Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Vaughan Pratt

November 24, 2015, 11:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Peter M Davies

$

0

0

@MF: Do you you mean the speed of rotation of the Earth about its axis, or the angular velocity of the Earth as it orbits the Sun?

The former. Earth’s spin is what defines its length of day, typically given as the excess in milliseconds over 86,400 seconds.

Can you give a reference showing either of these was at a minimum in 1910?

https://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html

The longest day ever in Earth’s recorded history (averaged over a year) was in 1912 and lasted 86400.00389 seconds. An even longer day could happen in this century though it’s not guaranteed.

---

Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Steven Mosher

November 24, 2015, 11:27 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by matthewrmarler

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Vaughan Pratt

$

0

0

AK

very simply. if it were a random fluctuation, nothing could prevent it from
being below absolute zero.

A series that was purely a random fluctuation could end up at -100 K
but the physical temperature of the earth could not.

while a portion of the record may LOOK like a random fluctuation we know that the process driving temperature is not a random fluctuation.

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by matthewrmarler

November 27, 2015, 10:42 am

≫ Next: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

curryja: I agreed that the revised red box is probably a realistic representation of ‘likely’ climate change out to 2035

Would you put more “personal probability” in the upper half of the red box, or the lower half of the red box?

Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Jim D

November 27, 2015, 10:49 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by ossqss

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by matthewrmarler

$

0

0

Point (4) is wrong because downward radiative flux is independent from upward radiative flux, and both transfer energy because they consist of photons. Photons just transfer energy whether you like it or not. That’s all they do. The ground is also very efficient at absorbing thermal photons, probably over 90% because its emissivity is in that range.

Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by ossqss

November 27, 2015, 10:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Arch Stanton

≪ Previous: Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Jim D

$

0

0

I can think of one Rud. The general greening of semi-arid land areas over the last few decades.

There, that’s is a start :-)

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Arch Stanton

November 27, 2015, 10:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Bart Verheggen

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by ossqss

$

0

0

“Unless”

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Bart Verheggen

November 27, 2015, 10:52 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Turbulent Eddie

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Arch Stanton

$

0

0

I was moderately positive about Judith Curry’s initial reflections on the climate debate in the beginning of 2010: https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/judith-curry-on-climate-science-introspection-or-circling-the-wagons/
But since then she started to base her arguments more and more on unfounded accusations and poor reasoning. My opinion changed as a result: https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/judith-curry-building-bridges-burning-bridges/

She wasn’t tossed out of anything. She moved away from mainstream science all by herself via the abovementioned behavior.

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Turbulent Eddie

November 27, 2015, 10:56 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by Turbulent Eddie

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Bart Verheggen

$

0

0

<i>how can we sustain an even larger planetary energy imbalance than today without the surface warming?</i> As it turns out, warming aloft is more effective than warming the surface for reversing imposed radiative forcing at the tropopause. I'll have the model runs available sometime soon if you're interested. Now, warming the upper troposphere without warming the lower troposphere is very much <i>possible</i> but I don't think it's very <i>probable</i>. Indeed, the opposite appears to have happened - more warming at the surface than aloft. But it is possible.

---

Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by Turbulent Eddie

November 27, 2015, 11:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by ossqss

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Turbulent Eddie

$

0

0

Since the US is among the growing number of nations with falling CO2 emissions, candidate or even presidential opinions are silly.

Of course, the excitable will continue – “They’ve got to fall faster”, and perhaps “They’ve got to go to zero”.

Well, they don’t.

Real educated candidates would be aware of present demographics and not get excited about meaningless melodramas.

Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by ossqss

November 27, 2015, 11:08 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by Mark Silbert

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by Turbulent Eddie

$

0

0

Surprising article from Hansen, but it was difficult to read past this quote…..

“In other words, the West burned most of the world’s allowable carbon budget.”

Allowable by who? Hansen, by virtue of his referenced citations patting himself on the back?

Passionate, yet myopic.

Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by Mark Silbert

November 27, 2015, 11:09 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Pierre-Normand Houle

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by ossqss

$

0

0

Interesting is one way to put it! Not only does he over simplify the science, but he also obviously doesn’t know much about politics.

Looks like Obama and cohorts are heading down a path that almost everyone dislikes, pretty much independent of views on the “science”.

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Pierre-Normand Houle

November 27, 2015, 11:09 am

≫ Next: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by kenfritsch

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by Mark Silbert

$

0

0

It is also consistent with the Holocene Optimum being warmer than the following 6 to 8 millennia that sea levels would have long continued rising albeit at a diminishing pace. That’s because the ice-sheets will not have been immediately equilibrated when the maximum Milankovitch forcing was attained. Likewise, regionally and seasonally, snow cover always reach a maximum some time (about a month?) after the winter solstice and not together with it. The Laurentides, Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets have much more inertia just because they as much thicker than seasonal snow cover (or sea ice).

