Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Mike Flynn

November 18, 2015, 12:52 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on 400(?) years of warming by stevepostrel

$

0

0

Vaughan Pratt,

Still no correction based on fact? Maybe you are one of those people who blindly believe any sort of rubbish published in a “peer reviewed” journal.

Guess what, Vaughan. Not all is as it seems.

I suppose you would be far too clever to believe any of the computer generated gibberish papers accepted for publication by Springer or IEEE.

Or – (2014) –

“Finally, in the last few weeks of the year, Elsevier retracted 16 papers by one researcher after it became clear that fake peer reviews were behind the acceptances of Khalid Zaman’s papers.” Just one of many, unfortunately.

Facts are facts. Nonsense is nonsense. CO2 is plant food. It warms nothing. Never has, never will. Cold waves do not propagate down from the surface seeking the warmer depths.

So fire away. Unleash your “quantitative physics”. Ordinary physics, based on theory confirmed by experiment, suits me.

Cheers.

---

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by beththeserf

November 18, 2015, 1:28 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

Energy fer when the sun don’t shine and the wind
don’t blow. Here’s some Policy insanity…

http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.kOxp9nSL.1IhWlDcS.dpbs

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by PA

November 19, 2015, 10:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by nickels

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by beththeserf

$

0

0

Chart for previous post plotted from CDIAC/ESRL that demonstrates the start of atmospheric CO2 saturation.

Post 1959 cumulative emissions in GT plotted against CO2 level in PPM

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by nickels

November 19, 2015, 10:55 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by PA

$

0

0

sorry you don’t approve keitho. I’m make sure I run every comment of mine past you before I post it. What’s an email I can use?
hahahahaha

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by JCH

November 19, 2015, 10:55 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by ordvic

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by nickels

$

0

0

Ordvic, this is BS, <a href="http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2007/to:2015/plot/uah/from:2007/to:2015/plot/uah/from:2007/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2007/to:2015/trend" rel="nofollow">but did you intend to use the land grand for UAH?</a>

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by ordvic

November 19, 2015, 10:56 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by JCH

$

0

0

The current predicted and observed size makes this the SMALLEST sunspot cycle since Cycle 14, which had a maximum smoothed sunspot number V2.0 of 107.2 in February of 1906.

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

November 19, 2015, 10:58 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by ordvic

$

0

0

Stephen Segrest: Most of the most vocal here at C.E. just come here to fight and “frame” everything as CAGW.

I think that you are wrong about that, but a lot of examples with exact and complete quotes might support your case. The “C” only comes into play when writers urge urgently for urgent measures in order to avoid catastrophe.

About these two, hardly anyone disagrees: Renewable Energy decisions based on sound engineering economics; Energy Efficiency, especially how engineering giant ABB discusses this — e.g., coal super critical units. Is anyone in the Obama administration supporting those? They for sure are not getting a big push in California.

Jon Huntsman has been superceded by TPP.

And lastly, why terrestrial sequestration [of CO2] unless CO2 is expected to have catastrophic consequences; that’s the way you are “framing” it.

Hardly anyone opposes R&D in principle; the debate is over which and how much. In California, to take one case, tax credits are a boon to the wealthy, the cost being born by everyone else.

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

November 19, 2015, 10:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by ordvic

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

$

0

0

Stephen Segrest, did you leave nuclear power off the list on purpose?

---

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by ordvic

November 19, 2015, 11:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

$

0

0

That wasn’t my point. I said; “While I don’t believe in a pause per se (just a lower 60 year trend line),”

There was a crash from the peak in 1998-1999 period after the El Nino blew off:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:1999/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:1999/trend

The next upward step may not take place if SI doesn’t cooperate!

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

November 19, 2015, 11:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by ordvic

$

0

0

JCH: Unlike TE, I accept Wunsch found net cooling.

And it makes no difference anyway.

Why does it make no difference when prominent warmers have asserted that the deep ocean must be warming?

