What else is newt?
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by mwgrant
↧
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by mosomoso
PDO ramp up, eh? You mean the one before the early 1940s or the one after the late 1970s?
Really, warmies need to get on the job and make that HADSST a nice, straight, cool-blue hockey stick handle with a neatly upsweeping head, flaming red.
I dunno. Paris is just round the corner and you can’t get a simple hockey stick any more. The SST colour scheme is great…but the shape!
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by JCH
Lamar Smith has it all. Cal him.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Vaughan Pratt
opluso: <i>Centripetal Volcanism is a fascinating concept</i>
Thank you. (But it's centrifugal. Centripetal would be the force that prevents the magma escaping. Opposite, but only equal in equilibrium. Luckily your acronym still works.)
</i>worthy of its own CE post.</i>
Or even an AGU poster. San Francisco, December 17, morning (but the poster will remain up until 6 pm).
<i>particularly any correlation of CV to glacial periods </i>
That's like comparing UHF TV to AM radio. CV effects are on a fast half-century period, glacial periods are more than three orders of magnitude slower at around 100,000 years. Any such correlation would be like picking up KQEH Channel 54 on your AM receiver. There is no way volcanism of any origin could possibly usurp Milankovitch theory.
Besides which no one was around prior to the 17th century to measure LOD to within even a second. Moreover no one's found a way to extract LOD from the geologic record to an accuracy of better than a few minutes (thus far done only via Fourier analysis of tidalites).
A far better correlation is between LOD and AMO. In this theory (and it's only a theory) the AMO is the result of CV, which it fits extraordinarily well. In the Wyatt-Curry stadium wave theory the AMO acts as a clock but there is nothing remotely like precisely measured LOD that explains the AMO itself, either its frequency, phase, or amplitude.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Eric Ollivet
(1) My key message is not dealing with short term variations but with the fact that models are unable to reproduce the natural long term variability with a 60 years’ period, and more especially the 30 years (also to be considered as long term) cooling periods from 1880 to 1910 and from 1940 to 1970.
Indeed this inability is THE key issue that formally invalidates climate models. It means that the physics coded into the models is either incomplete or biased or even totally wrong.
(2) The driver for the 60 years’ natural variability is mainly PDO.
(3) Humlum et al 2012 have shown that temperature is driving CO2 and not the contrary…
(4) Averaging errors over long periods does not provide guaranty that models outputs are valid and reliable.
(5) A 65 years filtering removes long term natural fluctuations such as AMO and PDO but does not provide any demonstration that remaining warming is driven by CO2 and / or human emissions.
(6) Ice core data provide evidence of a quasi millennial oscillation with alternating warm and cool periods :
● Minoan Warm Period about 3 k-years ago
● Roman Warm Period about 2 k-years ago
● Dark (cool) Age about 1.5 k-year ago
● Medieval Warm Period from about early 10th to late 14th century
● Little Ice Age from about late 14th to mid 19th century.
The background warming trend of about +0.6°C per century as observed since the mid-19th century can be explained as the result of this natural millennial oscillation.
(7) Arrhenius equation is proven as wrong / incomplete as it does not account for :
● Carbon cycle by which Earth system is actually regulating CO2.
● Saturation of CO2 greenhouse effect by water vapor that is actually the main greenhouse gas, responsible for 90% of the total greenhouse effect.
↧
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort
All the data might be available, but we want to know why they did what they did with the data. Why did they decide to take the fork in the road that led to the hyped up pause killing BS, rather than going in some other direction, or standing still? Is it because they were following the procedures and methods of NOAA, or was it done to come up with the prescribed politically correct answer?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Harris
RE the APS Climate Change position statement I would like to draw attention to the fact that there was a significant change in the management structure in April which led to the resignation of the editor in chief Gene Sprouse. http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/updates/sprouse.cfm.
Then the draft that had been based on a critical forensic analysis of AR5 became a mundane acceptance of the “consensus”. It would be instructive to know who instigated the restructure and was this a “coup” prompted by a reward in funding or by some other means?
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Peter M Davies
+10. Clouds are right up there as a known unknown factor causing the negative feedbacks that has kept climate since the LIA within remarkably stable bounds. Its my guess that sudden climate shifts are caused by various combinations of forcings occurring at the same time but that individual forcings have only marginal impacts on their own.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort
Little yimmy is tossing out the ole stinky “rushed” red herring again. If the adjustments are freaking obvious and necessary, why did it take them 8 freaking years to do it? The answer is in the emails and in the honest testimony of the NOAA scientists.
The refusal to co-operate indicates, when all other stonewalling tactics fail, we are very likely to see hard drives getting struck by lightning, eaten by dogs and numerous invocations of the 5th amendment.
If this climate science stuff is so important to our kids’ survival, why do they want to hide stuff from us? It messes up their credibility. Is it because if the truth comes out, it will be much worse for them? Help us out, yimmy? What does huffpo say?
↧
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
yeah, pretty funny, but this is the circle jerk called post normal science. Every new adjustment just teases the uncertainty margins in the politically correct direction. If it were normal science we would be seeing averages of all products, uncertainty margins and less hype pre-conference. You might even see a scientist in the media say something like “I dunno” or “Good news, it isn’t as bad as we thought!” You just can lose that urgency momentum even with 40 million refugees wandering around thanks to bio-fuel demand increases in basic food stuffs.
.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by popesclimatetheory
Prince Charles has no clue about natural climate cycles. He is correct that the. misguided, alarmism has likely caused a lot of the problems or made them worse. He apparently believes that earth population must be reduced. Keeping much of the poor from having affordable, abundant, power will accomplish the genocide that he needs.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Eric Ollivet
Thanks Vaughan for your very constructive sarcasm.
Sorry to insist, but the hackneyed “authority argument” is totally irrelevant and inefficient.
