Comments for Climate Etc.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/06/more-curiosities-about-noaas-new-pause-busting-sea-surface-temperature-dataset/

This exposes the situation for what it is which is AGW enthusiast manipulation of any data that does not support their theory.

[…] of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the […]

Joseph,
Between “adjustments” of temp records, argo buoy data, SLR, etc. I’d venture to state that there is much “uncertainty” about what conditions are like in the 21st also.

Copenhagen 2009 will be a contender, no doubt; it will be remembered for the marvelous fellow who, dressed as a polar bear, wandered around with a megaphone calling, “Where is Phil Jones?”

That is an hilarious image!

JC: Most if not all comments here are discussing the adjustment. They are missing the bigger picture of what is going on.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/noaa-tries-to-make-global-warming-slowdown-vanish/comment-page-1/#comment-102278

Please, if you get chance, read P.Vs earlier comments

Except the debate is about the probabilities, which range from near zero to near 100% for the same premises. Plus human reasoning is not probabilistic.

nebakhet | June 9, 2015 at 6:57 am |
“Bermuda seems to be getting more alkaline since 2005 and the Canary Islands PH hasn’t changed for the last decade”

Those periods are far too short to refute the longterm trend.

This is exactly why the pause in global warming is in error too.

This is incorrect. It is too short for natural cycles.

But anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions (AFFE) have increased 50% in 15 years.

Therefore according to global warming theory 1/3 of the increase in warming (TCR) should have occurred in the last 15 years.

The substantial increase in emissions is supposed to cause a reduction in ocean PH, not an increase.

If the climate (alkalinity and temperature) wasn’t getting noticeably worse during the period of mankind’s greatest annual increase in fossil fuel emissions – what is going to happen now that the emissions increase is tapering off and emissions are stabilizing (an emissions pause so to speak)?

I am not asking you to delete it. I find it amusing and very revealing of the character of the hysterical clown who said it. I am more interested in why you delete some comments with relatively innocuous tweaks and you leave a lot of crap that is way more offensive. Rhetorical question.

[…] of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the […]

Its what I happen to spot while scrolling through my dashboard of recent comments.

[…] of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the […]

But it will be news when it’s revealed that large segments of the both climate communities, skeptics and warmers, were completely fooled by the AMO.

So listen again. The PDO is a powerhouse. The trend direction of the GMST usually responds instantly to a change in direction of the PDO index.

And example is 2013 to present.

Another example took place around 1910.

Another example took place around1943.

Another example took place around 1974.

Around 1883, the trend direction of the PDO index went south, and for the first time in the 20th century, the GMST did not obediently follow it. Since ~1983 AGW has had to fight the PDO all the way to ~2003, when the PDO finally hit negative territory. Finally, it was enough to the pull the upward trend of the GMST flat: the pause.

And now that’s over and the GMST is shooting up like a rocket. So kiss low CS goodbye. The only thing that can save your island is the return of the KimiKamiKaze Wind.

[…] of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the […]

Well…

The problem is the global warmers are really lousy scientists.

The null hypothesis is that CO2 doesn’t do jack to temperature and won’t have a big impact on climate, that warmth is great, that more emissions won’t have a big impact on the CO2 level and that more CO2 is wonderful.

It is up to the global warmers to prove that CO2 makes it warmer, that emissions drive the CO2 level, that more warmth is bad (net harmful), that more CO2 is bad (net harmful).

Global warmers have to prove to a statistically significant level that there is a problem before we have any motivation to do anything. All this uncertainty range in the effects should be a problem they are desperately trying to reduce so they can make a statistically significant claim.

Instead the global warmers assume they are right and don’t bother to try to accurately bound any of the physical changes (CO2 increase, forcing, etc.) essential to their disaster scenario. They have flipped the paradigm around. Uncertainty is their friend. The “precautionary” principle is that worst case in the confidence interval is the future. This is crazy. Rewarding scientists for being lazy and dishonest is bad.

Time has come to ignore global warmers and cut their funding until they play by the traditional rules of science. What they are doing is deliberately dishonest and deceptive and the only way to stop it and make them do honest science is to cut their funding.

The problem with climate science isn’t communication. We understand what the warmers are saying. The problem with climate science is an integrity problem – we don’t believe the global warmers, and for good reason.

SB 1983. In 1983 the GMST, for the first time in the 20th century, ignored the change in direction of the PDO.

JCH:

So you are saying it is a natural oscillation which occurs about every 30 years?

Whether nature is holding the temp down or ramping it up (depending on where we are in the 30 year period) – it means natural variability is larger than previously thought.

That in turn means ECS and TCR are both smaller than previously thought – right?

Well, Planning One, this rub also applies to our evidence that the Sun will rise tomorrow. As my avatar once said, the Humean predicament is the human predicament.

Skepticism is mostly an academic exercise.

***

> The attacks on PE in Reddit are political in nature, and have nothing to do with science.

This applies to ClimateBall in general, including what we can read each day at Judy’s. Humans are political monkeys.