Danny -
If that’s because you, as a commenter, were put into moderation it’s a different situation.
I’m talking about a filter flagging innocuous words.
The best example here is that Climate Etc. filters out the word id*ot, even though Judith used the term in one of her headlines.
LOL. I got a kick outta the “confident idi*t” topic. Way too many times I forgot and got modded.
Over there, every one of my comments including my first and last went to mod. I was treated like a pariah and not as one of the pack so I chose not to stay. Not worth the effort. So don’t know if one gains acceptance there once one “passes the test” or not.
I did get modded here responding to R.Gates’ Russ*an R*ulette comment, but that was kinda understandable I guess. I was actually curious if he did to.
Will GOP put climate science back on trial? [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/e2-wire/224275-will-gop-put-climate-science-back-on-trial]
Well, this is actually good news. The data has been adjusted for various reasons (models, “homogenization and pasteurization”, etc.) and the changes invariably make the data more “global warming” friendly.
Forcing the adjusters to cough up their data and methods and justify them is a useful exercise. The adjusters might have legitimate reasons that are well supported. If the adjusters don’t congress can cut off their funding and eliminate the problem.
“A weak El Nino event may not reduce OHC, so that would be welcome.”
—–
Not sure why that would be “welcome”. Warmest oceans on record continue to alter weather patterns globally.
When the El Nino talk started up this year there was a lot desire shown for a super El Nino. I do see that as a desirable thing. If there is to be an El Nino, I would prefer a weak one. What I would prefer the most would be one more year of neutral conditions, only this time with several months with positive ONI. There have been very few of those since 2010. The period has been dominated by La Nina and negative ONI, and the SAT has largely recovered regardless.
Climate “Grubering”, the essence of the orthodox left-wing academic “consensus” will be a main focus of Chairman Inhofe. The tide turns.
Goldilocks dwells well beyond our capacity to reach there. It’s a Human Carbon Cornucopia, until we empty it.
===============
JCH | November 22, 2014 at 11:20 am said:
… Right now GISS and NOAA have January thru October 2014 as the warmest Jan thru Oct in the thermometer record, and that’s in a year that started with the polar-vortex winter of 2013-2014. ONI at -0.6, and land at 44th place in February. …
That may be true, but frequently the relative temps proffered by GISS do not comport with RSS or UAH, which I like better due to the much more thorough coverage and consistency in data rendering.
Not every organization recognizes a mistake as fast as Google. Some never do. http://www.algore.com. Some too late. U.S.A. E.U.
Which indicates there are problems with UAH and RSS. I believe RSS has already acknowledged this. They hop around like a cat on a hot tin roof during an El Nino, and steal all the covers in a La Nina. That’s a hint.
Here’s commenter Bernd Felsche @ the Bish’s.
‘It took them 10 years to figure out what a reasonably competent (Mechanical) Engineering graduate could work out from basic principles; on two sheets of A4 paper, in half an hour.’
=============================
“So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate change, with all its dire consequences: shifting climatic zones, freshwater shortages, eroding coasts, and ocean acidification, among others.”
Severe climate change, eh?
1. More CO2 (with lower plant water consumption) mitigates the “drought” issue. A win for more CO2.
2. Shifting climate zones. So far on (since 1982) average the earth has gotten a lot greener on average, despite a lot of forest burning. Seems like a win.
3. Fresh water shortages. As Jim Steele loves to point out – it doesn’t take a lot of tinkering on the ground to mess up hydrology and man is pumping a lot of ground water. At least they won’t need as much water for irrigation.
4. Eroding coasts. This is a complex issue with a number of man made causes. Will making the ocean less alkaline affect affect it significantly? This one we’ll leave on the table since the amount change and the reason for the warming contribution wasn’t quantified.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/decline-in-ph-measured-at/ome01/image_original
5. Acidification of the Ocean. It will get less alkaline – but it won’t become acid. PH is one of those log function thingies and it is going asymptotic. It appears to be impossible to drive the PH below around an 8.04 average but if you want to claim 8.02 by 2100 go ahead. Still alkaline.
Other than “natural variability”, those who doubt the long-term effects of increasing GH gases on the climate system have no answers for why 2014 may turn out to be the warmest year on record. Nice to see we can turn away from their pseudoscience to real science which does give us solid reasons why the past 10 years have been the warmest on record with the end of that period as the warmest of all.
From the article:
…
The key to their process is genetic engineering. The microbes they grow were genetically tuned to consume carbon dioxide and secrete specific molecules, such as ethanol or diesel. The carbon dioxide would be supplied from the flue gases of a power plant or other polluter.
Not only is it a radically different approach, it’s a big financial bet. The company has raised $160 million, led by Flagship Ventures.
Joule has been operating a demonstration plant in Hobbs, New Mexico that produces ethanol, and says that in recent months, the results of its tests show that the company is nearing commercialization. “We know it works,” says Tom Einar Jensen, the head of corporate development at the company. “We are getting close to commercial levels of productivity, not taking into consideration subsidies.”
In July, the company got approval from the EPA to use its genetically modified microbe for biofuel or chemical production—a significant requirement to commercializing its technology and the first time the EPA has approved this type of GMO for commercial use.
…
Yeah, cwon14, it looks like Inhofe is going to play whack-a-mole with global warmers for the next two years. Don’t know if it will be enlightening but it will be entertaining.
JCH – How can you trust the GISS algore-rhythm? The surface sampling of the globe is very spotty and requires too many hail Mary corrections.
Sat temp calcs are tame compared to that.
How do you justify your statement that there is some problem with UAH/RSS temps? Just curious really.
Right, Kim. Back of envelope calcs don’t need a computer, thus Google engineers couldn’t handle it.
jim2
I replied to your query on Blizzards here
http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/19/can-cows-help-save-the-planet/#comment-649629
tonyb
NOAA is warmer than GISS. It’s possible 2014 could fail to be the warmest year on GISS. NOAA looks like it’s almost in the bag.
Because they appear to be incapable of capturing record warmth in ENSO neutral conditions. To remain accurate, they overreact to EL Nino and La Nina.
