Comment on Week in review – science edition by timg56

June 14, 2015, 2:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by ristvan

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason

$

0

0

izen,

are you lazy or simply incompetent? It took me less than 5 minutes to Google the organization at the top of the donations list (Franklin Center), which I had never heard of before. Their primary interest is political reporting from a conservative viewpoint. They don’t even have a position on climate change.

Organizations I have heard of Cato & Heartland, do cover climate change, but it is only a small fraction of their interest.

In other words, the Guardian article was an excellent example of shoddy journalism. But then, considering the lead author, it is to be expected, as she is a cheerleader for gang Green.

---

Comment on Week in review – science edition by ristvan

June 14, 2015, 2:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by timg56

$

0

0

Climate feedbacks are important to sensitivity, which you have said is ‘the only question’. Wind is not a feedback. And ‘wind’ in an uncoupled AMIP model is not wind as the planet would experience it from thermal and pressure gradients involving the ocean. Clouds and precipitation (affecting humidity) are feedbacks. Held’s blog claimed all was right in the GCM world using only uncoupled atmospheric wind simulations, when it manifestly isn’t. You know, the pause and all that. Other commenters called him on his assertion, and he fessed up on his blog–add oceans, more uncertainty (paraphrase, since won’t waste time reading again). All I did was point this out. Must have been a more important comment than this ‘poser’ realized, since you are factually defensive and verbally offensive in response.
BTW, enjoy my reply to your ‘be careful’ comment on Venema/Renne CRN just posted above. Looking forward to your further scrutiny of the 12 stations used in that paper.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

June 14, 2015, 3:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by ristvan

$

0

0

The main think to ask is, what is the goal? Regain territory? Help Iraq to return to a stable Iran ally with disgruntled Sunnis ready to have another war? Help Syria to return to a stable Assad government? Think it through this time before allowing Americans to be killed again for whatever the goal is. Is there a permanent solution when there are so many factions with so much funding and so many weapons? These are the questions, and it is no wonder that America is not jumping into the middle at this point.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

June 14, 2015, 3:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

$

0

0

There are any number of ways that tony can put his skin in the game.

I find the following to be horribly self righteous

“Scientists quibbling over fractions of a degree change (ok to use Fractions Mosh?) to Earths surface and sea temperatures really need to get their order of priorities straight.”

If tony thinks he has the right to tell us to re arrange our priorities then I would claim the right to re arrange “historians” priorities and tell them
to sign up, man up, ship out, or shut up.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

June 14, 2015, 3:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Svante Arrhenius –

“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

Steven Mosher wants to stop the percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere from increasing.

According to Arrhenius, Mosher’s proposal would result in us missing out on more equable and better climates, and more abundant crops.

Which vision would you prefer?

Who should Warmists take more notice of – Svante Arrhenius, or Steven Mosher?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

June 14, 2015, 3:47 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

Held makes an important point. Given a good ocean temperature, the atmospheric model is not missing fundamental processes that prevent it from simulating the general circulation. This goes for cloud effects, radiation, surface fluxes, jet streams, tropical circulations, etc., that are all well enough represented to get an excellent match with the observed general circulation. It removes a lot of the uncertainties that people ascribe to the models so that the focus can be where it should be, on uncertainties in the ocean response and feedback, along with the effects of aerosols and other forcing changes that result in climate change. Even with climate change, the forcing is an incremental 1-2%, so these basics of circulation remain essentially the same and we are only looking at percentage perturbations relative to it in what we would call a large climate change of several degrees.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

June 14, 2015, 3:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

$

0

0

“Too funny. Asking that our elected officials focus the use of our money on the right priorities is somehow hypocritical to Mosher. Either that or he just likes appearing to be an ass.

Tell you what Mosher, give me my tax dollars back and I’ll spend them on my priorities, OK?”

Last I looked I dont spend ANY of your tax dollars. yet tony seems to think that our privately funded priorities need to be rearranged to his
private likings.

weirdly hypocritical.

My preference.. work on what you find interesting and stop telling other people what their priorities should be.

But as long as tony thinks he can moralize about my priorities I’ll respond in kind. No point in responding to his self righteous BS with kindness and light.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by jim2

June 14, 2015, 3:49 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

You are right about the sampling distribution of the mean, AC. I had envisioned something else.

---

Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason

June 14, 2015, 3:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

≪ Previous: Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by jim2

$

0

0

Mosh

If instead of getting on your high horse you actually read things before commenting you would realise you have completely misread the context. Read the next bit

‘The West is facing an existential threat from a violent jihadist group and the rather more calculating Russian bear. Man made Climate change is a side show, if it is any sort of show at all. Our Govts need to refocus their attention.’

