tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post7412730874734754266..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Dr. Judith Curry: "we are fooling ourselves to think 'CO2 control knob' really influences climate on decadal or even century timescales"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-44304814906631880462014-09-17T02:20:50.034-07:002014-09-17T02:20:50.034-07:00“I view the [climate change] problem as a ‘big wic...“I view the [climate change] problem as a ‘big wicked mess,” Curry told the crowd at luncheon assembled.<br /><br />Judith Curry has good company. One group of NASA scientists and their colleagues (led by Norman Loeb) have stuck a pin in the alarmist conclusions drawn by James Hansen and his colleagues, more likely his subordinates. <br /><br />To see the NASA numbers that show what a mess this problem is have a look at this blog:<br /><br />http://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/the-emperors-of-climate-alarmism-wear-no-clothes/ <br /><br />If climate sensitivity is as low as +1.3 degC that means radiative transfer to the world ocean is only +58 Wm-2. This inference is drawn from Roy Spencer's model of heat diffusion into the top 700 meters of the ocean, supported by this paper.<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.tw/2012/05/new-paper-finds-worlds-oceans-have.html<br /><br />This amount of net radiation is about 0.17% (1 part in 340) of the total incoming solar radiation. (Loeb et al 2012 based on Hansen et al 2011) <br /><br />The travesty is in the fact that the ERROR in estimating total incoming and total outgoing solar radiation is ten times greater than the amount of heat energy claimed to be captured by man-made Greenhouse gases. <br /><br />Let's say I spend $340 per week and earn $340.58 per week. Can I be certain of saving 58 cents per week, about $30 per year? <br /><br />If either or both my income or my spending can be higher or lower than expected by $5.80 per week. I could be ahead in the long run by $600 per year or in the hole by $600 per year. <br /><br />When stated as weekly pay using the same numbers as NASA has measured for the radiative driver of the climate system, the absurdity is obvious. <br /><br />Conclusions about AGW based on NASA's measurements of net radiative flux are meaningless, as demonstrated by Loeb et al (2012) and supported by Kopp and Lean (2011) cited by Loeb.<br /><br />The alarmists have a fine theory but they don't have numbers that make sense. You cannot confirm a theory with a numerical result whose error bands are ten times greater than your result. <br /><br />Dr Curry quite rightly calls this a mess. It sure isn't science.Frank Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17403044995764984391noreply@blogger.com