tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post1885651950753559899..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: The sins of the fathersEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27665837663858082562010-12-02T23:05:13.477-05:002010-12-02T23:05:13.477-05:00Oh, never mind. Google has already taken care of ...Oh, never mind. Google has already taken care of it.<br />First hit searching for "ClimateSensitivity.html" is:<br />http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.htmlHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3985881844356036612010-12-02T23:03:54.231-05:002010-12-02T23:03:54.231-05:00Argh, "BPL's reference" is to the de...Argh, "BPL's reference" is to the dead AOL site.<br /><br />Someone needs to tidy up the Internet. It's getting crusty.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9795816763999651992008-09-27T13:05:00.000-04:002008-09-27T13:05:00.000-04:00Here's BPL's frequency plot of climate sensitivity...Here's BPL's frequency plot of climate sensitivity from 61 papers:<BR/><BR/>http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSens03.bmp<BR/><BR/>List of papers here:<BR/>http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html<BR/><BR/>Here's James Annan's plot of climate sensitivity combining three independent methods and their uncertainties (20th Century warming, volcanic cooling, and Last Glacial Maximum cooling).<BR/>http://cce.890m.com/attribution/images/climate-sensitivity.jpg<BR/><BR/>From:<BR/>http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdfccehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03646816472336349526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23452647152715506272008-04-22T23:39:00.000-04:002008-04-22T23:39:00.000-04:00You should seek professional help for your paranoi...You should seek professional help for your paranoia.stevesadlovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00963662049314546494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69707966480016220452008-04-16T16:00:00.000-04:002008-04-16T16:00:00.000-04:00Ignorance is cute in children, but only because th...Ignorance is cute in children, but only because they actually want to learn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10532752817871208292008-04-16T12:57:00.000-04:002008-04-16T12:57:00.000-04:00MarkeyMouse says:Boris, I'll sell you one of my ne...MarkeyMouse says:<BR/><BR/>Boris, I'll sell you one of my new kettles that boils before you put it on the hob.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1497765041986550222008-04-16T08:20:00.000-04:002008-04-16T08:20:00.000-04:00"Lorius says CO2 is a positive forcing based on te..."Lorius says CO2 is a positive forcing based on temperature changes which precede CO2 growth."<BR/><BR/>Rarely do you get such a concise proof that someone has no physical understanding. Bravo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82531528552484048262008-04-16T04:17:00.000-04:002008-04-16T04:17:00.000-04:00Tell you what, MarkeyMouse... why don't you just g...Tell you what, MarkeyMouse... why don't you just go back to your day job of uncovering Bolshevist plots using crossword puzzle methodologies. It'll be a lot easier for you, and a lot more entertaining for us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60232393260287951932008-04-16T01:35:00.000-04:002008-04-16T01:35:00.000-04:00MarkeyMouse scripsit:"Lorius says CO2 is a positiv...MarkeyMouse scripsit:<BR/><BR/>"Lorius says CO2 is a positive forcing based on temperature changes which precede CO2 growth. Nonsense."<BR/><BR/>Oh, <I>that's</I> your totally rigorous disproof?<BR/><BR/>"Gregory et al. I lost interest after the multiple instances of climate model, assumption, estimate, calculated, derived, if's. All tosh."<BR/><BR/>Oh, so that's the way you read abstracts -- by spotting for trigger words, instead of (horrors!) actually parsing and understanding them.<BR/><BR/>While you're spotting for trigger words, here's a word you might want to look out for in Gregory et al.'s abstract:<BR/><BR/>"Not".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78827431124515218712008-04-16T00:27:00.000-04:002008-04-16T00:27:00.000-04:00MarkeyMouse says:Puhleeze.Lorius says CO2 is a pos...MarkeyMouse says:<BR/><BR/>Puhleeze.<BR/><BR/>Lorius says CO2 is a positive forcing based on temperature changes which precede CO2 growth. Nonsense.<BR/><BR/>Gregory et al. I lost interest after the multiple instances of climate model, assumption, estimate, calculated, derived, if's. All tosh.<BR/><BR/>Is that it? There is no proven theretical justification for 2 x CO2 here, no experimental one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35173150054437166992008-04-15T23:55:00.000-04:002008-04-15T23:55:00.000-04:00C. Lorius, J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, J. Hansen, and H...C. Lorius, J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, J. Hansen, and H. Le Treut. 1990. The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. <I>Nature</I>, 347:139--145.<BR/><BR/><B>Abstract:</B> The prediction of future greenhouse-gas-induced warming depends critically on the sensitivity of Earth's climate to increasing atmospheric concentrations of these gases. Data from cores drilled in polar ice sheets show a remarkable correlation between past glacial–interglacial temperature changes and the inferred atmospheric concentration of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. These and other palaeoclimate data are used to assess the role of greenhouse gases in explaining past global climate change, and the validity of models predicting the effect of increasing concentrations of such gases in the atmosphere.