Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 Next
Comments 63251 to 63300:
-
YOGI at 13:27 PM on 24 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
sorry, another typo, that should have been.. The two plots show that in the 600 to 750 cm-1 band, 265K radiate downwards, but only 225K upwards. How is that possible ? -
adelady at 13:26 PM on 24 February 2012Models are unreliable
vor. Well here's the very latest data-model comparison for the completed 2011 year at RealClimate. I'm not sure how much effort should be expended on detailed projections for 100+ years. You can just see how much difference arises from using various scenarios. Climate might be difficult, but predicting what people might do and when they might do it is even more so. One question. Were you looking at the 'basic' or the 'intermediate' version of this post. And a quiet word in your shell-like "That's a fine parameter for a scientific experiment, setting the end point beyond observable time, possible a clue as to the general integrity of the whole project?" is as close to an accusation of fraud as dammit is to swearing. Don't be surprised if the moderators give you a hard time. -
Albatross at 13:23 PM on 24 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Eric @53, Thanks for your point-by-pint reply. I still have some issues with your responses, such as citing a 20 plus year old modelling paper @#4. But I do not have time right now to address those concerns/issues. It seems though that we are in agreement that Meyer was either wrong or sloppy or too simplistic on numerous key points. -
Albatross at 13:20 PM on 24 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Pete @61, That Trenberth et al. (2003) paper that you linked us to is great, one of my favourites! -
Pete Dunkelberg at 13:04 PM on 24 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
One other comment while I'm on the subject: We use the expression "The air holds water" but this is not quite right. Air is mainly oxygen and nitrogen and these do not "hold" H2O. From the point of view of a water molecule breaking free of the liquid surface, air is virtually empty space. The equilibrium vapor pressure depends on temperature. The space in a closed jar with some water at the bottom will contain the same amount of water in the absence or presence of air. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 13:02 PM on 24 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Glenn Tamblyn @ 51, I see your point. It's worth noting though that in the atmosphere there is not the straight line from evaporation to condensation to precipitation that happens in a closed jar. The column of air above an area may on average contain about 25mm, about an inch of water (if it all rained out). After a rain the air is still damp, missing only about 7 mm of the 25 it might have had. At the same time, over an inch of rain may have fallen. What's going on? You might enjoy this paper which starts out "Why does it rain?" -
Pete Dunkelberg at 13:00 PM on 24 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
actually thoughful @ 52, "Protect yourself at all times." That's the first rule of boxing. It's true that Meyer mentions a possible water vapor feedback, but this is just to set you up. Read on and see that he delivers blow after blow against it (for a scientifically unsophisticated audience). http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/print/ If a climate change denier says the sky is blue, go outside and check. -
YOGI at 12:57 PM on 24 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
typo... The S.O.D. article does NOT answer my question -
John Hartz at 12:52 PM on 24 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
CraigR: The fossil-fuel industry collectively stands to realize billions of dollars in profits at stake if a "business-as-usual" emissions scenario is maintained over the next decades. It created and continues to fund the global Climate Denial Spin Machine whose sole purpose is to convince the general public and policymakers that taking swift and meaningful actions to reduce manmade GHG emissions on a global scale is not necessary. -
voice of reason at 12:43 PM on 24 February 2012Models are unreliable
I've been busy going through my own archives, someone here has taken the trouble to compare as many predictions from models with the following reality as possible, (-Snip-). But as people have incredibly short memories and attention spans unless recorded nearly everyone's off on a new trip (-Snip-), the more so the greater ahead they are predicted. 2100 would make a perfect one, as when picked by the IPCC no one on earth could fulfil the experiment as they'd have needed to be 110 at the very youngest. (-Snip-) http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/Response:[DB] Time to acquaint yourself with this site's Comments Policy. You should be familiar with it: that of the SkS FB page was modeled on it.
Multiple violations of the Comments Policy snipped.
