Heh, the ‘and/or’ are giveaways.
=================
Comment on Open thread weekend by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Spinning the climate model – observation comparison by WebHubTelescope
Maxi Priest, you have to get over yourself.
The consensus science is the challenge that you have to refute.
I would be the first to find something terribly wrong if it existed.
Yet, all I find are simplifications that support the aggregate set of models.
↧
Comment on Spinning the climate model – observation comparison by kim
No, I was the first to find something terribly wrong, but if I have seen fur, it is because I stand on the shoulders of cats and dogs.
======================
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by kim
Rank speculation masquerading as comprehensive thought. Transparent, and paranoid.
====================
↧
Comment on Spinning the climate model – observation comparison by Dave Springer
I certainly understand why you don’t want your real name associated with what you write here. If I wrote the crap you did I wouldn’t want it associated with my real name either. Thanks for being so candid about it!
None of the searches you referenced link to comments. They link to the top of the page i.e. the article itself not any individual comment. Comment URLs have the word ‘comment’ in them. Like:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/22/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison/#comment-299522
Google scholar does not index or catalog blog comments. Write that down.
If I google scholar “David Springer” I get 845 hits. Four of them that are actually me are patents that appear in first 40 hits. I scanned through to the end skipping four pages at a time and only saw a single hit to judithcurry.com near the end of the list. Check it out:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=839&q=%22David+Springer%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44
If I google scholar “David Springer” site:judithcurry.com I get six hits.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&aq=&oq=“David Springer”&rlz=1T4LENN_enUS461US461&q=%22David+Springer%22+site%3ajudithcurry.com
Why only six you might wonder given I’ve probably posted 6000 comments here. I wonder myself. Google doesn’t reveal details of its indexing and cataloging scheme in order to make it more difficult to game it. I have no idea why only out of many thousands of comments I’ve made here google scholar only finds my name associated with 6 articles. Good luck figuring that one out. I don’t really care. If someone doesn’t like what I have to say here and wants to hold it against me they can go piss up a rope. My words are my words and I don’t hide from them like you do.
Goo
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by kim
When we were all locavores, we were malnourished by Spring.
===================
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by The Skeptical Warmist
Jim asks:
“Is it possible that the SSW caused a transient elevation of temperatures at 600 mbar during January 2013?”
——
Jim, your intuition is good in this point. We see the warming extending downward from the stratosphere over the course of early January into February into the upper troposphere:
Most interesting if course is that the earliest precursor warming of this years SSW event (and many past years as well) begins high up in the stratosphere and moves downward, though the actual initial trigger is in the troposphere.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Steven Mosher
“has posted solid evidence?
DUDE. He did not post evidence of astroturfing. This is what he claimed
“But I’m willing to bet that 95% of the 252 comments posted are in the climate skeptic/denier side of the argument, and almost certainly the result of organised activity funded and coordinated by companies that feel they have something to lose.”
Huh. he didnt read them? hes willing to bet? coordinated by companies?
Really? that dud sounds like a conspiracy theorist. Hes got zero evidence. ZERO. he didnt even read the comments.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim Cripwell
Skeptical you write “Jim, your intuition is good in this point.”
Thank you for this. It will be interesting to see what the satellite temperature data is for Feb 2013. We should know on Monday.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by The Skeptical Warmist
No discussion here on the latest study of moderate volcanic activity over the past decade and effect on flattening global temperatures?
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-volcanic-aerosols-pollutants-tamped-earth.html
Surely there has been discussion but this thread is so long I missed it.
↧
Comment on Spinning the climate model – observation comparison by WebHubTelescope
It’s fun to counteract the mindlessness of the bot-kim with deep earnestness.
The consensus science is that mankind is creating the excess CO2 that is raising atmospheric CO2 levels above the baseline of 294 PPM. This value was first accurately measured in the 1800′s.
