Michael’s points on the virtues of brevity and appropriate paragraphing are noted (and agreed with) but his post, as Kim has already stated, is not exactly a shining example of either of them!
Comment on Blog commenting etiquette by Peter Davies
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by David Springer
How come it changes when NOAA drops SHAP and TOBS?
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by Doug Cotton
PS: The problem with your statement "The gas released at 50,000′ adds more heat to total atmosphere." is your use of the word "heat." In physics the word "heat" relates to a <b><i>transfer</i> of kinetic energy</b> and is not energy itself, let alone the total of potential energy and kinetic energy.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by David Springer
Not that I’d accuse BEST of being NOAA, mind you. One’s a longstanding, legit organzation and the other is BEST.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by Jim D
Don, dataset-introducing papers tend to get very high citation counts. I am sure they won’t have any problem whatever the journal. The journal’s impact factor will become disproportionately large if this is one of their only papers.
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by tempterrain
Doug,
You ask ” How much physics have you done at university level?” which is a bit odd as you don’t seem to believe in University Physics. As far as I know all Universities are, unlike yourself, in basic agreement with the IPCC in their interpretation of the mechanism of climate change.
I posted a link by two eminent university professors and all you could say was “they are wrong”.
Instead of just dismissing my point with an airy “go and read my paper” comment (which I don’t believe it addresses anyway) why don’t you explain yourself in your own words?
↧
Comment on The IPCC’s alteration of Forster & Gregory’s model-independent climate sensitivity results by floaters in the eye pregnant
Hey! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a team of volunteers and starting a new project in
a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us useful information to
work on. You have done a wonderful job!
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by Steven Mosher
Sorry. I don’t get paid for any of the work I do for Berkeley. I probably started working on their stuff months before I ever got invited to sit in on the staff meeting. For now its a labor of love. weird hobby I know.
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by tempterrain
Doug,
“An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it”
I’m not sure if evolve is the right word but basically that’s right. Except that the Earth or Venus can never be an isolated system. They are just too close to the sun.
↧
↧
Comment on Blog commenting etiquette by Peter Davies
johanna I always find your comments incisive and articulate and in this case I totally agree.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by Don Monfort
That’s some halfway quais-plausibe spin Jim, but the reality is that G&G has zero credibility. And Mosher’s story that the BEST team is proud that their rejected paper landed there is ludicrous. And everybody knows it.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by Tom
willard, shooting bunnies in a circle would look very circumspect.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by The Skeptical Warmist
Vuk,
Just for fun, I plotted the vertical velocity across the whole troposphere 1000 to 100 hPa just prior to the big SSW In 2009. Interestingly, here’s the location on Earth that had a huge vertical velocity pushing right into the stratosphere in the days prior to the SSW. Turns out to be the same region as this year (which was surprise to me):
This region is an area where sometimes the jet stream comes down across a high desert in Asia and then hits a range of 20,000 foot peaks, deflecting the stream to vertical. Probably more research is warranted…
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by Don Monfort
That may be right max. I think Vaughan Pratt would just call it an extrapolation.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by Don Monfort
You are whining about the wrong issue, Steven. The criticisms of the content of the paper are not your problem. You can handle that. The paper is really OK, as far as estimates of global temp go. If it were authored by Jones, Mann, Schmidt et al, it would have been a slam dunk.
It’s the phony peer review and your lame, dishonest cover story that is causing you grief. There are more than two geostats journals, Steven. It’s hard to imagine that the one you did not choose was less credible than G&G. We won’t ask you to name it. You would not have been any worse off, if Muller had created his own journal to review the paper. That would have had zero credibility, which is exactly where you are with G&G.
You could have found a legitimate venue for the paper that the Team does not control. What were you people thinking?
↧
Comment on Macroweather, not climate, is what you expect by Wagathon
Allowing for increases and decreases certainly sounds good but Koutsoyiannis et al. made the interesting finding that 95% of all GCMs predicting more global warming than actual global warming. More interesting though is the Vancouver/Albany example because, while predicted was more than actual, we’re also looking at a change of signs. You are not picking that up. That is a major shortcoming. Depending on the circumstances tthat may be the difference between experiencing a rough landing and pushing up daisies.
↧
Comment on Blog commenting etiquette by Brandon Shollenberger
Sheesh. I never thought other people would defend Eschenbach's "civility." I think one of the first times I called him out on his behavior was in response to <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/28/is-there-any-good-news-for-the-environment-among-evangelicals/#comment-129098" rel="nofollow">this</a> comment where he practically spouted off bigotry. Since then, we've had plenty of exchanges where he demonstrated that same behavior (like <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/17/cmip5-decadal-hindcasts/#comment-201082" rel="nofollow">calling</a> people delusional because he can't admit what a word means). And it's not limited to just me. Even Joshua and I <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/28/is-there-any-good-news-for-the-environment-among-evangelicals/#comment-129279" rel="nofollow">agree</a> on this point (that should tell you something):
<blockquote>Same style, same level of vitriol, same propensity for distortions and inaccurate generalizations, same conclusions drawn without sufficient evidence that you’ll see in the majority of his posts and comments. </blockquote>
I hope people who disagree about how civil Eschenbach is do so because they haven't read the things I've seen him write. If people consider the behavior he engages in regularly "civil," I don't think I want to talk to them.
↧
↧
Comment on Macroweather, not climate, is what you expect by tempterrain
Has any of our resident numpty skeptic/deniers said yet that the climate, (or should that be macroweather?) has always changed, is currently changing and always will change? And so it doesn’t matter in the slightest that human activity is likely to cause the climate/macroweather to warm by several degrees in the foreseeable future?
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by Matthew R Marler
Don Monfort: Do you believe that G&G is a credible science journal?
How about E&E? That’s one that the AGW proponents tend to bash and the skeptics tend to defend.
Regardless, the paper, data and code will be judged on their merits. Possibly some econometricians like McShane and Wyner will publish an alternate analysis in Annals of Applied Statistics, with comments and rejoinders. The BEST team are taking the advice of John Tukey and Frederick Mosteller: do not make an entire career out of one data set. Tukey also wrote that whatever is worth doing is worth doing badly.
↧
Comment on Macroweather, not climate, is what you expect by Beth Cooper
Agree, Arno Arrak, oscillations, variations, uncertainties …all the down,
or up.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
