“NOAA’s Powerful New Supercomputers Boost U.S. Weather Forecasts”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090908_computer.html

Mr Palmer, if you ever want to post anything here again, you’ll have to stop using the term deniers in the same sentences with explanations. You don’t come into people homes and insult them do you? So why should you do the same to me and other here in our home on the Internet?

Learn some manners.

If you want to discuss science, that’s fine. If you want to call me and everyone else here names while trying to push your explanation and agenda, bugger off.

- Anthony Watts

But I think our “geologically instantaneous” release of something like 300 billion tons of carbon from fossil fuels has destabilized it, and we are seeing the initial stages of runaway global warming right now.”

Runaway global warming? Did Mr. Palmer really say that? I think this is a potential candidate for “Munted Quote of the Week” IMO.

REPLY: That’s the best comment you’ve made yet, its a keeper! :) -A

Oh, surely not the best. :)

But, if past experience is any guide, this will not stop you from using that same climate denier talking point logarithmic argument again on other posts, even though discrediting it just requires going to Wikipedia, getting the equations, and doing a very small amount of math. :)

REPLY:I’m not a denier. I don’t deny the CO2 has a role in warming the planet, it does. In fact the graph I showed you proves that it does. Just not the way you think.

Disproving it? Sure whatever you say, in fact if it is just that easy, feel free to do just that, showing the Wikipedia links (note showing the Mauna Loa CO2 Graph is not the same) show your math and work that disproves that CO2 has a logarithmic response in our atmosphere. -A

And a sad goodbye to you, as well.

CO2′s effect is limited by a logarithmic curve, but deniers have been using an incorrect value for the initial concentration of CO2. The correct value is 280 ppm, or so, and in order to get the sort of curve you showed me, you need an initial value of CO2 to be close to zero.

If you use the wrong value for the initial concentration, say 1 ppm instead of 280, it makes the CO2 effect tail off 280 times as fast as it should.

Sleep well. :)

REPLY: That’s the best comment you’ve made yet, its a keeper! :) -A

Oh, I’ve been kicked.

It’s just as well.

I was spending too much time over here, arguing with people whose minds are set in cement on this subject, and whose chief preoccupation is finding scientific sounding reasons to act in unscientific ways – to engage in commercially promoted psychological denial.

I do hope that you are able to live with yourself, Anthony, when global warming turns out to be both real and more catastrophic than you can apparently imagine.

We both should be around to see it, whatever happens.

REPLY:I agree you were spending too much time here and your view is cemented. I’m perfectly able to live with myself, because the science (that you ignore in favor or Gaia theory) tells me that CO2′s LWIR effect is limited by a logarithmic curve. Sayonara – A

One or two megawatts is not significant? Tell that to people in Zimbabwe that have no power.”

Not only Zimbabwe, here’s an e-mail fragment to my wife from our friend in Ethiopia;

” So today I and Lili wanted to surprise you by calling you instead of sending the usual e-card. So we met on our lunch time but you know this country! No power! No generator so No call! YOu have no idea how I squeezed my time to make it. Unfortunately we couldn’t. That was why we sent you a text message.”

Clearly Mr Palmer has been living a the life of Rielly on all that carbon pollution.

REPLY:Your’re wrong. Runaway global warming…not possible. Note the earth had 6000PPM or more of CO2 in the past and didn’t turn into Venus.

In the past, the climate has had one thing it doesn’t have now: time to adapt.

Lovelock, the author of the “climate as a self regulating system” hypothesis, believes it is not only possible, but happening right now – after a visit to the Hadley Center:

Until recently, Lovelock thought that global warming would be just like his half-assed forest — something the planet would correct for. Then, in 2004, Lovelock’s friend Richard Betts, a researcher at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change — England’s top climate institute — invited him to stop by and talk with the scientists there. Lovelock went from meeting to meeting, hearing the latest data about melting ice at the poles, shrinking rain forests, the carbon cycle in the oceans. “It was terrifying,” he recalls. “We were shown five separate scenes of positive feedback in regional climates — polar, glacial, boreal forest, tropical forest and oceans — but no one seemed to be working on whole-planet consequences.” Equally chilling, he says, was the tone in which the scientists talked about the changes they were witnessing, “as if they were discussing some distant planet or a model universe, instead of the place where we all live.”

