Dr. Curry,
Why no comment on your change of status in the Mannian universe? You are now a new breed of contrarian, the Delayer. That would seem to be an upgrade from being considered an #antiscience #climatedenier, or whatever other ridiculous epithet he applied to you. Perhaps he is afraid of a lawsuit.
Comment on Week in review by M Happold
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Curious George
You are either born to understand Lewandowky, or not. Long road??!
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
I haven’t read Michael Mann’s “rant” but it looks like he just can’t resist provoking Steve McIntyre. Mann knows full the Hockey Stick graph agitates McIntyre, yet he prominently displays it in his article.
I haven’t actually read the rant, but I skimmed over it and immediately saw the hockey stick. I guess I should read it before commenting further, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Mann’s motive was to inflame McIntyre.
↧
Comment on Week in review by curryja
We do wind and hydropower forecasting, have clients in the humanitarian and emergency management sector, consumer weather, and several government agencies in Asia. And yes we have a few clients in petroleum, regional power providers and energy traders.
Of note: our main client in the petroleum sector (since 2007) was initially attracted by our research on hurricanes and global warming.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
You wrote –
“Now you imply he was wrong to say that Fourier even postulated the greenhouse effect.”
I imply nothing. If he says that Fourier postulated the greenhouse effect, he is wrong, unless he can show evidence that Fourier did, indeed, postulate, the greenhouse effect.
In any case, who cares?
The greenhouse effect does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist.
I am right. Anybody who claims the CO2 greenhouse effect exists is wrong. The last 18 years, or 4.5 billion years if you think 18 years is too short a period, supports my assertion. So does physics. We win, you lose.
Maybe you can do better in future. Try squeezing your eyes closed, really hard. Repeat “the world is warming” several times. Open your eyes. Nope, still cooling. Keep going. It might work eventually – who knows?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by me
I don’t think McIntyre figures in Dr Mann’s thoughts one iota – he’s an irrelevant nonentity.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Do you have any thoughts on right-wing ninnies?
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by AK
@ PA | January 9, 2015 at 3:48 pm |
“Sigh”, you again.
Yup. Trying, in my spare time, to be the bane of ridiculous arguments that sound scientific but aren’t. Such as “[f]ossil fuel produced CO2 is healthier for plants than the current atmosphere.”
You and David Appell are like two peas in a pod. You’re pursuing some political/ideological agenda and drag in bits of science you don’t understand without any idea whether they make sense.
Your “The plants won’t grow less, they’ll just open their stomata a little wider” means the plant consumes more water. That alone will have a retarding effect on plant growth.
0.024%, equivalent to less than 100 PPB CO2. Too small to bother with.
Bigger problem is chlorophyll is C55H72O5N4Mg.
So What?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Carrick
Pekka:
Poor resolution of the data adds significantly to the difficulty in determining the field values well enough for the estimation of the trend.
You know it adds “significantly” on a factual basis, or is this just your best guess?
I don’t actually accept that it factually is the case that the main problem with using the older data is just resolution: 1.5 million data points sounds like plenty to offset a what is actually not a huge loss in absolute resolution.
I can accept that resolution plays into the problems with using the older data, but I guess there would a multitude of road-blocks (such as the ones I gave above) you’d have to overcome before you could reliable use these historical data to estimate the trend.
Anyway, the main points that Richard Telford has raised are I believe valid. I think the problems aren’t too few measurements, or two foo sensors.
I would guess that the real problems are the measurements are too poorly controlled to be used for this purpose.
Not that dissimilar to the problems with TOBS, change of sitings, instrumentation that the land surface record suffers from, but (and again this is my guess) even worse meta data. If I’m correct, “we know there are problems, but there is no way to really fix them.”
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Well, I can’t plan for my remaining life with absolute certainty, but nevertheless I plan based on predictions of what’s likely. I have observed the consequences of no planning.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
From the article:
…
MUMBAI: Two of three scientists at a session on climate change and society at the Indian Science Congress on Tuesday felt fears of man-made global warming were greatly exaggerated. Their presence at the conference was particularly significant in light of the current ‘development-versus-envir- onment’ debates.
“While I agree that glaciers are melting because of global warming, if this is because of man, then what was the reason for the melting of the glaciers in the Gondwana period long ..
…
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
I don’t think McIntyre cares what Mann says. He just loves to skewer Mann’s sloppy science.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bad Andrew
“I have observed the consequences of no planning.”
Have you observed the consequences of bad planning?
Andrew
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
‘The Serengeti strategy,’ polemics and self acclamation
at their finest. Check out Figure 1 subtle color change
at 1902, then check out the same Figure 1under the
microscope, yer might say, Climate Audit.
↧
Comment on Week in review by RiHo08
“Meteorological basis for more colds in winter? Cold viruses replicate better at cooler temperatures”
Warm is good. Cold is bad at least for the human immune system. Our immune defense system is dependent upon our keeping 37 C. Most viruses have to live out of doors, on door knobs, hand rails, and micro droplet forms so they have adapted to a cooler environment and survive and multiply. When humans are exposed to viruses like rhinovirus, we can get sick; i.e., when infected with a virus, we develop a “fever” which in part enhances our immune system proteins (cytokines) function.
“Schaffner, A (2006). “Fever–useful or noxious symptom that should be treated?”. Therapeutische Umschau. Revue therapeutique 63 (3): 185–8. doi:10.1024/0040-5930.63.3.185. PMID 16613288.”
Given the current temperature around here is 4 F, I am looking for a Finnish Sauna to keep healthy, maybe even charge it to my health insurance through the Affordable Care Act?
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by John S.
How emblematic of the “climate science” establishment to rely upon blatant ad hominems in arguing against empirical data that exposes the gross inadequacies of academic conceptions of “the greenhouse effect.” Radiation is but one mechanism of transferring heat from the surface to the atmosphere–a minor one at that. Repeated experiments in situ consistently show that net radiative transfer is overwhelmed by the transfer via moist convection. Far from being any climate “control knob,” CO2 is but a minor role player in setting the optical depth of the atmosphere.
Whatever mistakes of writing and/or over-reaching reasoning Miskolczi may make, he is entirely correct in pointing to water vapor and the hydrological cycle as the regulating mechanism for surface temperature. And M. clearly distinguishes between the surface temperature problem and that of the planetary radiation to space. Lacis’ accusations are simply the pot calling the kettle black.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
You might get published If you had something interesting to say and could express it in writing.
↧
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Carrick
David Appell, regarding the issues with greater natural variability than suggested by MBH 98/99, I'll refer you back to <a href="https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/free-speech-brigade-suppresses-free-speech/" rel="nofollow">this thread on Barry Bickmore's site.</a>
See in particular my comment dated "February 16, 2014 at 11:06 am" (there seems to be no way to get the URL for individual comments):
<blockquote>The MWP is important of course for what it tells us about societies failure to adapt to change, not so important to the AGW debate (radiative physics still has the dominant role to play there). I think the disservice that MBH98 and 99 did was to underplay the role of natural variability.
You are right that larger natural variability does mean you can get larger swings than you might otherwise have, and this part is key, you don’t necessarily have the ability to predict when another 1930s weather period comes along, but this time on CO2 steroids. Not a pretty image.
</blockquote>
Your comment "The funniest part of your argument is that, if true — if there was a global MWP — that makes our current situation WORSE, not better" seems to be a succinct reiteration of my earlier point (so naturally I agree with it as being brilliantly put. :-D).
I think the AGW problem is actually more serious if the natural variability is as large as more recent paleoclimate reconstructions suggest: Not only do you have significant temperature swings, you can't even predict them.
Heck, even if AGW <i>weren't an issue</i>, understanding the range of climate variation (that is temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, etc) expected from natural variability is <i>still something</i> that needs quantifying <i>accurately</i>, especially as we zoom towards a 10-billion world population with all of the major agricultural areas concentrated in small regions of the globe.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Carrick
I meant to point out that this paragraph starting with “Heck, even if AGW weren’t an issue, …” remains true even if MWP like events are not global in extent. All you need is a major climate disruption centered over one of the “bread baskets” before we have a major mess on our hands.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
jim2 January 9, 2015 at 6:22 pm
I don’t think McIntyre cares what Mann says. He just loves to skewer Mann’s sloppy science.
____
jim2, if he didn’t care what Mann says, why would he bother?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
