Joshua,
I watched the Ben Carson video you posted, but I couldn’t find any information related to climate change. Did you have a point?
Comment on Week in review by bedeverethewise
↧
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
I wouldn’t change the list. However, I have a suggestion for a new topical area:
How many posters here have considered dropping memberships in their so-called “scholarly scientific” societies and why, particularly those who have become too enamored with AGW and politically correct ‘science.’ Could we even post copies of resignation letters here for those of us that are considering such a step?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ron Clutz
Jim D, emissions are estimates of estimates of consumption of fossil fuel products. The natural flux is even less certain, but is several orders of magnitude higher. You assume nature is static and man is the dynamic player affecting CO2. The sawtooth pattern in the paper under discussion says otherwise.
↧
Comment on Week in review by bedeverethewise
I thought the Fiorina video was primarily interesting because she seems to acknowledges the scientific consensus, but seems to favor a different approach to solving the problem. (As much as possible in a 2 minute clip) And for this the video is subtitled Carly Fiorina Denies Climate Change.
What scientific fact is she denying?
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
I think he may have been smokin’ de grass.
↧
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by Mark Bofill
For my part, I’m happy to talk about whatever comes up. Thanks for asking though Dr. Curry. I’m here more because this seems the best place to talk with people of diverse views than to discuss any specific set of topics. Well, that and the fact the Blackboard isn’t busy these days.
FWIW I think your moderation changes have caused a positive improvement here, congratz and thanks.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
The partnership between business and the government works well for them spying on us and passing laws to prevent us from starting businesses that compete with theirs; or simply throttling competitors so we have to pay through the nose.
Businesses need to be forced to deal with the government at any level in public. In return, zero corporate tax.
This would make the US the most business friendly country and would bring a lot of jobs to the US. Jobs give us money to spend and then we would be able to support the government through our taxes.
Since we the voters would be paying the taxes, we might collectively come to the conclusion that government is too big, because we would have a much better idea how much money is getting burned there.
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
+ 1000000000 on yr contributions to the energy debate,
Peter and jim2
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by Jim D
The link didn’t work for me, but the Mann 2009 link was the one I saw.
↧
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by Willard
> Paging Nick Stokes and Willard, Nick Stokes and Willard, please report to the Mann defense desk.
Is that an invitation, Cap’n?
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by AK
@Jim D…
Even <a href="http://scienceofdoom.com/2015/01/04/natural-variability-and-chaos-eight-abrupt-change/" rel="nofollow">models</a> sometimes do it.
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3856815/pdf/pnas.201304912.pdf" rel="nofollow">Spontaneous abrupt climate change due to an
atmospheric blocking–sea-ice–ocean feedback in an unforced climate model simulation</a> by Sybren Drijfhout, Emily Gleeson, Henk A. Dijkstra, and Valerie Livin <i>PNAS</i> December 3, 2013 vol. 110 no. 49 19713-19718<blockquote>Abrupt climate change is abundant in geological records, but climate models rarely have been able to simulate such events in response to realistic forcing. Here we report on a spontaneous abrupt cooling event, lasting for more than a century, with a temperature anomaly similar to that of the Little Ice Age. The event was simulated in the preindustrial control run of a high resolution climate model, without imposing external perturbations. Initial cooling started with a period of enhanced atmospheric blocking over the eastern subpolar gyre. In response, a southward progression of the sea-ice margin occurred, and the sea-level pressure anomaly was locked to the sea-ice margin through thermal forcing. The cold-core high steered more cold air to the area, reinforcing the sea-ice concentration anomaly east of Greenland. The sea-ice surplus was carried southward by ocean currents around the tip of Greenland. South of 70°N, sea ice already started melting and the associated freshwater anomaly was carried to the Labrador Sea, shutting off deep convection. There, surface waters were exposed longer to atmospheric cooling and sea surface temperature dropped, causing an even larger thermally forced high above the Labrador Sea. In consequence, east of Greenland, anomalous winds changed from north to south, terminating the event with similar abruptness to its onset. Our results imply that only climate models that possess sufficient resolution to correctly represent atmospheric blocking, in combination with a sensitive sea-ice model, are able to simulate this kind of abrupt climate change.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Acknowledging the consensus isn’t agreeing with it, and she doesn’t. She keeps saying it is half the science, and the bottom line is that she punted on the issue of climate change, saying a policy is no good if it is not global, and global is too expensive anyway.
