Well it’s interesting to read thee is a consensus of expert scientists who have reviewed Mann’s hockey stick found his stats methods suboptimal but say it’s still great stuff. No doubt Mann found a nice collection of expert peers to review his material stuff. I wonder what will happen when Steyn’s new book comes out. Can Mann sue him twice?
Comment on Week in review – science edition by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
Sorry Wagathon I have no idea how that ended up being a reply o your post.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
Wagathon,
It is a real pain, the way that rotten climate keeps changing, isn’t it?
Solar minima, solar maxima, more CO2, less CO2, things keep changing. Maybe we should seek advice from a climatologist, or failing that, a proctologist.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by RiHo08
“Air temperature and death rates in the continental U.S. 1968–2013. Climate 2015; 3: 435-441. [link]’
What a bummer. Declining death rates in a warming environment over 45 years.
What is even worse, at least according to the National Center for Health Statistics study of July 2014 representing 5 years of data, the death rate from cold is two time that of warm; while the death rate from very bad weather, tornados, floods, hurricanes, you name it, is only 6% of the total weather related deaths which add up to a total of 2000 per year.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf
Listen Mr. Obama, severe weather causes 120 US deaths a year from very bad weather. Now tell me again about the catastrophe that lies around the corner from emissions of CO2. Making energy more expensive for cooling in the summer and heating in the winter is really what kind of policy?
Maybe the em-phaa-sis is on the wrong sy-laa-ble, you know what I mean?
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by catweazle666
…and Then There’s Physics” “Quoted skeptics aren’t genuine skeptics :-)”
Perhaps we can do something similar for scientists, yes?
For example, climate scientists who deny the pause/hiatus could be referred to as climate “scientists”.
How’s that grab you Kenny?
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by beththeserf
‘By what miracle did natural variation cease to exist
from 1970-2000?’
…and do miracles have a part ter play in science?
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by ordvic
ATTP,
I want to apologize to you for my over the top remarks regarding your posting. I do know that you ‘constructively engage’ with commenters here. That post was an emotional responce to your post and I had no business disparaging you and condescending lecturing. I actually have a good deal of respect for your opinions.
Willard, I also apologize to you for making a false prediction. I also apologize for past remarks characterizing your posts that was an ad hom attack if if I meant it jokingly as you didn’t see it that way.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
‘ Out, out brief candle! ‘
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Peter Davies
Yes Michael. deja vu all over again! :) H/T Yogi Berra
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D
The Verheggen survey also shows that the highest quartile, if you rank them by publications, are more on the high side. 90% of those with a quantitative opinion had more than 50% due to GHG.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by RiHo08
And, as MacBeth’s soliloquy reflects his view of life’s insignificance:
“Days on this earth are short, a “brief candle” and an ignorant march towards a fruitless demise, “lighted fools. . . to dusty death.” A person’s life is so insubstantial that it is comparable to an actor who fills minor roles in an absurd play.”
I wonder if Obama, set to meet MacDuff, prefers an end fraught with mis-perceptions than rectifying some deeper flaws in his beliefs.
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by mosomoso
I enjoy a graph or trend as much as the next punter. But since so much of the world’s min/max temp records result from how much cloud drifted in, drifted out or hung about on particular days at particular times of day, why try to wring more meaning from it all than it can possibly offer? Around here dry 1915 was the hottest year by recorded max, but stifling 1914, taking into account cloud and rain, may well have been the doozie.
I don’t know why my part of NSW was so “hot” between 1910 and 1919, but there are enough readings from other areas to indicate something was going on temp wise in those years. It wasn’t just a lazy, drunken postmaster in one locale.
But my region’s record is not its story, and even if we had its full climate story it would not tell the story of other regions, even within NSW. There’s just enough correlation to interest.
It’s a bit like world horror year 1878. There’s enough correlation around the globe to interest (and disturb). It seems we had round-the-girth drought back then, with accompanying heat and famine. (When Kiwis are begging and bidding for water by the bucket, you have problems.)