<BR/><BR/>- - -<BR/><BR/>From the second last section:<BR/><BR/>Analysis of ice-core results and paleodata over a full glacial-interglacial cycle suggests that a warming induced by doubled CO2 concentration of 3--4°C (<I>f</I> ≈ 3) may be a realistic value which, although being in the middle of the range of values inferred from the GCM experiments (Box 1), corresponds to a relatively high climate sensitivity.<BR/><BR/>- - -<BR/><BR/>Dollars to doughnuts MarkeyMouse will totally fail to see <I>this</I> too. Probably he's too busy uncovering Bolshevist conspiracies by cracking Bible Codes, to notice stuff that's right there in plain sight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12667048735171175632008-04-15T23:41:00.000-04:002008-04-15T23:41:00.000-04:00J. M. Gregory, R. J. Stouffer, S. C. B. Raper, P. ...J. M. Gregory, R. J. Stouffer, S. C. B. Raper, P. A. Stott, and N. A. Rayner. 2002. <A HREF="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2002/jmgregory0201.pdf" REL="nofollow">An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity.</A> <I>Journal of Climate</I>, 31(22):3117--3121.<BR/><BR/><B>Abstract:</B> A probability distribution for values of the effective climate sensitivity, with a lower bound of 1.6 K (5th percentile), is obtained on the basis of the increase in ocean heat content in recent decades from analyses of observed interior-ocean temperature changes, surface temperature changes measured since 1860, and estimates of anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing of the climate system. Radiative forcing is the greatest source of uncertainty in the calculation; the result also depends somewhat on the rate of ocean heat uptake in the late nineteenth century, for which an assumption is needed as there is no obser vational estimate. Because the method does not use the climate sensitivity simulated by a general circulation model, it provides an independent observationally based constraint on this important parameter of the climate system.<BR/><BR/>- - -<BR/><BR/>Dollars to doughnuts MarkeyMouse will totally fail to see the above while continuing in his intrepid investigation of communist plots from cereal flakes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21781820708620311632008-04-15T22:39:00.000-04:002008-04-15T22:39:00.000-04:00MarkeyMouse says:Go on. Just one Peer Reviewed Ref...MarkeyMouse says:<BR/><BR/>Go on. Just one Peer Reviewed Reference for 2 * CO2 sensitivity. You can do it. The future of the planet depends.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19789659903349635092008-04-15T13:12:00.000-04:002008-04-15T13:12:00.000-04:00Well, this is MarkeyMouse we're talking about.Mark...Well, this is <I>MarkeyMouse</I> we're talking about.<BR/><BR/>MarkeyMouse the CIA (or FBI) agent can discover a communist plot by examining patterns formed by cereal flakes (well, something close)...<BR/><BR/>...but present him something that's available in plain sight -- like, say, a link to Skeptical Science which in turn has direct links to papers on empirical climate sensitivity -- and he'll totally fail to see it. Perhaps Skeptical Science is just too pinko for his computer's network packet filters.<BR/><BR/>-- bi, <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow"><I>International Journal of Inactivism</I></A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15698755807251663622008-04-15T12:30:00.000-04:002008-04-15T12:30:00.000-04:00I was right then:"...why bother to try to illumina...I was right then:<BR/><BR/>"<I>...why bother to try to illuminate, since it will change nothing about this particular ignoramus's outlook...</I>"<BR/><BR/>... which all highlights perfectly that Markey belongs to the right tit mouse brigade.<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2247752354887263612008-04-15T11:46:00.000-04:002008-04-15T11:46:00.000-04:00Hell, Gilbert Plass was trying to get people to li...Hell, Gilbert Plass was trying to get people to listen in the 1950s.<BR/><BR/>half a century of inaction and denial brought to you by the itty bitty shitty government comittee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15604601362997453812008-04-15T11:42:00.000-04:002008-04-15T11:42:00.000-04:00MarkeyMouse says:So still no Peer Reviewed proof. ...MarkeyMouse says:<BR/><BR/>So still no Peer Reviewed proof. Only reference to an obscure 100 year old book. Everything since is refering to "models". No mention of the acual proof, or evidence in the IPCC reviews. This really isn't good enough. Where is the Earth atmospheric experimental data? Where are the Peer Reviews of Arrhenius? Did you know that he can't add up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32562558071292164532008-04-15T07:30:00.000-04:002008-04-15T07:30:00.000-04:00MarkeyMouse is obviously a member of Anonymouse 5:...MarkeyMouse is obviously a member of Anonymouse 5:03 am's "chorus of 'the dishonest and the deluded'" and is trolling.<BR/><BR/>One wonders why bother to try to illuminate, since it will change nothing about this particular ignoramus's outlook, nor any of bi's <I>International Journal of Inactivism</I> subscribers in general.<BR/><BR/>However, he/she could, for instance, consult the references in Andronova, Schlesinger, Dessai, Hulme and Li's Chapter 1 "The concept of climate sensitivity: history and development", in <I>Human-Induced Climate Change</I> by Schlesinger, Kheshgi, Smith, de la Chesnaye, Reilly, Wilson, Kolstad (eds), in which the first line reads:<BR/><BR/>"The climate sensitivity concept (CSC) has more than a century of history."