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by curryja
i remember seeing this, agree that it is v. interesting
↧
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Willard, Yes indeed. You and Nick have done such a wonderful job of defending the Mann-O-Matic method I thought you might enjoy defending the Mann Y Gavin approach to discrediting borehole reconstructions.
What we have is a number of paleo methods that appear to have some sort of fatal errors involved since they don’t agree all that well with Mann’s reconstructions, especially his latest “global” one.
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by Jim D
AK, they seem to have represented a tipping point in their model. There is a lot of interest in these because they are such a nonlinear process. They are made more likely by forcing changes, but they are not predictable. What is going on now with the cooling in the North Atlantic could be a precursor to one. When these happen, the global temperature doesn’t trace the forcing as linearly as it has been so far. They most often go with albedo changes, like a loss or gain of surface ice somewhere, which then modulates the global temperature.
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by Mark Silbert
Daniel,
Excellent thoughts and observations. The “rank ignorance” is a trait of those that claim the science is settled.
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by ianl8888
> I became convinced that anonymity and not feeding the ‘big brother’ scrutiny of twitter and Facebook was preferable
Thank you Judith
Your comment here is precisely true
My view on which topics to examine ?
The “97% consensus”, while thoroughly eviscerated by (eg) Dr Tol, still remains unassailably potent in propagandaland. The best riposte to this are the threads from Planning Engineer
↧
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by AK
<blockquote>AK, they seem to have represented a tipping point in their model.</blockquote>I'm not sure it's called that. If so, it's an <b>internal</b> “<i>tipping point</i>”.<blockquote>They are made more likely by forcing changes, but they are not predictable.</blockquote>Unwarranted assumption. Unless you can cite something purporting to <b>prove</b> it? My guess is if you do it'll turn out to be begging the question.
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by jim2
Rainbow Gravity is probably a component of the Common Core science curriculum.
↧
Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by Peter Shaw
That our hostess can make such inquiry is perhaps a metric of the quality of this blog. There are bloggers who wouldn’t dare to, some who
wouldn’t care to, and those for whom the concept is foreign.
Dr C: Any of us, dissatisfied, are free to browse elsewhere. I didn’t. Make no major changes on my account.
To those wishing shorter (better?) WIR lists: I suggest that one must make up one’s own mind (and I conjecture Dr C inclines to that), although
it can be a schlep. Select-lists can be found elsewhere, at peril of the self-reinforcement dynamic that has captured so many apparently capable minds.
There’s an issue I haven’t seen as such elsewhere, that might be timely. Your recent posts present the Climate Establishment as (temporarily)
unreachable, but threatening scientific values. Meanwhile, we need a forum which maintains the traditional values independently; eminently, this site (and its brains-trust). You might consider some initiatives properly the province of the Establishment, vis:
The Climate Establishment is rife with bad language, needing critical review. On the principle that if you don’t have the vocabulary, you can’t
discuss it, I propose such a review here. The new terms need to be precise, apt, and also distinct (as politicians and media persons aren’t
always meticulous with their words). I have in mind here the poor bemused public (some of whom may visit).
> Pre-eminently, “climate change” in science properly is the natural sort, as Nature has priority. We should be talking of “climate change” and
“unnatural variability”. This amendation presents “climate change” (nat) in its true form of a clear and present danger (as it has been before). Note that this distinction exists recognisably in the original UNGA Resolution, so has precedent.
> “forcing” currently doesn’t distinguish between force and negotiation.
> “greenhouse effect” – we now can ask “which one?” (I’m up to four and counting; to anticipate – no, they may not be aggregated)
We’re probably stuck with “back-radiation”, though I live in hope. There’s no shortage of other terms to consider.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
