Makes a great grilled cheese.
Comment on Week in review by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by scotts4sf
Dr Judy Curry,
I want to say thanks for the great blog and your interesting choice of subjects, related papers and articles.
I try to not to comment much but so enjoy the graphs, insights and comments except for some of the more extreme activists. But even then, sometimes come a gem from amidst the dross. So letting them run with topics works out great for an interested observer.
Scott
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by jhprince2014
Yes. What’s the secret? I agree, Judith Curry. Complex mind. She’s got to be Irish.
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by beththeserf
Can the sting
of a gadfly
change a climate
in the way that
the flapping wings
of a butterfly might
bring a change
in the weather?
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by William Hooke
Again, great comments. Early in the discussion thread (for a Climate, Etc. post; probably many more comments to come) but it seems everyone circles back to five+ ingredients in the secret sauce:
1.Judith Curry.
2. willingness to engage in controversy
3. her personal/sustained/thoughtful participation in the discussion.
4. respect for a range of viewpoints… and unreserved respect for the discussants themselves.
5. Judith Curry.
ingredients 6.-100. did I mention Judith Curry?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Curious George
Al Gore is undoubtedly a Democrat. Technically he is only redefining a free speech – but that is an essential element of democracy. I agree with you that Democrats should be angry – with him, not with me. I am only a messenger.
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by Willard
> I have no idea what question about lobbying you want me to answer. It is not a subject I ever brought up.
Yet I gave you a link to it, TonyB. Perhaps you need a quote? Here it is:
Now, my turn.
Would you say that Judy had to lobby to get research grants?
This would mean climate scientists such as Judy would have to register as a lobbyist?
Many thanks!
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/18/on-the-social-contract-between-science-and-society/#comment-685378
***
> As regards the ‘non existent figures’ comment I still can not see where any reference has been made to it.
Yet I told you to look at the first comment in the very sub-thread you’re commenting right now. Perhaps you need a quote? Here it is:
> If you go back far enough with CET you can see the oscillations clearly with different levels of peaks and troughs over the centuries.
If we accept not to use:
many figures that don’t even exist.
then Central England Temperature might need to be renamed the Lancashire, London and Bristol triangle
[…]
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/17/temperature-adjustments-in-australia/#comment-685622
Had you searched for “figures,” as I told twice already, you’d have seen the comment to which I am referring.
***
That you can’t understand “what I’m talking about” when this is the basis of this very sub-thread is a bit “amusing,” as you yourself put it regarding “many figures that don’t even exist,” since it means you replied to a comment you now claim not understanding.
The point behind that comment is that any kind of temperature series extrapolates from measurements locales to abstracta, i.e. things that don’t really exist. This includes your own pet project.
Surely you must have been joking. So were I. Sir Rud will do as he pleases, as always.
***
Since you do not understand “the relevance of introducing Ross:”
(1) It shows an instance of a derogatory usage of the word “activist;”
(2) Ross is the perfect examplar of an (in)activist, being the new scientific thoughts leader of the GWPF, signing all kinds of letters, and all.
Providing prototypes oftentimes beats citing random dictionaries. There’s an whole literature on the subject, if you’re interested beyond using it as a squirrel to artfully dodge the point regarding Nic’s suboptimal ClimateBall move.
***
I hope I am clearer this time. If not, feel free to ask more question.
Many thanks!
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by jim2
Speaking of which, did you see this?
The Perfect Storm For Oil Hits In Two Months: US Crude Production To Soar Just As Storage Runs Out
It also means that at the current rate of record oil production, storage will be exhausted in under two months, some time in mid-May. At that point, with no more storage to buffer the record oil production, the open market dumping begins and prices of WTI will crater as every barrel will have to be sold at any clearing price, since the producers will have no other choice than to, literally, dump the oil.
In other words, a perfect storm is shaping up for oil some time in late May, early June.
And then we learned something even more startling.
…
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by clivebest
My thoughts are that the solar eclipse was great, but totally irrelevant to energy supply. The hype just proves how stupid we have all become. Should we really go back to Druid culture and depend on the sun, moon the gods for our wellbeing ?
↧
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by jim2
Right. Fortunately, the French have reliable power to sell.