As Lovelock was driving home that evening, it hit him. The resiliency of the system was gone. The forgiveness had been used up. “The whole system,” he decided, “is in failure mode.” A few weeks later, he began work on his latest and gloomiest book, The Revenge of Gaia, which was published in the U.S. in 2006.

I think Lovelock’s right, and you’re wrong.

We’ve used up the resiliency of the system with 300 billion tons of carbon, mostly from fossil fuels, added geologically instantaneously to the climate system.

REPLY: I think you’ve been brainwashed. CO2 has a logarithmic response to LWIR in the atmosphere, see this graph, it can’t cause a tipping point, ever.

Its not about feelings its not about it being “terrifying” its about a physical law. CO2 can’t cause a tipping point, period.

Since you’ve moved on to religion aka Gaia, your welcome has expired. – A

And newsflash Leland, the climate was never “in” control. We’ve never “had” control of it and never will. Such is the folly of alarmists. – A

Actually, I believe Lovelock’s hypothesis, that it is a self-regulating system, is correct.

It’s a very good, robust, self-regulating system, with massive reserves of control, and it has apparently gone out of control spontaneously only a couple of times in the past several hundred million years.

But I think our “geologically instantaneous” release of something like 300 billion tons of carbon from fossil fuels has destabilized it, and we are seeing the initial stages of runaway global warming right now.

The Hadley Center consists of good people, IMO, doing their jobs.

Their supercomputer is vitally necessary to this effort, and it’s electricity usage is trivial, compared to the value of the information gained, IMO.

REPLY:Your’re wrong. Runaway global warming…not possible. Note the earth had 6000PPM or more of CO2 in the past and didn’t turn into Venus. “Good people” at Hadley hide data preventing replication? Follow the links, educate yourself, pull yourself up out of the Gore. – A

Well, I might fail in my mission once in a while, but really, it is my mission.

I think that the climate is going out of control, and the only way to bring it back into control is to apply the proper corrective action, which must be based on the truth to succeed.

Regarding the Hadley center, and their transparency or lack of it, most of the information I have about that comes from this blog.

Because I don’t believe most of the stuff I read on this blog, I have tended to discount it as irrelevant or exaggerated.

The Hadley Center consists of hundreds of scientists, modeling the weather and climate, just doing their jobs, I think.

Regarding the computer code, those models have millions of lines of code, I think.

Who is going to be able to understand it or evaluate it other than other climate modelers?

REPLY: Well then let’s set you up with homework, since you won’t seek out that information yourself.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6797

Nature, the worlds most “prestigous” journal reported on it here:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460787a.html

So explain why “good people” must withhold data. No, their argument denying the FOI’s doesn’t hold water. And there’s a bunch of other questions you left unanswered.

And newsflash Leland, the climate was never “in” control. We’ve never “had” control of it and never will. Such is the folly of alarmists. – A

Good people doing good modeling, IMO.

The info is well worth the 1.2 megawatts, especially since it is insignificant relative to Britain’s total power production, and could significantly impact public policy.

My mission is to tell the truth.

REPLY: Mr. Palmer, PLEASE learn to use the refresh button. – A

Good people doing good modeling, IMO.

The info is well worth the 1.2 megawatts, especially since it is insignificant relative to Britain’s total power production, and could significantly impact public policy.

My mission is to tell the truth.

REPLY: What rubbish. Your mission is most definitely not “truth” because if it was, you’d be concerned about the fact that Hadley is withholding data and methods that would allow replication. Yet you give Hadley a free pass on this issue. You can’t even bring yourself to question “why”.

No, your mission is to spout your point of view everywhere you can.

So then, since you don’t mention it or appear to care, I assume you’re 100% OK with Hadley withholding data and code that would lead to independent verification like any other branch of science does? You’re OK with whatever the results that 1.2 megawatt computer puts out even if it is it could be wrong because it hasn’t been independently verified? You’re OK with using energy without verification that it is being used correctly. You’re OK with shutting down electricity production on those answer without independent verification?

In science, “good people” don’t hide things Mr. Palmer. – A