Sigh. *wouldn’t* have been as funny.
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by pokerguy
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Dave Springer asks a cogent question:
Dave Springer asks “How much pencil whipped duplicity are we expected to ignore?”
Dave, the person, Paul Clark, who runs the website that you’ve been quoting, namely WoodForTrees, includes his own personal conclusions on a page titled Notes and MusingsDave, it’s mighty interesting that Paul Clark reaches precisely the opposite conclusions as you … he concludes that the data shows AGW is real.
Gee Dave … maybe one of you is practicing “pencil-whipped duplicity” by cherry-picking the data, do yah think?
The world wonders!
![:)]()
![:)]()
![:)]()
What is your next question, Dave Springer?
![:)]()
![:)]()
![:)]()
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by Robert
Except the data show both atmospheric and ocean warming.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by Robert
“This argumentation is nonsense. 0.6 degrees a century, none of which was in the last 15 years is the putative global warming.”
You’re confused. Nino 3.4 is not a global temperature index, and is an anomaly, not a trend.
“Yet you argue global warming = hotter temperatures = more forest fires? Then argue global warming = hotter temperatures = more crop failures.”
That’s what the science says. I suggest you review it.
“Obviously with such small overall warming, excessive heat in one place must mean excessive cold in another”
Again you would seem to be confused; confused about the amount of warming, where it is, and how it affect the probability of extreme events.
Study hard, and you will come to know better.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by Robert
“It’s not my ignorance, Robert”
Oh yes, it certainly is. You simply lack self-awareness; i.e., you are ignorant of your own ignorance.
The first step is acceptance. Good luck! 
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)
Undoubtedly the tropospheric temperatures have in general flattened over the past decade or so, for quite obvious reasons. I put a fair amount of confidence in FR 2011 to identify this reasons for tropospheric temperature flattening, though their exclusion of anthropogenic aerosols for justifiable reasons is regrettable. Still, they’ve found 70 to 80% of the forcing even without the anthropogenic aerosol inclusion, which is pretty good. Their identification of the ongoing underlying positive forcing from greenhouse gas increases corresponds to other similar studies that try to isolate the individual negative and positive forcing agents.
Still, the fact that the far great heat reservoir of the ocean continued to gain heat over the past 10 years, with its far great thermal inertia and greater heat capacity when compared to the troposphere is far more interesting to me than the short-term fluctuations of the troposphere. I have a high-degree of confidence that once the natural fluctuations align with the positive forcing from greenhouse gas increases, tropospheric temperatures will soar and all previous instrument records will easily be shattered.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)
You are very wrong in this regard wagathon. Your inability to see natural fluctuations riding on top of a longer term forcing is your blindness. The fact that 2011 was the warmest La Nina year on record is very significant as it happened during a time that the sun is generally not that active. Your blindness to the significance of these facts indicates strongly your denier versus skeptic status.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by Latimer Alder
Those of a more suspicious nature than me might even wonder if the data ever existed at all. We know that ‘peer-reviewers’ never ask to see it, so there is no objective evidence that they ever collected it at all.
The easy way to dispel such suspicions is to publish it.
Given a choice between being straightforward and open about their work and activities and acting in a way seemingly designed to cast doubt upon their integrity and honesty. why do all climatologists naturally gravitate towards the latter option? Is it a requirement of admission to the Climatological Guild that any semblance of ‘proper’ behaviour is rigorously eliminated?
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by jim2
Just quit counting cites of papers without properly archived data, meta-data, and code. That would put a stop to the non-archiving.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by jim2
Maybe R. Gates and Fan of More BS should read this:
“As a scientist, I KNOW other scientists will lie through their teeth when it comes to money or their career. I have had plenty of direct experience of outright lying and falsification of data. I have also been fired more than once for refusing to falsify data upon direct order from my superior.
My personal experience with the “Honesty” and “Integrity” of scientists is that it is rare, most will go along with the herd or with higher authority rather than stick their neck out.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/08/a-wave-of-heated-peer-pressure-results-in-shrinking-integrity/
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by JCH
R. Gates – your comments lately have been exceptional. Just don’t go F. M. on me! The limit is 2,000 words/ 500 commas per sentence, and not a spec more!
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)
Tony, have you done a wind/pressure analysis for the past few months of the mid to high latitudes in the NH? I think if you did you see that your cooler weather is directly related to higher pressure over the Arctic, and specifically related to negative phases of the AO. Look at the AO chart and compare it to stormy and cold periods in GB. During a negative AO, the colder air is literally being forced from the Arctic by high pressure. If you tracked movements of air over the NH for the past few months you see the North and Northeast flow of air coming from higher latitudes right over your country. Higher pressure and low sea ice in the Kara and Barants have a direct relationship to your weather in GB this summer. In tracking the pulses of the AO, you’ll see a high AO (and stronger polar vortex) tend to bring nice, warm, and dry weather to GB and a negative AO bring the opposite.
