Comments for Climate Etc.

Monk’s enigma probably should read Munk’s engma. Scripps is not, AFAIK, a religious order. ;)

Plankton respiration is a myth.

Deny you have a war on somebody’s primary asset while seeking their vote.
Undermine its value from behind the scenes once elected.
Come clean on the war when the end is near.
Buy the asset while telling others to sell it.
Offer the affected people 30B dollars and hope they will vote for you.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/12/clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/

Will it work ?

Cajones

Precedes the melting by 100k years, or follows it by a few?

Actually, in our JRG paper on UHI we reran homogenization using only rural stations to homogenize, for four different definitions of urbanity. Wasn’t too hard to do, and it helped us demonstrate that the adjustments weren’t “spreading” urban warming to rural stations. That said, we could use the whole co-op network for that purpose; might be a bit harder with only 400 or so HCN stations as you would probably miss some issues.

Regarding the Watts paper, it will be interesting to look at his results in more depth when the data is available. Until then it would be premature to speculate.

A lot of people are going to be upset when they learn the millihair scale doesn’t exist.

Warmista version: A meme is a terrible thing to waste.

gymno: you are reading the time scale backwards

edbarbar,

Of course, the silly Warmists have forgotten that in the real world, an experiment is an experiment. In the Warmist World of Denial, an experiment consists of running a computer program which is written to produce a predetermined outcome, as you point out.

To make really, really, sure that you get the right answer, you generate numbers relating to non existent entities that you make up. That way, no one can dispute your meaningless answers.

In this case, Transient Climate Response, and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity are the supposed quantities.

However, as climate is defined as the average of weather, both TCR and ECS are complete nonsense. No meaning at all. I am not surprised that politicians and Warmist Watermelons get taken in.

Cheers.

Thanks Zeke, I’m glad to hear someone already thought of doing that. It will be nice to see if it can be done again with this new set of “unperturbed” stations from Watts et al. 2015.

JCH: Interesting. I missed the first paper and the classic WUWT choke on it.
Full papers:
The impact of equilibrating hemispheric albedos on tropical performance
in the HadGEM2-ES coupled climate model.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066903/pdf

The albedo of Earth
http://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/albedo2015.pdf

[…] http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/16/the-new-climate-deniers/ […]

That’s what NOAA thinks. It isn’t so. Of the 410 unperturbed stations, the trends of the 318 poorly sited stations averaged over 50% higher than the well sited. Adjusted was worse.

You would be right if the offset of the heat sink was the same at the start of the series as at the end. But there is a delta. Therefore, the poorly sited unperturbed stations trends are increased, anomalized or not, and the trend is invalid.

Therefore the anomaly method can’t and won’t work.

The article on elite scientists holding back science mentioned a male favoured bias in science hiring, yet recent results suggest that it may be the opposite. That there is a 2:1 hiring advantage for women in STEM. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

“One thing that skeptics dont get is that ALL RECORDS HAVE ERRORS.”. Behind this perverse comment lies Mosh’s perverse belief that “skeptics” of any hypothesis have a duty to provide a successful counter-hypothesis. To do so, he supposes, they must employ some kind of temperature record. Said record will have flaws, so the skeptic’s hypothesis will be no better than the one he is challenging.

One day he’ll grasp the concept of disconfirmation, but until then…

One thing that has surprised me in the climate debates is how many and how strongly a lot of warmists will cling to their pro renewables and anti nuclear position. They seem immune to arithmetic and logic. When I first ran across Jacobson's <i>Scientific American</i> study, I just dismissed him as a vapid crackpot. Now that I've read a little more about him, I suspect that he may be offering his fans an air of respectability, where others like Amory Lovins might seem a bit fringy.

…I meant, for the subset of the “unperturbed” stations that are deemed by them to be well-sited.

With respect to the Marvel et al. paper, I’ve discussed the implications of distribution of radiative forcing in the comments of ATTP’s blog. https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/forcing-efficacy/

I argue that while distribution of radiative forcing may cause an underestimate of instrumental ECS estimates, it causes an overestimate of paleoclimate ECS estimates. Thus, a lot of the so called discrepancy between instrumental and paleoclimate estimates is due to not taking radiative forcing distribution into account (a second major reason is the differences in definitions of ECS, with the paleoclimate definitions generally having a longer timescale than instrumental definitions).

Man needs insight into logic and scientific method to avoid being misled by scientists who don´t.
-Science or Fiction?

Latest Images