tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post4828771319024923754..comments2024-03-26T07:51:43.186+00:00Comments on Mabinogogiblog: What is climate sensitivity, and why does it matter?DocRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-24482117801330651732011-08-12T08:13:35.127+01:002011-08-12T08:13:35.127+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Generic Viagrahttp://www.brupharmacy.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-44645664566380260592011-08-06T09:26:05.575+01:002011-08-06T09:26:05.575+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.By Viagra Onlinehttp://www.brupharmacy.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-44143242442777028082011-07-02T19:39:54.055+01:002011-07-02T19:39:54.055+01:00Belette,
Likewise, I am solely focussed on the ref...Belette,<br />Likewise, I am solely focussed on the refutability of the sceptics' case. I devoutly hope that we are heading for a solar minimum, and that warming in coming decades is minimal or negative. That will give us time to decarbonise and get effective CO2 sinks up & running.<br /><br />Btw, you said in another place that Peiser had evaded with his 20-30 years get out. His is not a valid response - it is an avoidance of our responsibility to know what we are doing. Low sensitivity is implicit in his other remarks.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-28112721591454875062011-07-02T19:32:14.075+01:002011-07-02T19:32:14.075+01:00Gideon
There are many false inferences in your sta...Gideon<br />There are many false inferences in your statements. I am specifically not going to answer each one, since it is not up to me to give a 1-1 tutorial to each and every sceptic.<br /><br />If you cannot find answers on my little FAQ page here: http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-change-debate-faqs.html<br />Then I strongly advise you to follow the links at the foot of the post, to the excellent Skeptical Science pages.<br /><br />My intention here is to debate the thesis of those of the sceptics that understand the scientific method.<br /><br />Sorry to disappoint, but I am on a mission here.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-29587082729713571272011-07-02T17:53:12.086+01:002011-07-02T17:53:12.086+01:00We are confident of the value of changes in Earth’...We are confident of the value of changes in Earth’s energy transfers based upon past experience and modelling. Based upon past experience I can add sugar to flour, butter and a pinch of salt and cook <br />in a moderate oven for eighteen minutes – the biscuit is not always the same.<br /><br />Your paragraph ‘we also know that a given...’ addresses this fact.<br /><br />I grow tomatoes and I’d like it a little warmer. <br /><br />One billion people lack water and would like more glaciers to drink. <br /><br />We are not using anything like the amount of land for food cultivation that we could – those that claim otherwise are part of your possee. Warmer climates in Eastern Europe would open up land mass for new food cultivation.<br /><br />Warmer climates (more sun) would mean that PV energy would become more financially viable thus reducing the reliance upon CO2 emissions. Less CO2 emissions mean less global warming (according to you and your wacky gloom spawning chums).<br /><br />The earth is 69% water which post desalination is usable for crop cultivation – really, it is!<br /><br />Bring on climate change; I’m fed up with changeable summers.GIDEON MACKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16212957620977046779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-57782322293846723542011-07-01T23:27:46.288+01:002011-07-01T23:27:46.288+01:00Mighty me, indeed. I'm not sure of the exact v...Mighty me, indeed. I'm not sure of the exact value, never having needed it. About 1 oC would be my fallible memory's best offer.<br /><br />> The non-sequitur is because<br /><br />OK. But it is something of a hobby-horse of mine, of long standing (e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/): once you've proved that GW is occuring, and will get "worse" into the future, you still have to prove this is bad.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-34588406142280219902011-07-01T22:43:01.228+01:002011-07-01T22:43:01.228+01:00Hi Belette
I'm pleased to have the mighty Sto...Hi Belette<br /><br />I'm pleased to have the mighty Stoat commenting here, even if it is to issue corrections.<br /><br />Sorry! I was trying to keep it simple. Will revise, when the 2 grandchildren give me a bit of spare time. Unless you know off-hand the exact figure for CO2 doubling in and of itself?<br /><br />The non-sequitur is because I am not setting about explaining the climate in detail. I am focussed entirely and exclusively on this matter of sensitivity, because it is the sceptics' Achilles Heel.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-44151345849258879892011-07-01T17:32:32.369+01:002011-07-01T17:32:32.369+01:00> We know from calculation that a doubling of C...> We know from calculation that a doubling of CO2 by itself is sufficient to increase the global average temperature by 3*C when the system eventually settles down. <br /><br />Not quite, as written. That includes WV feedback, etc.<br /><br />> and the most likely figure is around 3*C... <br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />> ...This means we have a serious problem<br /><br />But this, in itself, is a non-sequitor.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com