-
John Hartz at 12:42 PM on 24 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
CraigR: Thanks to the International Climate Denial Spin Machine created by the Koch brothers, Robert Murdoch, and their ilk, a propaganda generator like the Heartland Institute does not have to be large and have a big budget in order to impact public opinion and public policy. In other words, the Heartland Institute does not operate in a vacuum. -
John Hartz at 12:39 PM on 24 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
@GreenCooling #54: You'll also be pleased to know that many SkS authors post on the comment threads to articles about climate change that are posted on Forbes. Unfortunately, James Taylor, is not the only climate denier posting so-called "op-eds" on Forbes on a regular basis. -
John Hartz at 12:34 PM on 24 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
@GreenCooling #54: “Been their done that” The lead-in to Skepticism about Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data .reads as follows: “Note: This article was submitted to Forbes as a correction to the op-ed by James Taylor in question, but Forbes declined to publish it, so instead we're posting it here.” Dana’s article was posted on SkS on Jan 8, 2012. -
YOGI at 12:33 PM on 24 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The S.O.D. article does answer my question, it just says.. "The atmosphere, once heated up, radiates equally in all directions. Some of this is downward." -
GreenCooling at 12:33 PM on 24 February 2012DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
Here's a bit more from Heartland's Joe Bast about their intent behind the NIPCC and "Climate Change Reconsidered" (and associated projects) from their 2012 first quarter Quarterly Performance Report. I hope this is useful in confirming what we are up against at least. Four Projects on Global Warming "Researchers at The Heartland Institute recog- nized, earlier than most, that scientific uncertainty about the true causes and consequences of climate change makes costly efforts to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions unnecessary. In 2012 we are pursuing four projects on global warming. "The first is sponsoring and promoting the work of the Nongovernmental Interna- tional Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of scientists who write and speak out on climate change. With Heartland’s support, this team of scientists produced Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the NIPCC, and more recently Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report. Each volume is a comprehensive and authoritative rebuttal of the United Nations’ IPCC reports. "We are currently working on promoting these volumes and preparing for publication of a third volume for release in 2013. "The second project is creation of a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Many people lament the absence of educational material that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. "Late last year, we found a curriculum expert who is also an expert on the global warming controversy. We think he can finally break the code on getting sound science and economics into classrooms. "The third global warming project is publication of a great new book by Rael Isaac, titled Roosters of the Apocalypse. Rael, a sociologist who has studied the origins and mo- tivation of apocalyptic movements, examines the global warming movement and finds it is rooted in irrational fears and beliefs that have no scientific justifications. "The fourth global warming project will change how weathermen report new temperature records, and in the process help wean some of them from the alarmist point of view. We are working to create a Web site that will access newly available temperature data from a set of high-quality temperature stations created by the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). "Our new Web site will convert the data into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. The result: fewer weathermen bamboozled into reporting fake temperature records, and one fewer tool in the toolbox of global warming alarmists." ENDS As legal prescriptions in the US against telling people BS (Bad Science, of course) appear rather nebulous, we can always hope that like Al Capone, Heartland gets sent down for breaching tax laws? I'm pretty confident this scandal has not escaped the attention of the IRS and it will be interesting to see how they respond. While communicating the science clearly and comprehensibly is of paramount importance, we need to be aware of how the forces of darkness are attempting to influence the debate, and to continue to encourage and support the mounting of both coordinated and independent self-organised responses to confront and expose the deniers. -
scaddenp at 12:27 PM on 24 February 2012Models are unreliable
The article also makes claims based a map linked to here An interesting message can be found there now. Sounds like some journalist axe-grinding not science. -