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by JCH

November 19, 2015, 11:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

$

0

0

<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1970/scale:0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:20/mean:40/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1970/mean:20/mean:40" rel="nofollow">This graph shows some of the same things:</a> 1. flat after 2005. This was caused by anomalously high winds that resulted in a very cool Eastern Pacific from the equator (La Nina dominance; complete absence of El Nino) to the waters off Alaska (actual negative PDO index numbers). Will the Kimikamikaze wind come back, and when? Nobody knows. Held has an interesting post about it. In past the GMST has gone up sharply when the PDO is strongly positive, which it now is. Why do you think La Nina is going to continue the pause? We have the highest monthly anomaly in the instrument record with a napping sun, so I doubt you are going to get much help from a somewhat sleepier sun.

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

November 19, 2015, 11:08 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by bobdroege

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by JCH

$

0

0

JCH: <i>The bank balance has progressively gone down, at which time the bankrupt argues except where it went up. Hilarious. </i> You are asserting what has yet to be supported by evidence. "Where it has been cooling and by how much" are evidence against the "bankruptcy" that you are asserting. <i> The skin layer; where believers in the skeptic religion deny miracles. </i> What does that mean?

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by bobdroege

November 19, 2015, 11:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by scotts4sf

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by matthewrmarler

$

0

0

Us alarmists are trying to get the world to stop burning them so that you will have the feedstock for your precious nylons.

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by scotts4sf

November 19, 2015, 11:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by bobdroege

$

0

0

tonyb
I am the one that is sorry. I love it when you use British irony or sarcasm, just too naïve to recognize it on a scan through comments. Most times the best response to jimd is to laugh. I admire your patience and ability to engage in discussions with trolls on the blog. You are one to take seriously so when you say something I try to respond. But I am happy to see the irony, sarcasm and humor.
Scott

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by Don Monfort

November 19, 2015, 11:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by scotts4sf

$

0

0

We know you little game, stephy. You trot out Huntsman and Rapier as alleged conservatives and we are supposed to fawn and fall in line. Your framing is lame and ludicrous. Try something else.

---

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by JCH

November 19, 2015, 11:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by -1=e^iπ

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by Don Monfort

$

0

0

I don’t know who you mean? There was a paper that said there was abyssal warming. A small amount. later there was a paper that said their wasn’t.

Trenberth was talking about layers that are moved around with and interact with ENSO, and in general, the abyssal ocean does not interact with ENSO. Certainly nothing like 0-500 meters.

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by -1=e^iπ

November 19, 2015, 11:16 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by Dan B

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by JCH

$

0

0

Thank you.

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by Dan B

November 19, 2015, 11:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by ordvic

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by -1=e^iπ

$

0

0

Ms Curry,
Citing an editorial from a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper as though it represents fact does not advance your claim of independence. Rather, it shows your bias.

I have recently been in discussions with economists about the Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 “the population bomb”. The general view among economists is that not one of his predictions came to pass. This was a group of rather non-ideological economists, and in their view, the rate at which we run out of natural resources doesn’t matter, because the economy and technology will find a way to adapt to minimize the impact.
But if the rate does not matter, then surely accelerating the rate also does not matter either, right?

You focus on scare tactics of the left, but then cite pure scare tactics from the right about a 1% reduction in GDP from curbing co2. Of course, regardless of the claims of the fanatical ideologues of WJS, nothing of the sort is going to happen. Profit motive will rush to fill the energy demand with many new technologies.

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by ordvic

November 19, 2015, 11:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by Turbulent Eddie

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by Dan B

$

0

0

“We have the highest monthly anomaly in the instrument record with a napping sun, so I doubt you are going to get much help from a somewhat sleepier sun.”

We just had a double peak in the solar cycle to go with the El Nino.

Don’t discount the sun!

paraphrasing Vaughan Pratt paraphrasing some previous blogger on another site:
“it’s the sun stupid!”

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by Turbulent Eddie

November 19, 2015, 11:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by scotts4sf

≪ Previous: Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by ordvic

$

0

0

because of the increase in ACO2, inhibiting the release of heat from the oceans.

You may want to check with the IPCC about that – they say surface net radiance decreases for most of the oceans with 2xCO2: