the temp. data
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Salvatore Del Prete
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Don Monfort
OMG! Hasn’t Obama seen this evidence?
Wimpy New U.S. Climate Targets Are Letting the World Down
What can possibly save the Paris junket from being another big flop?
It’s enough to make an unemployable climate alarmist- “journalist” retire to a cabin near Mount Hood and commune with the squirrels. They can be tasty, if seasoned and roasted properly.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by swood1000
ATTP –
And yet, as far as I can remember, noone actually called you a troll. In fact, I’m not even sure anyone even implied any such thing.
In the first place, the purpose of my post that you quoted was as a criticism of a poster here who called somebody else a troll and refused to interact with him. My point, which perhaps was a little too obscurely put, was that it is a little too easy to fall into calling people trolls solely because they disagree with you. It has not yet been suggest here that I am a troll but it seemed to frequently happen on a site that disagrees with my point of view.
Maybe I am over-sensitive and perhaps I magnified the extent to which this took place on your site. I was specifically referred to as a troll (see below) but I am also including the posts that accused me (liberally and relentlessly) of sea lioning, JAQing off, asking rhetorical questions as an unfair debate tactic, asking loaded questions, false controversy, false equivalence, gish gallop. In addition, Willard and Joshua responded to me as one would to a troll by making nonsense objections, as if I knew very well that my approach was improper and they were not going to treat seriously anything I said or asked. (But, of course, the same thing goes on over here.)
Here are some specific posts from your site that accused me either of being a troll or of an absence of good faith:
“My recommendation re swood1000: DNFTT!”“swood1000: Sorry, I no longer play reindeer games with climate science denier drones.”
“swood1000: Don’t worry about being inflamatory. Your posts are mostly gibberish and therefore are not taken seriously by many readers of this thread.”
“Thanks to swood1000, this comment thread has turned into mush.”
“ATTP – don’t let swood get away with that baseless libel against Stephen Schneider here. He advocated no such thing, and the deliberate misinterpretation of his words like this is a sure sign of somebody already arguing well into the depths of bad-faith denial.”
“ATTP: In my opinion, -1=e^ipi is using exactly the tactics in this discussion asswood1000 has employed, i.e., make sweeping global statements without documentation and then slice and dice everyone’s response. There doesn’t seem to be much value in attempting to have an adult conversation with either one.”
“How many questions can swood1000 ask, rhetorically or not?”
“Are you being obtuse on purpose?”
“Swood asks “am I misreading this?” I fail to see how anybody could honestly read it and take away the interpretation you have. Yes, 1000 times over, you are misreading it. …That this has been completely turned on its head in the way you did here is one of the absolute travesties of this fake “dialogue”.”
“Short of that, this observer opines that one side of the “dialog” here is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
There were also one or two posts directed to me that you “snipped” as being “unnecessary.” Perhaps partly my impression also resulted from my observation that the attitude of very many “alarmist” posters, on your site and elsewhere, seems to be that the skeptic arguments are so obviously false and long-ago debunked that nobody could bring them up in good faith, so such a person must be a troll. Isn’t that the definition of a troll? Someone who goes to a site solely for the purpose of making inflammatory but insubstantial posts? Again, my intention was not to say that your site was egregious in this respect but rather that we should all be slow to accuse someone of being a troll. The current topic here is tolerance.
But maybe I should have another crack at your site. Would you prefer that I stay away?
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Danny Thomas
David,
Did you do the article with Dr. Curry’s responses to your questions w/r/t her financial disclosure?
“a) why does a model have to predict periods of cooling? What we need to know is the long-term warming.”
Why soley warming? Thought the intent of models was to indicate long term temperature trends not long term “warming” trends. That was interesting.
“b) there aren’t going to be many, if any, periods of cooling in our future.”
Evidence? Historically, we’ve this planet has cycled from glacials to interglacials. May I ask what indicators you have that this cycle has ended and we’ll be soley warming in perpetuity.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
David Appell, “The graph I gave disproves that idea.”
It doesn’t disprove it, but your graph is definitely different than mine :) Annual (jan-dec) without any smoothing and using the full 1880-2014 period as a baseline seems to indicate something else.
That uses climate explorer for both.
Yours appears to have undocumented smoothing and baseline selection.;
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Wagathon
Nor can today’s models predict long-term trends -- which depend on natural variability -- and, as Craig Idso recently demonstrated, "centennial and millennial variations are substantially larger than those found at decadal timescales...," <em>substantially larger</em> meaning that the models are off by, <em>two orders of magnitude</em> .
