> We self labeled independents are left out once again.
Quiye right, although the last plot may be for you, unless you’re likely to vote for the Tea Party but would never associate yourself with them.
One day, we might be all independents:
Comment on IPCC in transition by willard (@nevaudit)
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by JCH
How deep was the deep ocean he was talking about?
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by Gary
The IPCC needs to regain its scientific objectivity.
Regain?!
It never had scientific objectivity to begin with. It was designed to fake scientific objectivity for political purposes. I doubt it could ever acquire scientific objectivity given its pedigree and history.
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by willard (@nevaudit)
> Prior to Fox, that market was not served.
An alternative explanation:
We’re losing people like my father to the despair of Fox News, and it’s all by design.
My dad is 67 years old, a full year younger than the average Fox viewer, who is 68, according to an analysis in New York magazine by columnist Frank Rich. I’ve read accounts of people my age — 40 or so — losing parents to cancer or Alzheimer’s, but just as big a tragedy are the crops of grandmothers and grandfathers debilitated by Fox News-induced hysteria.
I enjoyed Fox News for many years, as a libertarian and frequent Republican voter. I used to share many, though not all, of my father’s values, but something happened over the past few years. As I drifted left, the white, Republican right veered into incalculable levels of conservative rage, arriving at their inevitable destination with the creation of the Tea Party movement.
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by Dick Hertz
EFM,
How a person ranks GW in seriousness vs. other issues may very well be based on economics. Also, the majority of people are not capable of understanding or making judgments on the physical science. I think more are capable of understanding the economics.
↧
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Punksta
That a challenge to the ‘consenus’ emanated from Chinese science is perhaps no accident.
Here in the West under democracy, those both in and out of government with totalitarian leanings and motivations, have good cause to support and practice the corruption of state-funded climate science in an alarmist direction. This is because such alarm presents an apparently good reason to crack down on a free society by expanding taxation and the politicisation of society in general.
No so in China. There the state is already in total control, and has no elections to worry about. So unlike their Western counterparts, state-funded chinese climate scientists can be free from the overriding political imperative that state-funded Western ones are, and can actually be free to seek the truth.
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by willard (@nevaudit)
Don’t you believe in Nethanyahu, Big Dave? I believe he exists. I know it in my gut.
Would you prefer cartoons? Here’s one:
Another one:
I rather like the last one. What about you?
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Ron C.
Hockeyschtick
That is an interesting paper, and requires some time and thinking to grasp its implications. Thanks for the link; now to ponder entropy and potential vs. kinetic energy.
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by kim
None of whom need Russian gas or have relatives on the Space Station.
=================
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by kim
The old joke about Murdoch is that he found a niche market for Fox, half of America.
===========
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by Joshua
Ordvic-
It’s AK offering an example of what you were talking about? It is that just another example of a “skeptic” arbitrarily jamming whatever he wants into a definitin to confirm his biases?
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by Punksta
“Can the IPCC clean up its act?”
No. It is top to bottom a political body, politically funded, serving politics. It will so continue to always corrupt its findings so as to favour politics.
And more specifically, it is part of the UN, an organisation dedicated to world governance. And climate alarmism is of course god’s gift to that cause …
↧
Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by Curious George
Jim – what exactly is a saturated water surface? What other surfaces does water have?
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by Danny Thomas
Willard,
Been traveling so apologies for the delay.
I’d asked for how you were defining “mainstream” and you came back with effectively the consensus view.
This is the note to which I was responding and I’m sure “the denizens” here and elsewhere might not agree with the view you offered as being “mainstream” in their sense. But that is up to them to decide.
As far as the rest of you response, once you go back and see why I responded as I did, I think the context will appear out of place.
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by Joshua
It’s quite interesting how, for some “skeptics,” things always “appear” in exactly the way that will confirm their biases.
↧
Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by steven
I’m not sure that increased water vapor would follow that expected if some portion of the warming was caused by dynamic water vapor movement associated with ocean heat transport changes.
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by Willard
The “abridged version,” which fits into the green bashing narrative being sold by churnalists since the heydays of Thatcherism, has been transmogrified into “climate change as his religion.”
Even the Daily Mail would have problems defending this.
↧
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Matthew R Marler
Jim D:<i>However, by looking at the forcing which is input and the global temperature response which is output, you can calculate an effective ‘f’. </i>
What would the feedback parameter have to be to force a 4C increase in temperature by 2100?
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by thisisnotgoodtogo
“the green bashing narrative being sold by churnalists since the heydays of Thatcherism”
Looks like Pachauri just supplied the evidence that they were right, eh, Willard?
He couldn’t help but puff himself up. Heheh, done, Willard.
So you try to dechurn the butter. Too late. Have some warm milk and get some rest.
↧
Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by Matthew R Marler
Jim D: <i> I don’t think that there is any expectation that the latent heat flux will increase as you warm the land, </i>
The Romps et al calculation of increased rate of transfer of CAPE was calculated for the US east of the Rockies. Is that what you call "water-dominated surface warming uniformly"?
<i> and I don’t think that there is any expectation that the latent heat flux will increase as you warm the land, so this assumption of seeing a hot spot in proportion to a warming land surface is somewhat flawed.</i>
Maybe (my favorite word). What we need next are good estimates of the increase (or not) of the rate of advective-convective heating of the troposphere by the land surface, as well as the change in evapotranpirative heating. Much of the land surface (e.g. Amazon and Congo watersheds) might fit your "water-dominated surface" construct.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
