Rob the mails had nothing to do with science
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on Driving in the dark by Mike Flynn
Vaughan,
You have shown a graph pertaining to Greenland, I believe. Are you claiming that events in Greenland are applicable to the entire Earth? I know some Warmists claim this, but I am interested in your thoughts.
If you don’t, and I give you credit for not being completely foolish, then you have not answered my question. In other words, you don’t know, but seem reluctant to acknowledge the fact.
Your stab at a global average of -20 C average 11,500 years ago is purely laughable. What temperature would you calculate, albeit errelevantly, from the Warmist application of S-B? Did the Sun suffer an inexplicable and vast drop in output 11,500 years ago, and magically resume its output after this? Or did you mean 20 C below the current average, and insert a misleading minus sign for fun?
A moment’s reflection will show that to achieve an temperature of either figure you intimate would require a cessation of physical laws either at the Equator or at the Poles, to achieve your average temperature. Given the evidence of widespread animal and plant life at the time of your proposed average temperature, it is most unlikely that you know whereof you speak.
An increase in CO2 and H2O should do no harm. Geophysical measurements indicate the Earth is cooling as it should. Newtons Law of cooling indicates an approximate trajectory, which agrees with my expectations, barring unforeseen events.
Have fun!
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Danny Thomas
TonyB and others to whom this applies. Ya’ll might wanna burn a few more cords of wood: http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Danny Thomas
We, however, here in the U.S. may have higher bills to pay: http://www.adn.com/article/20150623/interior-dept-examines-potential-damage-parks-sea-level-rise
Uncertainty? What uncertainty? For what should one advocate?
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Danny Thomas
But wait! There’s more: “from reducing air pollution to improving diet” http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/climate-change-called-medical-emergency-1.3124325
Air Pollution and diet now equal “climate change”.
And finally, good ole’ nutin fancy to it politiks: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-22/climate-catastrophe-predicted-by-u-s-as-obama-urges-un-action
↧
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by PA
<i>Jim D | June 23, 2015 at 12:13 am |
Ron Graf, CE has neither Real Climate nor Skeptical Science in the blog roll as far as I can tell. These are strange omissions to me.</i>
Perhaps those sites's strange view of the facts is why...
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Willard
> Who is listening to them that is not ALRREADY a sceptic?
Not sure how this question is relevant to dispute that the contrarian network is a bit more powerful than Don Don’s fistful of freedom fighers, but Judy comes to mind.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort
Did you just arrive from another planet, joey? Lacking a veto proof majority, the control is not sufficient to stop the Climate Alarmist in Chief and his little greenie EPA minions from making mischief.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort
Steven, can you show me where Judith said she wants to establish some code of conduct? She can’t do that. They won’t let her.
That lady has really strayed far from the reservation. That’s why they are here, Steven. Just to annoy and discredit Judith. Look at willy, yimmy, joshie, et al. You want to be like them?
↧
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by justinwonder
Perfect.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by justinwonder
So it’s like driving? :)
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by justinwonder
The EPA stands to benefit from increased climate change funding – it’s the unscrewable pooch.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Willard
> Lacking a veto proof majority […]
Until the Tea Party has a veto proof majority, the contrarian network is just a fistful of powerless freedom fighters, right, Don Don?
I hope you do realize that you’re defending a bunch of tools that is now more retrograde than the Pope.
↧
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by GaryM
The comment to which I was responding said ” lawyers are in general not ethically obliged to present….”
My response also said “It is not just prosecutors who are obliged….”
Obliged.
No one was talking about actual conduct. So the confusion does not lie here.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by justinwonder
Yep
↧
Comment on Driving in the dark by Vaughan Pratt
@PA: <i>the emissions trend doesn’t look supportable</i>
Pieter Tans said as much to me at the 2012 AGU Fall Meeting when he stopped by my poster, which was using the Hofmann formula. He and James Butler were Hofmann's two coauthors on their short 2009 paper in Atmospheric Environment justifying the formula. Tans told me that Hofmann had died very unexpectedly of a heart attack in August of 2009, only months after the paper had appeared. He also said that it was primarily Hofmann that had been promoting the formula, and that he himself expected emissions to ramp up more slowly, making the formula an overestimate for the future.
