Kim makes mockery
Of Cassandra certainty
‘It’s worse than we thought!’
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by Beth Cooper
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by Chief Hydrologist
I think you are a robot gatesy – it is the only explanation because you keep coming back with the same discredited argument. Clouds change and force changes in ocean temp.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Clementetal2009.png
We don’t know what was happening to ocean heat content before ARGO and certainly not before the mid 1970′s. We know without a doubt that cloud changes respond to sst change in the Pacific.
‘The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980′s and 1990′s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period.’ http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
2.4 W/m2 warming in the SW and 0.5 W/m2 cooling in the IR. We have not just a robust mechanism but data and observations. We can link that with phenomenon and show the the phenomenon vary in coherent ways. The world is cooling. You got nothin’ but handwavin’.
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by John Whitman
JC comment: This collection provides a wide range of perspectives. So who do you think is making sense? Trenberth? Kloor? Clinton? Lomborg? Pielke Jr?
- – - – -
Before responding to Judith’s question of who makes sense, I first reminded myself of the need for context from the broader climate science positions over the past decade of Trenberth, Kloor, Clinton, Lomborg & Pielke Jr.
Everyone of them maintains, consistently over broad periods of their careers up to today, that the AGW theories in climate science are already sufficiently conclusive that there is a serious warming problem that requires a relatively urgent need to significantly react to current CO2 production by strong government intervention broadly across all aspects of human activities.
Given that context of their overall view in the climate science dialog, which has not been established, I find little merit in Trenberth’s, Kloor’s, Clinton’s, Lomborg’s & Pielke Jr’s statements provided in Judith’s post.
Trendberth is blaming others for the failure of the public and the scientific community to myopically accept his alarming AGW scientific position. His comment is irrelevant to the ongoing intellectual dialog on climate science; it has passed him by.
Kloor is doggedly cheerleading from his one sided journalistic meme for a miracle comeback of his badly losing team of alarming AGW science supporters. Will he probably be one of the last to recognize the intellectual game is already over? Let’s not tell him, he implies he is a journalist so let him discover it with his honed investigative skills.
Clinton is just being his usual experienced cynical political pragmatist cum opportunist with his incorrect rationalization that the pain to be expected from implementing broad interventionist policies based on alarming AGW science is normal compared to the pain that we would have anyway if AGW wasn’t a concern.
Both Lomborg and Pielke Jr have long since stopped focusing on the validity of AGW alarming climate science because they have conceded to it. They maintain that we should implement policies like those resulting from the findings of AGW alarming climate science anyway, whether the alarming scientific view is ultimately is found to be correct or not, because those policies are just our duty to do anyway because they think the policies are good in and of themselves . . . kind of like they are suggesting a Kantian ethical premise of duty.
Judith, next time I suggest you should include some significant skeptical intellects, instead of having only supporters of AGW alarming science. Please endorse more balance.
John
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4
Chief, “You can set your dial on global cooling – gatesy – as the global system moves into a 1000 year cool mode of much more frequent and intense La Nina.”
I thought a coupla three decades at a time was more reasonable. Now you are starting to sound like me. 
↧
Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by SamNC
Erica,
“do you maintain that if so-called greenhouse gasses were replaced with non-greenhouse gasses, or vice-versa, there would be no overall heating implications for the earth ?”
Yes, there would be no overall heating implications for the earth. H2O on the Earth regulates the Earth atmospheric temperatures.
Greenhouse concept was a wrong concept. CO2 did not heat up the atmosphere in the greenhouse. Only H2O in the greenhouse retained heat with its huge latent heat.
Others have given you specific heat capacities of H2O and CO2. It’s a lot easier for CO2 to lose one degree C than water at the same temperature. In a greenhouse, the moisture content is high. The higher the moisture content the more the energy retained in the atmosphere.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by R. Gates
“Clouds change and force changes in ocean temp.”
So clouds have been decreasing for the past 50 years if not longer? Wow. Amazing. Do you have the research I could link to on that?
Hope you don’t mind if I wax a bit skeptical on your cloud explanation until I see the solid research that shows clouds have been decreasing in a way that parallels the rise in ocean heat content.
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by GarryD
Well said. Some people are so full of their self esteem. I doubt Bart R can understood your point.
↧
Comment on What exactly is critical thinking? by David L. Hagen
Lolwot
Cornelius Hunter shows an excellent example of critical thinking in: <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/10/mohamed-noor-evolution-is-true-because.html" rel="nofollow">Mohamed Noor: Evolution is True Because We Say So </a>
<blockquote>. . .Noor began with the usual equivocation when he defined evolution as “change through time” that occurs over multiple generations. . . .
Before evolutionists present their evidence, they frame the theory and its evidences in a cultural mandate. First and foremost, evolution is true from the start. Next evolution is cast as objective science in pursuit of the good. And skeptics are cast as forces of ignorance and darkness. It is the standard presentation of evolution that is full of bad science and bad history. . . .
The professor is apparently unaware of life science research showing the enormous complexity that must have existed in early life if evolution is true. . . .
evolutionists have been forced to conclude that the last common ancestor of eukaryotes must have had not only the vast majority of the complex DNA replication, RNA splicing and interference, and protein translation machinery, it was also capable of advanced movement and was equipped with versatile energy conversion systems. </blockquote>
I encourage studying the logical errors exposed.
Re: “We know humans and apes share a common ancestor.”
No we don't “know”. The genetic evidence provided is only a handwaving hypothesis presuming stochastic natural processes. The evidence provided is only shows necessary not sufficient evidence. You also have to provide some way for forming the FULL new genome including all the "junk" DNA for which we are just discovering the purposes.