JMurphy at 12:26 PM on 24 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
CraigR (if you were responding to me) what funding would you be seeking that you reckon would be denied to you if you declared yourself a "skeptic" ? -
scaddenp at 12:24 PM on 24 February 2012Models are unreliable
VoR- Did you read the original BBC? First, this is not based on climate models (which are matching predictions just fine), nor is about "climate" refugees. Second estimating whether a person is an environmental refugee is difficult and the number is absolutely not zero. A comparable number would have to come from the same source. "You do not use computers to do anything more than play games with role playing software, you do not pretend you can guess the future" That's sailing very close to the wind on the comments policy here. Please stick to supported facts. -
CraigR at 12:02 PM on 24 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
I wrote ... "therefore the issue I put forward is not limited to just "climate scientists" it is broader than that" -
GreenCooling at 12:00 PM on 24 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Many thanks, most illuminating. Heartland are also good enough to post their very revealing first quarter 2012 "Quarterly Performance Report" at their site, how long they leave it there seems like an open question. In case they do feel sufficiently embarrassed to remove it, here's some edited highlights, which I hope are of interest here. pp. 2-3 "Four Projects on Global Warming" "Researchers at The Heartland Institute recognized, earlier than most, that scientific uncertainty about the true causes and consequences of climate change makes costly efforts to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions unnecessary. In 2012 we are pursuing four projects on global warming. "The first is sponsoring and promoting the work of the Nongovernmental Interna- tional Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of scientists who write and speak out on climate change. With Heartland’s support, this team of scientists produced Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the NIPCC, and more recently Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report. Each volume is a comprehensive and authoritative rebuttal of the United Nations’ IPCC reports. "We are currently working on promoting these volumes and preparing for publication of a third volume for release in 2013. "The second project is creation of a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Many people lament the absence of educational material that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. "Late last year, we found a curriculum expert who is also an expert on the global warming controversy. We think he can finally break the code on getting sound science and ecoomics into classrooms. "The third global warming project is publication of a great new book by Rael Isaac, titled Roosters of the Apocalypse. Rael, a sociologist who has studied the origins and mo- tivation of apocalyptic movements, examines the global warming movement and finds it is rooted in irrational fears and beliefs that have no scientific justifications. "The fourth global warming project will change how weathermen report new temper- ature records, and in the process help wean some of them from the alarmist point of view. We are working to create a Web site that will access newly available temperature data from a set of high-quality temperature stations created by the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). "Our new Web site will convert the data into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. The result: fewer weathermen bamboozled into reporting fake temperature records, and one fewer tool in the toolbox of global warming alarmists. Hydraulic Fracturing "Hydraulic fracturing, popularly known as “fracking,” is a process whereby water, sand, and small amounts of chemicals (surfactants) are injected into oil and natural gas formations to make the energy resources easier to extract. Fracking has been used safely for more than 50 years. "Fracking became controversial in 2010 and 2011 because environmentalists, hoping to prevent the development of large reserves of oil and natural gas, invented charges that fracking poses environmental and safety risks. "Heartland has been one of the most outspoken defenders of fracking in the U.S. We expect to ramp up that effort and move to the front lines of the battle." James Taylor has a fair bit to say on Climategate 2 and Natural Gas too, but this from p.9 is of particular interest: "A Primer on Climate Realism" "Forbes magazine asked James to write an article for its print magazine explaining how sound science refutes global warming alarmism. His article was published in Forbes’ December 5 issue. "James explained, “The central issues in the global warming debate have little to do with whether or not temperatures have warmed during the past century. Nearly all scientists agree that temperatures have indeed warmed during the past 100 years, just as tempera- tures have warmed (and cooled) many times in previous centuries. The more important issues are whether current temperatures are abnormally warm in a longer-term perspective and whether present warming trends threaten disaster in the foreseeable future.” "James noted global temperatures for the vast majority of the past 10,000 years have been significantly warmer than today. He also documented how warmer temperatures always have benefited human welfare. “During the past century, as global temperatures have risen, forests have expanded, deserts have retreated, soil moisture has improved, crops have flourished and extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tornadoes have become less frequent,” he wrote. “Proponents of an imminent global warming crisis may present interesting theories about catastrophes that may occur if the Earth returns to the warmer temperatures that pre- dominated during most of the past 10,000 years, but such theories are strongly contradicted by thousands of years of real-world data and real-world climate observations. The Scientific Method dictates that real-world observations trump speculative theory, not the other way around,” James concluded. Why Forbes continues to give Taylor Op-Ed space to defend his organisation this week is beyond my comprehension, but at least they are good enough to let people respond in the comments. Perhaps SkS might like to seek a right of reply too? -
scaddenp at 11:57 AM on 24 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
"is there something wrong with NOAA and ISCCP data ?" No, only with Humlum's representation of it. Read their website instead. (And put "humlum" into the search box here for more examples of stuff from him). And if you look closely, you will see the textbook that the data came from. And below it, the link to Science of Doom which goes into the science behind your questions in considerable detail over a 10 part series. I highly recommend you to look at it. More detail than a blog commentary can give plus links to the textbooks and papers. -
scaddenp at 11:50 AM on 24 February 2012Models are unreliable
Climate models have no skill at decadal prediction where internal variability dominates, nor do they pretend to. For study of that internal variability, F&R demonstrate how ENSO, solar and aerosols account for most of variability while the underlying trend follows IPCC predictions. ENSO is hard to predict even months out let alone be part of climate models. You can find a better comparison of model versus data here Sealevel drop is not due to the ice suddenly stopping to melt because of cooler temperatures. Far from it - ice continues to decline. Instead it is due to La nina precipitation change dumping water on land. See here for more discussion and here for GRACE data showing where the water went. -
YOGI at 11:49 AM on 24 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
scaddenp*misinformation sites * is there something wrong with NOAA and ISCCP data ? And how do I know that the data in graph at the head of this article is good data ? The two plots show that in the 600 and 750 cm-1 band, 265Mw radiate downwards, but only 225Mw upwards. How is that possible ? -
voice of reason at 11:40 AM on 24 February 2012Models are unreliable
I'll add a nice little discussion here following the revelation that on far easier to measure population data the true figure of climate refugees (based on what the models said would happen) in 2010 was zero. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/12/flashback-2005-un-predicts-50-million-global-warming-refugees-2010 You do not use computers to do anything more than play games with role playing software, you do not pretend you can guess the future. That tends to come back and bite you in the tushy. -
voice of reason at 11:28 AM on 24 February 2012Models are unreliable
Having been requested to post my view on models here rather than Facebook am happy to add my four pence worth (-Snip-). The 2011 temperature was below the IPCC projection for no increase in CO2 (after quite a large one) while your own sea level example doesn't seem to be consistent with others either in the past (2003, reported in 2008) http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/06/slower-sea-level-rise/ or the present (note that you said the projection may have been conservative, but in a truly chaotic system chaotic things happen, in fact they have to as that is its nature) http://www.real-science.com/sea-level-continues-historic-decline Your articles are only as good as the latest data and can so quickly become out of date, (-Snip-). (-Snip-).Response:[DB] Time to acquaint yourself with this site's Comments Policy. You should be familiar with it: that of the SkS FB page was modeled on it.
Multiple violations of the Comments Policy snipped.
