by Andy May, September 2, 2018 in WUWT
In Part A of the Great Debate series (see here) we discussed Dr. David Karoly’s and Dr. William Happer’s arguments regarding how unusual the recent global warming is and how we know the recent observed increase in CO2 is due to human activities. In Part B we will examine their thoughts on questions three and four.
3. How do we know that the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have caused most of the recent global warming?
4. Climate models have been used to compute the amount of warming caused by human activities, how accurate are they?
For an introduction to the debate and links to the original documents see Part A.
by JC Dupont, 3 septembre 2018
Quelques commentaires sur quelques commentaires
La Lettre d’information 7 sort légèrement du cadre prévu à l’origine pour ces Lettres. Elle se rapporte à des commentaires qu’elles ont suscités et qui sont parus dansL’1Dex. L’1Dex est un média alternatif valaisan, dont le motto est « Pour un Valais
critique et libertaire ». Grâce au libéralisme de son rédacteur en chef, Me Stéphane Riand, et de son équipe dirigeante, les voix discordantes, les pensées de contre-courant, les points de vue tenus pour hérétiques, tout ce qui se heurte aux interdits des presses bien-pensantes, peuvent se faire entendre. De l’air frais sur la « Panurgie ». C’est ainsi que mes Lettres d’information ont connu une diffusion inespérée. L’1Dex offre aussi à ses lecteurs la possibilité de réagir avec des commentaires, qui sont le plus souvent anonymes. L’ignorance générale où l’on est des questions relatives au climat, ajoutée à l’illusion qu’un consensus se serait établi parmi les scientifiques, comme on le laisse entendre dans les milieux de la climatologie officielle, expliquent la cacophonie et la variété ébouriffante de certains de ces commentaires. Pour des raisons que j’expose plus loin, je ne m’y suis guère arrêté jusqu’ici. De par le contexte même, le contenu de la présente Lettre est plus local. Néanmoins, on passe à la généralité par des extrapolations simples.
by Larry Bell, September 3, 2018 in Newsmax
New evidence now updates and confirms a column I wrote in June 2014 that some or all of the highly publicized melting of western coastal Antarctic glaciers may be caused by seabed volcanoes rather than having much or anything to do with climate change.
An article published in June 22 edition of the journal Nature Communications reports that an international team of scientists tracing a chemical signature of helium in the seawater discovered that contemporary volcanic heat is causing observed melting beneath the massive west Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS.)
by M. Ding et al., August 27, 2018 in CO2Science
The results of their analysis revealed that warming in this high Arctic site had proceeded at four times the global mean rate calculated in other data sets. However, Ding et al. note that over the last decade (2005-2014), “the warming rate in Ny-Ålesund slowed to 0.03 ± 1.85°C per decade,” which is essentially indicative of no-trend in the data. Lead-lag analysis further revealed that “Ny-Ålesund and global temperature variations were remarkably consistent, with a lag time of 8-9 years.” Consequently, the researchers say that “the ‘warming hiatus’ many scientists [have] studied also appears in Ny-Ålesund, it just started later than [that observed in] other areas.”
by Judith Curry, July 22, 2018 in ClimateEtc.
A remarkable essay by esteemed oceanographer Carl Wunsch.
While doing a literature survey for my paper on Climate Uncertainty and Risk, I came across a remarkable paper published in 2010 by MIT oceanographer Carl Wunsch, entitled Towards Understanding the Paleocean.
The paper is remarkable for several reasons — not only that it was published but that the paper was apparently invited by journal editor.
The paper is well worth reading in its entirety, for a fascinating perspective on paleo-oceanography and paleoclimatology. Here I provide excerpts of relevance to the sociology of climate science:
by David Whitehouse, August 30, 2018 in GWPF
Science is of course a human enterprise full of the imperfections of humanity. It’s more competitive than it’s ever been and there are more scientists than ever. So many want to communicate their science and this is wonderful. But the media, especially social media, can bring out a nasty streak in some especially when they take the moral high ground: ‘Some people should not be debated.’ ‘We are too right to be challenged.’ ‘Excommunicate!’
by F. Sotiropoulos, September 2018, in Stony Brook University/ published in Nature
The use of in-stream flow (or hydrokinetic) energy converters in rivers appears to offer another workable and effective option to expand renewable energy and limit carbon emissions in the United States. While the potential for in-stream flow energy harvesting systems has already been demonstrated for rivers with fixed beds, researchers now developed a scaled demonstration of hydrokinetic energy generated from a river channel with a sandy bed. Their findings, detailed in a new paper published in Nature Energy, showed that the model hydrokinetic power plant can generate energy effectively and safely without undermining the stability of the river geomorphic environment.