Finally, the sudden stratospheric warming events that I’ve been talking about here on the this blog bring on the large scale major winter outbreaks that GB and other part of Europe saw. They are related to this discussion in that these SSW events also breakdown the polar vortex in a big-time way, bringing on a very negative AO, even reversing the polar jet as it is split in half, and send Europe into a deep freeze while Arctic regions warm.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by Gareth
R Gates,
That graph shows that most of the world was warmer over the past three months than the 1961-1990 average. Is that controversial? I thought it was generally accepted (including by ‘sceptics’) that there was a warming period from about 1965 until 1998.
On the hypothesis this warming trend was caused entirely or mostly by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, it should have continued at an accelerated rate after 1998. That is what the models predicted. But it hasn’t, has it? The temperate has pretty much flat-lined for the last decade and a bit.
So by my reckoning the hypothesis that *all* or *most* late 20th C warming was due to AGGs has been refuted by observation. The hypothesis that *some* of it was caused by AGGs has not been refuted.
A rational scientific approach would involving accepting the observed data and trying to determine *how much* warming was due to AGGs, and what the other drivers of climate are. That would inevitably mean revising down estimates of future warming that were based on the assumption that *all* late 20th C warming was due to AGGs. But that has not happened either. That is what leads me to believe that the IPCC and the “consensus” on AGW are no longer involved in rational science. (What they are involved in is another matter).
If I have got this wrong please explain. The reason I lurk on this blog (and occasionally post) is just because this is where the signal to noise ratio seems to be highest.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by omanuel
The Rest of the Story:
History teaches that Reality (Truth, God) must be accepted with humility and gratitude
1100 B.C.-1000 B.C. “Who is this that defies Reality (Truth, God)?” David to Goliath [I Samuel 17]
1543 Copernicus discovers a “fountain of energy” at the core of the Solar System.
http://tinyurl.com/7qx7zxs
1633 Tyranny and science collide at the Trial of Galileo
http://tinyurl.com/3tn6wz7
1905 Albert Einstein reports that mass (m) is stored energy (E), E = mc^2. Thus, in the fountain of energy, m => E.
http://tinyurl.com/8hays
1915 Niels Bohr discovers that atoms consist of light-weight, negatively charged (-) electrons orbiting a massive core, the positively charged (+) nucleus, in the same way that lightweight planets like Earth orbit the massive Sun.
http://tinyurl.com/6mhbgas
Aug 1945 Energy (E) released from the cores of uranium and plutonium atoms destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively.
Oct 1945 Frightened world leaders establish the United Nations to try to save themselves and society from the danger of destruction in “nuclear fires.”
Post-1945 Constitutional limits on government and every major field of science had been compromised by the time Climategate emails and documents were released in 2009 – exposing the plot to reestablish world tyranny.
↧
Comment on The Government-Climate Complex by gbaikie
“I can convince myself data access should be a privilege, not a right.”
For data created by tax dollars?
That is public property. And a thief doesn’t make it public.
And we don’t need thieves on the government payroll.
Much better having tax dollars pay for them to be in prison.
And even if wasn’t science costing millions of dollars, it same bloody thing.
↧
Comment on The Government-Climate Complex by Latimer Alder
@tempterrain
That’s a fairly superficial analysis.
Actual real folding money is unlikely to be a scientist’s prime motivation. But in a field with lots of money sloshing about and lots of attention there are plenty of good things that scientists will like….infrastructure like buildings and computers and libraries professorial posts, conferences, journals, speaking opportunities, teaching opportunities, career advancement, foreign travel and so on.
In general a rich field will attract more ‘practitioners’ than a poor one. And while it expands, the standards required to join (the barriers to entry) become lower and lower. It happens every time there is a sudden expansion of any field, and climatology is no different from any other.
↧
Comment on The Government-Climate Complex by thisisnotgoodtogo
Colose.
and to destroy it if necessary in order to protect it
↧
↧
Comment on The Government-Climate Complex by omnologos
That’s not what I wrote. Nevermind, nothing looks as stupid as the guy who tries to appear clever by finding refuge in straw-men and falsely clever word games.
I’ve been following the Thompson saga for many years, thank you very much. You haven’t because as Latimer said, you just don’t care. That’s enough to understand how big a priority the fight against climate change is.
↧
Comment on The Government-Climate Complex by Beth Cooper
Walls are being breached.
Here in Oz, the Labor/ Green Party carbon tax misalliance is foundering.
There is a crack in everything…
That’s how the light gets in.
↧
Comment on The Government-Climate Complex by Latimer Alder
@chris colose
Thanks for confirming just about every unpleasant characteristic of climatologists in one post.
The more I encounter people like you the more it confirms my thoughts that climatology really does attract the second and third rate rentseekers.
I trust that – if you ever finish being a student – you will not be applying for public funding. Your whole attitude to openness and transparency
makes you completely unfit to handle our money or to work on our behalf.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