-
JMurphy at 10:59 AM on 24 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
CraigR wrote : "If I was to seek out funding and declared myself a "skeptic" I doubt funding would be given.....simply put if the world views of the decision makers changed so would the funding." Do you have any evidence to back up your doubts about funding ? Don't Lindzen and Spencer get funding ? -
Glenn Tamblyn at 10:58 AM on 24 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
SB As we noted in recent posts here and here, Ocean Heat Content is the big ticket item, the dog that wags the tail. And since it is still rising, it completely slam-dunks the 'its stopped warming meme' So a real problem for Meyer and the view he puts up? Thats an understatement. -
scaddenp at 10:25 AM on 24 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Discussion of cloud and humidity does not belong here. DSL has given you the link to the correct thread - and to what is wrong with the data in your links. You will linking to science instead of misinformation sites a better idea. As to water overlap, the real code (referenced) integrates over the full vertical profile of the atmosphere. You cannot draw accurate conclusions from simplistic constructions. -
CraigR at 10:21 AM on 24 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
I said ... "Decisions are made and financial benefits are provided particularly from convinced governments to enterprises, groups & business that have a vested interest in proposed solutions and ongoing research" therefore the issue I put forward is not limited to just "climate scientists" it is broader than that. It is quite clear it is not a level playing field. If I was to seek out funding and declared myself a "skeptic" I doubt funding would be given.....simply put if the world views of the decision makers changed so would the funding. I think declaring someone anti-science or pro-science in an effort to discredit them or place them above others is simply wrong "science" is to broader a topic for such generalizations. -
YOGI at 10:07 AM on 24 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR: "data on cloud amounts don't show a huge amount of change with temperature" 4% http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverAllLevel%20AndWaterColumnSince1983.gif "Trenberth estimates that we've seen an increase of ~4% to the total amount of atmospheric water vapor since ~1975" http://www.climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif -
dana1981 at 09:55 AM on 24 February 2012Scafetta's Widget Problems
We are trying to get these predictions on the record to hold them accountable. Hence the Lessons from Predictions series. -
YOGI at 09:46 AM on 24 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
scaddenp, I meant that CO2 and water overlap the same absorption band at 600 and 750 cm-1 so some of that effect there must be partly due to the water vapour. Water vapour is 1-4% lower down, so if we say 2%, thats 51 times the amount of CO2, and the the paper you linked says 75.5% for clouds and WV, and a mean of 17.5 for CO2. Which imply volume for volume, CO2 has about 12 times the warming potential of water vapour (from those figures). -
DSL at 09:44 AM on 24 February 2012Scafetta's Widget Problems
Why, wingding? They'll still be publishing the same stuff at WUWT in 2020, oblivious. -
wingding at 09:37 AM on 24 February 2012Scafetta's Widget Problems
hmm I really need to make a list of all the people who in 2020 will have to apologize for predicting cooling. -
DSL at 09:34 AM on 24 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
YOGI, what you're looking for is probably right here, in rebuttal to our star of the month, Lord Viscount Ubermensch Protector of the Realm and the Cure for Cancer, Christopher Monckton. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
YOGI - You might be interested in looking at the difference between relative and absolute humidity. A certain relative humidity is required to form clouds (data on cloud amounts don't show a huge amount of change with temperature - 'tho what kind of cloud is going to be very important). Clouds, through precipitation, form an upper limit on the amount of relative humidity - past a certain relative humidity it simply rains or snows. However, as the air warms, the absolute humidity required to give a particular relative humidity increases - warmer air can hold more total water vapor. Trenberth estimates that we've seen an increase of ~4% to the total amount of atmospheric water vapor since ~1975, or roughly (if I recall correctly) the equivalent of Lake Erie. And all that water vapor acts in feedback as a greenhouse gas. -
Doc Snow at 09:05 AM on 24 February 2012Scafetta's Widget Problems
les, I suspect you're being rhetorical? Of course, WUWT espouses ABC--"anything but carbon." They seem to find consistency overrated. -
YOGI at 09:01 AM on 24 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
muoncounter I`m more interested in seeing how much changes in clouds and humidity follow changes in global temperature since 1985. http://www.climate4you.com/ see the graphs in the Clouds + Climate section. I cant see any evidence for positive feedbacks on water vapour/clouds either. -
SocialBlunder at 08:24 AM on 24 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
There is a sentence that struck me as odd in the article: "Even more important for scientists (since the oceans are a much larger heat reservoir than the atmosphere) is the fact that the new ARGO floating temperature stations have measured little or no increase in ocean heat content since they were put in service in 2003." This contradicts what I see in OHC graphs presumably using ARGO data:
and
Since he is depending on level ocean temperature to cast doubt on global warming, this seems like a real problem.
-
funglestrumpet at 08:24 AM on 24 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
Can we really let this obnoxious individual get away with endangering us? Surely the time has come to put a stop to him and his deceit once and for all. This site concentrates on the science of climate change, and does a very good job of it. From my perspective, the only thing missing here, and I guess it is due to a lack of published papers on the subject, is in-depth analysis of what is likely to happen for each degree of warming if the likes of Monckton get their way and we fail to take the necessary action to combat it. I know it is crystal ball stuff, but I think it necessary to be able to produce documentary evidence that Monckton is wrong, has been informed by recognized expert opinion that he is wrong, but ignores such information in subsequent presentations. We also need to demonstrate that he has to be aware of the dangers to human life of hindering or stopping action to combat climate change i.e. the degree by degree analysis. He makes great play of the fact that he is a Lord. Well, I wonder if we can get him stripped of his title on the basis of the dangers he is putting his country in. Though, quite frankly, I would like to see a situation where losing his title would be the least of his worries. As Peter Hadfield, in his Monckton Maneuvers videos, clearly shows, Monckton admits to not being a scientist, says to his audience that he can support any claims he makes, yet not only routinely fails to produce that support when asked, but changes (maneuvers) to a position where he eventually agrees with the science . The trouble is that by the time he gets round to agreeing with the science, the audience have long gone, possibly to rattle the cage of their parliamentary representative in order to demand that any action on climate change be halted because it is not the threat the ‘alarmist research fund seekers’ make it out to be. Meanwhile Monckton is off somewhere else repeating his misinformation to yet another bedazzled audience sitting rapt by this real English Lord, and a Viscount to boot, Wow! There can be no question that he wins the debates he takes part in, while being wrong on nearly every count (and I am sure we can prove that in many instances he is either deliberately so or can’t understand the science). You get a feel for Monckton’s persuasive powers by visiting WUWT –snip– (self censored!) and read the adulation he draws. I expect his theatre audiences feel the same way, “Don’t ya know?” I look forward to part 3 and perhaps the subsequent comments might include some pest control suggestions. -
les at 08:00 AM on 24 February 2012Scafetta's Widget Problems
could someone explain why all the "skeptics" who are convince the climate system and it's models are unpredictable due to chaos etc. Aren't attacking this? I did a search of wozupwidat and found it both supported various 'it's chaos' theories and Nicola Scafetta... I'm confused now. -
dana1981 at 07:54 AM on 24 February 2012Scafetta's Widget Problems
muon - Scafetta does have a 20-year cycle too. And a 10.4, and a 9-year. I'm sure he'll add a couple more in his next paper! Alexandre - this one is hottest because of Scafetta's linear and quadratic terms. Which he wrongly mostly attributes to solar and volcanic forcings. Hence the inclusion of Figure 4 above to show the actual physical cause of the warming trend. What's really interesting is the lack of physical understanding of radiative forcings from Scafetta, who has a PhD in physics (from both the University of Pisa and of North Texas). I'm not sure how you transition from 2 physics PhDs to climastrology in just over 1 decade's time. -
Alexandre at 07:29 AM on 24 February 2012Scafetta's Widget Problems
Ok, so there's this 60-year planetary cycle that is making Earth hot. For whatever reason - let's not nitpick. I suppose we should see regular peaks each 60 years, then. Why is this one the hottest of them all, as far as records/paleorecords go? The dawning of the Age of Aquarius, perhaps? -
David Lewis at 07:28 AM on 24 February 2012New research from last week 6/2012