To model this process, consider that the excess CO2 hangs around in the carbon cycle for years before diffusing to permanent sequestering sites. So the model of diffusion is characterized by an effective diffusion coefficient, represented as a median adjustment time. Physics tells us that we can model the response to a stimulus of CO2 input by convolving the stimulus with a response function derived from the diffusion equation.
We have a representative estimate of the amount of carbon dumped into the environment via the Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2009.ems
The conversion from carbon to CO2 enables us to generate an estimate of past CO2 concentrations and project future concentrations.
This is the resultant model of excess CO2 compared to Mauna Loa measurements since 1958.
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4946/co2rms.gif
This has a sub-PPM RMS error over the sampled range.
This model has no freely adjustable parameters. The baseline of 294 PPM from Reiset measured in 1875. The diffusion time agrees with the adjustment time used by the centric “Bern model” from the IPCC WG1.
In summary, what we have is a straightforward computation of excess CO2 based on a concise physics model. It is really a triumph of consensus science. Alas, the people that Joshua labels as “skeptics” are not the least bit interested in such science.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Wagathon
…much like Planned Parenthood even the name — Skeptical Science — is an abortion… The Left turned English into a Liars Languange
…there is nothing more necessary than truth, and
in comparison with it everything else has only secondary value ~Nietzsche
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by GaryM
Straw man arguments are so boring. Let’s try an honest version.
“Let’s suppose That I argue the average global temperature is increasing.
You challenge me and ask what models I use. I say “GCMs from climate consensus scientists.” You then proceed to trash GCMs and say that GCMs should not be trusted to predict global warming.
A year goes by. Then you make the argument ‘look at this paper, It shows no warming for this period.”
I read the fine print and point out a GCM was used.”
I’ll rephrase in normal English.
CAGWer – We have to decarbonize because climate models predict catastrophic warming.
Skeptic – Here is the output of a GCM using consensus temp data, and it does not show the predicted warming, so we don’t need to decarbonize.
Skeptic – See? I was right and you just admitted it. Let me rewrite what you actually wrote, and claim you argued something completely different, and I’ll show you how.
You compared global average temperature to global average temperature, but I will change that to comparing the average weight of Swedes to the average weight of Americans.
You post the results of a “climate data analysis,” and I will point out that I did a Sherlock Holmesian investigation and learned that the analysis was done using a computer.
You point out that this one analysis does not support the CAGW argument of run away warming (without actually, you know, saying so). I mischaracterize you to say that this one output “proves” there is no global warming.
Straw men arguments are dishonest.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by pokerguy
Conviction is fine, even admirable when accompanied by an open, flexible mind and sense of moderation. Terrorists are nothing if not convinced.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Steven Mosher
David. Looks like you are the one who needs to read. I’ve written those types of documents. You don’t even understand them.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim Cripwell
The main thing this paper emphasises, is that the certainty with which the IPCC has, in the past, made claims in the SPMs, is severely undermined by these sorts of reports, which cast doubt on the validity of the consensus that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes CAGW.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Fanny
Tom Paine’s “Common Sense” fits perfectly for anyone who believes that individual liberty and freedom is the most important thing a government can guarantee its people.
The top down central government approach to force individuals to pay a (direct or indirect) carbon tax would be very much against Paine’s political philosophy of individual liberty and freedom from oppressive government.
Good point, Fan.
Max
PS And, yes “denialists” (i.e. those who deny that it has temporarily stopped warming) are definitely “on the wrong side of history”, as you write.
↧
↧
Comment on Spinning the climate model – observation comparison by manacker
John M
Maybe we can revive Mann’s hockey shtick on “Newsweek”
It’s already gone down the drain, but whaddaya think?
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by kim
It was a nice easy curve, and Fan takes a huge swing and a miss at it.
==================
↧
Comment on Spinning the climate model – observation comparison by manacker
William Connolley
Scientists are also responsible for any hyperbolic BS that they feed the media.
And therein lies the problem.
Max
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
