Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace



if that's your grasp of what's going on then there is little point in engaging with you - bye-bye

Oct 19, 2018 at 11:53 PM | Registered Commentertomo


Seems straightforward enough. Red indicates high CO2 and indicates sources, which these days is mostly industrial areas. Sinks in blue are areas such as the Southern Ocean.

I dont think they include regional CO2 sources and sinks in the models yet. Was'nt that what OCO-2 was launched to provide data for?

Oct 19, 2018 at 11:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic man:

Once again, Rhoda's comment matches my own thinking very well, but here are my responses.

Not juat temperature. A temperature increase cascades into other effects.

When you get to talking about "sensitivity", I'm assuming this is in the sense of "sensitivity analysis" -- apportioning effects on the output of an equation to each of the input variables. Sure, there can be other things that are sensitive to those inputs, and flow-on effects, but if you don't have a single dependent variable, you can't do sensitivity analysis.

Everthing is cause and effect, though sometimes not easy to disentangle. I regard focings as causes and feedbacks as effects.

Don't you have that inverted? Seems to me that what you perceive as a cause, you define as a forcing. Inverted, or circular?

If the state of one region changes, that changes conditions in adjacent areas ans so on around the planet. That is effects, feedback and ultimately the whole system will settle into equilibrium.

I agree, weather is very complicated. The customary approach is to divide and conquer. Don't try to solve it all at once. My biggest beef with climate alarmism is that we have leapt from a factoid about CO2's radiative effects straight to "if we don't switch to wind power with 5 years we're all going to fry|drown|starve|etc." What proportion of one of today's expensive climate models is based on a solid understanding of the underlying behaviour vs. the proportion that is still based on naive statistical models originally pulled from thin air?

And if the real world hasn't already falsified every last one of them, it certainly hasn't confirmed any of them.

The climate equivalent of VIX is climate sensitivity. This, put simply is the ratio of total effect to forcing.

Other commenters have pointed out that "climate sensitivity" has a different "accepted" (and IMO daft) definition. Anyhow, I don't think your suggestion is what I'm looking for.

As I have said, mean temperature hides all the things we might legitimately be worried about. If the peak temperature on the hottest day of the year goes up 10C at my home, I care about that, even if the mean didn't change at all (because it's balanced by a more severe winter minimum). And if the mean goes up a "cataclysmic" 3C simply because winter temperatures were 5C warmer, I'd be quite pleased. A measure of variability -- measured, not modelled -- and trends in those figures might reveal information that the mean hides.

Oct 19, 2018 at 11:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Swan

Docs prove Climate Barbie approved “tone deaf” Syria tweet


Oct 19, 2018 at 11:35 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

"The Shale Environmental Regulator Group will act as one, coherent, single face for local authorities and industry, helping to resolve regulatory issues on sites and sharing best practice with local authorities considering shale gas applications."
Oct 19, 2018 at 10:11 PM | tomo

There never was a Wind Turbine Environmental Regulator Group, a real Envronmental tragedy has been caused.

Oct 19, 2018 at 11:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


she does sound fairly sane as a non specialist - but on the BBC? A purported consultancy gig for Ineos (In her Wikipedia profile) will be touted as corruption... When Baron Smiffy of Finsbury was sniffing around this it was clear that he was scheming some new public sector posts with chums. She's burnt her bridges with the present Labour Party regime.

The appointment comes as the government announced the set up of a Shale Environmental Regulator Group, which will bring the regulators (Oil and Gas Authority, Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency) together as a virtual body. The Shale Environmental Regulator Group will act as one, coherent, single face for local authorities and industry, helping to resolve regulatory issues on sites and sharing best practice with local authorities considering shale gas applications.

Knowing one "virtual" participant a bit too well - I cannot imagine it'll be coherent at all.

Let's wait for Question Time - I'd wager it'll be one of the more contrived episodes.....

Oct 19, 2018 at 10:11 PM | Registered Commentertomo

"Both of you seem hooked on the idea that CO2 is the only climate forcing.
Oct 19, 2018 at 5:49 PM | Entropic man"

No. Climate Science DECIDED CO2 was the only forcing/factor/cause/thingy/wotsit involved in Global Warming.

How was this decision reached, without inviting any comment from anyone suggesting other possible causes that you raise now?

Oct 19, 2018 at 10:10 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

A surprisingly sane voice. Natasha Engel, former Labour MP and now the new Shale Gas Commissioner. I hope she gets lots of airtime on the BBC.

Oct 19, 2018 at 9:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterIt doesn't add up...


regale us with your explanation of CO2 circulation patterns - sources + sinks as observed by OCO-2 and their relationship to NASA-GISS GCM runs.

You can't

Oct 19, 2018 at 8:50 PM | Registered Commentertomo

''Supertroll, you have not included feedback warming due to reduced ice albdo, increased water vapour, cloud cover, reduced dust, permafrost decay etc. Each of them has its own climate sensitivity.''

And that's why there is no true climate sensitivity or ESS. They are not valid concepts, even in the only terms they can be used, for comparison between observations and climate model results.

They aren't valid partly because they are averages and not good for anything (if global mean temp is a dodgy concept in itself, the change in value of it when only one of its 'forcings' changes by a factor of two is at least twice vas dodgy.), but mainly because the premise is so simplistic it is laughable. Everything impinges on everything else. Double the CO2 and you'll get emergent phenomena. You can't predict how chaotic it's going to be, but you can predict that chaos is inevitable. You might get a massive increase (or decrease, who knows) in albedo at the equator, in the afternoon. That alone will affect all sorts of other things. You can't model it, you certainly cannot use an earth average albedo as input to temperature prediitions. The idea that you can arrive at some Earth System Sensitivity on the back of an envelope is nothing short of hubris.

Oct 19, 2018 at 8:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterRhoda Klapp

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>