But … but … watermelons ARE a fruit!
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Brandon Shollenberger
Ah, that would make it difficult Judith. Also, your response made me remember something. It’s possible for people to respond to individual comments even if those comments don’t have a Reply button. I believe it can be done intentionally with any comment if you mess with your URL in the right way, but people with a WordPress admin bar (from running a blog) can do it without realizing.
For instance, you made your comment as a response to mine through your admin panel. That causes WordPress to pop the comment up in my WordPress bar as a notification and give me a Reply feature. That’s true even though there is no Reply button for the comment on the page it’s posted on.
So yeah, I’d say your way is definitely the best for how simple/easy it is for you.
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by pokerguy
Gates,
Keep em coming. I think all you warmest are at least slightly deranged, but I do find your comments generally entertaining and good natured.
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Don Monfort
JC SNIP
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Don Monfort
JC SNIP
↧
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Don Monfort
JC SNIP
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Why do I think deniers oppose mini-grid consisting of wind and solar backed by diesel? Because my search of leading denier organization sites (see list below) turned up only negative views of renewables in general. If any said renewables aren’t good, except for mini-grids, I missed it.
Heartland Institute
Global Warming Policy Foundation
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Americans for Prosperity
Climate Depot
BTW, Climate Depot claims the Vatican has been infiltrated by followers of the radical green movement. Does anyone know who these infiltrators are?
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Jim D
Yes, it’s this syndrome. I have to do something about just letting it go.
http://www.eejournal.com/index.php/download_file/view_inline/2083/
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by R. Gates
2015 sent me this New Year’s card:
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
I promise I’ve had zero grog (so far) today, but this is not sinking in.
I understand your commentary but am only having a challenge with the “why” portion. Does it matter if the data ranges are more broad, given sufficient time (30 years?) than if more narrow when generating trends? I’m gathering that this is the concern you’re trying to get through to me (broad ranges), but I’m only unable to digest how it’s an issue with trends are negatively impacted.
I’m perceiving that if the range is 1 to 10 and the mean is (approx.) 5 is the trend different that if the range is 1 to 100 and the mean is (approx.) 50? Or is my assumption wrong that the range should not impact the trend? (Hoping this is clear?) If I am wrong, then are not the ranges for insturmentation located elsewhere equally arbitrary?
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Tonyb said on |December 31, 2014 at 12:50 pm
“Max
Surely with the depth of your political class you can do better than yet another Clinton or yet another Bush?”
_____
Tony, don’t you know we Americans like to be first in everything.
First to have both a man and his wife as presidents.
or
First to have brothers as presidents.
and
First to have a father and his two sons as presidents.
Can the UK match that?
I guess you did have some kings and kings who were related.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D
Danny, if you are planning to have a controlled measurement environment for 30 years, you have the best control when that environment is simple, like the Mauna Loa one, and even there they can’t use all the measurements because some are too locally influenced. Ideally you want to look at air that has not been through a source or sink recently. If they could have a station in the upper troposphere they would, but a mountain surrounded by ocean is the next best thing.
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by vukcevic
Happy New year to all !
↧
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by miker613
Denizens will correct me, but I believe it’s from the Stadium Wave (search for Dr. Curry’s post on this if it’s new to you.)
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Joseph
So I guess when you are relatively smart and you don’t have much in scientific literature going for you, you turn to blogging and your own opinion of the science. Which attracts those who are not getting actual science in the MSM that supports their beliefs.
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Tonyb
Max
Good try but that’s small beer.
Queen Elizabeth the second is the 32 nd great grand daughter of king Alfred the great, the first English king from the mid 800’s
http://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.htm
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Joseph
I should also that add that the purpose of the most popular climate related blogs is usually to defend the science against misinformation.
↧
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Ed Martin
Happy New Year!!!
and watch out for those bankers bailing-in your funds
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Chuck L
I wish everyone a happy healthy and prosperous 2015! Orange Bowl this evening – Go Yellow Jackets!
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
I’m sorry, but I’m not getting the reasoning. Thanks for your patience.
This seems to me to be an argument for more insturmentation in more sites inclusive of mountains, troposphere, cities and forests. Exclusion of 31% of our planet bothers me when attempting to gauge global anything. Excluding all except mountains bothers me more. I’m still lacking something. Picturing the NASA movie of CO2 flow from modeling, I’m missing how given sufficient time the effect on the trend would be affected. This further presumes I have the right comprehension of “well mixed”. And I’m sensing that 1000 locations over longer times is better than 1 location (mountaintop) over that same time.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
