Comments on: About http://burycoal.com/blog Keep coal underground, along with unconventional oil and gas Thu, 17 May 2012 15:28:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: . http://burycoal.com/blog/about/#comment-6325 . Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:38:10 +0000 http://burycoal.com/blog/?page_id=2#comment-6325 Almost 30 years ago, Jule Charney made the first modern estimate of the range of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. He took the average from two climate models (2ºC from Suki Manabe at GFDL, 4ºC from Jim Hansen at GISS) to get a mean of 3ºC, added half a degree on either side for the error and produced the canonical 1.5-4.5ºC range which survived unscathed even up to the IPCC TAR (2001) report. Admittedly, this was not the most sophisticated calculation ever, but individual analyses based on various approaches have not generally been able to improve substantially on this rough estimate, and indeed, have often suggested that quite high numbers (>6ºC) were difficult to completely rule out. <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/" title="RealClimate: Climate sensitivity: Plus ça change…" rel="nofollow">However, a new paper in GRL this week by Annan and Hargreaves combines a number of these independent estimates to come up with the strong statement that the most likely value is about 2.9ºC with a 95% probability that the value is less than 4.5ºC.</a> Almost 30 years ago, Jule Charney made the first modern estimate of the range of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. He took the average from two climate models (2ºC from Suki Manabe at GFDL, 4ºC from Jim Hansen at GISS) to get a mean of 3ºC, added half a degree on either side for the error and produced the canonical 1.5-4.5ºC range which survived unscathed even up to the IPCC TAR (2001) report. Admittedly, this was not the most sophisticated calculation ever, but individual analyses based on various approaches have not generally been able to improve substantially on this rough estimate, and indeed, have often suggested that quite high numbers (>6ºC) were difficult to completely rule out. However, a new paper in GRL this week by Annan and Hargreaves combines a number of these independent estimates to come up with the strong statement that the most likely value is about 2.9ºC with a 95% probability that the value is less than 4.5ºC.

]]> By: MRW http://burycoal.com/blog/about/#comment-6195 MRW Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:25:21 +0000 http://burycoal.com/blog/?page_id=2#comment-6195 Hansen no more has the answer to climate sensitivity than any other scientist at this time. Hansen believes climate sensitivity is high, therefore his models work to prove that point. But other NASA scientists working with observable satellite data since 2002 (AMSU on the orbital Aqua satellite) are seeing results that climate sensitivity is low. They need until 2018 to determine it. Climate sensitivity is the Holy Grail of Climate Science and no one has the answer to it yet. If its high, then it's catastrophic and every scientist agrees it will be. If it's low, it means climate is not sensitive to human emissions. But the key to understand is that no one knows the answer, and whoever gets the answer gets the Nobel. Hansen no more has the answer to climate sensitivity than any other scientist at this time. Hansen believes climate sensitivity is high, therefore his models work to prove that point. But other NASA scientists working with observable satellite data since 2002 (AMSU on the orbital Aqua satellite) are seeing results that climate sensitivity is low. They need until 2018 to determine it.

Climate sensitivity is the Holy Grail of Climate Science and no one has the answer to it yet. If its high, then it’s catastrophic and every scientist agrees it will be. If it’s low, it means climate is not sensitive to human emissions.

But the key to understand is that no one knows the answer, and whoever gets the answer gets the Nobel.

]]> By: Adam http://burycoal.com/blog/about/#comment-5366 Adam Mon, 06 Jun 2011 19:05:39 +0000 http://burycoal.com/blog/?page_id=2#comment-5366 Pete, with Hansen's level of study in planetary sciences and climate forcings from paleoclimate to the present century's human-induced forcing (10000 stronger than any natural CO2 forcing in our planet's history from the geological account!), I would say that anyone questioning his authority on the subject of climate science is an idiot, or a 'climate contrarian', or climate change denialist. Pete, with Hansen’s level of study in planetary sciences and climate forcings from paleoclimate to the present century’s human-induced forcing (10000 stronger than any natural CO2 forcing in our planet’s history from the geological account!), I would say that anyone questioning his authority on the subject of climate science is an idiot, or a ‘climate contrarian’, or climate change denialist.

]]> By: Pete http://burycoal.com/blog/about/#comment-1565 Pete Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:31:46 +0000 http://burycoal.com/blog/?page_id=2#comment-1565 God bless James Hansen - the most revered idiot on the planet! God bless James Hansen – the most revered idiot on the planet!

]]> By: Editorial policy and the importance of this movement http://burycoal.com/blog/about/#comment-59 Editorial policy and the importance of this movement Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:28:39 +0000 http://burycoal.com/blog/?page_id=2#comment-59 [...] About [...] [...] About [...]

]]>