Jaime, that’s exactly correct. To know how much CO2 does, you need to know what, and how much each of the other factors do, and importantly, you need to know why and how much the climate system wobbles on its own.
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Shub Niggurath
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang
VTG,
To call me a “cultist” because I accept proven science is an interesting approach to learning.
You demonstrated you are a climafte cultists because you hold beliefs and when asked questiosn about them, that you should have thought through yourself and be able to answer you used the usual method used by the cultists to avoid answering: you said it’s fact, proven, and go find out, trust me, or things like that.
I do not trust anyone who can’t answer a simple question in simple language without resorting to the sort of nonsense you resorted to.
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by nottawa rafter
The way you laid it out is what should have been done in the IPCC documents. Had they done that, it would have cut down on the confusion factor. I remember reading in The Delinquent Teenager that some inexperienced (grad students?) were involved in preparation of previous ARs, perhaps the writers didn’t fully understand what they intended to write.
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Steve Ta
I would reverse the tumor analogy. When the patient complains that the chemo isn’t working because the tumor is 5% larger, you can claim that since it would otherwise have been 150% larger, then you’ve reduced it by 45%!
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Willard
> visit ATTP’s parallel parasitic thread
Does it mean this is a parasistic comment, Shub?
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by Last Year Was The Warmest Year In Recorded History. It Was Also The Greatest
[…] hotter than 1998 or 2005 or 2010, which were all evidently scorchers. (Though, all this data is a lot less definitive than the pliant media would have you […]
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Michael
John,
What are you babbling about?
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Michael
Yes jim, what if the noon is made of green cheese?
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by steven
natural warming 120%
anthropogenic warming 110%
all cooling factors combined 130%
100% of warming accounted for
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by jim2
The middle class needs high paying jobs, not another government boondoggle that takes from one group and gives to another. You and the other Dimowits are totally clueless when it comes to unintended consequences. The rich have the wherewithal to leave the country. Why don’t you understand that? The same for companies. You are amazing.
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Jonathan Abbott
Good summary, P.E.
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Joshua
Shub –
==> “Only religious people take up a statement written in a book, freeze it (as though it were something immutable), and study it and pore over it (instead of the concept/question behind it).”
Well, don’t tell that to Thomas, Scalia, the rest of the “strict constructionists” on the SCOTUS,, and tens of millions of “conservative” Americans.*
* Except when it’s inconvenient politically. When it’s inconvenient politically, they agree with you – well,except for the “religious people” part.
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Danny Thomas
JCH,
How about the “herding” with Michael as well as the continued rubbing my nose in the misspelling of brusque? I am human and make mistakes. I can move on, but feeling “ganged up on” led to my (inappropriate?) response. If I am out of line, please forgive.
Respectfully,
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by R Graf
Climate science mystery is much like the Lindbergh Kidnapping in that the magnitude of political forces made it impossible for the normal impartial justice system to function properly. Once the headlines ran “Lindbergh Kidnapper Caught” upon the suspect’s arrest the authorities and professionals united in their declared certainty through the trial and execution. The declassified records now reveal uncertainties leading to panics leading to fabricated evidence, coerced witnesses, rigged lineups and jury tampering. The New Jersey State Police still tout the case as their proudest moment. After the execution, the ABA completely reformed court rules, including requiring the sharing of evidence with defense counsels and elimination of cameras in court (until recently) and labeling suspects guilty to the press before trial. In 2000 the NJSP quietly destroyed all the DNA evidence on the case a few years after the suspect’s 92-year-old widow died after 10 years of failed appeals to reopen the case.
Both the Lindbergh case and climate science has their wood experts matching the wood grains (with some professional license). And they both had accountants crunching the numbers to connect dots to the already known conclusion.
UC Berkeley’s Prof. Richard Muller, an eminent climate scientist who came into the subject in the mid 1990s with no pre-declared position except “healthy scientific skepticism.”
