Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by rebelronin

0
0

“But more recently, I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects”

a human free climate does not exist
can we say with any ‘certainty’ that a human free universe exist?
humans ‘perturbing’ anything is a construct of humans

every darn thing we observe has an ‘anthropogenic’ component

the Pontiff picking up ‘climate change’ as a cause makes perfect sense
because one needs a Supreme Being to make ‘man free nature’ have logical legs

there is, without question, a highly emotional political constituency behind much of the alleged science in this field

as a result, the continuous revamping of data looks suspicious

as we cannot separate the world we observe from ourselves
I doubt we will have much luck removing this issue from politics, religion and philosophy … not saying it’s altogether a wasted effort

1. glaciers retreat?
2. glaciers advance?
3. glaciers stable … now that would be unnatural

I wish us all good luck with the search for a global stable state … and income equality


Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Lawrence Giver

0
0

A major volcano is usually associated with temporary COOLING, not warming. This is perhaps counter-intuitive, as volcanos are really hot, but the sulfur dioxide gas emitted by the volcano is further oxidized in the stratosphere to sulfur trioxide, then combines with water forming thin clouds of tiny droplets of sulfuric acid. This raises the albedo of the earth a little for a couple years, reducing the sunlight absorbed at the surface.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Don Monfort

0
0

You are being trolled, Tony. He calls it Trollball. Trademark pending.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)

0
0

Oh, and in case my last comment didn’t make it clear, I don’t intend to pursue the matter any further here.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by clivebest

0
0

The effective temperature of the earth could only really be measured by a bolometer way out in space.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by dpy6629

0
0

Willard likes to pretend he is Bertrand Russell’s squirrel. But he really is just a wild and crazy one running about with no sense of direction. For him, pointless but detailed and superficial analyses are the nuts he lives off during the winter.

Remember Russell’s Decalogue and try harder.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by David Wojick

0
0

Rob and Salvatore are using two different meanings of AGW. S is referring to CAGW, which includes strong positive feedback. R is referring to the no feedback GHG case. Hence they do not disagree because their talking past one another, talking about two different things.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by climatereason

0
0

Willard

If any of the denizens has the slightest interest in this increasingly surreal sub thread they can read the words of both of us and make up their own minds, that is of course if they have the faintest idea as to what it is all about.

Tonyb


Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Willard

0
0

> they can read the words of both of us

Not anymore, TonyB.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Peter O'Neill

0
0

ordvic | September 22, 2015 at 11:55 am |

I’m just speaking for my own peanut gallery but I think we would all benefit from a guest post. When I read through your blog, not being a scientist, I found much of the material to be incomprehensible for the layperson. If you worked on a post that made your material more readily understandable to us novices it would surely be a fruitful endeavor and perhaps concentrate the essence of the material?

It does look like a guest post on Gistemp and GHCN-M adjustment would be useful. There have been a number of issues raised which I might be able to comment on, and now perhaps better in one post rather than scattered as a number of replies among nearly 300 so far in this post. I’ll start to build a post based on issues raised here.

As Kimberley has been discussed here, I will now add an image of the range of adjustments made to the Jan 1978 temperature value over recent years:

Jan 1978 lies within the usual 1951-1980 and 1961-1990 anomaly base periods, and other months within those base periods will have undergone similar changes. As the most recent temperature values are not adjusted, the most recent anomaly values will show changes reflecting the changing base period average. For v3.0.0 and v3.1.0 GHCN-M did not adjust Kimberley. From v3.2.0 on GHCN-M started to adjust Kimberley, and while seeming to vary less than those for Sacerton and Marseille posted earlier, these adjustments are hardly a model of consistency either. The subsequent Gistemp adjustments sometimes increase the adjustments made by GHCN-M, at other times decrease it. Borrowing a term from another context, it seems clear that GHCN-M, not Gistemp, is the main “forcing” for these adjustments.

I have seen a considerable increase in blog traffic, referred from judithcurry.com, but most visitors have browsed general posts rather than those related to Gistemp and GHCN-M.

For anyone wanting a worked example of Gistemp adjustment, start from Introduction: the station for adjustment (post 1 of 6 in GISTEMP example) (but note that posts 5 and 6 in the series were never added – I may now add post 6 to explain the code which extends the adjusted urban record beyond the combined rural record)

For anyone wanting to look at the consistency of GHCN-M adjustments (which is what I suggest should be of interest rather than Gistemp), start from Wanderings of a Marseille January 1978 temperature, according to GHCN-M

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by climatereason

0
0

Good night Willard

Tonyb

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by David Wojick

0
0

Yes, this global surface number is simply absurd. One cannot measure the heat content of the atmosphere from the boundary layer, not to mention that most of the area is done by SSTs. Only the satellite measurements are real and they do not show any GHG warming.

At the risk of ad hominem, consider who developed and adjusted these surface statistical models. Wigley, Jones, Hansen and Karl. Warmers all. When I first started to question these surface models, many years ago, I got an angry email from Wigley, saying they knew about these problems. My response was that unlike them, I was prepared to conclude that the model results were incorrect.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by john321s

0
0

Good to see a qualified oceanographer’s physically-motivated take on available climate data thoroughly documented. This is a much needed antidote to the blind number-crunching perspective of “global temperature index” makers, who treat what should be data as mere numbers to be variously adjusted to meet geophysically naïve expectations. Despite some warts, here and there, the message is abundantly clear: the globe is far from being well-covered by data adequate for bona fide scientific work. The index makers are in the business of creating salable fiction.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Arch Stanton

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Joseph

0
0

Only the satellite measurements are real and they do not show any GHG warming.

Ok, here is what I get using the Skeptical Science trend calculator for 1979 to present.

UAH – .139 +- .064 /decade
RSS = .121 +- .063 /decade

Why do you say they don’t show any GHG warming?


Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Steven Mosher

0
0

I am so glad to see you get the traffic peter!!!

Peter is a great example of how its done.

1. he got the code
2. he got it working
3. he wrote emails to hansen and company with his observations/corrections.

that is real work.

Now you’ll note that more people here probably know goddard than Peter.

ask me who I think does great work

Same goes for other guys I wont mention..

Note that Peter has a focus. he knows it inside and out.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by JCH

0
0

The satellite SAT series are a joke.

Comment on RICO! by Curious George

0
0

Brian – what dialogue? The whole purpose of the RICO20 initiative is to suppress any dialogue. Why don’t you simply accept Jim’s point of view.

Comment on RICO! by Jim D

0
0

Yes, to the extent it is like the tobacco companies’ corrupt kind of “dialog”, that is what this is about. Many of the “skeptic” players even trace back to that issue.

Comment on RICO! by Brian G Valentine

0
0

You guys really need a new shtick to replace the “tobacco argument.” That one has worn thin

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images