Re: terrifying aerosols. Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the literature (the theme from Jaws is playing in background of this comment) The 2006 Crutzen paper that was said to have brought discussion of geoengineering out of the shadows might be good to post as a Classic of the Week. Crutzen pointed out that "since it is likely that the greenhouse warming is substantially negated by the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosol in the troposphere, by 25-65% according to an estimate by Crutzen and Ramanathan (2003), but possibly greater (Anderson et al., 2003a,b), air pollution regulations, in combination with continued growing emissions of CO2 may bring the world closer than is realized to the danger described by Schneider 1996: "Supposing, a currently envisioned low probability but high consequence outcome really started to unfold in the decades ahead (for example 5 degrees C warming in this century) which I would characterize as having potential catastrophic implications for ecosystems... Under such a scenario, we would simply have to practice geo-engineering..." Crutzen noted that as of 2005 the World Health Organization was attributing 500,000 premature deaths per year worldwide to aerosols, which suggests they may in fact be cleaned up a bit. As far as "low probability" events go, given the case Kevin Anderson is making at the Tyndall Centre that civilization is already committed to 4 degrees C, and the fact that a 65% masking effect from aerosols may prove to be a midrange figure instead of the high end as when Crutzen published, it really looks like civilization is committed to geoengineering as of now. Eg: a -1.6 W/m2 cooling effect masking a 3 W/m2 assumed GHG warming effect means a net 1.4 W/m2 is operating. Reduce the aerosols by half, as Hansen suggests would be a "major effort to clean up aerosols" in "Earth's Energy Imbalance...", and you have an increase of the net forcing from 1.4 to 2.2, or 57% greater power we could actually see operating from what is already in the atmosphere. Hansen keeps on calling for actually measuring the cooling power of aerosols. He also keeps on mentioning that the high end of his range is that removing 1/2 of existing aerosols could reveal existing GHG to be 100% more powerful. Pongratz et al., in Crop yields in a geoengineered climate showed this chart as what their model projects temperature will be in a 2X preindustrial CO2 world:
And they unveiled this as what happens if you inject sulphur particles into the stratosphere to cope:
Of course the oceans die but you can't have everything.
Anderson would say we are committed to this now, if "all" the studies saying there are limits to how rapidly the fossil infrastructure can be dismantled are correct. Cheery, eh?
-
muoncounter at 07:21 AM on 24 February 2012Scafetta's Widget Problems
DM: "the problem of explaining why, for example, sulphate aerosols don't cause cooling" I think that's their goal. If everything is a natural cycle, there's no need for those messy physical causes. But this is hardly new science. See Kepler's Trigon, based on the positions of the 60 year conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter:
From the last date shown (1763), fast forward in 60 year increments: 1823, 1883, 1943, 2003! Clearly this explains life, the universe and everything. Of course, the conjunctions actually happen every 20ish years, but we can only count every third one (because that is what fits our preconceived notions).
Rhetorical question: how do you prove imaginary cycles wrong?
-
dana1981 at 07:13 AM on 24 February 2012Scafetta's Widget Problems
Well, Scafetta says that if (when) his prediction is proven wrong, he'll admit it. We'll see if he lives up to his word. -
scaddenp at 06:51 AM on 24 February 2012Scafetta's Widget Problems
So prediction time. 2018 will come and I rather expect climate to follow physics rather than imaginary cycles. Will Scafetta concede the issue - or magically find another cycle to make the data fit. Ladies and gentlemen, your bets please! -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:32 AM on 24 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
I simply followed Albatross's example, it is obvious that Albatross spent some time reading and digesting Meyer's material. -
william5331 at 06:17 AM on 24 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
Any chance of an article describing each of the proximity methods for recreating the temperature record before we had weather stations with emphasis on the positive and negative aspects of each method. It could become one of those iconic articles that is often referred to and sent to skeptics and not skeptics alike. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 05:20 AM on 24 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Eric (skeptic) I'm glad that you spell "Meyer" correctly. Others please follow Eric's example. Matthew @ 54, I think you are on the right track but you forgot CO2. Note that as land and sea warm for the reasons you describe, atmospheric CO2 increases. You can figure out why it might in about a minute.
Prev 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 Next