Since RCP8.5 follows an almost identical curve up to 2075, the same can be said for it.
In the meantime Table 9 on page 70 of the CDIAC's <a href="http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/7/47/2015/essd-7-47-2015.pdf" rel="nofollow">Global Carbon Budget 2014</a> shows the increase in actual emissions (E_{FF}) over each previous year to be −0.5%, 4.9%, 3.2%, 2.2%, and 2.3% for the five respective years 2009-2013. It also shows the projected increase for 2014 to be 2.5%.
Can't say I see any support so far for Pieter Tans' expectation in December 2012 of a slow-down in emissions.
We'll just have to wait and see when some sign of a slow-down happens. Looking forward to it, we could sure use it!
↧
Comment on Driving in the dark by Vaughan Pratt
@MF: Are you claiming that events in Greenland are applicable to the entire Earth? I know some Warmists claim this
Ironically Coldists claim it whenever it suits their argument.
Here’s what the Wikipedia article on the Younger Dryas has to say about it for other latitudes besides that of Greenland.
“In western Europe and Greenland, the Younger Dryas is a well-defined synchronous cool period.[12] But cooling in the tropical North Atlantic may have preceded this by a few hundred years; South America shows a less well defined initiation but a sharp termination. The Antarctic Cold Reversal appears to have started a thousand years before the Younger Dryas, and has no clearly defined start or end;”
Bottom line: extremely cold everywhere on the planet during the Younger Dryas.
Different parts of the planet may have since warmed by different amounts, but they certainly all warmed or San Franciscans would have been able to skate on the San Francisco Bay in the winter of 1905.
↧
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by David L. Hagen
<b>Cooling ahead?</b>
Has the Met Office recanted?
<a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity" rel="nofollow">Britain faces FREEZING winters as slump in solar activity threatens 'little Ice Age'</a>
<blockquote>BRITAIN could face colder than average winters with a plunge in solar activity threatening a new "little ice age" in the next few decades.
Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries".
They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.
The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters.
A spokesman said: "A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming. . . .
Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This research shows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are likely to be larger than the global effect.
"This study shows that the sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions about adapting to climate change for the decades to come."
</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html" rel="nofollow">Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum</a>
Sarah Ineson et al. Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535
<blockquote>Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradince in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Mark Silbert
Tonyb,
You are correct, I am not British………a Yank born and raised. I have spent considerable time in the UK, Europe and SE Asia (years at a time) and like to think that I have a better than average international perspective for a 68 year old American.
Thanks for the background.
I discovered GWPF a year or so ago and have made a modest monetary contribution (actually not easy to do if one is not from the UK) to support their efforts.
I have seen http://www.thegwpf.com/a-very-pc-prayer-for-our-times/ by Dominic Lawson. I am also aware that Amber Rudd seeks to convert Nigel to the “cause”. Good luck! Nigel is a bit of a throw back but I (and my wife as well) find him extremely cogent and on the mark. Did you see his talk at Ideacity in Toronto recently.
As for our American politics, I am embarrassed by our current President and by the serious decline in the integrity of the Science Establishment in America, which is driven by progressive green faci..sm. Thank Judith for advocating for the integrity of Science.
I admire the historical climatology work that you do. I have a meteorology and oceanography background/degrees dating to the mid to late 60’s. The current blind focus on computer models is maddening.
As for Heartland, I dismissed them at first as “over the top” but have come to appreciate their efforts to fight climate extremism. I can understand that you (as a Brit, I assume) could see them as a bit crass.
Anyway, thanks for the curious dialogue.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by dynam01
Reblogged this on <a href="https://ididntasktobeblog.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/science-uncertainty-and-advocacy/" rel="nofollow">I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog</a>.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
