Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Mike Flynn

0
0

And of course, those darned continents keep rising and falling and moving sideways. Is there nothing sacred?

And of course, the jelly-like Earth reacts as it should. A pimple here has to be compensated by a dimple there.

And of course, the water flows where it can – filling the depressions, no more no less. Very depressing indeed, to a Warmist.

Measure the sea level rising and falling on a floating ship, or maybe a submarine. Time for a cup of tea and a good lie down, I think!

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.


Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by jim2

0
0

Give us your reading list, RusselSeitz!

Comment on Denizens II by stew_r

0
0

I’d also like to add that as a tree-hugger myself I think it is a desperate shame that CAGW has displaced saner environmental problems that we could be dealing with namely around pollution, biodiversity loss, loss of habitats and everything else brought on by human population growth

Comment on Denizens II by stevefitzpatrick

0
0

I am a chemist by training, an engineer by practice, and an entrepreneur by choice. 20 years ago I co-founded and continue today to operate a company that makes instruments used to characterize the distribution of particle sizes in micro and nano scale materials.

I first became aware of the ‘environmental movement’ on the very first Earth Day, when I stopped studying physical chemistry and differential equations long enough to wander around campus and listen to the speeches. I though I might have been at the wrong place… there was little substantive discussion of environmental issues, but endless tirades on the evils of capitalism, material wealth, and differences in income between rich and poor.

Then, as now, unprincipled people on the left will appropriate any alarming prediction to justify institution of a ‘more fair’ social order. The leftist drum of ‘social justice’ has been consistently beaten for all of my adult life, and I’m sure will continue to be. The ‘justification’ for left wing policies changes over time…. right now it happens to be CO2 driven warming…. but the underlying political motivation does not change.

So my interest in the science of climate change is fundamentally a practical one: I want to keep poor quality science from being used to justify public policies which I believe are both counterproductive and immoral. I trust that if stupid public policies can be delayed for the next 15-20 years, then facts on the ground, like ever more accurate empirical measures of climate sensitivity, will make institution of foolish public policies, always justified by gross overestimates of climate sensitivity and future warming, politically impossible. Of course , leftists will always find another ‘justification’ for their immoral policies, and that too will have to be resisted, but I will leave that for my children….. and theirs.

Comment on Open thread by mosomoso

0
0

Something to think about: The well documented (by Banks and RS) opening of the Arctic toward the end of the Napoleonic Wars coincided with some of the most savage winters in the CET, and that was before Tambora went pop. Very extreme and wavy they were, those winters, yet the Arctic went all melty. Go figure.

But of course that’s just some old climate I’m talking about. Couldn’t possibly bear comparison with this swingin’ new climate, which is so now and so happening.

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data - Christian Forums

Comment on Denizens II by Jimmy Haigh

0
0

BSc in Applied Geology and 26 years experience (on and off depending on the oil price..) all over the world in hydrocarbon exploration.

I was a sceptic from the first day I heard one of my fellow 3rd year students talking about Hansen’s show at the US Congress back in 1988. I knew it was all garbage back then and nothing I’ve heard, seen or read since then has changed my mind.

Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Matthew R Marler


Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by JCH

0
0

It’s the same data. I sincerely doubt the scientists at the University of Colorado take immediate exception to the new paper from Harvard, which is where Mitovica teaches and does research.

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by GoFigure560

0
0

Taking 60 years of raw data showing a clear cooling trend and replacing it with 60 years of revised data showing a warming trend just blows my mind. The claim that the net result on a global basis is insignificant somehow fails to impress.

Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by MoruH.

0
0
Fan, you claim: <i>"Yes, the sea-level rise-rate acceleration, in the latter half of the 20th century relative to the first half (that even by eye, is so plainly evident in your cherry-picked data set) is affirmed by recent, larger analyses."</i> Thanks to science, you don't have to blindly trust your lying eyes. _________________________________________________________ <a href="http://www.marzeion.info/sites/default/files/gregory_etal_13.pdf" rel="nofollow"> Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts?</a> <i>Confidence in projections of global-mean sea level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the twentieth century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction, and reservoir impoundment. Progress has been made toward solving the ‘‘enigma’’ of twentieth-century GMSLR, which is that the observed GMSLR has previously been found to exceed the sum of estimated contributions, especially for the earlier decades. The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of GMSLR was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semiempirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of the authors’ closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the twentieth century.</i> ________________________________________________________ You also observe: <i>"Fortunately, SOME folks focus (responsibly) upon the strongest climate-science, rather than irresponsibly upon the weakest climate-science!"</i> I agree, and fortunately after more than a decade of declaring catastrophic future events based on weak (read preliminary) science; strong climate science is slowly getting back on track towards providing a much-needed context. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014PA002632/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false" rel="nofollow">Late Holocene sea level variability and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation</a> (pdf available) <i>Pre-twentieth century sea level (SL) variability remains poorly understood due to limits of tide gauge records, low temporal resolution of tidal marsh records, and regional anomalies caused by dynamic ocean processes, notably multidecadal changes in Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). The multidecadal regional SL anomaly curve provides a unique long-term context for understanding the controversial acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the past few decades. Rates of 2–4 mm yr1 punctuate the SST-derived SL curve; thus, the regional eastern U.S. rates observed during the last few decades are not necessarily unusual or representative of a long-time average. Regional rapid SLR rates of several cm/yr can occur over several decades, as expected from ocean dynamical and modeling studies. The hypothesis that late Holocene global SL has been stable [e.g., Bindoff et al. 2007] rests largely on local and regional tide gauge and tidal marsh records which have been corrected for GIA, but, importantly, not for variability related to AMOC, or they cannot resolve such variability. This hypothesis has recently been questioned and thus should be reevaluated using quantitative reconstructions of AMOC and records from higher latitudes.</i> Conclusion Data rules — ideology fools!

Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by nottawa rafter

0
0

JCH

CU shouldn’t take exception since the study by Hays has current rate at 3.0 while CU is at 3.2. What’s not to like.

Let’s see if CU stays at 3.2. That is the whole ballgame. Talking about the last 100 years is about as relevant a debate as the comparison of Ruth against Aaron. I am more interested who is getting the job done in the next 5 years.

Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Danny Thomas

0
0

Nottawa Rafter,

Would you mind commentary on the analysis and where I might have been off track? Couldn’t seem to get specifics and it would help in my understanding. Know it’s a long thread, and off topic but since it happened that way might as well make use of it.
Looking back I wonder why they chose to stop the algorithm at 1900. And I guess I should have seperated Greenland Ice information.

Comment on Open thread by Lucifer

0
0

It’s always dangerous to consider ‘average’ ( because lots of discrete events occur during ‘average’ ) but here’s the ‘average’ winter jet stream pattern for NA:

Looks kinda like February 2015.

Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Climate change denialist scam: scientists caught skewing temperature data | iPinion Syndicate

0
0

[…] where the adjustments dramatically lower the warming trend.”Hausfather and his colleagues traced how the adjustment methodschanged the temperature data differently around the world since 1850. In the graph below, zero is […]


Comment on Open thread by Lucifer

Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Danny Thomas

0
0

JimD,
The last sentence seems pertinent. Who do I believe and why?

“It is important to point out that even if a 60-year oscillation is occurring in GMSL, it is still a small fluctuation about a highly significant rate of rise. Modeling a 60-year oscillation does not change the estimated trend in any reconstruction time-series of GMSL by more than 0.1 mm yr−1 (Table 1), which is lower than the uncertainty. Thus, it does not change the overall conclusion that sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm yr−1over the last 110 years. The 60-year oscillation will, however, change our interpretation of the trends when estimated over periods less than 1-cycle of the oscillation. Although several studies have suggested the recent change in trends of global [e.g.,Merrifield et al., 2009] or regional [e.g., Sallenger et al., 2012] sea level rise reflects an acceleration, this must be re-examined in light of a possible 60-year fluctuation. While technically correct that the sea level is accelerating in the sense that recent rates are higher than the long-term rate, there have been previous periods were the rate was decelerating, and the rates along the Northeast U.S. coast have what appears to be a 60-year period [Sallenger et al., 2012, Figure 4], which is consistent with our observations of sea level variability at New York City and Baltimore. Until we understand whether the multi decadal variations in sea level reflect distinct inflexion points or a 60-year oscillation and whether there is a GMSL signature, one should be cautious about computations of acceleration in sea level records unless they are longer than two cycles of the oscillation or at least account for the possibility of a 60-year oscillation in their model. This especially applies to interpretation of acceleration in GMSL using only the 20-year record of from satellite altimetry and to evaluations of short records of mean sea level from individual gauges.
From:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052885/full

Comment on Denizens II by David Jay

0
0

I am a working process engineer, with a background in computer systems and systems analysis.

I was always skeptical of CAGW in the general sense because I couldn’t get my head around net positive feedbacks in a stable climate system and runaway heating of the globe when radiation (i.e. losses into space) is a 4th law function.

I was stuck for a week in a hotel in remote city in a remote country on a remote continent in 2008. They did have a (slow!) internet connection and I somehow ended up at Climate Audit. I read back through a couple of years of posts, classics like:
– Mann: Hockey Sticks from red noise
– Briffa: The Divergence Problem
– Mann: Padding with instrumental prior to smoothing
– D’Arrigo: “to make a cherry pie you have to pick cherries”
– Mann: Upside down Tiljander
– Annan: Texas Sharpshooter

Been a daily blog (CA, WUWT, BH, CE) reader ever since.

Comment on Denizens II by Dan

0
0

I believe that AGW supporters have taken on a lot of the characteristics of a fundamentalist religious movement. They are hanging out in their ideological echochamber and vehemently lambasting anyone who disagrees with their religion. That ain’t science. When I teach my kids what science is I don’t say “Well, you convince yourself of some truth, and then attack anyone who disagrees.”

I agree that climate is too complex a system to prove AGW, but I also believe that we can’t truly disprove it right now. I think it is reasonable to label oneself a “skeptic” of AGW, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility of at some point in the future being convinced of AGW. Either way, a precautionary approach is probably warranted, since the costs of being wrong may be dire. Humans have adapted to natural climate change events for 10’s of thousands of years and we will continue to do so.

By profession I’m an analyst at a software company. I have a BA in Economics and am in no way professionally affiliated with any sort of climate organization.

Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Hugh

0
0
Dr Curry, it is former member of European parlament, Dr <b>Eija-Riitta</b> Korhola. Double i, double t. Note the blogroll right has wrong spelling. Thanks.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images