Finally someone is picking the low hagning fruit by studying the question: What makes AGW extremsits tick?
http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Delusion+problem+with+green+crowd/6823927/story.html#ixzz1yYjOzVlX
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by hunter
↧
↧
Comment on Three new papers on interpreting temperature trends by hunter
Do you mean Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter?
Whoda thunk it possible?
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Willis Eschenbach
Chris Colose | June 22, 2012 at 1:40 pm
<blockquote>Willis, I was clear in an entire SkS article and in several comments at WUWT (along with many cited refereed articles), why I didn’t think your analyses had much merit. </blockquote>
Thanks, Chris. I hadn't seen that SkS article. I read it carefully, and I still don't understand your point, so your claim "I was clear in ..." could use some self-skepticism.
In particular, my <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/argo-and-the-ocean-temperature-maximum/" rel="nofollow"><b>article</b></a> said in part:
<blockquote><b>Speculations on the mechanism</b>
I want to highlight something very important that is often overlooked in discussions of this thermostatic mechanism. It is regulated by temperature, and not by forcing. It is insensitive to excess incoming radiation, whether from CO2 or from the sun. During the part of the year when the incoming radiation would be enough to increase the temperature over ~ 30°, the temperature simply stops rising at 30°. It is no longer a function of the forcing. ...</blockquote>
I see <em>nothing in your article to contradict any of that</em>. As to what the mechanism is, I called my speculations just that ... speculations. Which should be enough self-skepticism for anyone, but apparently not for you.
As always, I strongly encourage people not to believe either Chris or me, but to read both articles, mine and Chris's, and make up their own minds.
w.
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Bob
Excellent article, avoids “no warming for a decade” garbage, states the science is dodgy on both sides, etc..
Well done. The more distilled the better.
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)
So much time is spent now by politicians “fund raising” for the next campaign, that less and less work of the people gets done. Obama outspent McCain, but McCain also was handicapped by other considerations as well…i.e. Palin.
But that’s all water over the dam isn’t it. It’s a brand new election year, and a whole new round of fresh money is being spent to get their man into office. Of course, the great majority of that money will be spent on creating propaganda pieces that show their candidate “good” and other “bad”, further polarizing an already polarized electorate. But the real joke is on the electorate anyway, as they somehow think that their will or what they want makes a difference. Sorry, not in this corporate ruled Plutocracy. In the end, it will only be a question of which corporations will get to have their way in Washington for the next four years.
↧
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by timg56
RG,
I can acknowledge that changes in the size of the hole require long timeframes. As for the health effects, they are not of a degree where simple precautions don’t protect against them.
For me there is a difference between some threat or risk and Oh my god the health of the bioshpere is threatened. The latter was how the ozone hole story was protrayed in the 80′s and 90′s.
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Alexander Biggs
Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific “theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.”
Precisely. This has happened in Australia and in other countries. I am in complete agreement with Paltridge and his contributions to atmospheric science make his views highly relevant to the debate on global warming.
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)
timg56,
Certainly on any given issue there are the extremes in position, but suppose somehow we’d not banned CFC’s way back then? I think there is a reasonably good chance that much worse health effects would be covering a larger part of the globe today.
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by gbaikie
If take a shallow dull black pan water with say 2″ of water. Put on stove increase to boiling temperature. Take off stove and put it in sunlight at noon, clear skies, and 30 C air temperature or warmer. How low will the temperature the pan of water cool to?
↧
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
“It is regulated by temperature not forcing” Actually, I believe it is regulated by enthalpy not temperature. The enthalpy of the surface layer of the ocean changes by 4.2Joules per gram degree K. As the surface skin layer enthalpy changes, the enthalpy of the atmosphere above it has to change to try and regain equilibrium. The column of air can rise with sensible heat, absorb more moisture or both, but the energy in the atmosphere responds to the energy of the surface skin layer. You can calculate the enthaply of the surface directly, but you need a psych chart to determine the atmospheric response. Since there is plenty of moisture over the oceans, CO2 has little if any impact. Anywho, Willis is on the right track.
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Michael
Interestingly, when he talks about his area of knowledge, he’s very IPCC – man is increased atmospheric CO2, it will definitely lead to warming, and possibly up to 3 deg.
You completely agree with that too?
↧
Comment on A new perspective on drought in the American southeast by Jim D
Willis, for you to claim that anyone choosing 1951-1980 as a climate base period is wrong indicates that you don’t believe 30-year climatologies even though they are used as a definition of climatology for many practical purposes. The claim of non-stationarity is bogus because the trends are far smaller than interannual variability that gives you the distributions. Has anyone ever claimed a 30-year climatology can’t be done for mid-century data because of non-stationarity? No, it is your ad hoc invention for this thread. You can calculate the trend, which is almost non-existent in that period, and the variance and find that the variance far exceeds the trend to prove it for yourself. What would non-stationarity even look like? It would be a trend line with noise on it. Does the 1951-1980 climate at any of the points look like that? You seem to expect it does, which is the situation where climate change dominates interannual signals. If that is true, it is indeed worse than we thought.
↧
Comment on Analyzing people who talk about AGW denialism by Gil R.
timg56,
Instead of working blue, you might have pointed out that the name “Adolf” was quite popular in Germany before WW2, but today if you name your kid Adolf that will mean only one thing to most people.
↧
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Michael
wow, mike figured out I was being silly…..in less than 500 words!
Go Team mike!!
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Dave Springer
Is data curation and communication more or less expensive now versus when the only storage mechanism was paper?
Gimme a break. It’s not like they have to record the data on clay tablets. Sheesh.
↧
Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Captain Kangaroo claims: “For Heyak [sic] government existed to enforce the rule of law, to protect the weak against the brutal, to manage interest rates to prevent asset bubbles and to provide those essential services that the market can’t or won’t.”
Captain, your feeble, circumscribed, inadaptive (and poorly spelt!) characterization of Hayek’s thought is yours alone, not Hayek’s.
By what economic mechanism, and in service of what moral objective, are fisheries regulated, for example? If Fred builds a dam that waters Fred’s fields but parches Bob’s downstream fields and moreover destroy’s Alice’s anadromous fishery, what does Hayek have to say to Fred’s unilateral action, and Alice’s and Bob’s moral responses to it?
If Eve declines measles/mumps/rubella vaccination for her children, and thereby impairs the herd immunity that prevents epidemics, are her actions warranted?
To assert that Hayek’s philosophy contains all the answers to modern challenges is just plain dumb. There is no such thing as an uncompromising embrace of Hayek’s enduring insights … for the simple reason that, properly understood, Hayek’s philosophy amounts to a well-chosen set of prudent compromises that adapt to changing circumstances, with a view toward reasonably sustaining liberty, security, and prosperity.
Kind of like James Hansen’s philosophy, eh? 
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Dave Springer
Russia doesn’t do ice cores? Wow. Someone better call Vostok and tell them they’re flying the wrong flag.
You people are ridiculous.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Latimer Alder
@nebuchadnezzar
Here’s 250 GB for £33 – say $50. 20 cents a gigabyte. 200 dollars a terabyte.
And if you only want it occasionally you can stick it on an offline storage medium somewhere. Commercially available tape libraries (eg IBM TS3500) can store up to 100,000 Terabytes under software control and bring it back in less than 10 seconds.
Storage is cheap.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Dave Springer
There’s no accounting for taste.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Dave Springer
The study linked NH and SH climate, dufus, over millions of years. This is not possible with NH ice cores as none are old enough. The Russians have the record for oldest SH ice core when they cored through to Lake Vostok. I’m sorry if I presumed you knew that. I’ll try not to overestimate you again.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
