Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > GHG Theory step by step

So what you are saying, Phil Clarke, is that you can't find anybody in the consensus clique who cites (or maybe even wishes to publish) something they don't like?

The paper may, or may not, be valid and worth reading (most science in most disciplines is not), but you are just dismissing it by making an appeal to the same "authorities" who were shown to be crooks in 2009.

Jan 16, 2018 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

If any conclusion rests on previously unnoticed cycles, or indeed observed cycles with no decent explanation, it is probably duff. Humans are programmed to see patterns in just about everything or a remote hand in what are really random events. This applies as much to this paper as to EMs post facto explanations of cold because it's warm.

Jan 16, 2018 at 8:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

"I thought I was reasonably up to date on the climate literature"

Jan 16, 2018 at 4:43 PM | Phil Clarke

But you still believe in Mann's Hockey Stick, and everyone that depends on it.

Jan 16, 2018 at 10:13 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Michael,

Its a junk paper in a junk journal.

Hope this helps.

Jan 17, 2018 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, junk science in junk journals?

Harvey et al 2017
Gergis 2016
Karl 2015

Jan 17, 2018 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Interesting post by Judith Curry, seeking input for a series. Not necessarily GHG Theory, but failure of consequences to materialise.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/16/sea-level-rise-acceleration-or-not-part-i-introduction/#more-23745

Sea level rise acceleration (or not): Part I – Introduction

Posted on January 16, 2018 

by Judith Curry

Introduction and context for a new Climate Etc. series on sea level rise.

I have several clients that are interested in the issue of sea level rise, from a range of perspectives (insurance, engineers, city and regional planning, liability). I am preparing a comprehensive assessment of the topic, with a focus on sea level rise in the U.S. I will be posting draft chapters on the blog for you to critique. I am also hoping that crowdsourcing will help me identify additional resources and information.

I’m envisioning the following outline, with each chapter comprising a separate blog post:

Introduction and context

Global sea level rise – observations and causes

US coastal sea level rise – observations and causes21st century predictions of global sea level rise

Regional, decadal projectionsHurricanes and storm surge

Introduction

The popular discourse on the threat of sea level rise includes these recent, dire statements:

“That’s the big thing – sea-level rise – the planet could become ungovernable.” – Dr. James Hansen, former Director, NASA GISS[link

“We’re talking about literally giving up on our coastal cities of the world and moving inland.” – Dr. Michael Mann, Penn State [link

Jan 17, 2018 at 10:50 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Meanwhile, Climate Scientists fail again, with one simple question, and ignore the fact that the climate changes naturally.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/17/scott-pruitt-insincerely-asked-whats-earths-ideal-temperature-scientists-answer

Jan 17, 2018 at 11:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf charlie

From the planet's viewpoint there is no optimum. It has been 10C cooler and 10C warmer than today with nobody there to care.

From the viewpoint of human civilization the question has two answers.

For individual countries the most successful economies have average temperatures close to 13C. Vary far from 13 C, especially on the warmer side, and economic performance deteriorates.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725

10,000 years of agricultural civilization and 170 years of Industrial Revolution took place with global temperature in the range 13.8C to 14C.

All our infrastructure is designed around the local climate in the 19th and 20th centuries. Port cities are designed for a sea level about 6" below the current level. Power stations requiring cooling water are built close to sea level.

If you want all that infrastructure to remain usable, you need to keep global temperatures low enough to maintain that sea level. Staying below a global average of 13.8C would do it.

Jan 18, 2018 at 10:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

What's the average temp in Singapore? What's the problem with its economy? Most of all, how many factors were corrected for? Surely anyone can see that this 13C figure is sheer nonsense made up out of thin air to make a dubious case about ideal temps.

Jan 18, 2018 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

What was wrong with the temperatures of the civilizations of Egypt, the Indus Valley and Central and South America? You appear very eurocentric EM

Jan 18, 2018 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Jan 18, 2018 at 10:19 AM | Entropic man

Stability is good for all, and the temperature has changed in the past.

What caused historic changes, that is not happening now?

Jan 18, 2018 at 1:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Jan 18, 2018 at 1:23 PM | Supertroll

If the Sahara keeps greening up, there may be trees growing again, and water flowing through Petra in the Jordanian desert.

Jan 18, 2018 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ladies and gentlemen

Interesting responses.

If you don't like the idea of optimum conditions, what about temperature limits?

Jan 18, 2018 at 5:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

If you don't like the idea of optimum conditions…
Which of the three responders has expressed a dislike of optimum conditions in the four responses to your rather vacuous comment, Entropic man?

Jan 18, 2018 at 5:37 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical rodent

"this 13C figure is sheer nonsense made up out of thin air to make a dubious case about ideal temps."

Rhoda doesn't like ideal temperatures.

"What was wrong with the temperatures of the civilizations of Egypt, the Indus Valley and Central and South America? "

Supertroll has some odd ideas about effecient economies. Egypt collapsed into dictatorship after food riots. Last year the Indus valley lost thousands dead of heatstroke.

Golf Charlie struggled to stay on topic and you are your usual unpleasant self.

I see no support for the idea of an optimum temperature for a civilization, unless "Qui tacet consentiret.".

Jan 18, 2018 at 6:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Most of the early civilisations were in warm places. There doesn't seem to be a top limit within temperature ranges in this interglacial. Later than that other factors dominate. Hence any optimum temperature average would be at best hypothetical.

When Supertroll mentioned Egypt and the Indus, I don't think he was talking about last year.

Jan 18, 2018 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

EM. Is your sense of history so shallow?

Jan 18, 2018 at 8:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Rhoda

I'm talking about a modern civilization, not an agrarian culture thousands of years ago.

Mind you, even today the limit would probably be agricultural. The upper limit for a country would come when it gets too hot in Summer to work outside, which happened in India last year.. The lower limit would be when the growing season gets to short to grow crops at all.

On a global scale, remember also that many countries are not self-sufficient in food. Egypt, the UK and many others rely on food imports from the really productive areas like the US Midwest and the Ukraine. Egypt's food riots started when their government was unable to import Russian grain after the crop failed.

Our limitations may become apparent when global food requirement exceeds global food production.

Jan 18, 2018 at 8:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Rhoda doesn't like ideal temperatures.
Nope. Rhoda has pointed out that the very notion that there is an ideal temperature is really not very clever, so why pursue that stupid point?

Supertroll was merely pointing out that history shows you thinking to be flawed; GC was very much on-topic, in his first comment; perhaps slightly off in the second… but then, perhaps not. Think about it.

…you are your usual unpleasant self.
Can’t argue with you, there.

Jan 18, 2018 at 8:16 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Our limitations may become apparent when global food requirement exceeds global food production.
You really are obsessed with global doom, aren’t you?

Sorry, but as the agrarian cultures are getting more efficient in food production – as they have been doing for centuries – the possibility of food requirements exceeding those of food production will only occur should there be a global conflict. Sadly, there is a very real possibility of that happening, given some of the nut-cases who think that they can rule the world (apply you own list, here).

Jan 18, 2018 at 8:32 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

EM. Is your sense of history so shallow?

Jan 18, 2018 at 8:04 PM | Supertroll

Climate Science history was remodelled to fit Mann's Hockey Stick.

Petra, a World Heritage Site must be a mirage, along with other desert cities such as Jerusalem and Mecca.

Jan 18, 2018 at 11:14 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Here is a couple of interesting arguments about greenhouse effect and Venus

What really makes it interesting is that they come to the conclusion that the GHE is bunkum, with a very interesting addendum in the comments. Now, what sort of idiots could come to that conclusion?

Jan 19, 2018 at 5:24 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

EM: An ideal 'global' temperature is a spectacularly stupid idea. For instance:

temp of Australia up bu 2C, Canada down by 2C - 'global' temperature remains constant but those two countries now experience very different effects.....

Jan 19, 2018 at 8:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Richards

Steve Richards

Consider the UK. Our housing stock and infrastructure are designed for temperatures between 0C and 25C. Outside that range we struggle.

Go to the Mediterranean and their houses are designed for higher temperature, comfortable in the heat, but less so at temperatures we would regard as mild. Go to Switzerland and the houses have steeply pitched roofs designed for heavy snow.

The ideal climate for a country is the climate for which it's infrastructure is designed. If the climates changes enough to render that infrastructure obsolete, then problems ensue.

That is why the ideal temperature of the planet is the temperature at which it's civilization was designed to function. 14C?

Jan 19, 2018 at 11:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

My house is flipping freezing in the UK when the temperature is 0 degrees (when I am actually in the UK). As rhoda sort of pointed out, I reckon Singapore has close to the ideal average temperature at about 27-28 C. Fantastic and super friendly country too.. Sort of a role mod of other countries to imitate.

Jan 20, 2018 at 2:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton