More data suggesting as strong solar/climate connection.
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Salvatore Del Prete
↧
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Danny Thomas
JimD,
“There is no background warming according to common science.” You are the first that has told me there is zero attribution to natural and all is attributable to man. So am I to understand that all prior warming (from 1700) is known as attributable to A) Volcanos and B) the sun and C) zero to any/all sources of GHG’s? (to reiterate, since 1700).
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by matthewrmarler
Pat Cassen: <i>Understand Lu and Cai’s eqns. 3 and 4. What would they look like if you added in Romps’ lightning generation term? </i>
I think of that as a good assignment for the future. My goal, should I take it on, would be to bring the model results more in line with the global mean temperature trend; increasing the assumed change in non-radiative flow as a consequence of surface heating (i.e. making the changes positive) would be the first obvious change to make in the model.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by matthewrmarler
thomaswfuller2: Mr. Cassen,
I’m really glad you are here writing about this.
Me, too. Whether I am close to the truth or not (I am alternately credent and dubious), his comments have been illuminating.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Don Monfort
==>”Perhaps, but I don’t know what difference that really makes.”
Of course you don’t. And you don’t know enough to even make a WAG about how to determine confidence levels. Why you dogging Judith about this? Don’t you have anything better to do?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Lucifer
Ya, I think he's got it.
AGW SOME OF THE BIGGEST BLUNDERS
<i>1. more zonal atmospheric circulation</i>
I'm more familiar with Francis' notions of more merdional flow, but given the relative constancy of mid-tropospheric temperature gradient, not much reason to suppose a given change.
<i>2. lower tropospheric hot spot</i>
Meaning tropical upper tropospheric not spot. ( <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/23/climate-sensitivity-lopping-off-the-fat-tail/#comment-686480" rel="nofollow">see above</a> )
<i>3. more el ninos</i>
Remember this one, including Hansen's retracted paper on the coming 'Super El Nino', and just like his <a href="http://climatewatcher.webs.com/SatelliteEraTemperatures.png" rel="nofollow">failed testimony to congress</a>, ENSOs declined instead.
<i>4. decrease in olr<i>
Yep - <a href="http://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Global%20NOAA.gif" rel="nofollow">olr increase, at least as well as we can measure it.</a>
<i>5. Antarctic sea ice decrease</i>
Yep - GISS model says percent sea ice loss was <a href="http://climatewatcher.webs.com/SeaIce.gif" rel="nofollow">supposed to be greater in Antarctic than Arctic</a>, not increasing.
<i>6. increase in global droughts</i>
Yep - though it's mostly the talking heads, not the modelers that are claiming it, at least not the modelers that understand the dynamics portion of the models. <a href="http://www.nature.com/public/article-assets/npg/sdata/2014/sdata20141/images/sdata20141-f5.jpg" rel="nofollow">Satellite data indicates slight decrease in global drought</a>, and <a href="http://object.cato.org/images/michaels-nro-sep12-04-big.jpg" rel="nofollow"> no correlation of US drought with global temperature</a>.
7. no pause in the global temp. rise
Ya, though time will tell.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by matthewrmarler
Pat Cassen:<i> 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?</i>
The overwhelming response has been disdain: only 3 people have responded at all. About what anyone reasonable would expect in response to unsolicited email from an unknown.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by curryja
Confidence levels relates to what you DON”T know, which is by definition not a statistical assessment.
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Don Monfort
Your comments are becoming increasingly incoherent, willy. We are starting to worry about you.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by aneipris
“Don’t you have anything better to do?”
Of course Josh wants to attack the woman for the terrible sin of making subjective judgments, but he can’t quite find a way to pull it off.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Don Monfort
Prof. Curry instructs: “Confidence levels relates to what you DON”T know, which is by definition not a statistical assessment.”
Little bewildered joshie stammers: “Perhaps, but I don’t know what difference that really makes.”
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Stephen Segrest
Let’s flip your argument with an example. Why do so many Religious Fundamentalists swallow nonsense with no understanding what so ever of the science?
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by micro6500
Stephen Segrest commented
They have Faith!
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Don Monfort
Joshie is getting dinged up pretty good, this morning. He’s gotta be sorry that Judith let him out of the moderation cage.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Dan Pangburn
Jim D – Are you not aware that correlation with sunspots (which doesn’t work) is different from correlation with the sunspot number anomaly time-integral (which, when combined with an approximation of ocean cycles, gives 95% correlation since before 1900)?
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Salvatore Del Prete
Dan, I for one do not think this is common knowledge.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Lucifer
This is usually followed by comments about the need for more ‘fair’ distribution of limited material wealth, and the need for large reductions in global population.
And the wonderful irony is that in economically developed nations, there is falling population. Movement was wrong on all counts – economic development good.
↧
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Danny Thomas
Dr. Curry,
Will you’re mulling your offerings, if you think back and maybe consider a selection of “building blocks” for those of us needing more of a foundation that might be a nice offering for your main page. Just a thought.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Don Monfort
Not so many. Four guys. Would have been a longer video, if they could have found more.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Wagathon
If we are looking for problems to solve we should define the problem. If the average temperature of the globe is the problem we should find out what causes it. It’s logical to presume that nominally the sun is the cause. The number of sunspots is a usual sign of solar activity. Over the last 150 years the correlation between CO2 and temperature is only 22%. However, the correlation with sunspots is 79%.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
