Is his ignorance willful, or tortured?
============
Comment on Climate closure (?) by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by BallBounces
Why do you assume the consequences must be adverse?
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by kim
A victim of exaggerated dangers and unnecessary guilt. Our liberation of this tiny aliquot of fossilized carbon can only have long term benefits. It is a perpetual task to attempt to demonize our use of fossil fuels, and our release of the monumentally marvelous compound, CO2.
================
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Lou maytrees
C’Reason – you made a US cooling claim based solely on a single high anomaly (not the 10yr moving) in 2000, while ignoring the even much higher single anomaly of 2014 b/c BEST did not include it in the 10yr moving? The BEST graph still shows an almost +1*C increase over the 2000 anomaly. And your UK chart is simply of a small area in Central England, not even closely inclusive of all GB, so it suggests absolutely nothing about all of the UK.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by catweazle666
“The scientific debate is now over; the moment of closure has arrived. – Shaun Lovejoy””
From Roger Harrabin, BBC climate correspondent, May 2010:
I remember Lord May leaning over and assuring me: “I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over.”
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by JCH
Every morning I update my Milankovitch cycle chart. The anticipation for this, the most exciting part of my day, is palpable. Watching its progress is so rewarding.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by HAS
Hi Shaun
If you need it Frank et al have deposited their data at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/frank2010/frank2010.html.
Have you deposited yours somewhere?
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by opluso
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by AK
<blockquote>Every morning I update my Milankovitch cycle chart.</blockquote>It's been <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.334.4175&rep=rep1&type=pdf" rel="nofollow">suggested</a> that the relationship between Milankovitch cycles and glaciation is <a href="http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/milankovitchqsr2004.pdf" rel="nofollow">just an exercise in curve-fitting</a>.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by kim
Nothing between AnthroCO2 and Milankovitch.
Chart, chart, on the wall,
Who’s the most ignorant of them all?
===========
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by JCH
If you have a mirror on your wall, then you’ve got ignorance framed.
ONI – up
SLR – accelerating
GMST – spiking
PDO – strongly positive
SOI – persistently negative
AMO – spiking upward
SST – spiking upwards
ICE – melting
kooling poetry – dumb as ever
but but but – at a frantic pace
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by AK
<blockquote>Nothing between AnthroCO2 and Milankovitch.</blockquote>According to <a href="http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/continuum_nature2006.pdf" rel="nofollow">Huybers & William Curry</a> (2006):<blockquote>Here we show that power-law relationships of surface temperature variability scale with annual and Milankovitch-period (23,000- and 41,000-year) cycles. The annual cycle corresponds to scaling at monthly to decadal periods, while millennial and longer periods are tied to the Milankovitch cycles. Thus the annual, Milankovitch and continuum temperature variability together represent the response to deterministic insolation forcing. The identification of a deterministic control on the continuum provides insight into the mechanisms governing interannual and longer-period climate variability.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote> Possibly, the climate system has a memory associated with the oceans that causes high-frequency variability to accumulate into progressively larger and longer-period variations[23], and a Milankovitch-driven low-frequency response that transfers spectral energy toward higher frequencies, possibly involving nonlinear ice-sheet dynamics. These low- and high-frequency temperature responses appear to be of nearly equal magnitude at centennial timescales, midway in log-frequency space between the annual and Milankovitch bands. Interannual temperature variability may also follow different power laws during glacial and interglacial periods, but assessment of this further possibility awaits a global set of high-resolution glacial climate records.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by richard verney
Don’t forget that in the satellite data there are two pauses of about 17 years duration when there has been no statistically significant warming.
The first pause was that on going as from launch in 1979 through to the run up to the Super El Nino of 1997/8. ie., a period of about 17 years.
The second pause is the current pause (ie., that following the Super El Nino of 1997/8) and which is now causing concern to those proffering the AGW conjecture.
Whilst no detail is given of the models that allegedly predict (project) a pause of about 15 years duration, and in particular at what level of CO2, how many of these models predicted (projected) not one pause but rather two pauses, each of more than 15 years duration, closely following on from one another?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Curious George
Estimates to a 5-digit accuracy. Remarkable! Do you trust them?
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Curious George
Kim – do you compete or cooperate with Mosh?
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by omanuel
Is crowd funding a viable way to get truth to the public?
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/pondering-a-funding-campaign/
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by popesclimatetheory
It suggests that natural variability is greater than some realize.
Natural Variability takes care of 97%.
I just made that up,
Natural Variability is more likely 99.97%
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by verdeviewer
Is a supporter of RICO statutes that Hayek would probably consider illegal really a "classic Hayekian socialist?"
"Hayekian Socialism" was the intentionally-provocative title of <a href="http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2213&context=journal_articles" rel="nofollow">a 1999 essay by Charles Epstein</a>. Referring to it as a philosophy to which adherents can be "classic" sounds like a progressivist perversion.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Pierre-Normand Houle
“Thermally expanded water displaces at all depths and it IS counted in GMSL.”
Gymnosperm, note that JCH was mentioning GMST — global mean surface temperature — not global mean sea level.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by omanuel
Another blogger is considering the possibility of crowd funding to get the truth to the public: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/pondering-a-funding-campaign/#comment-64939
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