<BR/><BR/>And later it says:<BR/><BR/>"Almost a century later, Budyko (1972) and Sellers (1969) repeated Arrhenius’s calculations using more comprehensive energy balance models (North, 1981), and strongly supported the concept of the greenhouse effect. As a result, the climate sensitivity concept was promulgated."<BR/><BR/>An excerpt from this chapter can be located <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521866030/ref=sib_dp_pop_ex?ie=UTF8&p=S00O#reader-link" REL="nofollow">here</A>; sadly, the actual reference page isn't listed in the extract, so the troll will have to do a bit of digging his-/her-self, but the Sellers (1969) and Budyko (1972) references are easily located in Google.<BR/><BR/>One could also consult the 1979 Charney report. <BR/><BR/>And one could also consult <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html" REL="nofollow">BPL's reference list</A> on the matter.<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80730686151240157182008-04-15T01:53:00.000-04:002008-04-15T01:53:00.000-04:00One could question whether economics is even the r...One could question whether economics is even the right approach to this. When reading Nordhaus I feel that his theory is valid all right under the assumptions it is based on, but he is seriously underestimating the potential for very bad outcomes.<BR/><BR/>Compare this to how the Cold War was approached: did anybody ever analyse the economic cost of Soviet world dominance? Of course not. It was seen to be unacceptable, the means to block it expensive but affordable, and then it was just done. Arguably we should do the same with climate change.<BR/><BR/>Another limitation of economics is how it treats economic capability as a generic blob. But does having smarter computers, genetic technology, spacefaring capability really help us to move our coastal cities to dry land? Are economic resources fully substitutable also in this extreme situation?<BR/><BR/>Just some thoughts.<BR/><BR/>:wqAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82782472087846435332008-04-14T11:02:00.000-04:002008-04-14T11:02:00.000-04:00MarkeyMouse says: So no Peer Reviewed authority. I...MarkeyMouse says: <BR/><BR/>So no Peer Reviewed authority. It's just been made up hasn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38025374119553028572008-04-14T06:27:00.000-04:002008-04-14T06:27:00.000-04:00Meanwhile, over at The Register (or should it be T...Meanwhile, over at <I>The Register</I> (or should it be <I>The Ostricher</I>), pundit Tim Worstall <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/are-mainstream-economists-and-their-dogs-part-of-the-great-worldwide-global-warmist-conspiracy-too/http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/are-mainstream-economists-and-their-dogs-part-of-the-great-worldwide-global-warmist-conspiracy-too/" REL="nofollow">argues that creating jobs is actually a bad thing</A>.<BR/><BR/>The inactivists live in upside-down-land.<BR/><BR/>-- bi, <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow"><I>International Journal of Inactivism</I></A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15367105600608290462008-04-14T00:38:00.000-04:002008-04-14T00:38:00.000-04:00The mistake Markey (or is it McI?)Mouse makes, of ...The mistake Markey (or is it McI?)Mouse makes, of course, is actually believing even a tenth of the BS he reads on CA (dished out by McI, who has trouble getting <I>his</I> "science" published in anything better than E&E, hardly the paragon of "peer reviewed journals".)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34197313571424524322008-04-13T22:26:00.000-04:002008-04-13T22:26:00.000-04:00MarkeyMouse is so well-read that he's not heard of...MarkeyMouse is so well-read that he's not heard of Skeptical Science already? Denialism thrives on ignorance.<BR/><BR/>http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm<BR/><BR/>-- bi, <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow"><I>International Journal of Inactivism</I></A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83493406411257407002008-04-13T20:17:00.000-04:002008-04-13T20:17:00.000-04:00MarkeyMouse says: Mouse with no name, don't you fe...MarkeyMouse says: <BR/><BR/>Mouse with no name, don't you feel a bit embarrassed that there is no Peer Reviewed authority for your CO2 assertion, in either your textbook, or the IPCC reports?<BR/><BR/>If you can't answer properly, don't worry, it's expected. Warmers always dodge the hard questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90995822451666288332008-04-13T14:10:00.000-04:002008-04-13T14:10:00.000-04:00"Indeed OCS write 70+ pages on how Nierenberg was ..."Indeed OCS write 70+ pages on how Nierenberg was able to reframe the question of what was happening to climate, to that of should we bother doing anything about it."<BR/><BR/>I once asked a reasonably honest (but misguided) skeptic, "since you don't trust any sort of projections or computer models, and you don't want to simply try it out -- then what, exactly, will you accept as reasonable proof that we can indeed change the climate?" He didn't know.<BR/><BR/>And the inactivists are still pumping out the same old talking point, that the very idea that humans can change the climate is self-evidently absurd and wrong, <I>a priori</I>.<BR/><BR/>-- bi, <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow"><I>International Journal of Inactivism</I></A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com