He first attacked the climate gorilla, the cause of huge global temp swings through the epochs ages, for which we stand in a momentary pause in a millions of years long glacial period. He naturally studied the already scientifically convicted suspect, Earth’s orbital variations, the Milankovitch cycles. After years of study against ice core and oxygen isotope historical temperature proxies he found, just like many cold case investigators, the suspect was wrongly tagged. From first glance the 100-thousand-year orbital eccentricity cycle had seemed to be a perfect fit for that approximately same interval for inter-glacial periods appearing. But upon close scrutiny the phase did not overlap in any consistent pattern. Also the theoretical effect was way too weak, the least among the three identified cycles. The other two, obliquity and precession did not match up, even in every combination of reinforcement. Muller then had a Eureka moment when he discovered a fourth cycle, that of precession in and out of the ecliptic plain. And it’s period was the magic 100 ka. But years later he came to admit his own paper was wrong, it too did not fit the phase. Oh well.
Muller then went to work re-analyzing the contemporary temperature records and was alarmed at the data selectivity and bias in both the UK and USA. But after applying his skills to match the known solar intensity variations to the global mean temperature record — no dice. “Okay,” he declared in 2012, “that proves it’s CO2.” (Search his youtube. Its in this blog string too.)
Does anyone else see a problem here?
He forgot that he was the one who let a climate gorilla loose. Skeptical science.com still has the ice ages nicely (in their cages,) classified as Milankovitch caused. And we know from ice cores that CO2 was high (lagging BTW) the high temp inter-glacial periods, then falling after temperatures plummeted. Why was CO2 not a negative feedback against cooling? What caused the 20-degree rise into the modern epoch 10 ka with nil CO2 ?
Does Muller have an answer?– Does anyone?
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Danny Thomas
Gbaike,
And I’ve found none of those here. Some certainly have differing opinions and they are entitled. Some evidence is substandard. Those who substantiate with evidence deserve to be researched. It’s up to the reader to seek out the best evidence and shame on them (me) for not doing due diligence. Acceptance because “it’s on the internet”? Buyer beware.
Apologies to the forum for the expression of my irritation.
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by JustinWonder
Peter,
What if he cared less about the USA than his legacy in world history?
Maybe then things make more sense.
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Danny Thomas
JCH,
I fear I may have overreacted as I’ve been absorbed excessively in this topic and other research on this cold and rainy house bound day today. For that, I apologize. After re-reading the thread and I think I misinterpreted your commentary and associating yours with Michael Fatigue may have gotten the best of me. Please realize I’m still a rookie. I look forward to positive interaction in the future.
Best regards,
↧
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Peter Davies
Have to agree with Peter Lang Justin. Obama has not made and it seems likely he will not be making much of an impression anywhere, least of all on the world stage. From day 1 he has been been IMO the most over-rated POTUS in recent history.
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by mosomoso
Great Cunn, a short climate is like test match declared over at the toss (which can only happen in Adelaide, and even then you still have to spend five days going through the motions).
I recall talking to one activist type who was very pleased when I commented that sixteen or seventeen years was no gauge of anything to do with climate. When I added that thirty years was also no gauge of anything I was roundly upbraided for being unscientific. I was told there was all this “data” whereby I could see that everything was getting worse – even though no comparison points for the “worse” were of any importance. I always thought one needed points of comparison to compare…but in these post-everything times you just need the “data”. Their “data”.
I could have sworn there was a distinct and very troublesome climate before 1980. Perhaps it’s like a quaint old sepia photo, best forgotten in its drawer. Just not “data”.
↧
Comment on Week in review by gbaikie
**FOMD’s Score 32 (of 36)
Predictions Skeptics will generally score worse, denialists even worse, market fundamentalists worst of all.**
26 of 36
So I suppose you were correct.
But it’s within the average range apparently.
Most were quite obvious, usually if it pondered over it, I was wrong.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