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by swood1000
Wagathon –
Justice Jackson said no. He warned of losing sight of “the balanced power structure of our Republic” and reaffirmed that “ours is a government of laws, not of men.” We should heed his words today.
Is this a response to my post? If so, I’m not following.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by justinwonder
Jeb and Ted’s Most Excellent Adventure?
I like it! :)
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Wagathon
Penumbral rights — e.g., a right to privacy — may be logically inferred from explicit rights; and, I believe it’s legitimate to do so, given advances in technology that were impossible to foresee more than 200 years ago. Nevertheless, as you probably would agree, Lawrence Tribe does not believe that gives the Left an excuse to rewrite the Constitution.
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by swood1000
David Appell -
<blockquote>why does a model have to predict periods of cooling? </blockquote>Does that really make any sense? Isn't a model supposed to be able to predict <b><i>climate</i></b>, which includes warming and cooling? What would be our reason for having confidence in a model that claimed that it could predict warming but not cooling?
<blockquote>today's models won't, and can't, predict short-term trends, which depend on natural variability. </blockquote>Unfortunately, we find this out after some high-profile predictions of short-term trends were made. If they say that they can make short-term predictions and this claim is shown to be false, then why should we have confidence in the long-term predictions?
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell (@davidappell)
Dallas: I didn’t “smooth,” except by using annual numbers (small difference from monthly).
I didn’t pick a “baseline” — it’s just total warming, and that’s independent of baselines anyway.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell (@davidappell)
What is the citation for Idso’s paper?
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell (@davidappell)
swood wrote:
“Isn’t a model supposed to be able to predict climate, which includes warming and cooling?”
That’s not what climate models do. They *project* (they can’t “predict”) the temperature change between two equilibrium states, given the forcings that occur between them. These states are far apart, in time, over which natural variability averages to zero — and after all feedbacks have played out.
“What would be our reason for having confidence in a model that claimed that it could predict warming but not cooling?”
Models can’t “predict.” But they could project cooling, if there were cooling forcings (like a Milankovitch factor). Right now, and into the foreseeable future, the net forcing forcing is positive, but its GHGs – aerosols, and the aerosols are complicated, since their forcing depends on location.
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell (@davidappell)
Salvatore: It’s ridiculous to talk about 10 years as if it means something about climate. It most definitely does not.
I’d have to know more about the NCEP reanalysis numbers, like their global coverage, etc. GISS, HadCRUT4, NOAA and Cowtan & Way all have positive 10-yr trends, from 0.03-0.06 C/decade — which, again, means absolutely nothing about climate change.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell
“Thought the intent of models was to indicate long term temperature trends not long term “warming” trends.”
Just a euphemism, since the trend has been one of warming and will continue to be one of warming.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
David Appell, “# tas [K] from GISS-E2-R model output prepared for CMIP5 RCP2.6″
That is the model data you linked to in degrees K. You converted that to anomaly and have zero close to 1880. For the GISS data you have 1880 about 0.1 C above zero in 1880. So GISS E2-R-RCP2.6 “:running cool” is based on your baseline however it happened to come about. Using either 1880 -2014 or 1951-1980 with no smoothing the model still runs slightly warmer than observations at the end 2014.
That is using 1951-1980 baseline. Notice how the model starts below obs in 1880 and ends above obs in 2014 and at no time does the model remain above observations.
There’s yours.
That is GISS global with annual and 5 year running mean.
There’s yours.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell
More moderation, from someone who, ironically, complains about the suppression of views.
↧
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by timg56
Justin,
I would never describe myself as an environmentalist. As I have mentioned more than once, the science education non profit I am involved in srubbed all reference to the term from our literature several years ago. To much baggage. I prefer stewardship and conservationist.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell
Danny Thomas: “Evidence?” Seriously? Do you read anything besides this site?
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by swood1000
Penumbral rights — e.g., a right to privacy — may be logically inferred from explicit rights;
I think that you and I are generally on the same side, and I think that most people, if asked, would think it appropriate that there be constitutional protection for “privacy,” but the fact is that there just isn’t. If we want it to be there we have to amend the constitution to add it. When the 14th Amendment was passed right after the Civil War nobody supposed that it supplied a general right to privacy. When did that right come into existence? Why are nine lawyers on the Supreme Court qualified to say that abortion, for example, is protected by the right to privacy but that some other activity is not? On what basis can such a judgment be made? And why do people assume that such implied elements in the constitution will always be interpreted as supporting individual liberty? If they’re making it up as they go, and if everybody’s OK with that, then what are we going to say when the next Supreme Court makes it up in a way much less to our liking?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
