How can we explain such pervasive bias?
Obvious vested interest of the single funder – government – in the case of climate science.
Comment on The Bias of Science by Greybeard
↧
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by Dan H.
Replies like Michael’s are common among the most fervent believers in CAGW. They claim their side is science, will the other is anti-science or propaganda. Name-calling appears to be a desperate attempt to right a sinking ship. Ironically, RC had a thread entitled, “The legend of the Titanic.”
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by WebHubTelescope
100 PPM increase of atmospheric CO2 in 100 years is separate from the topic of AGW. Even if CO2 wasn’t a GHG the persistence argument is still solid.
Salby and Bartemis claim that the rise is due to some process that they have figured out and you seemed to agree with though don’t fully understand.
In reality, the fact is that CO2 is a noncondensing material and any excess above the thermodynamic and biotic steady state will randomly walk around the environment for a long time as it tries to find a permanent sequestering site.
A fraction of the co2 change is due to outgassing with temperature increases. But the seasonal changes don’t effect the excess.
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by geronimo
P.E. “They can’t teach the real science, because it’s all college material.”
I don’t believe there’s any intention to teach the science, it’s a process of indoctrination, they’re being taught that humans are evil and unless they follow the rules laid down by environmentalists will destroy the planet.
Previous generations, myself included, were taught that humans were evil, and had to pay for their sins with eternal damnation unless they followed the rules laid down by the elders of the church.
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by Wagathon
Ooops, I have zinned.
–>For the last 150y, the planet hasn’t accumulated enough extra heat, to boil one chicken egg.
Is that Australian for ‘global warming alarmists have their heads up their up their collective arses?’
↧
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by darryl b
Just for the fun of it, here are two observations and a question that I gave to students in 9th grade (regarding density) and in chemistry (regarding the shape of water molecules).
Very few arrived at a correct answer. For a couple extra points they could present the observations and question to their parents. They came back with eloquent but very incorrect answers.
Then I had them do the same with their grandparents. Amazingly, about a third answered correctly thinking the answer was obvious. I did this off and on for over ten years. Take from this what you will.
Observation 1) Ice cubes float in water
2) What happens when you put soda (pop, if you are from Minnesota) in the freezer and then forget it.
Question: (to be answered only from these observation): Why, even though the temperature may be well below freezing of water for months on end, do lakes in Minnesota never get more than about two feet thickness of ice on top?
—The answer leads to much more and should be considered in discussion on climate change.\.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Jim D
Edim, I was saying that CO2 can’t be a function of temperature only. You were fooled by Bartemis’s graph into not seeing the slow CO2 trend that he hides by looking only at high frequencies by focusing on the derivative. The slow CO2 trend is more than accounted for by Man’s output and the ocean’s net absorption which is seen as acidification. The derivative shows some detail of how the sink is dependent on the annual temperature, since we are pretty sure the source isn’t (unless Man emits about twice as much in cold years).
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by mike
willard,
This is getting to be perverse, willard.
Bart’s “point” as you term it–that is, his preposterously mangled representation of Dr. McKitrick’s views–was not offered as a “point” in and of itself, but as a description of Dr. McKitrick’s paper that, supposedly, “exactly contradicted” one of my earlier claims. Of course, Bart’s “point”–his fun-house mirror caricature of Dr. McKitrick’s paper–did not support his “exact contradiction” assertion. Likewise, Bart, when challenged in that regard, declined to provide, then, by quotation the precise language employed in Dr. McKitrick’s paper to “exactly contradict” my earlier claim (most likely because Dr. McKitrick’s paper does not, in fact, “exactly contradict” my previous claim). Jeez, willard, why is this so hard?
Look, willard, I can see you’ve got the troll-team snappin’ and poppin’ now. And I really like that it’s discarded its former sclerotic ways. Good job, coach! Likewise, I can appreciate that Bart is sulking in his tent and you want him back since he’s one of your team’s stalwarts and all. And, believe it or not, willard, I’d like to help you get him back. But, willard, I just can’t pretend that Bart made some sort of really great “point” that I failed to appreciate. ‘Cuz he didn’t.
