“and not at all on the second linked page”
An ambition is mentioned on that page. The process of station reduction can lead to quite different subsets. The best measure of error of integration is the scatter of results from the subsetting. I did promise that as next project – thanks for the reminder.
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Nick Stokes
↧
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by timg56
I don’t know enough about Pat Cassen Dr Steele, but you can bet the mortgage that Ken Rice and Willard won’t take up that challenge.
Re the NOAA report – seems they decided to select one interpretation of extremely uncertain data. Even then they have to rely on model projections to get to reach their conclusions. capt Dallas has the best analysis.
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Willard
Thank you for the kind words, Jim. That you associate me with Sou doesn’t bode well for your ecological skillz. Sou’s niche is certainly not mine, and doubling down on ad homs will only lead to your own demise.
Dismissing K14’s conclusions as “speculation” does not look like “asking to debate the evidence.”
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Rud,
I agree. Either way this ends, I expect the social and political consequences will be large.
Climate scientists have bet big on a catastrophic outcome arriving soon. As has the Left. They might find the losses tough to take, should the weather disappoint them.
Ditto for the Right, should a climate catastrophe arrive.
Perhaps they should look for ways to find common ground or break the policy gridlock, even if it means coloring outside the lines.
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Willard
> ROTFLMAO
Your “unproven hypothesis” wasn’t bad either.
Were you being sarcastic when you said that NOAA’s Arctic report card made claims that hinge on the unproven hypothesis that a reduction in sea ice is detrimental by denying walruses access to foraging habitat?
If you were not, you need to explain how being deprived of something you assess as opportunistic and beneficial can be non-detrimental.
If you can’t, this means your argument is knocked down simply by paying due diligence to the very first sentence of your editorial, Jim.
If you could also provide an example of a proven hypothesis, that would be great.
↧
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Willard
Glad you could find the time, Don Don.
So far, there was no need to “argue the evidence,” whatever that means. Not that Jim “produced” any, if by producing one means something else than to borrow it from those he criticizes.
However, when Jim will tire of throwing ad homs (not unlike Sou, incidentally) and strawmen, perhaps we’ll get to a sentence his analysis seems to have overlooked:
[I]t is certain that land-based sites alone will not support the same number of walruses that the mixed seasonal use of sea ice and land has permitted in the past (Jay et al. 2012; Kovacs et al. 2012).
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/walruses.html
Plenty of evidence to counterbalance Jim’s “non-requirement” hypothesis, which indicates verbal posturing more than anything else.
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Willard
> won’t take up that challenge.
Which challenge, timmy boy?
If you read the Potential Threats to Walruses identified by the authors, none of them are being discussed by Jim. They’re in bold, if you don’t feel like looking for them.
Jim’s “analysis” is both opportunistic and beneficial for the CAGW meme.
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Jim Steele
I must say, some of the attacks here certainly suggest once again I have exposed a fallacious argument.
Willard’s desperate attempt to denigrate this essay has become one of the most feebly hilarious attempts I have ever encountered. My respectful requests that those who disagree simply present evidence that can be sincerely debated is now portrayed by Willard as ad homs.
Willard says “look for the hammered ad homs to spot Jim’s own weaknesses: “ignores the evidence,” “does not produce evidence,” “not arguing the evidence,” etc. Jim simply conflates his analysis with the evidence he presents”
Somehow Willard thinks demanding evidence in a scientific debate instead of engaging in personal attacks is a form of “ad homs” .
No people you can not make up such idiocy! My regards to Sou!
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by Peter Lang
Mike Flynn – meet the Ediacarans, your 565 million year old ancestors
http://austhrutime.com/ediacaran_fauna.htm
↧
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Jim Steele
Most importantly Arctic Sea ice controls how much heat is accumulated on earth. The tropics absorb more heat than it radiates back to space. The polar regions radiate more heat back to space than is absorbed from the sun or greenhouse gases. Ventilation of heat in the polar regions cools the earth.
