There is a difference from the earlier rise. This one is much longer.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:120/mean:240/plot/gistemp/from:1985/trend
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
Brandon S?: It’s nice to see you finally getting glimpses of the light from beneath your blanky. However, you need to understand that you don’t actually need the pacifier anymore. It’s nice to see you growing up… are you thirty yet?
FWIW, I agree with your crit of Steyn the unreconstructed chickenhawk: Mosher’s parsing is another verbal facade as one of his bent knows that only cowards hide behind posh, smug and/or clever slander.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Jim D
Von Storch wasn’t part of the team but ended up on Mann’s side when critiquing MM05. Independent methods also produced the HS.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by schitzree
Hey Mosher, he’s not nobody, he’s the guy pretending to be the other guy pretending to be a scientist.
Wow, when I say that out loud it sounds kinda… recursive.
Gleick pretends to be a Hartland Insider, Cook pretends to be Motl, and then there’s all the WUWT clones over the years. Well, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. ^¿^
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by JCH
The rise to ~1943 was accompanied by an upward trend in the PDO throughout. The moment the PDO index started trending downward, the surface air temperature slavishly followed it.
The current rise has had to overcome a downtrend in the PDO since ~1985. Big difference. .
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by schitzree
…Now I’m going to be wondering all night how the one’s who watched the meatloaf video responded. >¿<
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by bernie1815
eadler2:
Tamino aka Foster and Rahmsdorf (2012) analyzed the temperature record from 1979 to 2010. The issue at hand is the absence of any temperature increase since 1998. Even if you eliminate the el Nino of 1998 there is still no warming for almost two decades as I indicated and is visible in their plots.
The ball is still in your court.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by GaryM
angech,
I call Mosher out on his wamrism/progressivism all the time. (Or I used to when I commented more.) I just didn’t want to give him and his mini-me Willard another side track to take on a sub-thread that is already much longer that it should have been. With no substantive response to my original comment from either of the obscurantists.
At least until Mosher posted this:
“You dont need measurements everywhere. For the same reason that polling works.”
The issue of course is not “measurements everywhere.” The issue is measurements over so little of the area they claim to “know” temps for. And I will not bother to point out that political polling in the west uniformly over predicts progressive positive results. In the US, England, Europe generally, Israel, you name it. (Opps, I guess I just did.)
And how does Mosher know they can “predict” temps in places they have never measured? Because they have compared their statistically generated faux data to other statistically generated faux data. One of my favorite Mosherisms was his claiming such computer generated data was “ground truth” against which their massaged data was “validated.” A few days later he denied there was any such thing as ground truth in science.
Again, Mosher has always been funnier than Willard. Sometimes it’s even intentional.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by GaryM
Wilard,
I didn’t recall engaging with you at Kloor’s site. I think I would remember such uniformly repetitive, humorless pedantry. But I looked and was amused to see this comment to you.
“Shub
August 10, 2010 at 5:23 pm
willard, if someone made a joke about you and you sued and won at court, you think the judge would award you with a sense of humor, as punitive damages? 😉”
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
There is nothing new in the climate debate.
Including Willard’s lack of a sense of humor.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by justinwonder
I dunno, but I no I don’t trust no ineffectual that uses the word “epistemic”. It used to be using the word “paradigm” was the new paradigm, but now the new paradigm is to use the word “epistemic” epistemically.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst):
Brandon S?: It’s nice to see you finally getting glimpses of the light from beneath your blanky. However, you need to understand that you don’t actually need the pacifier anymore. It’s nice to see you growing up… are you thirty yet?
I honestly have no idea what this is about. I sometimes wish I were clearly rooted in one “side” of the debate, joined with my brother-in-arms to fight the other tribe, just so I could tell which derisive remarks were in reference to what. Half the time I can’t tell whether I’m being insulted for being an alarmist sheeple or a frothing at the mouth denier. It’s confusing.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by justinwonder
+1
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by mosomoso
Mr Almassi might at least construct a sentence so that one remembers the blurry abstraction which started it by the time one reaches the last blur.
It’s worth remembering, when you consider the vast areas of science which are both critical and underfunded, that mangled word salads like the above are costing and charging. This sort of exercise may be cheaper, easier and more feel-good than hard observation, but non-return on investment is guaranteed. (No, by observation I do not mean “survey”!)
Yes, a new IGY would be full of political stunts reminiscent of Turney’s non-Mawson expedition, but if scientists could be re-introduced to the physical world they might end up concluding a lot less but knowing a bit more. Anything is better than wading these verbal swamps, especially when you are bound to bump a familiar alarmist message, floating out there amongst the “ethics”.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by justinwonder
David,
“… a belief transmitted to the public is that the earth is warming catastrophically, primarily due to man’s activity. Also, that various proposed remedies will save us from catastrophe, even though no current realistic proposals will stop atmospheric carbon dioxide from continuing to increase.”
Exactly. I would add, those remedies are very expensive, even for the shrinking middle class in the USA, and even catastrophic for the poor.
The biggest emitters ( nations) of CO2 have massive socioeconomic problems and are not going to reduce emissions significantly anytime soon. Has anyone seen the news lately? We are in a race to the bottom.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by aplanningengineer
My long serious grappling with you comment is in moderation. I don’t have much exposure, beyond some blogs and the awSJ to most of the sources you reference. Do you really think these sources (WSJ especially) judge non-expert individuals who are afraid of severe climate threats with moral reproach?
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by justinwonder
+1 I like it!
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by justinwonder
You got it right. Arrogance, rudeness, hubris, abusive behavior, and cob condescencion will not win over a jury. Their ineffectiveness is testimony to their incompetence outside their specialties. It’s the hubris…
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by mosomoso
A few ancient seaports now lie inland for more than one reason. But one of the reasons is higher sea levels in eg Roman and Medieval times. The latest rise tendency is over two hundred years old – and still barely dribbling. As for why there was such a dramatic opening of the Arctic during the chilly early 1800s…I dunno!
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by justinwonder
“…why every scientist with a PhD isn’t down their throats is a mystery to me.”
Nothing to gain, everything to lose. Consider the case of Lennert B..
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by climatereason
Mosh said
‘The biggest mistake your can make ( ala brandon ) is to try to get at what he really thinks.’
So we have a popular writer who can’t communicate clearly with his audience, who I doubt are all English Majors prepared to parse his every word.
.You don’t think it might be useful if he wrote with wit AND clarity at the level of his audience?
tonyb
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
