Unthreaded
@Mark
pcar dot presents at gmail dot com
google: x264-Pcar
P
Pcar
ITV local news big item about kids obstacle course in Hull sponsored by Yorkshire Water.
rep "What's the motivation ?"
YW shorts man : "Well Climate Change is coming and Hull is close to water"
... So brainwashing kids
... There were no Roman's in Hull
Cos the marshland didn't dry up up until the river changed its course 800 years ago.
stewgreen
We need a change in terminology.
If you insist on using "climate sensitivity" wonly in the context of CO2 forcing, what do you want to use as a more general term for response to any forcing?
Are you happy with Earth System Sensitivity, ESS?
Entropic man
Supertroll, Brent Hargreaves
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.
By assuming that CO2 is the only feedback in th early Holocene you have overestimated the climate sensitivity due to CO2 (9.5C per doubling is definately excessive) and its probable contribution to Holocene warming.
Both of you seem hooked on the idea that CO2 is the only climate forcing. At present (early 21st century) you are probably right since all the other potential forcings are in neutral. That does not apply during a deglaciation such as the early Holocene.
Entropic man
I'm social media hostile, couple of exceptions were Twitter when there issues at Channel Ports which threatened holiday plans. I used an email address since assigned to history. Twitter has been removed from my phone. I've been trying to persuade my family to swap from WhatsApp onto something in which Zuckerberg has no involvement, it's
n ot proving an easy task. I'm ready with Signal for when they twig. But, in the end, once you're on the Internet a great of information about follows very quickly.
Uibhist a Tuath
GolfCharlie. Ah but EM thinks sensitivity is very large indeed.
Oct 19, 2018 at 4:01 PM | Supertroll
Whoa! Entropic Man writes: "If climate sensitivity is 1.5, then that 1C forcing would only produce a total change of 1.5C." What???? Some kind of mystical multiplier!
Oct 19, 2018 at 4:01 PM | Brent Hargreaves
Weird how Climate Science relies on multiplying by numbers that can't be defined, to produce accuracy within 1% of a decimal point, that is still out by several country miles in old money, plus the height of a double decker bus on Nelson's Column, in an area the size of Wales.
I think that I is why the BBC "Experts" still think they understand Climate Science. They are gullible idiots too.
golf charlie
Yorkshire Post then take the bait and do a leader on the topic.
"Turbocharging Electric Cars
..unless ministers retain a range of incentives to encourage EVs ... then the revolution will be stuck in the slow lane"
Doh if they are revolutionary, then why do they need huge subsidies ?
stewgreen
@EM re throwing the boo-wood "denier" around
Such boo-words are designed to smear an opponent as untouchable.
#1 If I want to continue a debate with someone I pwould not use such words to them, even call themp a "liar", even when they have lied.
Cos all discussion has to be in good faith.
#2 "Why is it all right for you to call me a warmist, an alarmist, say that I'm in it for the money and fabricate data while complaining that I call you a denier?"
.. Misrepresentation, I don't generally do that.
Do I use labels like "alarmist" and dramagreen against third parties?
Yep
#1They are not defamatory pejoratives
If you ask them if they are alarmed about climate they say they are alarmed.
If I ask them if they are worried about levels of warming... they reply yes.
So "double standards here"
...Nope, I would not like people to use boo-word labels against you
"Most of the BH regulars meet that definition of denial, though I would give a couple of you the benefit of the doubt."
Tosh, we engage in great discussion about evidence, we do not merely REJECT
.... do you ?
stewgreen
GolfCharlie. Ah but EM thinks sensitivity is very large indeed. Recall a few days ago EM explained the Holocene Optimum so very clearly for us poor ignorant slobs. It was as if he were there then with a host of measuring apparatus. Firstly the Earth spun closer to the Sun and tilted just so that the world heated up a whole 1.2oC. This caused the atmospheric CO2 to rise [feedback everyone] by 80ppm (from 200 to 280ppm) by melting the tundra and warming the oceans. This CO2 increase (40% of a CO2 doubling) caused an additional 3.8oC temperature rise [CO2 forcing? feedback? Oh who cares?). So I calculated that a complete doubling should cause a 9.5oC rise (one of the highest sensitivities proposed). Of course the recent CO2 increase of 120ppm (from 280 to over 400ppm)- 45% of a doubling should therefore cause a temperature rise and using such a high sensitivity of... oh, oh something wrong there EM. We only have a one degree rise, or is it 1.5oC? Perhaps anthropogenic CO2 is less forceful. Or perhaps the deep oceans are boiling....
Supertroll
Tim Newman:
The truth about electric cars