Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer

$
0
0

Richard LH,

Perhaps you have some expertise in the subject area on other forums. It’s obvious here you’re diving in and arguing without any substantial knowledge of the subject here. I’ve been studying climate change specifically for over ten years. I’ve been retired for 15 with unlimited time to indulge my appetite for it. Thousands of hours of study. You need to read a lot more on the subject and talk a lot less. Most of what you write on this topic is no more than uninformed babbling. And when it got pointed out to you then you started babbling even more trying to get your mistaken points across as if repetition and rewording would somehow win the day. Then you got tossed into moderation as I warned would happen. My advice is if you can’t accept and deal with your non-expertise in this subject area then go somewhere else. If you want to stay then I highly suggest you drop all assumptions of what you think you know and provide supporting links and quotes from the peer reviewed literature for everything.


Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer

$
0
0

Richard LH we’re not here to answer your inane questions.

Comment on A War Against Fire by JCH

$
0
0

Physicsdave – if you want to trust Judith Curry, fine, I do not.

There is a group of climate scientists who made decadal predictions based upon the North Atlantic. Latif is one of them. They were spectacularly wrong. Because the AMO is a puny little punk ocean cycle. It’s either along for the global train ride or off doing its own thing with almost no global consequence. The AMOC is another story; it’ not the AMO. DM Smith did the first decadal forecast model that looks about right, and on his first try. Natural variability in the equatorial Pacific was approximately captured. Every time I mention it on this blog they trash it as hard as they can. From the water chef to the capt.

He predicted 2014 would be the burner; he missed it; instead it’s 2015. What a colossal model failure. Weather models go haywire in a very short time span. A decadal forecast model is as much a weather model as it is a climate model. Smith’s model is still holding together.

They know way more about natural variability than the folks on this blog can admit.

JC: I thought that it might account for at least half of the observed warming, and hence my questioning of the IPCC’s highly confident attribution of ‘most’ to AGW.

From an author of the paper:

I have a different take on this. The IPCC conclusion applies to centennial warming from 1880. Much of the 0.8 C warming since 1900 is indeed due to anthropogenic forcing, because natural variability like PDO and AMO has been averaged out over this long period of time.

Our results concern the effect of tropical Pacific SST on global mean temperature over the past 15 years. It is large enough to offset the anthropogenic warming for this period, but the effect weakens as the period for trend calculation gets longer simply because it is oscillatory and being averaged out. – Xie

Xie’s only error is the PDO and the equatorial Pacific have been dragging against AGW since around 1985. 15 years does cover it. The PDO flipped positive at the end of 2013, and the last 24 months are warming at 5 times the IPCC’s prediction of .2C per decade. And some day that will average out… hopefully. But don’t be surprised if the GMST hits the IPCC number by 2020.

Comment on 2015 → 2016 by mwgrant

$
0
0

Happy New Year, Judith and denizens.

Comment on A War Against Fire by JCH

$
0
0

He has already told us his real name.

Comment on A War Against Fire by Don Monfort

Comment on A War Against Fire by Wagathon

$
0
0
<blockquote>The atmospheric sciences presently lie in limbo between the Newtonian rigor of classical physics and the realm of the undecidible. </blockquote> More like between blacksmithing and black magic and in the realm of the eneluctable!

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Arch Stanton

$
0
0

I asked ‘where does it all end up’, no one is able to say now are they?

When will they be able to go home. Can you answer these two questions?


Comment on A War Against Fire by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$
0
0

JCH, Yep, everyone seems to think they have found the climate key since …. but all of the oscillations are pseudo-cyclic and they are treating them like pure oscillations.

To make matters worst you have to factor in baseline fudging meaning you have to figure out the psuedo-cyclic nature of temperature adjustments. James Annan didn’t lose a bet because Hadley adjusted the baseline. 2014/2015 are warmest years EVAH because ersst dropped Reynolds oiv2. So I don’t place much stock of barely significant warmest years ever because no one knows what the standard will be in a few years. Heck, they may can all the high tech metrics and rely on rectal thermometers.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Can’t be zero Geoff. Get over it

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Arch Stanton

$
0
0

I remember reading a story as a kid about a device that would remove anything you could put into it. The ultimate trash bag. Nobody cared where it was going it was not a problem anymore. Then one day many years later a lone shoe dropped from the sky. You know the rest of the story.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by davideisenstadt

$
0
0

Mosh:
Get off the dead horse…youve beaten it enough.
You know that the probabality that ECS is ANY particular value whatsoever on the the range of the PDF is zero…that is if you’ve had a few semesters of mathematical statistics, or just a competent undergraduate instructor.
the probability of ECS being equal to any arbitrary point on the range of the auction is zero.
In applied statistics, this is a tautology.
Surely your efforts at equivocation and drive by snark can be employed on behalf of a better cause than this?

Comment on A War Against Fire by Stanton Brown

$
0
0

If Mosher had any interest in being wise, he’d embrace humility and recognize his ignorance. But he does not appear to have any interest in wisdom and we see the result. He thinks he knows quite a bit about the glass of water he’s examined, but ignores the oceans of climate reality of which he and the world of science is utterly ignorant.

As he plays his role of one of the blind men making pronouncements about the elephant, we should keep in mind that his certainty that he is touching a snake comes with fairly wide error bars.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by omanuel

Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf

$
0
0

Pin this to yer door
ye IPCC body doctrinaire.
CAGW from logarithmic CO2
– so much hot air.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Beth,

I though of the “The Man From Snowy River” this morning. I used to be able to recite it in full when I was a young fella, but not any more. But I do remember:

“There was movement at the station, for the word had passed around
That the colt from old Regret had got away,
And had joined the wild bush horses—he was worth a thousand pound,
So all the cracks had gathered to the fray.
All the tried and noted riders from the stations near and far
Had mustered at the homestead overnight,
For the bushmen love hard riding where the wild bush horses are,
And the stockhorse snuffs the battle with delight.”

I hope you might complete this and enlighten the world with more of Banjo Paterson’s poems in 2016 :)

Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf

$
0
0

Now, Peter, that’s a big ask … though I used ter be
Beth the cowgirl. :)

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang

$
0
0

I don’t understand. You once told me that turning South America 20 degrees was not a big ask of a Serf.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf

$
0
0

Nevah hold a serf ter what they’ve said in the past.
Consistency’s fer toffs and genuine scientists ‘n
engineers subject ter Hammurabi rules like you, Peter.

Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Jim Steele

$
0
0

Willard there is absolutely nothing in what you highlight that refutes my analysis. Do you have evidence that females can not venture out 130 km? Observations have noted male and females will spend similar amounts of time swimming. You can incessantly quibble as much as you want, but you have yet to demonstrate that females require sea ice to forage.

But you have ignored the evidence that supports the primary premise confirmed by Jay 2012 that less ice increases the areal extent of foraging habitat and increases the duration which that habitat is used.

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images