re: Ocean acidification means jellyfishification
“Ocean acidification may well be helping invasive species of algae, jellyfish, crabs and shellfish to move to new areas of the planet with damaging consequences”
maybe but it can’t be blamed on fossil fuel emissions
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669930
PA, you can read the Realclimate critique and say what specifically you don’t like about it, or, more likely, not.
David – this is the sort of field he means.
Obama and Chairman of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff: “The most serious security problem facing the US and the world is man-made global warming”.
Al Gore: “I’m out of here”.
Delegates to Paris Climate Summit after today: “Cancel my reservation.”
I wonder if Al Gore would have cancelled his climate cavalcade of elites planning wealth seizure if the temps were 2 degrees above normal. I mean that’s a real security concern.
Presumably Zwally hope was to confirm the GRACE data with an independant data source. This hasnt happened so the natural response is to try to resolve this difference. You could just trash the Zwally work but as MM says non of the methodologies are without uncertain assumptions. The correct scientific response seems to be to accept greater uncertainty with respect to Antarctic mass change. After all if Zwally’s data had confirmed the GRACE work that would have add strength to the conclusions.
“Artificial trees.”
More drivel.
What would the perfect artificial tree look like?
It would build itself, feed itself by EFFICIENTLY drawing nutrients and energy from the air, ground and rainfall without any human intervention, and replace itself by exponential self-reproduction in the same manner as living organisms can, honing it’s abilities to successfully adapt to changing environmental conditions over many hundreds of millions of years.
In other words, a goddam tree.
Where do they get these people from?
Judith,
Thank you very much for this. You’ve saved me making an argument over something I was wrong on.
Can you tell me where WG3 says it used ECS=3.0?
Naw. Make a thermal model of the various sorts of sensors and bake that into the code.
It’s grows from artificial seeds enabled by artificial bees.
This is old but interesting – been looking for data on thermalization of IR by CO2. All I can find so far are a couple of russian papers which describe theoretical and experimental kinetic *cooling* of gases containing CO2 when excited by a CO2 laser. Hard to get full papers because they are old. The preview has the gist of it.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00892963?no-access=true#page-1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00906254?no-access=true
Found a full paper on kinetic cooling by similar authors http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_046_03_0459.pdf
A US one on kinetic cooling, 1972
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/765520.pdf
It has been strange but no slip.
Even their uniforms have become green.
Bah. Conspiracy ideation. ;)
Jim D: , did the violinmaking prediction help to make you feel better about the future?
I had already read the scientific claims. The violinmaking was worth a chuckle.
Back to your comment about dismay: which of the articles was supposed to cause dismay in skeptics?
Steven Mosher | November 13, 2015 at 5:34 pm |
We note that the correlation in the limit of zero distance, 𝑅 0 = 0.874, has a natural and important physical interpretation. It is an estimate of the correlation that one expects to see between two typical weather stations placed at the same location.
Thanks, Mosh. I’ve heard you make this claim before, but I fear that I simply don’t understand why two stations next to each other would happen to have a most exact correlation of 0.874 with each other.
Not only that, but your claim is in total opposition to the results of Hansen and Lebedeff. See the graphic at http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hansen-distance-vs-correlation.jpg
As you can see, the correlation both varies widely, and with decreasing distance between stations it also generally approaches 1.0, not 0.874.
So … a link to the basis for your claims would be good, as well as an explanation of just how Hansen and Lebedeff got such a different answer from yours.
Regards and thanks,
w.
‘deadly’ appears neither in the headline or the text of the linked article.
Also I think you have crossed articles Arch.
Do Earthoids Dream of Electric Trees?
=============
The galleys turn the ores to yield
Tho’ lollipoppies grow in Flanders Fields.
=============
Jim D: This is a case where the skeptics have chosen to unquestionably believe a study based on the bottom line, but not on the methods used being superior in any way, which they are far from.
Maybe. Which of the Antarctic data sets do you think are non shaky?
Who has chosen to believe it unquestionably? (do you mean “unquestioningly”?) I think what we have is a ream or so of paper that on the whole does not support the idea that the Antarctic is losing mass. Exactly how much it might be gaining is hard to tell.
