steffie,
Are you off your meds again?
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by Beth Cooper
RiHoo8:
What is life without risk ? 
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by stefanthedenier
G’day Wagathon. for honest people, planet’s temperature is the warmth units in the troposphere, full stop. Manipulators encompass the oceans, the stratosphere, the sun and anything they can think off; TO MUDDY THE TRUTH.
Red soil gets warmer, than soil covered by green grass / oceans on different places get warmer from submarine volcanoes and hot vents / smelters for melting iron ore are hot, my oven was 230C yesterday = those things are for people plying too much with their own water-pistols ( I don’t know what’s the name on English for those people).
No matter if heat is stored in a tree, or reflected; GLOBAL heat is what is in the troposphere – always the same. As soon as it’s released from the smelter, from burning tree, from the oven – it’s heat in the earth’s troposphere => troposphere expands INSTANTLY – intercepts accordingly EXTRA amount of coldness, to cancel the EXTRA heat.
Mate, looks like you are on same longitude as me. So, you still believe that is different sun for the Great Sandy Desert than for Amazon basin; even though they are on same latitude…? For 12h is different sun, then when gets over Brazil, different sub switches on, stupid. I have learned your miracle, but will prefer to stick to the truth: in Brazil topography is keeping the rainwater on land -> that attracts EXTRA regular clouds from the sea.
In Australian inland, the clouds are avoiding inland as cars around traffic island. Because clouds avoid dry heat produced inland. If more storm-water is saved on land, that water fights against the dry heat. Repossessing farmer’s water, to drain in the estuary = more dry heat will be produced – evaporation will increase. Australia is buying food from China; Chinese have rice paddies, they are like magnet for clouds from the sea. With more dry heat, bigger bushfires and house-fires in future. More people / trees and animals scorched, I hope you are proud off it, to please Bob Brown, Flannery and Don Henry. The school teacher cannot be that cruel. The schoolteacher has nose for crap. Stiiiiiinks!!!.
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by Chief Hydrologist
You are such an obnoxious idiot. What do you want me to call it – the speed of electromagnetic waves? The index ‘of refraction of air is very low, like 1.0003. The index of refraction is a function of wavelength. X-rays and gamma rays pass through air at c. c is 299,792,458 m/s, so speed of visible light in air is about 299,700,000 m/s.’
Is your comment meant to mean something? Other than a pointless niggle? What’s 92 km/s here or there? What are you on about?
Just arm waving and insults? Nobody has energy going the wrong way but you – and I to both science of doom and sceptic science. You are totally out on your lonesome on this – a total moron. A dimwit with the not the sense or sensibility to think rationally or speak civilly.
You actually come up with the most pointless and simple minded curve fitting exercises that are so simple that they are utterly meaningless – and are maladapted. They model the wrong thing in the wrong way and then congratulate yourself for doing something no one else has ever done. There is a reason no one else has done it and that no one is interested in your loser website. It is that it is totally bloody insane. You do the same purposeless exercise over and over again. You have no point – you just aggrandise and arm wave. There is no credible
meaning to any of it. Nobody listens? Nobody understands? The reason is that it is such incredible nonsense. All of it.
You can’t upset me Webby – it is just totally impossible. At first I played nice – but you are really incapable of civilised discourse. So I expect the most irrational and uncivilised display from you and you never disappoint and I reply in kind. It is pointless doing anything else – and I just like to see you growing more desperate, incoherent and irrational. Why should I leave the field to a moron?
Why don’t you tell us Webby why you flunked out of post-grad studies? I suspect it is because you have the reading comprehension of an 8 year old and monomania – blinkered vision – idée fix – the warminista tango for one. You insisted on some idiot idea until finally they threw you out. Do you have a girlfriend yet?
I am not really sure why you would bracket anything I have said with the sky dragons. I am so far from being a sceptic – nothing I have said resembles anything but if greenhouse gases increase both the atmosphere and oceans warm. You are upset because I reference CERES, SORCE and ARGO? The flow of energy is from the Sun to the oceans and from the ocean to the atmosphere and thence to space. The oceans are losing energy to the atmosphere – this is so basic and if you refuse/cannot understand the simplest things you are a hopeless case.
I don’t have to justify my understanding of physics to you – but it is at the level of an educated amateur. But we are not talking Higgs boson – or even relativity, chaos theory or quantum mechanics – the three great ideas of 20th century physics. So don’t we talk those – let’s see how much you don’t know about that? The difference between you and me is that my education is broad – it ranges from literature and modern culture to all of the natural science as befits a natural philosopher of my eclectic interests and indeed of someone with a degree in environmental science. Environmental science in its purest form is multi-disciplinary and the subject matter is immense. Too broad for any one person to do justice to so I have always felt like a dilettante in all things – as I grow older it seems more like a body of knowledge. You seem more like a one trick pony – not a nice or clever pony at that – with lamentable gaps in your education.
The ocean is where most energy is stored? Way to go Webby – you have comprehended the totally blatantly obvious and yet are still completely deluded.
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Joy Black
Climatereason, your Doggerland post is *TERRIFIC*! Thank you!