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by climatereason
Willard
I know that lobbying in the states is big business, much less so over here.
I guess that there is lobbying involved in getting funding for many climate projects in as much that as well as the proposal there might be the need to schmooze those holding the purse strings.
I am sure the met office must have needed to lobby the govt, the treasury and those powerful organisations who might use their services in order to get approval for their 100 million pound super computer.
Does Judith have to do the same? I guess so. Does that mean she needs to register as a lobbyist? I have no idea of the legalities or scale of the projects when registering would be necessary.
As regards being artful, I am sorry but once again you are over intellectualising any comment I might have made. I have no brief for the GWPF . They do not speak on my behalf and I consider them unimportant. Ross has done a few interesting things but I do not habitually follow him or have an opinion on him.
My original point, from which we seem to have strayed, was that on my knowledge of Nic and meeting him briefly, he did not come over as an activist in the manner of which I understand the term. When he starts getting arrested for taking part in climate demonstrations or forcefully pushing his viewpoint over a protracted time scale, or you provide direct evidence that he is more active with his climate advocacy than I am aware of, then I will change my opinion.
When I get the time I will rerread the thread as I still do not see that I made any reference to Figures that don’t exist. Temperature reconstructions can give no more than an indication of the climate if that is your meaning. I have said numerous times that I follow Hubert lambs observation that ‘we can understand the tendency but not the precision,’ as regards trying to determine historic temperature trends.
Now, if you will excuse me I will stop tapping on my iPad so my wife can watch Poldark without that distraction. To me, it’s just as boring as Downton Abbey.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by David Springer
I’m out at ATTP. Rice is deleting perfectly topical polite replies as quickly as I make them.
Case in point I was misread by most where I talked about black carbon being insignificant on Arctic sea ice but significant elsewhere. In fact I pointed out where I blogged about BC 8 years ago agreeing with James Hansen that BC is responsible for as much as 25% of 20th century warming:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/ipcc-ignores-studies-of-soots-effect-on-global-warming/
I gave it a fair chance but I’m simply wasting my time in a censorium like that. Ken Rice (ATTP) is a integrity-free spunk monkey. He comes here where he is allowed to speak freely from a warmist POV but doesn’t offer the same courtesy to skeptics on his own blog. What a putz. I fart in his general direction.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by matthewrmarler
Salvatore del Prete: http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/03/those-stubborn-facts-chinese-scientists-confirm-that-medieval-period-warmer-that-solar-impact-is-hug.html
Thank you for the link.
↧
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by swood1000
Jim D –
It seems that East Antarctica is growing and that the loss is seen in West Antarctica, possibly influenced by this:
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by popesclimatetheory
the “normal” climate is falsely taken to be unchanging from which all change is then falsely attributed to a scaled up warming from CO2.
In some documents, that is called “the hockey stick”
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Danny Thomas
JimD,
Your choice(s)!
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by swood1000
Jim D –
The Greenland temperature is variable. See page three of this: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Pat Cassen
Matthew –
1. Lu and Cai (2009) conclude that there is a reduction in sensible heat flux with warming, and purport to show that this is consistent with energetic constraints on tropospheric energy transport and the reduction in convective mass flux found by other researchers. What aspect of their analysis do you think is in error? (The fact that they use model output should not be an issue as long as one focuses on internal consistency.)
2. Assuming that…PR rate is proportional to the rate of ascension of air
You continue to assume a simple proportionality between the change in latent heat transport and the change in sensible heat transport. Such is not the case; see the discussion in Lu and Cai following their eqn. 4b.
2. Would you care to share any of the reactions that you have received from the scientists you have contacted – perhaps those you regard as most constructive?
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Jim D
When accounting for the rise in the last 60 years, solar appears to be going in the wrong direction and volcanic effects were more in the second half of the period than the beginning, which also trends down. What else is there? The IPCC has all these.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by matthewrmarler
stevefitzpatrick: <i>3) The “lack of a hot spot” is likely an indication of either inaccurate measurements, inaccurate model treatment of boundary layers and/or moist convection, or a combination of these things. </i>
Yeh, that about covers it: either errorfull data or errorfull models (inclusive or). Either way, what was confidently predicted has not happened.
↧