I am not a climate a climate scientist but a “rocket engineer” in the first meaning of the term.
I mean I’ve been working for years as Technical Officer for the Ariane 5 launcher program, for both French and European Space Agencies.
With that scientific and technical background I have a good knowledge of :
1/ The difference between the engineering and the scientific methods :
A/ The engineering way :
Note : applicable to R&D programs as well as to applied science programs.
● Programmatic framework
● Responsible for the whole development and qualification / certification of a product or complex system.
● Under strict and formal Management, Quality and Technical Requirements, Rules and Standards
● Responsible for the project / program compliance with regard to the allocated budget.
● Responsible for the compliance of the system / product with technical, planning and cost requirements
● Responsible for the product / system Reliability and Safety
● Responsible for selling the product / system and all program’s outputs to the customer.
● Responsible for any consequence if something goes wrong, including critical consequences such as people deaths (even if Ariane 5 launcher is not a manned launcher, any anomaly occurring during ascent phase, before reaching the orbit, may have critical effect in case the launcher falls down over inhabited areas) or critical impacts.
B/ The scientific way :
Note : applicable to basic science and especially climate science.
● Basic purpose is the issuing and validation of new theories.
● No programmatic framework.
● No customer.
● No strict / formal procedures regarding the way of conducting scientific research (indeed there is no formalization of the “scientific method”)
● No strict / formal Management, Quality or Technical Requirements, Rules or Standards.
It is worth noticing that NASA has been the leader in the establishment of many Management, Quality and Design / Technical Specifications, Rules or Standards, including for models validation, which have been derived in many other countries or other scientific domains. But curiously, NASA-GISS has never deemed necessary to apply those Specifications, Rules and Standards to climate research…
● Sometimes perform Safety analyses but without any responsibility regarding their outputs…
● No responsibility regarding costs impacts of proposed solutions.
● No responsibility regarding consequences if something goes wrong.
2/ Data Analysis :
I especially know how to recognize data manipulation / falsification when I see it, which is exactly what NASA-GISS or CRU are doing with respectively LOTI and HADCRUT4 series, when “correcting” the surface stations’ data.
3/ Models ‘ development and validation processes:
I had the opportunity to attend a conference by some NASA veterans, about key lessons learned from the Agency’s failures. The N°1 key lesson, and one of NASA’s most famous leitmotivs is : “Test as you fly and fly as you test”.
The key implication of this rule in terms of modelling is that no model can be trusted and used before formal validation and rescaling on the basis of test experiences.
Most standards in that field have been established by NASA within the frame of Apollo and Shuttle development programs, but curiously, NASA-GISS has never applied those standard for validating its climate models.
And the inconvenient truth is that whatever smart climate modellers are, they have not the slightest skill and experience in model’s validation, that none of their nice climate models has ever been validated, and that none of them could ever pass any formal Verification and Validation process .
Indeed it looks like Climate scientists are not as clever as they think they are. They have many things to learn from the engineering method, but I ‘m afraid that too many of them are too narrow minded to be willing learning from engineers.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
TonyB,
I read half the BBC interview with Richard Tol. I thought the interviewer was absolutely disgraceful. he should be sacked. He interrupted all the way through pushing his own beliefs.
I am getting more an more concerned about where this new Green religion / Climate Cult / group think / herd mentality or whatever it is, is leading us. Is it a return to pre-Enlightenment? Is it the sort of rot that set in and brought down previous empires?.
↧
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by jddohio
Mosh, you and Karl have to put on your big boy pants. Pielke Sr. has pointed out that Karl suppressed research in the past. See https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/new-article-comments-on-%E2%80%98%E2%80%98observed-trends-in-indices-of-daily-temperature-extremes-in-south-america-1960%E2%80%932000%E2%80%99%E2%80%99-by-r-j-stone/ Additionally, James Hansen advocates the jailing of people who provide energy. If the warmists are going to suppress and imprison people, they have to accept that they will be investigated. Whether or not wrongdoing is suspected, Congress, and others, have the right to investigate. When warmists scientists get out of the business of advocating huge economic changes, they have the right to be mostly left alone. That is not the case now.
Additionally, Pielke Sr. noted one time that Karl peer-reviewed himself. There is no reason to give his work any presumption of validity. Pielke stated: “In fact, as stated above, the CCSP Report âTemperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differencesâ, with its documented bias, was chaired by the same person as the Review Editor of the IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 Report (Tom Karl)! Regardless of his professional expertise, he is still overseeing an assessment which is evaluating his own research. There cannot be a clearer conflict of interest.”
JD
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Steven Mosher
questions from honest people are fine.
sadly a bunch of people are fabricating crap about Karl’s science.
That maybe funny to you.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by opluso
VP:
I assume that shifting glacial masses would impact length of day, though perhaps not rapidly enough for what you are talking about. And while Milankovitch cycles would control (particularly landlocked ice) I was assuming your hypothesis included warming the oceans enough to raise SST and shift currents sufficient to increase melting rates for coastal ice.
Yet even if it isn’t enough to melt coastal glaciers, you could still get this published in a top tier journal if you estimate the warming in terms of hiroshima bomb equivalents.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Jim D
They are not hiding anything. The data is there. People can test what they said in the paper themselves. Some already have, as we see here. It’s the paper, not the people, that this is centered on, but Smith lost focus somewhere along the line and is just thrashing out.
↧
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by ordvic
“Steven M Mosher, born in Grand Rapids Michigan”.
https://www.bookdepository.com/Climategate-Steven-Mosher/9781450512435
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by jim2
Is someone cal’ed by Jerry Brown with his Pixie Stick when they donate to
“green” energy? Kinda like being knighted?
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by jddohio
Here is link for second quote, which was left out. https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-i/
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
