The weasels weaseled out of their promises by rationalizing. Weasels is what weasels does… depends on what the definition of “is” is. Mosher knows the drill.
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer
Mosher you’re a scumbag and Watts doesn’t trust you. Deal with it.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer
“Schitz, closing your mind to expertise merely condemns you to ignorance.”
You should know after living in said condemnation for so long now.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Brian G Valentine
This whole concept does not give the flavor of the story of Redemption of the troubled and doubting Skeptic, Richard Muller, who, witnessing the downward spiral of possible doubters into the abyss of Denial, came to see the One Truth and a hero to all of those who live by the faith
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by JCH
It’s behind a pay wall.
http://mashable.com/2015/04/09/rapid-global-warming/#QBRUe5stCSqI“>The results suggest that when a cycle known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, switches to a “positive mode,” the world will see faster temperature increases than it has since about 1999. The PDO, as it happens, has just switched into strongly positive territory.
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by schitzree
Ok tall, since you apparently need it, here’s your second hint.
Many suspect that all the adjustments and homogenization of the temp records is adding a spurious warming trend, or at least make it larger. Anthony’s work tries to check this out by looking at just the stations that have never had station moves, changes in observation times, or anything else that would require their data to be adjusted. And apparently they found a significant difference compared to the official adjusted data.
Now Double V comes along and says that we don’t know FOR SURE that those stations or really good. Yes, the meta data says their good, and the people Anthony talked to say their good, but he can imagine some really unlikely situations were they might not be. So what Victor thinks Anthony et al need to do with this is… wait for it…
HOMOGENIZE IT!
That’s right, the very same process they just effectively proved is causing greater warming in the adjusted data. And what would you have to adjust the good station with if you homogenized them? Why, the bad stations that needed all the adjustments in the first place, of course.
So, do I need to give you any more hints? Or do you think you can figure the rest out on your own.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by ordvic
What will be done about all of this? Probably nothing. Wood for Trees would have to start all over.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
This is what Mosher said at the end of his stint as a WUWT hero:
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Latimer Alder (@latimeralder)
So in layman’s terms the ‘professional climos’ corrupted the good data to make it match the bad data.
They aren’t supposed to do that.
Is ‘intellectual integrity’ a phrase any climo would recognise or understand?
Or is the shysterism of Climategate still rife in this shoddy apology for a ‘science’?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate models versus climate reality by stevepostrel
You do not want to just pick the models that best fit your favored observed temperature series because the correlation could well be spurious, particularly if there is conscious or subconscious tweaking of assumptions to generate fits after the data have been seen. Even without tweaking, the one that fit past data best is not very likely to fit future data as well if, say, it was a good predictor when one of the natural cycles was in one phase but is a poor predictor now that that cycle is in a different phase.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by verytallguy
Schitz,
yes, I understand the issues. You would understand them much better if you respected the views of those, like Victor, who have deep expertise.
Your perfunctory dismissal of them, whilst protectively insulating your worldview, prevents you from developing anything beyond a knee-jerk, caps on denial of the issues a genuine expert, very respectfully pointed out.
If you wish to be truly sceptical, you need to consider expertise that disagrees with you. Otherwise, it’s just denial.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by talldave2
NOAA released only what was nonresponsive to the inquiry into what role motivated reasoning and political bias may have played in the adjustments, questions that are totally reasonable given <a href="http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/GISS1982_2002_2014_20152.gif" rel="nofollow">graphs like this</a> and <a href="http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif" rel="nofollow">this</a> even before the Watts study.
The taxpayers paid for the scientists as well as the nonscientists. No oversight? Fine, no funding. Shut NOAA down until they comply.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
1. The Arctic was warmer during the Eemian and it didn’t all melt away.
2. The resulting slowing of the earth from accelerating melt and rising seas isn’t happening. In fact the rate of slowing is decreasing. The conspiracy sites have a hollow earth theory and if the Greenland melt water is magically falling into the earth this would explain the Greenland melting with no obvious effect. But that seems to be a stretch and there are no scientific studies to confirm it.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
Mike: I don’t know whom you are arguing with, but you should wipe the spit from your mouth before you go out to the Waffle House for supper.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David L. Hagen
By “sustainable” I am referring to solar, nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, or Low energy nuclear reactions. Trillion tons is helpful but still finite. Any economics? That requires air liquifaction and losses of steam down hole. Sounds more expensive than Canadian “oil sands” which needs ~3 bbl steam/bbl bitumen.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
Don’t forget wind-blown Saharan dust, a major source of carbon pollution.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
Why don’t we agree to a Holiday truce this year, yimmy? We won’t laugh at you for a few days, if you stop the incessant carpet bombing for at least Christmas day.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
I like your description – “invest in coal communities”. Destroy the value of stock, then buy cheap, and call it “investing” – in communities, of course, not in mines. It is too soon to declare benefits of carbon dioxide.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
The last long icy phase was prior to 250 My ago in the Permian, also low in forcing.
Once the carboniferous era land masses linked up with a large mass at the south pole the ice age took off.
Cutting off east/west circulation up to almost the north pole seems to be important from a climate standpoint. Before the land masses linked up things were just peachy.
After the land masses linked up the ice age started.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by catweazle666
“That requires air liquifaction and losses of steam down hole.”
Whereas conventional coal mining (not open-cast to the same extent) requires considerable energy input and is highly labour intensive – to say nothing about extremely hazardous to the life and health of the miners.
Worth mentioning also that the output of the liquefaction contains a fair proportion of syngas, feedstock for the good old Fischer-Tropsch process so beloved of ageing chemical engineers.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