With regard to sea-level rise, the common-sense level-of-concern and the rate-of-rise are pretty tightly coupled:
• ~1mm/year == business as usual
• ~3mm/year == moderate concern
• ~5mm/year == deep concern
• ~1cm/year == grave concern
• ~2cm/year == full-bore real-estate panic
That is why much depends upon recent predictions of a marked acceleration in sea-level rise in the coming decade.
↧
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by climatereason
Chief
Enough of this nonsense. Of course you must stay. That’s it settled then.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by David Wojick
Maybe I should do one. I am up to my nose in hurricane issues at the moment, since that is my first Heartland topic. A Google Scholar search on hurricanes and global warming brings up Curry et al in the third of 20,000 papers. How to explain all this to a 4th grader in less than 30 minutes is a fun question.
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by omnologos
Compare what Judith posted with the <a href="http://sciencedenial.wisc.edu/" rel="nofollow">religious 'science writers' festival at UW-Madison</a>.
Where is the science, one wonders?
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by mondo
You say that Geoff, but I venture to suggest that in a field you know a lot about there is some question as to whether alternative ideas can actually be discussed in a dispassionate, evidence based manner. For example, what about the Expanding Earth Hypothesis, the idea that the Big Bang never happened, John Elliston’s ideas on the formation of crystalline rocks, abiotic oil etc. In my experience, those who explore such ideas are pilloried by the geology establishment..
↧
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by timg56
It isn’t rising sea levels we need to be concerned about.
It’s when the levee(s) break.
↧
Comment on Climate change responses in the developing world by David Wojick
I am glad you agree that, as you put it, “UAH doesn’t depict the underlying trend.” Of course you, Tamino, et al can fabricate an underlying thend. That is what AGW is really all about. But there is no such trend in the data. That is my point. You folks can play your games but there is no warming in th data, other than the ENSO step. I think this falsifies AGW.
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Rob Starkey
Joy
Since it has been rising at 3 mm per year since reliable measures have been available, isn’t that the business as usual no worries number?
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by timg56
Re the religion thingy:
I converted to the Catholic Church in HS. Nothing inspires believe better than Catholic school girls in those short plaid uniform skirts.
↧
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Tom
David,
cul·ti·vate/ˈkəltəˌvāt/Verb:
1.Prepare and use (land) for crops or gardening.
2.Break up (soil) in preparation for sowing or planting.
Makes things eaiser to grow.
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by timg56
I recall from my undergrad days listening to students ask questions about an upcoming exam. They would keep on and on. On one occasion I spoke up and said why don’t they simply ask for a copy of the exam questions in advance instead of wasting everyone’s time with their stupid f…ing questions. Being a few years older and a vet, I wasn’t too concerned about their opinions.
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Joy Black
Rob, the present sea-level rise of 3mm/year is <i>already</i> <a href="http://www.mjanderson.chislehurst.btinternet.co.uk/coastseadefence.htm" rel="nofollow">very bad news</a>.
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by MattStat/MatthewRMarler
Paul S: I think the first part is better put in this quote
I thought of lots of things that could have been written instead, such as “Scientists recognize ignorance where others don’t”, or “Scientists formulate answerable questions where others feel wonderment”. My guess was that the author liked it as it was, and as it is. And that I thought was peculiar.
↧
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Norm Kalmanovitch
GCM’s are already at the point where competent can run them as evidenced by our weather forecasts several days in advance which are based on GCM model output because this is what GCM’s are designed to do. GCM’s take an initial set of conditions for millions of cells and project the interacion between cells based on sound physical theory to predict movement of weather patterns which become our forcasts.
The predictions of global warming from CO2 are based on inputting initial conditions which already attribute prescribed forcing to CO2 increases which the models incorporate into the calculations and produce output with a range of values centred on the input CO2 forcing.
For a doubling of CO2 the models input forcing of 5.35ln(2)= 3.71W/m^2 and output a range of forcing which averages around 3.71W/m^2.
All that the models do is create the statistical range for the forcing but in no way make change the mean value from what was originally input as the CO2 forcing parameter. Essentially all the models do is consume a lot of electricity in the process of giving the illusion that they are defining thye effect from increased CO2.
The output from the models is converted from flux in W/m^2 to temperature in degrees C by means of an arbitrary “climate sensitivity factor” typically in the range of 0.75°C for each W/m^2.
3.71W/m^2 x 0.75°C/W/m^2 = 2.78°C
In his 1981 Paper:
Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell
Hansen states: The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm
SCIENCE, VOL. 213, 28 AUGUST 1981
The average between 2°C and 3.5°C is 2.75°C which is awful darn close to 2.78°C.
The real proof of mischief is the model # 4 in this 1981 paper which protrays the output for a doubling of CO2 at exactly the same 2.78°C value calculated by the combination of CO2 forcing parameter and climate sensitivity factor identified in 2001 by the IPCC attributed to Mehre 1997 which is 16 years after the 1981 paper by Hansen!!
You are very accurate when you state: “Science does settle. At which point, it becomes technology, and no longer the domain of a scientist.” but in this case it is unfounded conjecture and not technology that is not in the domain of a scientist; nor should it ever be!
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by timg56
I for one make a point of reading your contributions.
Don’t let the bastards get you down. Name calling only serves to demean the people doing it, not those they direct it against. (Although I occasionally can’t help myself.)
↧
Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Bart R
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