I’ll do this though, willard. If Bart wants to make like our last exchange never happened, then I’ll do the same and never bring it up myself, nor discuss it unless he or someone else brings it up first. And no grudges either–at least on my part. I mean, like, I generally like that goofy way Bart has of mixing up good-stuff with squirrely and nutty stuff. Like I told him, before, I generally find his comments worth a read.
That’s the best I can do, willard. Hope to see Bart back soon.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
Web, I think we are talking past each other. That annual breathing cycle of CO2 is fairly complex. The winter early spring is mainly southern ocean warming causing outgassing with the summer early fall a combination of biological and outgassing in the northern hemisphere. The southern hemisphere in NH summer has more thermal CO2 uptake, the NH more biological annual sequestering. The variation in tropical ocean temperature is rather small except for the ENSO changes (multi-year) which are barely discernible in the CO2 measurements.
Even the paper your referenced shows more NH fluctuation, then SH and finally tropics, just like the satellite animation of atmospheric CO2.
I disagree with Bartimes that it is all temperature, but there is a significant amount related to temperature change, both biological and outgassing. The feedback thing is kinda interesting though. CO2 should tend to stabilize the lower troposphere as its impact increases (isothermal is pretty stable, that is where things would be headed.) The actual trend is toward more instability. that is like approaching a bifurcation point. Sea surface temperatures are becoming more volatile regionally, yet the average is stabilizing with some small reduction.
With the Arctic ozone depletion starting and some indication of tropical ozone reduction (remember the stratosphere is marching to a different drummer), there is likely to be some neat atmospheric chemistry starting. Ice clouds react with ozone allowing CO2 to find a reaction buddy, kinda like Mars. There is a slight inverse correlation of CO2 variation with solar. This is getting kinda interesting.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by Steven Mosher
David.
Sorry about the quotes. Let me tell you how to parse them. It’s not that hard.
When I write that people have “publications” I want you to understand that this term can mean many things and I dont want you to try to
weasle out of things by playing games with the terms. I could provide an exhaustive list of everything one might consider to be a “publication”
The nesting doesnt bother me. So, you have the questions.
My sense is this. The decision about what is a debate and what is mere disagreement or gainsaying isn’t something that you can determine
in any objective manner. In fact I think that by trying to present “the debate” you really will just be recapitulating your own personal views.
Question: how will you know you have your list of topics done correctly?
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by Steven Mosher
I think we need a tree about trees or a tree about debates. or a debate about trees.
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by Bart R
darryl b | May 14, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
Having lived in Minnesota (which I recommend for anyone who hasn’t), I’ll add a question the grandparents get the answer to right more often: why does the dog always survive when the truck goes through the ice, and never the people?
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by Tom
steven,
Why not form a committee just to make sure. It’s for the kids.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by jim2
The stench of decaying bodies in the Spring of colder climes has to contribute a bunch to CO2.
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by hunter
Michael,
Cowardly? Vilify?
The article was written with their cooperation, certainly at the suggestion of their handlers. In what way have I vilified them?
I vilify those who manipulated them into believing the world is ending due to CO2 and that they should go into court and force the issue. They are being abused by AGW fanatics, probably as stupid as you.
Pointing out that children are being abused is vilification only in the mind of someone who has no idea what they are reading.
You are a true blue idiot.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by jim2
Acidification except for that which is converted to CaCO2 and sinks. (A true sink 
)
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by Bart R
Bad Andrew | May 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
Oh. Did you mean you were hoping we’d go out and get the evidence for you and bring it to you?
No, no. I was just observing that it went by at least a dozen times in under ten years, and you missed it. The implication being that the evidence can’t be all that important to you.
Who could guess you meant to be taken seriously, with a track record like that?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Stephen Rasey
@gbaikie <i>Humans evolved in the tropics- </i>
Yes, but civilization evolved in the temperate zones. Look at the latitude ranges of the Nile and Tigris rivers.
↧
Comment on Climate science in public schools by Tom
From fires in South America, to truck loads of people freezing in the vast northern lakes, as they hang on to their pickup after fishing for a bit…
You sure get around Bart.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/whichisabettermatch.png
The tropics really don’t have that much of a seasonal cycle. The northern latitudes have a pretty major seasonal cycle. Mauna Loa has a seasonal cycle. Ergo the tropics with little seasonal cycle must be the cause of the Mauna Loa seasonal cycle because Web has a formula that says so.
I get it now.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
