Well the number “2″ could represent 2 apples (the evidence). Just “2″ by itself, is an abstraction and not evidence of anything.
Andrew
Comment on Week in review 5/18/12 by Bad Andrew
↧
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Bart R
Girma | May 22, 2012 at 10:11 am |
Do you have some basis for predicting a super La Nina? Are there Antarctic or Pacific circulations we understand well enough to extrapolate into this particular outcome that you have seen reports about?
Do you expect it to be a quarter phase off the super El Nino? Perhaps it was, and has already happened, and the most recent La Nina was the super La Nina you anticipate, but weakened due a ramp of background anthropogenic warming?
Could it be a half phase off the super El Nino, expected by your plot in 2027?
The question of causes is always going to be a sensitive one, given your approach. What else drives circulations in the air and seas than energy, and what other form of energy than, in some form, heat? Warming doesn’t wear a nametag or a label distinguishing its origin. It doesn’t tell us directly where its power comes from or by what path it arrived.
So, yes. While the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is elevated, ‘they’ will have justification to say pretty much any effect of weather or climate was fueled or driven at least in part by the energy of global warming. Whether that’s ’cause’ would remain opinion, largely, of the audience of course, based on their worldview.
Personally, it’s an egg I don’t try terribly hard to unscramble. Components are components. The only purpose served by divining causes of specific incidents is to apportion blame for lawsuits, so far as I can tell. Who do you mean to sue for La Nina?
↧
Comment on Week in review 1/20/12 by www.alertesalaire.com/Fiches_synthetiques_conventions_collectives/coiffure-et-professions-connexes
Thanks sharing !
↧
Comment on Week in review 5/18/12 by Bart R
Bad Andrew | May 22, 2012 at 10:27 am |
By induction, 2 evidences a zero, a successor to zero that itself has a successor of 2, and 2 itself, at the very least.
It’s quite a bit of evidence, as with the successor operation, one can construct infinite numbers, and with a few postulates one can construct from that all of Mathematics.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Wagathon
I guess I have long legs.
“Whoever writes in blood and aphorisms does not want to be read but to be learned by heart. In the mountains the shortest way is from peak to peak: but for that one must have long legs. Aphorisms should be peaks—and those who are addressed, tall and lofty.”
(Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra)
↧
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by qbeamus
A simple case, indeed–an oversimplified, cleverly designed false analogy. The problem, of course, is that, unlike in your example, there are not millions of people who everyone knows have a thorough mastery of how the climate responds to stimuli such as CO2, with the ability to pass operationalized, predictive tests. Likewise, Googel Translate, unlike the models in climate science, can also pass operationalized, predictive tests. For example, if I use it to translate “I want fried cat” from English to Korean, I may not end up eating cat, but it won’t be because the waitress didn’t know what I was saying (or at least what was on my slip of paper–the output of my model).
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Tom
0, is a simple place holder & has no value over time. We will all see. willard too.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by qbeamus
“Citizens are the state in a democracy.”
No. To confuse the state with the citizens is like confusing the conductor with the symphony. Political scientists say that the public is “the head of state” in a democracy, but not “the state.”
Again, this mistatement gives us a key insight into your world view. The public is nothing but an unruly mob, incapable of anything constructive unless and until the government tells them what to do.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Stephen Rasey
To go from peak to peak, wings would be better than long legs.
↧
↧
Comment on CMIP5 decadal hindcasts by ferd berple
dice and a dart board also have predictive skill. Much more successful than any climate science is this expert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Octopus
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by qbeamus
Saying something doesn’t make it so. When you can produce evidence that persuades a majority of people–whether true or not–that (1) CO2 dumping, rather than dynamic sinks, control atmosphereic CO2; (2) that atmospheric CO2 causes global warming; (3) global warming is a net bad thing; and (4) curbing the warming preemptively by reducing emissions is more efficient than just adapting to the changes later, then you will have made your case for a carbon tax. Until then you’re just raving.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Bart R
Bart R prefers learning games to brainwashing games, is all.
Games are good, fun and welcome opportunities to explore a range of ideas. Pavlovian exercises meant to teach submission, not so much.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Girma
Bart R
You and I will hope fully be hear to see a further drop in GMT to a value of about 0.2 deg C in the next 5 to 10 years.
I am prepared to bet on that. Will you take it?
↧
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Tom
Bart, You need to understand that in our world today even dogs can learn to read. I read it in a book.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Girma
Sorry
In science, who is going to censure those who mislead the world with the current global warming trend is the red line instead of the green one?
http://bit.ly/HRvReF
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Bart R
David L. Hagen | May 22, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
Sorry, but Segalstad’s so far off the conventional track for geophysics it’s difficult to take your claim seriously.
Segalstad has exploited every possible loophole from ‘contaminated ice cores’ to ‘isotopes’ to ‘ocean chemistry’ to make plausible his transparently foregone conclusions. It’s sad when confirmation bias owns an otherwise respected academician’s career at the end, but it’s not uncommon.
Try reading some WHT on the same topic.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Wagathon
“[T]here are a large number of punters [Australian for 'customers' or 'gamblers'-in this case, skeptical customers who may or may not buy what the government's selling] who object to being treated dismissively as stupid, who do not like being told what to think, who value independence, who resile from personal attacks and have life experiences very different from the urban environmental atheists attempting to impose a new fundamentalist religion. Green politics have taken the place of failed socialism and Western Christianity and impose fear, guilt, penance, and indulgences onto a society with little scientific literacy.” (Ian Plimer)
↧
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Bart R
Girma | May 22, 2012 at 10:52 pm |
Mr. Orssengo:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1992.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995.25/trend
Red line from the most current 20 years of actual GISS LOTI dataset: 0.2C/decade
Green line from most current 17 years of HadCRUT3 dataset: 0.07C/decade
Which one deserves censure? Which one is right? How close to the actual is the linear trend projection?
How can you be certain?
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by gbaikie
“stefanthedenier | May 22, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
gbaikie | May 22, 2012 at 5:12 pm said: When was the warmest year in the US?
gbaikie, stop using that cheap trick!!! USA temp is NOT the GLOBAL temp.”
I didn’t suggest it was.
But since you bring up the topic, US temperatures are big influence on how global temperature is measured and are a significant factor. In similar way that any long and accurate temperature record is:
“The Central England Temperature (CET) record is notable because it is the single longest surface temperature record available, stretching from 1659 to present. ”
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/central-england-temperature/
“When was the warmest year or a warmest month in USA – simultaneously was COLDER than normal, some other place. ”
Obviously, temperature vary wildly on daily and seasonal timescale.
But US yearly temperature is a large area, and over duration of a year period.
And for example globally 1998 was warmer year and this is indicated as warmer year in US temperatures.
And clearly in satellite measurements:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Wagathon
Not when you are wearing cement galoshes
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