Per <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/principiascientifica/lecture/feynman-on-scientific-method" rel="nofollow">Feynman, </a> Evolution is but an equivocation and a “vague theory” that can neither be proved or disproved, hence . . .one cannot claim to have gained any knowledge from them.</blockquote>
If you <i>a priori </i> exclude intelligent design, you cannot disprove it!
By recognizing the logical possibility, now you have to examine the evidence relative to both theories to see how they compare! i.e., apply critical thinking of ALL the options.
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by R. Gates
Chief said:
“The world is cooling.”
___
So, oceans are not part of the world? Are biggest non-tectonic heat sink isn’t part of this world. Wow. Can your hands must be rough from all that cherry picking…especially when you have to ignore the largest non-tectonic energy reservoir of planet Earth to make your absurd claim.
↧
↧
Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by johnfpittman
Willard sustainable is not well defined and as Peak oil SIF’s point out nothing is sustainable forever. Physcists point out the sun.
↧
Comment on What exactly is critical thinking? by David L. Hagen
lolwot - See <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/11/what-exactly-is-critical-thinking/#comment-253707" rel="nofollow">answer above.</a>
Re: "Science says"
No, some people hypothesize that "the explanation is entirely natural". You cannot prove that. Per <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/principiascientifica/lecture/feynman-on-scientific-method" rel="nofollow">Feynman, </a> you can only see if you disprove by comparing against evidence. Equivalently, you have to compare the evidence with the logical compliment - <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/" / rel="nofollow">intelligent design. </a>
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by R. Gates
Also, Chief, your net SW down at the surface seems pretty constant to slightly declining over the years (perhaps the quiet sun period we’ve entered):
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_SWdw_srf.gif
Certainly nothing to justify your contention somehow more SW has been entering the oceans. You really need to explain your theory a bit better. The rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere explains rising ocean heat content a whole lot better than your unsupported explanation of more SW down at the surface. The data just doesn’t back that up.
↧
Comment on What exactly is critical thinking? by Utterbilge
Manuel & Wagathon’s Wegman marathon begings to cloy :
Climate Policy: Theological, Scientific, and Economic Considerations
A Panel Presentation to the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change
By E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.
I’m grateful to James Taylor, Joe Bast, and the Heartland Institute for asking me to speak.
My remarks today in part abridge, condense, and supplement what the Cornwall Alliance has said in a 76-page interdisciplinary research paper we published last December, A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming, the product of nearly 30 leading evangelical theologians, scientists, and economists….
So, after a very brief summary of our findings in A Renewed Call to Truth, I shall turn to a discussion that properly addresses the philosophy and even the theology of science.</i?
↧
↧
Comment on What exactly is critical thinking? by SamNC
Your respecfully disagree is respected. You are kind.
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by lolwot
More interesting is how the Daily Mail has altered the start and end data point on the graph so they are both 0.5C. Look closely….
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by Beth Cooper
#312 in our global warming hymn book, +1 Max. Here’s # 313.
When they said, ‘Repent,’
Ah wuhndered whaat they meant.
Now ah know fer ah can see
The money they hav spent.
It made Al Gore a mint,
More tax fer guv uh mint,
And heffty grants fer climate scien-tists.
Oh when they said, ‘Repent,’
Ah wuhndered whaat they meant.
Now the blizz-hard uv the world
Has crossed the threshhold,
And it has ovur turned…ovur turned
The order uv the soul,
‘Repent!’
h/t Leonard Cohen
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by lolwot
“And warmists wonder why engineers are some of the worst “deniers””
Because generally they’ve never had to do scientific analysis.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by Bob Tisdale
A fan of *MORE* discourse says: “Bob Tisdale, when we inspect the data that you posted on WUWT (and ignore the red-letter “spin labels” you added) we see ongoing warming quite plainly, eh?”
You obviously have difficulty reading graphs.
With respect to Hansen et al 2011, they base their misunderstandings of global warming on the Model E, a coupled climate model that does not model ENSO well, if at all. They assume that greenhouse gases do more than simply evaporate more surface waters, when SST and OHC data show no evidence of an anthropogenic global warming component.
Last: There’s no reason to make predictions of sea level rise since ENSO cannot be predicted and it is the primary cause of the decadal sea level variability, or aren’t you aware of that?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2012rel4-gmsl-and-multivariate-enso-index
If Hansen et al’s projection fails, they simply have to claim ENSO did it, and if it comes to pass, they’ve relied on the decadal variability of ENSO. Of course they wouldn’t say that. And there are people who would fall for their nonsensical claims that their predictions came true. Know anyone like that?
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by harrywr2
R Gates,
I am well aware of the Argo data. We have less then 10 good years of it.
There is also a long running saga as to whether or not the corrections made with regard to the XBT’s were too much or too little.
Even with that the sampling at depth greater then 700 meters pre-Argo is ‘sparse’ at best.
From Levitus 2012
Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data.
If you look at the spatial coverage in Levitus 2012 you will see the coverage is quite poor the further you go back.
But when I go to NOAA and look at the official 0-700M plot I don’t see much warming in the uppper 700 meters since 2003.
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Figures/OHCA_curve_2011.pdf
If different government agencies can’t agree on how much the global ocean heat content has changed since 2003 somehow I think making a statement that we have ‘solid long term trends’ is overstating things.
The old sailors saying of there is no law below 40 degrees south and their is no god below 50 degrees south applies. There is no good long term data for the Southern Oceans because sailors avoided sailing there.
Anything that doesn’t go back more then a full human lifetime is not a ‘long term record’. There is no need for records if we are going to ‘restart history’ every 50 years.
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/13/12 by Beth Cooper
Bob Tisdale, how do we order your new book?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