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by kenfritsch

November 27, 2015, 11:09 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Pierre-Normand Houle

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Pierre-Normand Houle

$

0

0

I now have the annual data that matches that shown by Hausfather in graph of ERSST v4 in the introduction of this thread. I now duplicate the trend reported in Karl (2015) for the period 2000-2014. I should have used Geert’s KNMI conversion from monthly to annual from the start.

The best fitting arma model was ARMA(1,1) with ar1=0.181, ma1=0.484 and with a white noise standard deviation of 0.0683. Using a Monte Carlo approach with this model and 10,000 simulations I obtained the following probabilities and trends in degrees C per decade:

1% =-0.065; 2.5%=-0.038; 5%=-0.017; 10%=0.008; 50%=0.097; 90%=0.184; 95%=0.211; 97.5%=0.233; 99%=0.258

From this and using a 2 sided hypothesis test that the trend for this period using the ERSST v4 mean global series is greater than 0 is not significant at the 90% level and barely so at the 80% level. Please recall that this uncertainty is only part (though a major part) of that reported by Karl as total uncertainty.

If I can do other trend period analysis in a timely fashion I’ll report the results in a comment to this thread. I would dearly like to get hold of the data that compared the co-located ship and buoy data and estimate the uncertainty that correlation carries into the ERSST v4 final data.

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Pierre-Normand Houle

November 27, 2015, 11:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by D Hernz (@sketchstrike)

≪ Previous: Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by kenfritsch

$

0

0

(cont) …and likewise with snow cover minimum and summer solstice, which is the tighter analogy in this case.

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by D Hernz (@sketchstrike)

November 27, 2015, 11:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by timg56

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Pierre-Normand Houle

$

0

0

We who are not scientists, but who have a capacity for logical independent reason, could always see this scam for the reason mentioned in this article. The governments with their money to dispense, surround themselves with “scientists” who beg at the table for grants. All the “scientist” has to do is fall in line, repeat what is desired to be heard, and money is granted. It’s quite the obvious corruption.

A “scientific” finding that creates new “scientific” policy which doesn’t merely allow but compels the government to act to “save the world.” And what an interesting coincidence, the method of saving the world means the government will have to confiscate more wealth, create more regulation, control more of life, and grow more in size. This means more jobs for the government, more prestige for the government class.

What a wonderful coincidence that a “scientific” finding means that both the government who feeds the “scientist” and the “scientist” who grants credibility to the government, both benefit from agreeing with one another that the people must be fleeced.

---

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by timg56

November 27, 2015, 11:21 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by D Hernz (@sketchstrike)

$

0

0

Jim D,

Do you attend Mass regularly? I don’t propose to speak on what is on the Pope’s mind, but it is fairly clear to Catholics that the Holy Father is focused on improving the quality of life of the poorest of God’s children. The recent encyclic made that clear. It should also be obvious that Pope Francis has little to none in the way of science background or understanding. He deferred to advisors. All one need do is look at who those were. What is surprising to me is that he failed to notice that many of those he sought advice from also believe in the concept of the earth having limited carrying capacity. In other words a belief directly contrary to church doctrine.

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by climatereason

November 27, 2015, 11:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by timg56

$

0

0

Very tall guy

Those with an inquiring scientific mind, like yourself, will no doubt be musing that the global average temperature was obviously a very blunt tool and would be wondering how many other data sets are, like CET, also showing cooling.

Tonyb

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by climatereason

November 27, 2015, 11:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by timg56

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by climatereason

$

0

0

Bart

What would it take for you to accept Judith back into the fold? A repudiation of the uncertainty monster perhaps? A move back into the mainstream consensus?

Tonyb

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by timg56

November 27, 2015, 11:28 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by D Hernz (@sketchstrike)

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by climatereason

$

0

0

Why wade through that muck pit? Miriam O’Brian should be ignored. Fitting reward for a bitter and nasty person.

Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by D Hernz (@sketchstrike)

November 27, 2015, 11:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by timg56

$

0

0

Unfortunately there is no way to reasonably discuss this issue on a Presidential stage. The only reason for the issue is to bash Republicans over the head like a blunt instrument. Better luck having a Presidential discussion about Unifying Theory as “climate science.”

And why even bother discussing the climate at all? It’s only there as a political weapon, not a true scientific question. Even if it were not entirely political, what would be the point. Let’s pretend the Democrats wanted to have an actual intellectual conversation on climate science. Exactly what would comprise that conversation? That there should be some more awareness given? That there should be more honest research done?

The climate is NOT a real issue. Which is hard to hear when you are steeped in its study as a true scientist. Every researcher believes their calling is essential and important. What gives climate science a greater spotlight than cancer research, endemic poverty, or any number of other real and immediate woes? The only thing that gives it weight is the apocalyptic scare tactic of “what if.” By that right we should be discussing planetary defense against meteor strikes and sun storms.