Comments on: All the “Catastrophe” Comes from Feedback http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Alex Tanner http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html/comment-page-1#comment-382 Alex Tanner Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html#comment-382 <p>Brilliant article. I hope someone can put pressure on the IPCC to acknowledge the work of Henrik Svensmark and correct their cloud radiative feedback modelling accordingly. I suggest if the Earth ever gets too warm for most people's liking (remotely possible), then the best method would be "inexpensively blocking the Sun by means of particles in the upper atmosphere" (see my URL for source). Kyoto is wrong- it punishes consumers- leading to recession, energy poverty, world war.</p> Brilliant article. I hope someone can put pressure on the IPCC to acknowledge the work of Henrik Svensmark and correct their cloud radiative feedback modelling accordingly. I suggest if the Earth ever gets too warm for most people’s liking (remotely possible), then the best method would be “inexpensively blocking the Sun by means of particles in the upper atmosphere” (see my URL for source). Kyoto is wrong- it punishes consumers- leading to recession, energy poverty, world war.

]]> By: Mike D http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html/comment-page-1#comment-381 Mike D Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:00:13 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html#comment-381 <p>The sad part about this whole issue is that IPCC does not have enough accurate historical temperature information to even know if there is anything other than normal climate fluctuation occuring.I would think they would want to wait until they could base their arguments on scientific data instead of best guess estimates.</p> The sad part about this whole issue is that IPCC does not have enough accurate historical temperature information to even know if there is anything other than normal climate fluctuation occuring.I would think they would want to wait until they could base their arguments on scientific data instead of best guess estimates.

]]> By: Assistant Village Idiot http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html/comment-page-1#comment-380 Assistant Village Idiot Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:25:48 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html#comment-380 <p>Patrick, I take your point that the percentage increase may not be the most important measure, and so should not be put forth as if it is. The analogy to body temperature weakens the argument, however. If the body temperature of human beings had shown the same variation as average climate temperature over the centuries, then we might not be so concerned with a 1% increase. It is only because we know empirically that the body tolerates very little variation that we would be alarmed at a 1% increase.</p> Patrick, I take your point that the percentage increase may not be the most important measure, and so should not be put forth as if it is. The analogy to body temperature weakens the argument, however. If the body temperature of human beings had shown the same variation as average climate temperature over the centuries, then we might not be so concerned with a 1% increase. It is only because we know empirically that the body tolerates very little variation that we would be alarmed at a 1% increase.

]]> By: Assistant Village Idiot http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html/comment-page-1#comment-379 Assistant Village Idiot Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:25:27 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html#comment-379 <p>Patrick, I take your point that the percentage increase may not be the most important measure, and so should not be put forth as if it is. The analogy to body temperature weakens the argument, however. If the body temperature of human beings had shown the same variation as average climate temperature over the centuries, then we might not be so concerned with a 1% increase. It is only because we know empirically that the body tolerates very little variation that we would be alarmed at a 1% increase.</p> Patrick, I take your point that the percentage increase may not be the most important measure, and so should not be put forth as if it is. The analogy to body temperature weakens the argument, however. If the body temperature of human beings had shown the same variation as average climate temperature over the centuries, then we might not be so concerned with a 1% increase. It is only because we know empirically that the body tolerates very little variation that we would be alarmed at a 1% increase.

]]> By: Patrick Hadley http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html/comment-page-1#comment-378 Patrick Hadley Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:53:29 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html#comment-378 <p>Tony, I am agnostic about AGW but to argue that a change from 288 to 288.6 Kelvin is a small percentage change (and therefore presumably not very important) is unlikely to convince people who are worried about global warming. I don't want to be rude, but it is the sort of comment that gives sceptics and agnostics a bad name. It is a bit like a post on another board which was based on 1 degree Celsius being equivalent to around 33 degrees Fahrenheit.</p> <p>The percentage increase above absolute zero is totally irrelevant to whether or not we should be worried about an increase in global temperatures. I think that fears are exaggerated, but not because it is only a small percentage increase. If your doctor tells you that you have a body temperature 3 degrees Kelvin above normal, it is hardly going to reassure you if he tells you this is only a 1% increase. </p> Tony, I am agnostic about AGW but to argue that a change from 288 to 288.6 Kelvin is a small percentage change (and therefore presumably not very important) is unlikely to convince people who are worried about global warming. I don’t want to be rude, but it is the sort of comment that gives sceptics and agnostics a bad name. It is a bit like a post on another board which was based on 1 degree Celsius being equivalent to around 33 degrees Fahrenheit.

The percentage increase above absolute zero is totally irrelevant to whether or not we should be worried about an increase in global temperatures. I think that fears are exaggerated, but not because it is only a small percentage increase. If your doctor tells you that you have a body temperature 3 degrees Kelvin above normal, it is hardly going to reassure you if he tells you this is only a 1% increase.

]]> By: Tony Edwards http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html/comment-page-1#comment-377 Tony Edwards Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:20:54 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/all-the-catastr.html#comment-377 <p>One point that has been repeatedly made, but never answered is that the current 0.6 c rise is NET of any feedbacks, positive or negative. And given that the rise is from approx 288 K to 288.6 K, a very small percentage, there is no logical reason why any existing feedbacks are likely to change much in magnitude or in sign. Also, given the fact that the Earth's climate has remained within stable limits since forever, this is not likely to change because of an insignificant population of humanity.</p> One point that has been repeatedly made, but never answered is that the current 0.6 c rise is NET of any feedbacks, positive or negative. And given that the rise is from approx 288 K to 288.6 K, a very small percentage, there is no logical reason why any existing feedbacks are likely to change much in magnitude or in sign. Also, given the fact that the Earth’s climate has remained within stable limits since forever, this is not likely to change because of an insignificant population of humanity.

]]>