tony b,
Skeptics version of the past 2000 years.
Skeptics versus alarmists.
Of course paleo doesn’t matter to alarmists unless it happens to be convenient.
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Willard
> You insert a question into your objection to questions.
Incorrect. My objection to leading questions. That leading question begs its relevance and may very well what I call the meteorological fallacy.
Do you think GCMs can predict the next NFL season, MattStat?
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Willard
Since you like the T-word, Don Don:
The tone argument is to dismiss an opponent’s argument based on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. It is an ad hominem attack, used as a derailment, silencing tactic or by a concern troll.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
Thank you for your concerns.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Willard
> Happy now?
Only if you are Senior’s sock puppet. Are you?
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Willard, “Do you think GCMs can predict the next NFL season, MattStat?”
Complex coupled climate models attempt to “project” regional conditions but don’t attempt to “project” the next NFL season. Climate models are also used on regional scales in attempts to figure out way climate models don’t perform well on regional scales.
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by PA
The huge meltwater pulses 16,000-8000 years ago coming out of an ice age are asymptomatic of current climate.
There have been at least 3 periods in the last 6000 years warmer than today and the MWP is comparable or warmer.
It would be helpful for adherents of the meltwater pulse theory to point out an occurrence in the last 6000 years.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
tonyb, I kinda like this one that uses Oppo et al plus a few other higher resolution tropical reconstruction with the Marcott tropical reconstructions.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Willard
> Climate models are also used on regional scales […]
That’s an interesting usage of “also,” Cap’n. Also, your “climate models” may conflate Global Climate Models and regional models:
A key limitation of Global Climate Models (GCMs) is the fairly coarse horizontal resolution. For the practical planning of local issues such as water resources or flood defences, countries require information on a much more local scale than GCMs are able to provide. Regional models provide one solution to this problem.
http://www.climateprediction.net/climate-science/climate-modelling/regional-models/
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by PA
Stephens’s paper pretty clearly points out that models don’t reproduce the close NH/SH albedo match and the ensemble has about 3.5 times too much interannual variability.
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Willard, “That’s an interesting usage of “also,” Cap’n. Also, your “climate models” may conflate Global Climate Models and regional models:”
I think you should read more and comment less. Since the “pause”, “hiatus”, “slowdown”, or “standstill”, “global” climate models have had regional temperatures re calibrated (tuned) in order to try and simulate natural variability like ENSO, AMO etc. You could try Googling some examples or just search Climate Etc. which has discussed a number of examples.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by curryja
Interesting comment, thank you
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Peter Lang
Don and Tony B,
And me. Mosher doesn’t take kindly to having his beliefs challenged or the basis for his beliefs questioned.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by jim2
This is marginally OT, but so over the top. This article from CNBC is now comparing people who don’t drink the global warming Kool-aid to people who support the idea of the Confederacy. This from an alleged business news outlet. It is a child of NBC after all. This is every bit as disgusting as the “denier” angle. From the article:
…
Just as a few states in the 1800s wanted their citizens to maintain the right to own slaves and formed a Confederacy that seceded from the United States, several governors are proclaiming their intent to defy the EPA: Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana (both declared 2016 Presidential candidates) plus Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, Mike Pence of Indiana, and Greg Abbott of Texas. The USEPA gives states wide latitude in finding ways to comply with the law, but apparently these governors don’t think their businesses and residents are smart enough to find the most cost-effective, money-saving options. Other states don’t seem to have the same blind spot.
Read MoreWhy Ted Cruz called Mitch McConnell a liar
California, which leads the “union” states in carbon-reducing policies, cut emissions by 1.5 million metric tons in 2013 (compared with 2012); at the same time, its economy grew at a faster pace than the national average.
Nine northeastern states created a carbon-trading market, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. It added $1.3 billion to the economy, created more than 14,000 new jobs and saved $460 million in electricity and heating costs between 2012 and 2014, according to a recent report from the economic-consulting firm Analysis Group.
Although not a declared member of the Carbon Confederacy, New Jersey Governor and 2016 presidential candidate Chris Christie balanced his first state budget with revenues from this program, but then seceded from it when conservative politics trumped economic common sense.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/28/carbon-confederacy-new-war-brewing-over-clean-air-commentary.html
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Jim D
captd, since we don’t expect a monthly correlation due to the annual CO2 cycle, try doing it just for annual averages of T and CO2 in any period you choose and report back.
steven, a simple model that says 2 C per doubling would have done a really good job of predicting today’s temperature at 400 ppm given initial conditions in the 1950’s. You call it just luck, do you? Not even a small chance of 2 C per doubling actually being right or at least a central estimate in a distribution? Some can’t face up to 60 years of evidence.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by stevenreincarnated
I have a reconstruction of the gulf stream that shows a 1000 year correlation between it and temperatures. So I guess I’ll see your 60 and raise you 940.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Jim D
steven you consider your Gulf Stream correlation just dumb luck too, I guess, or maybe perhaps there is a reason for it that you refuse to accept.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by jim2
Here are some links to the guy who wrote this disgusting BS.
http://www.seventhgenerationadvisors.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=4
http://www.seventhgenerationadvisors.org/
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by stevenreincarnated
Jim, they might both be dumb luck. They might both be meaningful contributors. I’m not the one saying a single correlation is all you need to know. You are. Remember?
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by jim2
His Twitter account:
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by jim2
Let’s see how California compares to some of the “Confederate” states:
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
