tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post1688263477805902929..comments2024-03-27T08:40:31.785-06:00Comments on Clayton Cramer.: Global WarmingClayton Cramerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-13253024079302460752015-12-07T10:13:28.575-07:002015-12-07T10:13:28.575-07:00You may want to look at section 2.6.3 of the WG1 s...You may want to look at section 2.6.3 of the WG1 section of the IPCC's AR5. The only increase in storm frequency or intensity it finds is for the N Atlantic from 1970 to 2010 (and that study is a pretty clear example of cherry picking applied to a time series - 1970 is one the low points for NA hurricane activity in the historical record and 2010 one of the high points - this is clearly visible in figure 2.34). http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdfHankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254325208806748726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-40527176358643025152015-12-06T21:08:56.815-07:002015-12-06T21:08:56.815-07:00The subject is really complicated, and any particu...The subject is really complicated, and any particular weather event means nothing.<br /><br />The science really is settled on the fact that increasing CO2 concentration will bend the temperature curve upwards. Folks who dispute that just don't understand the simple physics behind it.<br /><br />But, the amount of temperature increase from a given amount of CO2 increase is not settled, no matter what people claim. That value is called the "sensitivity." The simple physics model - the only one that is really solid - says that temps will increase about 1 degree Celsius per doubling of the CO2 concentration - contrary to what people claim, the effect is logarithmic. But the simple physics model does not include feedback. All of the serious dispute is about the effects of the feedback - and even the sign of it. Positive feedback would increase the sensitivity over the simple value. Negative feedback would reduce it. There are arguments both ways, although the overall very long term stability of earth's climate suggests that the feedback is negative, or becomes negative as the temperature increases.<br /><br />So much for theory. Getting back to the temperature record... Most people focus on surface temperatures, for no good reason at all. Surface temps are the worst thing to look at - there are way too many extraneous influences on surface temperature. As a result, temperature series are corrected, and needless to say these corrections are very controversial. Any time you correct a time series, you are adding uncertainty to it.<br /><br />Better measures are ocean temperature (not ocean surface, but deeper than that) and satellite derived middle and upper atmosphere temperature. Ocean temperature has not been well measured for any significant period of time, so it's hard to draw conclusions from it. Satellite measured temperature has been carefully gathered for over 30 years. It shows no warming in the last 18 years, and frankly, I'll take that over the other measurements.<br /><br />Future temperature forecasts come from climate models. Lots of credence is given those models, but they missed the climate pause entirely. I don't take them seriously, but the warmists do. Tens of billions of our tax dollars go to tweaking these more and more - to no avail as far as I can tell. The models are not really science - you can't test the result. I would call the work on them more like engineering of instruments. They are trying to improve the instrument, but they don't have any falsifiable experiments - except the climate pause which falsified the models for that period!<br /><br />Another thing you can tell your friend: we have increased the CO2 concentration by over 30% in the last 150 years. CO2 is the primary food for plants - they breathe CO2 like we breathe oxygen. The result is a substantial and well measured greening of the earth. That same 30% (okay, a bit more 400/275) translates to a change in the total atmosphere of about .01%! That's not much.StormCchaserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02998174514362089471noreply@blogger.com