Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog


Articles on this Page

(showing articles 1 to 50 of 50)
(showing articles 1 to 50 of 50)

    0 0

    Scientists and engineers have ethical responsibilities regardless of who the boss is. http://www.professionalengineers.org.au/rpeng/ethical-commitment/

    0 0

    So cooling has one policy and warming has another? What sort of ratbaggery is this? Rational policy proceeds in uncertainty. "This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures -- three efforts that each have their own diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. As such, Climate Pragmatism offers a framework for renewed American leadership on climate change that's effectiveness, paradoxically, does not depend on any agreement about climate science or the risks posed by uncontrolled greenhouse gases." https://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

    0 0

    Say, Peter, who could vote for the Minister for Goldman Sachs?

    0 0

    What I said was that you don't know if or how much warming will occur. Whatever you said is therefore wrong on all counts and irrelevant to rational policy. Rational policy is - as Judith stated - based on 'pragmatic climate' quoted above.. I will disagree with you errors as I always do.

    0 0

    <blockquote>What I said was that you don’t know if or how much warming will occur.</blockquote> I already refuted that point above. It's irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.

    0 0

    Uncertainty is irrelevant? I guess Judith has been wasting her time and is wrong on her stated policy preferences. On the other hand - I can't imagine why I would believe you on anything.

    0 0

    The new material does not have thermal conduction properties that would be affected by its gain of a few hundred ppm of a gas. Next? Geoff.

    0 0

    Even most skeptics don't believe that.

    0 0

    Then show me where my deduction is wrong. Geoff.

    0 0

    I didn't say uncertainty is irrelevant. I said that GHG emissions are beneficial whether it warms or cools, therefore, there is no valid justification for mitigation policies. Try harder to comprehend what I actually said, instead of what you want to say I said .

    0 0

    Not sure what you're getting at. The government scientists are no different from the national and international scientific communities. The ones at the EPA are being rather muzzled at this point, but science goes on.

    0 0

    Milankovitch changes are not small in the same way that the current GHG changes aren't. Even 1% is a lot.

    0 0

    Most practicing environmental scientists have little regard for amateurs or government at the environmental coalface. You know I have little regard for climate science. The point was simple - but you choose again to pretend it isn't. Do you think I should have to deal with such culturally motivated disingenuousness?

    0 0

    How about when they study pollution? Is there a difference between government and university and foreign environmental scientists in your worldview? Which do you prefer, and what is better about their publications?

    0 0

    Believe it or not they are very small. https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/power-flux1.jpg There is negligible net global forcing from Milankovic cycles. The big changes are in ice sheet responses. Or at smaller scales - shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation. Now - while you are still misrepresenting science rather than me - seems a good place to leave it.

    0 0

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bw0qrC4FB_l

    0 0

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bw0qrC4FB_I

    0 0

    I quoted an illustrious group of scientists from an NAS publication talking potential for large, abrupt and adverse changes. Dramatic changes in global hydrology and as much as 16 degree C local temperature change in as a little as a decade. Whether the cause is intrinsic or anthropgenic the rational policy response is the same. https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/06/12/voices-of-climate-reason/

    0 0

    They are ~1%. You can call that small or very small, but significant when sustained for long periods. We would not have Milankovitch cycles if there were not sustained, even if small, forcing changes.

    0 0

    The argument is not about the science, its about the impacts of global warming as I've said repeatedly.

    0 0

    I disagree. https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/06/10/a-maximum-entropy-climate-earth-in-transient-energy-equilibrium-2/

    0 0

    You disagree with Milankovitch or what? How wrong was he?

    0 0

    Thanks Ragnaar, I don't recall seeing this map before. It seems that the majority of West Antarctica ice is "marine-based", being grounded below sea level. And in much of the area, well over 1000 feet below sea level.

    0 0

    <blockquote>So cooling has one policy and warming has another? What sort of ratbaggery is this?</blockquote> No. You misunderstand. That is not what I said. What I said is there is no rational justification for mitigation polices. GHG emissions are beneficial, not harmful, for both situations, cooling (it reduces damages) and warming (It increases benefits).

    0 0

    Less wrong than Jimmy.

    0 0

    More correct than your random incoherent musings. Milankovitch is consistent with AGW and energy balance models for paleoclimate in general, along with those tipping points, so I tend to agree with them. They also have explanatory and predictive power that works.

    0 0

    Watching paint dry or sea level rising... kind of boring. But there is something that is happening 10 times faster, our changing ocean biology. So I think it's not how high the water rises, it's what's in the water (or not: oxygen) that is more interesting. We can easily estimate what it will cost to adapt to a few feet of see level rise in 40-80 years but the cost to restore the chemical balance of all the worlds oceans would be orders of magnitude greater. Oxygen levels have only dropped 2% in about 50 years so far but the dead zones are growing many times faster because there are many more variables in play besides temperature. Add in all the other chemicals including hundreds of thousands of man made molecules like plastics, micro-fibers, pharmaceuticals and you have a real witches brew. We probably passed the point of no return a long time ago so there is no need to worry about it now. There is a reason nobody worries about what the climate will look like past the year 2100. If homo sapiens haven't genetically modified themselves to a new species by then we probably all died off in the previous century.

    0 0

    Robert: Your reply doesn't really address my main point. Suppose: 1) We had a pdf for climate sensitivity that everyone was willing to accept. 2) Had a way to incorporate the unforced variability previously observed during the Holocene into that pdf. 3) Temperature change could be converted into damage ($) in a way that everyone agreed upon. 4) Everyone agreed to spend money on mitigation up to the point where $1 spent would save at least $1 in future damage. Even in this ideal world, we wouldn't be able to reach an agreement on how much to spend on mitigation, because there would be no agreement on what discount rate to use when comparing the cost of current mitigation against the NPV of future climate induced damage. This happens because the optimum discount rate for such calculations (according to a mathematical theorem) depends on expectations for future economic growth. Different countries and parties have different expectations of future economic growth and therefore should apply different discount rates. This mathematical result can be expressed intuitively: If you expect your descendants are going to be much richer and more capable than you are, you will spend little to prevent them from suffering damage from future climate change. You will spend your limited money on the economic growth that will benefit both you and your future generations, especially if you perceive your group to be behind economically. If you are on top today and fear your descendants will be poorer than you are, you should spend a lot to avoid damaging their future. IMO, this fundamental dilemma will prevent the developed and developing world from agreeing on a mitigation program - unless developed countries volunteer to pay for mitigation in developing countries (something I can't conceive of happening).

    0 0

    More likely, current version of nuclear power in the West will not survive. The technology is simply obsolete and unable to compete. Happens to all mature technologies overtaken by more advanced developments. Are there advanced nuclear technologies that will successfully emerge? Maybe, but they are not those championed by the US DOE which epitomizes the DC “swamp” culture unable to deal with a competitive world. Pretty much how we ended up with inane subsidies for renewable energy.

    0 0

    Misrepresent me, have a hissy fit and grossly oversimplify Earth system science. Sound about right? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258807321_Synchronization_of_the_climate_system_to_eccentricity_forcing_and_the_100000-year_problem https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2014GL062078 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305?via%3Dihub

    0 0

    Some of your graphs show how massively forcing dominates the OHC, but then you say things as though you don't believe that forcing could possibly be important. It's just incoherent ramblings through mainstream data making wrong assertions about it along the way.

    0 0

    Frank My point is that there are alternative strategies that have high benefit to cost ratios. Your point is therefore moot. If I don't address your point it is because I disagree with your underlying assumptions. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305?via%3Dihub

    0 0

    Δ(ocean heat) ≈ Ein – Eout https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/ocean-heat-and-power-flux.jpg This is just data and the majority of change in the system is not greenhouse gases. Should I have to put up with your incredulity and misrepresentation?

    0 0

    See that trend? Greenhouse gases.

    0 0

    The first two graphs are original and I don't know anything like it Earth system science. The other graphs are the CERES data it is based on. The interpretation of which is starkly evident. Half of these are the raw data - rather than anomalies - that I haven't seen anywhere but the CERES data products page. It is far too short a record to say much meaningfully. Although I think that the discrepancy between Argo and Ceres in the early part of the record is likely a problem with Argo. You may wave your hands around and call it incoherent - but I expect something a little more in a dispassionate science discussion - and you always disappoint.

    0 0

    I agree, But for the new technologies the US DOE, UK and EU regulators and the IAEA need to remove the massive impediments that are blocking progress. Once they are removed, vendors can compete to bring much better, cheaper faster to build small modular reactors to market. This is where we would be now if not for the impediments imposed since the 1960's see this: https://www.thegwpf.com/what-could-have-been-if-nuclear-power-deployment-had-not-been-disrupted/ and follow ,links to relevant notes in Appendix B.