When there is more sea ice, the subsurface in Arctic regions heat up because heat transported via ocean currents (i.e. Gulf Stream) can not be ventilated. Currently much of the rise in global temperatures is due to increased ventilation of heat imported from the tropics as less ice allows more ventilation. The albedo theory of CO2 global warming that argues the oceans will warm is unraveling, and research from MIT and Harvard oceanographers suggest the upper 700 meters of the Arctic Ocean has instead cooled over the past 20 years. That observation contradicts the Arctic Amplification theory of CO2 warming, but supports the Arctic Iris Effect discussed here http://landscapesandcycles.net/arctic-iris-effect-and-dansgaard-oeschger-event.html
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by Peter Lang
Richard – Meet the Stramatolytes
They’ve been living for 3,500 million years, and continue to live happily today:
“The rock like structure is produced by the excretions of a type of blue-green algae that is thought to have originated some 3,500 million years ago and for 2,850 million years they were the only evidence of life on the planet. There are some 50 species of cyanobacteria found at the Hamelin Pool site alone. They are the simplest form of single cell life known to exist.
Population densities have been estimated at 3,000,000,000 per square metre and the structures they create can be 10,000,000 times larger than the individual organisms.”
http://www.wanowandthen.com/Wordls-Oldest-Life-Forms.html
Mike Flynn – meet the Ediacarans, your 565 million year old ancestors
http://austhrutime.com/ediacaran_fauna.htm
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Mike Flynn
“A recent NOAA study, published in the journal PLOS One, shows “living shorelines” — protected and stabilized shorelines using natural materials such as plants, sand, and rock — can help to keep carbon out of the atmosphere, helping to blunt the effects of climate change.” – from the NOAA website.
Oh no! Evil organic CO2, being used to restore historical levels, will likely be the death of us all! We must blunt the effects of climate change!
Mind you, we don’t know what blunting the effects of climate change actually means, but it sounds sciencey and politically correct. And of course, we’re a bit confused about carbon, and carbon dioxide. But coal is generally blackish, and soot is dirty, so carbon must be bad. Common salt is made of dangerous flammable sodium metal and that horrible poison gas (beloved of freedom hating tyrants), chlorine. We all know how bad too much salt in the diet is, don’t we? Carbon is obviously so much worse!
Maybe NOAA is a secret Government project to employ politically correct fantasists, to keep them off the streets. A sort of sciencey unemployment program for accidental PhD recipients. The world wonders!
Cheers.
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Jim Steele
David, I am not sure what came as a surprise?
The first paragraphs states “NOAA’s Arctic report card made claims that hinge on the unproven hypothesis that a reduction in sea ice is detrimental by denying walruses access to foraging habitat.”
After stating all the positive vital rates the 2nd paragraph states “Yet despite all the positive indicators, NOAA downplays growing populations and makes the empty assertion, “the overall carrying capacity of the region for walruses is almost certainly declining because of sea ice declines.” “
↧
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Jim Steele
And exactly what is Willard’s “plenty of evidence”? An opinion that uses the phrase “it is certain”?
Do we need to go back to the very basics and define “evidence versus “speculative opinions”?
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Don Monfort
No need for formality here, Jim. We call him souey.
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by Mike Flynn
Peter Lang,
Thanks for the link. It’s nice to read about real science for a change.
Happy New Year!
Cheers.
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Willard
> And exactly what is Willard’s “plenty of evidence”? An opinion that uses the phrase “it is certain”?
Again with the rhetorical questions, Jim.
The answer is: citations.
↧
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Willard
> [S]ome of the attacks here certainly suggest once again I have exposed a fallacious argument.
Handwaving for confirmation bias’ sake.
Jim, you’re a perfect fit for Judy’s. Please stay.
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Willard
> Somehow Willard thinks demanding evidence in a scientific debate instead of engaging in personal attacks is a form of “ad homs” .
Two other strawmen, Jim. You were not “demanding evidence,” you were requiring that we debate the evidence. You’re pushing thoughts in my head. I don’t have this belief, if only because there’s no dichotomy between the two activities.
Mind probing is ad hom. Your overall strategy of making it about me is ad hom. There’s a simple test for that: is your comment any different than Don Don’s or Big Dave’s? If not, chances are it’s ad hom.
The bottom line is that requiring we “debate the evidence” when it’s your hypothesis is on the line acts as a decoy.
When will you acknowledge the two facts I put on the table regarding the walruses in Svalbard?
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by richardswarthout
Peter Lang
Being a rock is more appealing than being algae or bacteria, living with a billion others as creepy as me. But perhaps if I was one I’d like them better, might even fall in love.
Richard
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
