest years for ocean and land surface temperatures. I have no response other than dismay at someone trying to insert satellite data in such an inappropriate way.
↧
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Rob Ellison
Then again – how reliable is the hugely diverse short term Argo ‘climatologies’
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Faustino
m & T, I try to post and am kicked to the start of the blog. I’ll try posting here as a test as I don’t think that either of you will abuse me for so doing. :-)
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by popesclimatetheory
The sixty year cycle should turn to warming, but, it is a sixty year cycle and after that it will turn back to cooling. These are little blips in the long term cycle.
That long term cycle goes between Little Ice ages and Medieval warm periods. We have warmed, we will stay warm awhile and then we will get cold again.
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Rob Ellison
I’d suggest – along with the quite inadequate models – a century decline in AMOC.
Perhaps even abrupt shifts on multi-decadal time frames. And really the ‘forcing changes’ are very minor compared to annual, interannual and decadal variability.
↧
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by PA
Edim | November 2, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
“CO2, is proven to be a GHG in the laboratory”
Do you have a link for this?
Absorption spectrum of the atmosphere.
Even N2 and O2 absorb parts of the spectrum – but the amount is pretty limited. When the water vapor content is high CO2 has little effect.
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Rob Ellison
Ah… this one…
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison: “The finite volume is open on both ends”
And then he immediately proceeds to say: “We may consider this an isolated system with fixed mass and fixed extension.”
↧
