True enough but these are regulatory actions. Killing the political movement is still progress. Recognizing progress is important.
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by David Wojick
↧
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by scepticalWombat
Don Aitkin
(we in Australia are supposed to be having El Nino droughts, rather than extensive flooding)
Could you give me a reference for this statement. I am not aware of any climate scientist who has claimed that ENSO will move into a permanent El Nino phase. My impression was that the mainstream theory was that the cycle would continue but that La Ninas would be warmer and wetter (in Australia) and El Ninos would be hotter and drier.
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by pokerguy
Kiim,
He’s not the worst guy on that side of the divide, that’s for sure, but I really hate that he won’t answer inconvenient questions. When I recently asked him how he could reconcile the according to him, mistaken but “well intended’ Peter Gleick’s obvious hypocricy (he stole and likely forged documents because he was” frustrated by the skeptics refusal to debate” or words to the effect…despite the fact that he’d just turned down an invitation from HI to do just that) all I got was crickets. He does that all the time.
Sure, fine. His blog. He can do what he damn well pleases. But it’s a clear pattern with him. Say stupid crap then decline to defend said stupid crap.
All in all, dotearth is a nauseating slog through a toxic swamp of vapidity. Some of the characters over there are truly detestable.
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by Wagathon
The simple truth is the Old Farmers Almanac has a better record predicting climate change than the witchdoctors of academia.
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by hunter
kim,
I think it could be that someone like Eric Berger at the Houston Chronicle will be able to tell the story well. Watching Revkin slowly develop a rationalization for Gleick has serious implications about how compromised he may be by the AGW movement.
↧
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by Peter Davies
Professor Freeman Dyson has already done so.
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by Doug Cotton
The whole truth - yes, but <b>nothing but the truth.</b> For example, Willis wrote on WUWT: . <i>the guesstimated range of climate sensitivity hasn’t narrowed in any significant fashion. It’s still right around 3 ± 1.5°C per double of CO2, just like it was in 1979.</i>
Indeed, and they still don’t recognise, even though it’s been pointed out numerous times, that the sensitivity calculation is based on completely fabricated “physics” which assumes, firstly that the Earth’s surface only loses thermal energy by radiation – hence their 255K figure – and then they say that 33 degrees is due to water vapour and trace gases, when in fact it’s not 33 degrees at all (because the 255K is wrong) , and whatever it should be is due to the acceleration due to gravity, which determines the adiabatic lapse rate. Then, to cap it off, they put back evaporation and diffusion (wrongly named convection or thermals) into their energy diagrams, thus admitting their mistake in assuming that the surface only radiates like a perfectly insulated blackbody does.
They also neglect the cooling effect due to absorption of solar radiation in the SW IR range, followed by upwelling “backradiation” to space. This SW IR has more energy per photon than does the LW IR from the surface. And backradiation to space does prevent warming, just like reflection, whereas backradiation downwards cannot transfer thermal energy to the surface – it can only slow the radiative component of surface cooling, not the evaporative of diffusion processes.
<b>Hence there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for any warming sensitivity when, in fact, carbon dioxide almost certainly has a very slight net cooling effect.</b>
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by Captain Kangaroo
There really was quite a discussion on whether we had moved to more intense and frequent El Nino pattern post 1976.
Even a very cursory google search reveals much –
‘How will the El Niño phenomenon be affected by a global warming?
This is what the Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI) and the Max-Planck Institute (Germany), Matt Collins of Univ. Reading (U.K.) think. There is even a short entry about global warming and ENSO in Wikipedia. The brevity of this entry may reflect the fact that the question about how ENSO will respond to a global warming is still not settled. However, it seems that one common trait among some climate models is the indication that a global warming may result in a more a general El Niño-type average state (eg. Collins et al. 2005, Climate Dynamics, 24, 89-104. 19 and here).’ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/el-nino-global-warming/
In reality there is little theory at all that explains varibility in ENSO – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=ENSO11000.gif
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by scepticalWombat
A quick google search located this extract from FAO’s Water Report on “Climate Change Water and Food Security” quoting CSIRO’s report of the previous year.