I wasn’t telling people such as yourself how to do your calculations. I was suggesting that murderous jihadists should rank higher in the list of things to deal with by govts than the quibbling over one set of figures barely different to another

how is that self righteous? Do you think the constant parsing of temperatures is really more important than trying to stop the middle east erupting further and the threat to the west that will ensue? really?

tonyb

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

June 14, 2015, 4:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason

$

0

0

It has been argued that the amplified warming of the Arctic relative to lower latitudes in recent decades has weakened the polar jet stream, a strong wind current several kilometres high in the atmosphere driven by temperature differences between the warm tropics and cold polar regions. One hypothesis is that a weaker jet stream may become more wavy, leading to greater fluctuations in temperature in mid-latitudes. Through a wavier jet stream, it has been suggested, amplified Arctic warming may have contributed to the cold snaps that hit the eastern United States.

Wrong. The reason the jet stream has been more meridional is due to changes in ozone distributions in a horizontal /vertical sense due to low solar activity.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

June 14, 2015, 4:04 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

$

0

0

Gap filling does not cut it. Especially when it is biased which is what AGW enthusiast do to tall of the data.

Gap filling in the Arctic is complicated by the presence of land, open water and temporally varying sea ice extent, because each surface type has a distinctly different amplitude and phasing of the annual cycle of surface temperature. Notably, the surface temperature of sea ice remains flat during the sea ice melt period roughly between June and September, whereas land surface warming peaks around July 1. Hence using land temperatures to infer ocean or sea ice temperatures can incur significant biases.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

June 14, 2015, 4:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

$

0

0

Francis’s explanation is 100% wrong for the reason for the wavy jet stream a I mentioned in my previous post. She is ignoring past data which shows what she says has no correlation.

All this has me expect it would take quite the opposite pattern for 2015 melt to hit the high melt in 2014 (in fits and spurts, with warmest June on record here in ‘Kanger’, west Greenland), extreme melt in 2012, 2010, high melt in 2011, 2009, 2008, 2007. The past warm episodes were due to persistent atmospheric circulation, a.k.a., stick weather patterns, favoring heating of west Greenland. What we have in 2015 and in 2013 the sticky cold pattern opposite.

There is evidence, two most recent of a growing list of citations, of Arctic warming slowing the jet stream, causing it to meander more, creating sticky weather patterns. Welcome to the new abnormal.

» J. Francis and S. Vavrus 2015, Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 014005 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014005
» D. Coumou, J. Lehmann and J. Beckmann. The weakening summer circulation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes. Science, 2015. doi: 10.1126/science.1261768.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 4:41 am and is filed under ice sheet melt factor, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

June 14, 2015, 4:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

$

0

0

Why all the questions, yimmy? Obama says we have to degrade and destroy ISIS. That, according to your feckless leader, is the goal. Clear, now? But we ain’t got a strategy. He’s waiting on the Pentagon, he says. He is a liar. The Pentagon has given him plenty of strategy. His strategy is to do a little as is politically possible and hope for the best. You can help him with his little song and dance, yimmy, by thinking up more questions and excuses for timidity and inaction.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

June 14, 2015, 4:19 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

$

0

0

A good leader can walk and chew gum at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive concerns. A bigger priority to me is the welfare of the American middle class, but that may be a sideshow to you too as you go for war at all costs, somewhat as Bush the Younger did.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

June 14, 2015, 4:20 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

$

0

0

That the models contain reasonable seasonal statistics is not the same as having decadal or centennial scale predictive skill.
Indeed, even predicting one third of a century has proved difficult:

And natural variability increases out to the century and multi century scale, making predictions dubious.

---

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

June 14, 2015, 4:21 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Alexander Coulter

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

$

0

0

Younger Dryas had global cooling on a global scale it did not feature a bi polar seesaw climatic global effect.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Alexander Coulter

June 14, 2015, 4:29 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

$

0

0

jim2:

OK. Sorry if I was unclear in my previous posts; yes I had intended to talk about the sampling distribution of the mean.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

June 14, 2015, 4:30 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Alexander Coulter

$

0

0

My questions are about strategy. You may want a peaceful democratic Iraq with a well trained army all living happily together and even liking the Americans too, but just to want it is not a strategy. How do you get there from here? What are the steps? How much does America have to pay of your tax money to get there? Is that a good use of your tax money and American lives? Why do we care given what evolved out of last time? Perhaps another trillion dollars and a thousand more lives was what was needed or it might have had the same result anyway because they just don’t like the Americans on either side there.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

June 14, 2015, 4:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

$

0

0

Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time, yimmy? Why no substantive climate action in 2009, when he controlled both houses of Congress?

You gonna help the middle class now, yimmy? It’s funny how the Democrats have stopped talking about what they are going to do for the poor, because they own the poor anyway, despite having done nothing to get them out of poverty.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

June 14, 2015, 4:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

$

0

0

The models have a surface temperature trend of 0.2 C per decade since 1980, and the actual one was 0.17 C per decade. Quite good, and within the uncertainties in the forcing change.