Last Build Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 06:53:07 +0000
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 06:53:07 +0000"If the UAH troposphere record is contaminated with stratospheric cooling, then so are the models." Not. Even. Wrong. How, pray tell, would model MT temperatures be "contaminated" by stratospheric cooling? The models don't determine the modelled MT temperature by modelling microwave emissions from oxygen as seen through the stratosphere, they calculate the temperature directly.
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:47:47 +0000@13 I should have taken a moment and looked beyond the news article. The researchers have set up a web site about the frozen debris lobes at fdlalaska.org
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:15:49 +0000Omega Centauri @13 - in Alaska, Newsminer.com has a July 2014 article titled "Sliding mass threatens pipeline, Dalton Highway". The geologists named probably have updates. "An immense glacier-like mass of soil and rock is inching its way toward the Dalton Highway, threatening to cut off the only access road to the North Slope and putting the trans-Alaska oil pipeline at risk. The slow-moving mass of earth is known as a frozen debris lobe, a term coined by geologists Ronald Daanen and Margaret Darrow. Daanen, a former University of Alaska Fairbanks, is now with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Darrow, formerly with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, is an associate professor of geological engineering at UAF. There are 23 such features in the Brooks Mountain Range in the direct vicinity of the Dalton Highway. The debris lobe most closely scrutinized by researchers is pushing its way down the hillside to the east of the roadway at 219 Mile of the haul road."
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 00:54:10 +0000Hank 137&138 or anyone, what would the 'orange' layer be, in this photo? https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nighttime-view-of-the-strait-of-gibraltar
Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:06:40 +0000One of 100,000 plus in DC today. Inspiring to see the youthful energy and aged endurance. Learn this word, guys: "Intersectionality."
Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:13:40 +0000Eric wrote @67: "In his testimony, Christy never mentions the fact that the MT must be corrected to compensate for the stratospheric influence and the graph leaves the unaware with the impression that there is a large difference between the model results and the measurements." This is totally incorrect. He said that same methodology was used to process both observations and models when separating changes in the stratosphere from changes in the troposphere. If the UAH troposphere record is contaminated with stratospheric cooling, then so are the models. (Your argument might explain why the troposphere hasn't warmed as much as the surface, but it can't explain the difference between models and observations.)
Sat, 29 Apr 2017 16:27:08 +0000In their final recommendations under "Limit Future Change" they write: "Full implementation of the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will cause Arctic temperatures to stabilize—at a higher level than today—in the latter half of this century. Surely that implies that the Arctic sea ice is doomed, and that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet will accelerate. Is that just too horrific for them to contemplate?
Sat, 29 Apr 2017 15:43:45 +0000Daily CO2 April 27, 2017: 408.64 ppm April 27, 2016: 406.54 ppm I am reading about possible EN conditions arising again this year. That would not be good for CO2 sats in the atmosphere. This is an upward sticky number. We know how to add CO2 to the atmosphere, can we figure out a reasonable way to stop doing that? More CO2, more heat. Easy calculation. Warm regards Mike
Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:52:24 +0000Of course, there is one error in the OP, indeed in the opening paragraph of the OP. It states Judy
"fails to give any quantitative argument to support her contention that human drivers are not the dominant cause of recent trends."This is untrue. Judy's response does contain "quantitative argument." Judy describes the attribution of the last century's warming to AGW as being about "HOW MUCH" and says:-
"There is DISAGREEMENT about HOW MUCH. How can they argue that there is NOT disagreement over this issue, when two reputable, widely published scientists that have received external recognition (e.g. myself and Christy) clearly disagree?""Two scientists!" That sounds qunatitative to me. Of course, this does not mean the "quantitative argument" has any merit. Indeed, where are the error bars on this data? As this is Judy & John, the errors will be humogously massive, so two, twenty, two-hundred: at such levels the data is scientifically insignificant.
Sat, 29 Apr 2017 03:31:33 +0000Any discussion of landslide and mudflows? I imagine a lot of frozen sloping terrain, has been spared such events, because frozen ground has pretty high shear strength. Could be both messy and hazardous if these sorts of events become common. Also it could feedback into the carbon cycle?