There are a number of important aspects to the changes in runoff: where yields
are expected to decline, we can cautiously assume a reduction in groundwater
recharge, but this may not always be the case. An expected increase in the
frequency of larger rainfall events is likely to cause increases in peak runoff rate
and probable maximum flood. This has implications for storage management
in that the proportion of currently available storage will decrease unless peak
flows can be captured and stored. Where runoff declines and the proportion of
large events increases, we can expect lower median annual storage volumes and
supply security. At the same time, spillway sizes will have to be increased to
pass larger probable maximum floods, especially if more dams are designed or
modified to harvest peak flows and carry storage from year to year. Thus the
costs of surface water storage can be expected to increase, especially in terms
of unit costs of median annual volume stored. In Australia, there has been
a revision of estimated Probable Maximum floods (Australian Rainfall and
Runoff, 1999) and a revision of spillway capacity, overseen by the Australian
National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD)(CSIRO, 2007). If this logic
is correct, then there will be considerable interest in enhancing groundwater
recharge as an alternative and possibly cheaper means of storage.
↧
↧
Comment on Lindzen’s seminar: Part II by lolwot
you might want to look over the
<a href="http://nailsandcoffins.blogspot.com/2012/02/wuwts-solar-omission-fraud.html" rel="nofollow">all the VAST evidence</a> for the "omitted variable fraud"
↧
Comment on AMS members surveyed on global warming by thojak
Since when is science determined by hand-waving/polls?
Just wondering…
Brgds/TJ
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by Jim
Patrice – Life has transformed the planet. Man is an element of life. To you hysterics I reply with a big yawn, then a “So what?”
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by David Springer
Dr. Curry,
1000 “attaboys” is cancelled by one “awe sh!t”.
You climate boffins were still a long way from recovering from the climategate “awe sh!t” when Gleick wiped the slate clean yet again.
This is how I feel wherein one climate “skeptic” who says backradiation doesn’t exist makes 1000 of us who know enough physics to understand how greenhouse gases work look bad.
It’s not fun, is it Dr. Curry, when one bad apple spoils the whole barrel. This is life however. Deal with it.
↧
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by Chad Wozniak
The UK government”s take on the Climategagte emaila brings the following scenario to mind:
The police are warching a video of a murder emptying his revolver into his victim’s head, and they’ve already tested him for gunpowder residue and found tons of it on him and chemically identical residue on the gun itself, ,and the ballistics of th bullets found in the victim’s head match those of the gun, and his attorney says, There’s no evidence a crtime was committed here, not even that that the victim is dead, let alone that my client shot him.
The Climategate emails are a smoking gun if ever there was one, with lots of gunpowder residue to boot.
Some other things to think about here:.
All iknformation, documents, emails, wires, snail mail and everything else that can contain information of any kind whatsoever relative to a publicly funded activity, such as research, is PUBLIC INFORMATION not subject to claims of privacy, and IS subject to release and disclosure iuder the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Under US law at least, the Climategate emails are public property. Also, they are not subject to attorney-client privilege, they do not constitute intellectual property, they were not seized by police in an illegal search,and in any event they were not “hacked” but were doisclosed by insiders with authorized access to them.. Therefore, there is no violation of privacy or search-and-seizure restrictions, and NO THEFT.
I would have hoped better of the UK government in this than their endorsement of what may well have been criminal acts by AGW scaremongers.
In fact, if it is found that there hiave been criminal violations of the law concerning false statements made on applications to receive public funding, the people who have tried to keep the emails from being disclosed would presumably be guilty of obstructing justice.
↧
Comment on What can we learn from climate models? Part II by Volker Doormann
Volker Doormann | March 7, 2012 at 3:51 am
“It is not true that traditional climate models are the best available tool for projecting climate changes, because models based on heliocentric astronomical functions have shown that terrestrial climate function like the oscillating sea level or the global temperature is phase locked to a main solar tide function: http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_4_rs.gif.
This means nothing more than that solar tide functions, time coherent with thermal relation on Earth, are proved.“
V.
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by steven mosher
rather like Mann trying to lay the blame at rutherford’s door
or Jones trying to lay the blame for the lamb diagram at Folland’s door
You really do not want to open THAT particular can of worms.
Think one step ahead.
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by David Wojick
↧
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by andrew adams
Louise,
If you’re not familiar with the Yamal saga you can look here.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/30/briffa-teaches-but-will-mcintyre-ever-learn/
and also follow the associated links.
In short, the accusations made against Briffa were garbage. I don’t know if hunter knows that, I don’t know if he even cares – it’s just another bit of mud to fling.
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by John from CA
Here’s an example of a Scientist who makes telling the truth look easy.
DR. DANIEL NOCERA
and Personalized Energy (research sponsored by the DOE)
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by David Springer
I’ll see your “the ocean heats the atmosphere” truth and raise you with a more profound truth: the ocean is responsible for the greenhouse effect.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