    0 0

    "What I find intriguing is the steady increase – with the annual cycles – in cumulative energy in less energy out. This is an apparent discrepancy between ocean heat and cumulative radiant imbalances early in the record that is a mystery. I’d suggest that there is a problem with the early Argo record – and that the planet has been warming – for multiple reasons – this century." But when you look at the second graph - there is annual cycle of negative to positive radiant imbalnces a large variability that cannot be greenhouse gases

    0 0

    Having a cumulative flux in W/m2 makes no sense. It should be J/m2, so I can't figure out what you are trying to show there. As we've been through CO2 alone provides three times as much Joules as it takes to warm the ocean that much over that period. It is the dominant part of Ein-Eout when averaged over decades.

    0 0

    That's the elliptical orbit as I told you before. We are closer to the sun in January.

    0 0

    And yet both the rationale for retaining original units and an annual orbital eccentricity sketch (0.0167 eccentricity currently) are given. In this case only co-variance of the two data stream matters. J/m3 are of course simply W/m2 over the relevant period - months here. Can easily be done but there is no actual point to it.

    0 0

    And what I actually say is that greenhouse gas forcing is an artifice - what matters for changes in ocean heat is the instantaneous energy imbalance as it evolves over time. It surprised me that it is now possible to make a reasonable stab at this using raw CERES data.

    0 0

    The elliptical orbit causes a solar variation of 6%, so that should show up, and being integrated the peak would be in April. The point of showing J/m2 is that it would be the correct way to integrate W/m2 over time. What do you have there, Watt-months/m2?

    0 0

    No, Robert, I didn't forget Planck response. When CERES is observing the change in OLR in response to seasonal changes in temperature, it is observing the sum of Planck response, water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback when looking at clear skies and the sum of those three plus LWR cloud feedback when looking at cloudy skies. The data is very linear and definitive that the planet emits 2.2 W/m2/K more LWR as it seasonally warms. This is a response to warming in the NH and cooling in the SH, not "global warming" and therefore needs to be interpreted with caution. It implies ECS would be 1.7 K/doubling if there were no SWR feedback. http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/110/19/7568/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1 http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568 (Tsushima and Manabe, 2013) The SWR response to seasonal warming is not highly linear, shows some lagged components, and some features not relevant to global warming. Since the SH has little land with seasonal snow cover, the positive feedback in SWR reflected through clear skies is mostly the result of geography and unlikely to tell us about how global warming will change reflection of SWR. The paper also shows how AOGCMs predict LWR emitted and SWR reflected from clear and cloudy skies should change with seasonal warming. Those predictions are clearly wrong, except for LWR from clear skies. Clearly AOGCMs aren't up to the challenge of properly representing feedbacks and therefore climate sensitivity.

    0 0

    "The currently used reference level 1850–1900 [the 'reference level' baseline] represents... represents the coldest phase of the last 10,000 years" and, solar activity in the latter half of the 20th century was the most active in 3,000 years. Put it altogether and you've dished up a heaping helping of hot, <i>scientific malarkey.</i>

    0 0

    And yet it doesn't figure in your narrative - the change in net outgoing all sky radiant flux is not remotely 2.2W/m2 - and the energy changes show up primarily in the oceans and not the surface. Following and very quickly changes in net flux. https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4-0_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000tonovember-2017.png http://www.climate4you.com/images/ArgoGlobalSummaryGraph.gif You don't get a second chance.

    0 0

    That imbalance averages out to nearly 1 W/m2. CO2 alone provides 2 W/m2. Just saying.

    0 0

    This is now all over the place. I can't keep up. But just finally - it is a cumulative radiant flux imbalance at toa. I could multiply it by a constant to get Joules but that doesn't advance the point any. It should and it does co-vary with ocean heat. The correlation is 0.8.

    0 0

    Power flux imbalances change from negative to positive on an annual basis. The average is 0.8W/m2 – consistent with rates of ocean warming. The trend over the period of record is negative. Such large swings in imbalances cannot be due to greenhouse gases. The result is a very large annual variation in energy from the Sun – the energy in component. Annual variability has significant implications for ocean heat change. Ocean heat does not change slowly as a result of greenhouse gases and thermal inertia but warms and cools rapidly in response to the very large annual signal. 2W/m2 as I gave said to yet again below assumes no response in the system - but the system has of course responded and the energy imbalance from greenhouse gases is not remotely 2W/m2. If there is energy equilibrium on an annual basis - and there is - the current greenhouse gas energy imbalance is at most 0.03W/m2. This is an order of magnitude less than obtained by assuming that all ocean warming is anthropogenic - it is not. You may repeat your memes as much as you like endlessly it seems. But no you are wrong. And I resent needing to quote for the likes of you from something I wrote to show that your would be gotcha points have been considered and discussed.

    0 0

    […] https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann-titley-moore-curry/#more-24162 […]

    0 0

    […] https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/10/voices-of-reason-in-the-climate-wars/#more-24179 […]