Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

$
0
0

So here we are, still focussed on the UN-generated mythical powers of allegedly human-generated CO2. In a few instances, there have been passing nods to other UN-generated allegedly “dangerous” elements in our atmosphere, just for good measure – if not to keep those UN spawned and dedicated bodies spinning, ad infinitum in the background.

Meanwhile back on the UN-ranch, still somewhat quietly riding to the forefront, via the new, improved 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s for short) – of which “climate action” gets one solitary mention at No. 13** – is yet another UN-generated organization. Quelle surprise, eh?!

[** See: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2015/09/24/undp-welcomes-adoption-of-sustainable-development-goals-by-world-leaders.html%5D

But, just for the fun of it, let’s take a little trip down memory lane …

During the course of the hoopla surrounding the 2010 “birth announcement”, IPBES was declared – by the UNEP’s head honcho, Achim Steiner – to be a new “gold standard” body before it had actually produced a single report, or even a facsimile thereof!

But IPBES is, in effect, a younger sibling (or clone, you may take your pick) of the IPCC. This relatively new kid on the environmental block, i.e. the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services, came with its very own – and very thinly disguised – multi-volumed, money-grubbing “bible” (aka TEEB).

IPBES and TEEB had made their simultaneous – but very green-tinted – debuts circa October 2010 [i.e. on the virtual heels of the 2009 Copenhagen COP-flop], as I had noted at the time of their respective “birth” announcements:

Move over IPCC … here comes IPBES

See also my follow-up observations and speculations at the time: Of COPs, MOPs and a global battle of duelling doomsayers

Is it possible that by keeping our eyes focussed on this (failed) CO2 UN money-grubbing prize, we are missing what may turn out to be the latest and greatest EnviroEco grab, as it makes its way to the forefront?

Well, once the UN’s much belated interest in the fate of the millions of refugees it has created – with more than a little help from Obama’s “leadership” – and ignored for far too many years, fades as a fundraiser. Not to mention serving as yet another example of the UN’s (unstated) motto in action: Let’s you and him fight!


Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Bob Tisdale

$
0
0

captdallas, I had also prepared comparisons for this post in absolute terms, but they distracted from the overall message of the post. I’m going to furnish them in a separate post. They’re even more interesting when you break them down for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

Cheers

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Jim D

$
0
0

So you think that the largest warming which is in the high latitude continental areas of Canada and Siberia is not due to regional snow-cover changes for example? Interesting. Continue.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Jim D

$
0
0

OK, explain the difference between Smith and Reynolds used by Karl, and what Tisdale wants them to use. That would be useful, because Tisdale is far from clear on this.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by JCH

$
0
0

You could not be more wrong. Nobody is running scared. Confidence soaring. Nobody is even remotely afraid of Lamar Smith and his baseless investigation.

Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Don Monfort

$
0
0

A mystic pipeline in a pipe dream and a partridge in a pear tree. Try to curtail the alarmist angst for the Christmas season, yimmy. Look what it’s done to little willy.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by mwgrant

$
0
0

angech wrote:

Take home message
” Cowtan and Way (2014) , Kriging can also create a spatial pattern that bears no resemblance to known phenomena, like their El Niño that runs diagonally, from the northwest to the southeast across the eastern tropical Pacific.”

Thanks Bob.

I would like every denizen to paste this comment whenever they comment on Cowtan and Way for the next year [2016].

Cowtan and Way’s comments regrettable. It appears that their knowledge on the subject at the time was superficial, narrow, and misinforms. I hope they can explain things better now. Tisdale compounds matters by also not really adequately informed on the topic. Tisdale’s critique pertains to block kriging, used by many including including C&W, but angech incorrectly generalizes. Not that it matters….

Doesn’t anyone even try to understand the fundamentals of the toys they use and critique?

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Geoff Sherrington

$
0
0

Just as there are good singers and poor, there are those who are good at the Krige and those who are not so good. It is not the fault of the known Krige math. It is a problem of less than optimum application.
One cannot establish profiency without, for example, the multi-year process of estimating a pre mining ore resource and then validating it against measured production.
Doing less robust validations like holding back data then recalculating it, might be part of the path to confidence estimation, but it does not cut the full mustard.
(My colleagues from last century spent months with people like Michel and Agterberg and other pioneers of geostatistics including Kriging. Some rubbed off.)


Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

John Carpenter,

Statistical process control does work, and there is precisely nothing in what I said that claims otherwise.

Chaotic data by definition does not yield useful trends or patterns. Warmist and many others deny this reality. “Tell me it ain’t so.” they cry, “Surely God does not play dice.”

The use of statistical analysis to divine the future is as effective as a naive persistence assumption in general. Try me if you wish.

Cheers.

Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by PA

$
0
0

Let’s look at the original 97% survey.
http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/global-warming-97-percent-consensus-actually-76-people/

1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Of the few survey participants who could actually claim to be “climate scientists”, 76 of 79 answered “risen” to the first question and 75 out of 77 answered “yes” to the second.

What is the consensus.
1. It is getting warmer
2. People are helping make it warmer.

I think it is getting warmer. I’m pretty sure people are helping make it warmer.

But I’m not a global warmer. More warming has been historically good. The forcing from CO2 measured empirically is less than claimed by the IPCC. The level of CO2 increase predicted by the IPCC is far too high.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by RichardLH

$
0
0

Give it a rest. It’s a holiday season.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Wagathon

$
0
0

Unofficially, natural is the new normal…

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Wagathon

$
0
0

My feeling is, given the current state of public education, Jesus would be a skeptic.

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by PA

$
0
0

Well…

Canada gets to the adjustment.issue – but I have looked at some Canadian stations and some of them are warmer. I’m not sure if they are adjusted or not.

Michigan stations I’ve looked at.are just weird. The 90s were cool, the 00 were warm and 2014 was almost a record low. And this is presumably the adjusted data. At some point I will dump the USHCN data and diff the raws vs adjusted and form an opinion.

Russia is a special case. The northern areas in the USSR got more fuel allowance if they claimed it was colder.

The Arctic ice has been increasing for about 4 years.

Hard to say what is going on. Climate looks like weather in the 21st century.

The albedo (cloud cover) seems to be driving the temperature.

I expect it to get up to 0.5 °C warmer as the 20th century warming gets fully incorporated and that happens on a century time scale.

Bottom line is in 2014 only 35% (.35) of CO2 emissions stayed in the atmosphere (CDIAC Dec 2015 Global Carbon Budget data). So even if I was worried that a GINORMOUS CO2 increase could doom us I wouldn’t be worried. CDIAC dialed back their estimates of CO2 emissions despite China admitting they cheated which is a bit odd.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by michael hart (@michael97087462)

$
0
0

Rud, I don’t always appreciate what sometimes seems like self promotion of your books, but I always appreciate the time you take to re-express your quality thoughts here for free.


Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones

$
0
0

Agree.

Besides, I ain’t afraid of it. Not after all the issues addressed since 2012 and especially not when “covered” by goode olde indispensable J N-G. #;^)

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by PA

$
0
0

You could not be more wrong

Global warmers can’t prove:
1. The sea level is rising significantly based on rotational anomalies.
2. That more warming is bad.
3. That more CO2 is bad
4. That warming is going to be significant.
5. That the TSR is even as high as the low end of IPCC estimates based on empirical measurement.
6. That the average annual CO2 increase will ever be much over 2.2 PPM/Y

You can dance dance dance that we are doomed all you like. Haven’t made any sort of case. By 2020 we need to fold the “Climate Change” tent and go back to funding real science.

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones

$
0
0

I think he’d be maybe a little pleased to see me in a personal row with VeeV, or better yet, take a piece out of Anthony. But he can’t affect me in this regard.

Well, can’t blame him for trying.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by richardswarthout

$
0
0

JCH

“You could not be more wrong. Nobody is running scared. Confidence soaring.”

Sign of yet another weakness of our human condition.

Merry Christmas

Richard

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Springer never even looked at SHAP

tell us Dave, which SHAP procedures were most problematic?

Answer…. you don’t know cause you never looked at the code.

Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images