My interest in 1878 was sparked by freakishly high temp readings right on the coast at Newcastle which were not exceeded by nearby inland readings. Powerful inland winds dominating? When I checked old news I found that to be the case. Then I started checking on who suffered extreme drought right round the middle of the world in that period and it seems that, from Africa, through Asia to S America it really was a mid-global disaster.
Why not try to get from the records the useful hints and clues they leave us? Conflation, graphs and stats often take away their resonance while reducing even further whatever limited accuracy they can offer.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
“These fans feel their views are substantiated by what they read in Revkin’s New York Times column, Dot Earth. They seem to be Libertarian, anti-environment, anti-science, pro-fossil fuel, and frankly, anti-green. Not just one or two of Andrew Revkin’s fans, but a bunch — with numbers possibly growing — are of this mind, and this is very disturbing. If we had the technology to transport these fans back in time and put them in a small room with Andy Revkin back in the days of the Bush administration, the room would melt down. They would not be his fans, and he would be shocked to be told that some day they will be.” http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/23/the-new-andrew-revkin-fan/
Reminds me of another blog. Anti, Pro and the adjective-less Libertarians. People not like Laden.
“The point I made in this (original) blog post is that Andy Revkin operates a forum that caters to a middle ground that has disappeared, and that feeding activity in this middle ground is counter-productive, demanding a cost we can’t afford to pay.” – Laden
Laden sees it as the lower of the 3 curves. Revkin and Curry shouldn’t be able to be there. It’s unstable there. They may fall into denier land. A way to solve the problem is to move up to the middle of the 3 curves and then the top most curve. The real present situation might be we already are at the top most curve, with many people expanding a lot of effort to stay on both the left and right upward slopes and avoid the middle. The shape of the curve is controlled by something. Laden seems to in the smallest way make it more of a peak in the middle. Curry, a pool.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Stephen Heins
Thanks for the information, Judith. And thank you for changing the subject. Name calling and/or ad hominem attacks are never very pretty!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic
I don’t know how knowing what is causing greenlands disappearance could be considered ‘good news’.
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by willard (@nevaudit)
> 66% of published climate scientists working in the field believe half or more of current warming is human caused (In Storch)
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
Re Lorenz 63 model –
From the lead paragraph (paper paywalled) –
“Our results demonstrate that predictability of climate distributions under time varying forcing can be highly sensitive to the specification of initial states in ensemble simulations.”
Gee. Do climatologists really need to be told that chaotic solutions to the Lorenz equations depend on initial states? Somebody might even point out that arbitrarily small changes in initial conditions may lead to totally unpredictable solutions quite quickly.
It might appear that problems relating to atmospheric convection and other things noted by Lorenz in 1963, are being rediscovered in 2015.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by willard (@nevaudit)
> Every survey of climate scientists I have seen (von Storch/Bray et al 2008, Pielke et al 2009, Verheggen et al 2012) has reported that 66% of published climate scientists working in the field believe half or more of current warming is human caused (In Storch) or more specifically by human emissions of CO2 (Verheggen).
See for yourself:
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
So, let’s see … the Greenland glaciers return ice to the sea. The ice melts, is converted to water vapor, then falls a snow on the Hubbard Glacier?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ulriclyons
New paper finds “Modern solar maximum forced late 20th century Greenland cooling”:
“We hypothesize that high solar activity during the modern solar maximum (ca. 1950s-1980s) resulted in a cooling over Greenland and surrounding subpolar North Atlantic through the slow-down of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) with atmospheric feedback processes.”
The first part is on the right path, faster solar wind increases positive AO/NAO and cools the AMO and Arctic, but the AMOC would be faster not slower. The RAPID data clearly shows *low* AMOC events occur during negative NAO/AO episodes, which are well correlated to the warming pulses to the AMO and Arctic.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
