Unfortunately for you, silver bullets do not kill the truth, just vampires. AGW is not about Mann, and is not sensitive to how his papers are received.
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell (@davidappell)
Gore is routinely pillored for his investments in clean energy, at the same time as he speaks out on climate change.
If him, why not all?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by matthewrmarler
New article on satellite observations of convection and precipitation finds no trend in tropical rainfall [link]
Thank you for the link. Since 1997 there has been little or no trend in mean surface temperature either. Is there a definition of “equilibrium”? They write that equilibrium occurs daily, but they are describing what I have been calling “approximate steady-state”. In equilibrium, changes stop happening. In steady state, heat flows into and out of each compartment at equal rates, so the temperature stays the same. In “approximate steady state” the energy inflow and outflow may lack balance for some periods of time, but the temperature always stays within a range — this happens every day everywhere on Earth..
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Wagathon
We could go back to the horse and buggy but then… your babies will be picking up a helluvalot of horsesh*t.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by stevefitzpatrick
Hi Judith,
Seems like Nic’s re-working of Lewis&Curry with B Stevens’ recent (lower) aerosol estimates has raised some hackels… Bjorn Stevens has issued a signed disclaimer of any implications of his paper WRT climate sensitivity. Will your next post on sensitivity include information from the sensitivity workshop in Germany last week? Nic, Bjorn, and a host of heavy hitters were there… an excellent opportunity for people to express their ‘concern’ about Stevens’ lowered aerosol estimates.
↧
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Don Monfort
Your comments on that thread confirm what we know from your comments on this here blog, joshie. You don’t get out much.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Wagathon
It probably means we’re actually in a cooling trend if the average temperature of the globe shows no global warming because the temperatures that are being averaged include a systemic warming bias. The official thermometers are located where people live and as a result, the data that is collected is corrupted by the UHI (the Urban Heat Island) effect.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Danny Thomas
Wagathon,
Wagathon,
Hmmm. Can’t see that cooling is actually occurring giving the other (non catastrophic) evidence including SST, slight SLR, and NH ice reduction.
Were you just taking a shot at the temp series’, or do you perceive cooling?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by JCH
My father was a large animal veterinarian. Picking up HS is harmless. Builds strong bodies and clean minds.
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Don Monfort
What about your sources of income, davey? How do you maintain your high calorie lifestyle with not visible means of support?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by jim2
JCH – Thou doth protest too much, methinks.
The sat temps will follow the surface ones, just with a less pronounced rate of increase or decrease. If surface temps were continuously rising, so would the lower trop sat temps.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by matthewrmarler
JCH: We need to stop burning fossil fuels right now so that our grandchildren will have enough fuel to survive Little Ice Age XX.
A reasonably well thought out progression from plentiful current energy supplies to plentiful future energy supplies is supported by almost everybody. However, it will be impossible if we “stop burning fossil fuels right now”. We need the fossil fuels in order to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear power plants.
I wrote “almost everybody”, but I do sometimes wonder whether some of the green organizations (viz. the Sierra Club, Greenpeace) want plentiful future energy supplies. Didn’t somebody famous write that cheap energy would be the worst thing we could bestow upon our children?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by jim2
JCH – when and how did you come to believe the lapse rate was an invalid atmospheric phenomenon?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by JCH
They measure what they measure accurately. It’s not a measurement of the temperature 2 meters above the land surface.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by matthewrmarler
JCH: <i> My father was a large animal veterinarian. Picking up HS is harmless. Builds strong bodies and clean minds.</i>
For the transportation needs of modern society, we could not afford the energy to grow the feed for that many draft animals.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by ristvan
Ah, but the worse the junk that Mann and crew publish, the easier it is for everyone else to grasp how bad the junk is. This is one of several examples in the last few years. Provided many others in essays posted here previously, and even more in the evook. So, you think that Rocky Mountain bristlecone pines and contaminated Tiljander varves can model the AMOC?
Hopefully you forgot a /sarc.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by jim2
Simple – Mannian Statistics.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by JCH
Agreed. Like my ancestors, we would probably have to also use human beings.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Wagathon
The increase in global warming hasn’t changed in 100 years. The absence of warming going on 2 decades tells us climate change is not alarming. NASA’s most recent radar map also shows us warming is not alarming: the Arctic Ice Cap was larger than on any December 28 in the past five years (more than 4,000,000 square miles); and, at the other pole, the extent of Antarctic ice coverage has never been so great (at least since 35 years ago when radar measurement began). So, when is the right time to start worrying about the Left’s belief in a fearsome climate tempest in a teapot? We do not have to wonder about what mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell would say about the logic of who should bear burden of proof that humanity is cooking the globe, as follows:
<blockquote>Russell’s teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell’s teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God. (wiki)</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by stefanthedenier
David Appell (@davidappell) said: ''greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra''
David, ''longwave radiation'' goes only; from 1 micron to couple of feet - IF the heat is over 1000C!!! No heat ''radiates out in space, it's all canceled / neutralized by the ''cold vacuum'' that constantly penetrates into the atmosphere! You are still peddling outdated old theories... Update your knowledge on my blog. You are constantly giving links to texts, created by the Politburo - instead, learn the truth from an honest person, me!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
