Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


older | 1 | .... | 4097 | 4098 | (Page 4099) | 4100 | 4101 | .... | 4134 | newer

    0 0

    AGW is a Worldwide "The King Has No Clothes On Scam." Some of the world is waking up. People in multiple countries are fighting back against the alarmism. France has protesters that has made the leader back off some. We elected Trump to make changes and he is doing that.

    0 0

    I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. Are you saying that you believe global warming of a few degrees C is dangerous? If so what's your evidence? (not just statements of your beliefs and appeals to authority).

    0 0

    A Happy and Healthy New Year to you and yours, Judith...and to the denizens here at ClimateEtc. Cheers, Bob

    0 0

    Happy New Year to one and all. Thanks Judy for great informative challenging posts. Keep it up. PS Scott. Do you mean "until scientists test models against existing data" and politicians provide major funding to quantify natural variations and require models be validated against data? e.g., Consider: McKitrick R, Christy J. <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018EA000401" rel="nofollow">A Test of the Tropical 200‐to 300‐hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models</a> Earth and Space Science. 2018 Sep;5(9):529-36. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018EA000401 <blockquote>Overall climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling in a general circulation model results from a complex system of parameterizations in combination with the underlying model structure. We refer to this as the model's major hypothesis, and we assume it to be testable. We explain four criteria that a valid test should meet: <b>measurability, specificity, independence, and uniqueness.</b> We argue that temperature change in the tropical 200‐ to 300‐hPa layer meets these criteria. Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years using a persistence‐robust variance estimator shows that <b>all models warm more rapidly than observations</b> and in the majority of individual cases <b>the discrepancy is statistically significant.</b> We argue that this provides informative <b>evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.</b></blockquote> Then what of the massive TypeB errors on the discrepancy between satellite and surface records? Who will quantify and then identify those?

    0 0

    Thank you for all you do, Judith. Happy New Year to you and all CE followers.

    0 0

    ""2018 climate: I predict that global average 2018 surface temperatures won’t be ‘top five’, i.e. cooler than the last few years. –> oops, looks like 2018 will be top 4" Happy new Year. I would request an article on the roller coaster sea ice variable changes which no one cares about while they revert to their trends. Perhaps later this year when we have a big upsurge in the Arctic sea ice and people are interested. Thanks for an entertaining year and all your hard work trying to promote normal scientific activity and your great work on sea level rise. Where are the others who should be approaching these issues on both sides? Appreciated ++.

    0 0

    Healthy, Happy, and Prosper New Year! <blockquote>2018 climate: I predict that global average 2018 surface temperatures won’t be ‘top five’, i.e. cooler than the last few years. –> oops, looks like 2018 will be top 4</blockquote> Not too bad, Judith. You just need to increase your uncertainty range. Look at UK Met Office 2019 temperature prediction: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/mohippo/images/climate/2019-global-temperature-forecast.png <i>"Graph showing global average temperature relative to the 1850–1900 baseline. The grey line and shading shows the 95% uncertainty range. The forecast value for 2019 and its uncertainty range are shown in black and green."</i> https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/2019-global-temperature-forecast You see, they predict 1.15°C (1850-1900 pre-industrial baseline), that would make it second warmest year, but give it a range 0.98-1.22°C (first to third warmest year). The 0.24°C range is significantly higher than the median yearly change so essentially they have covered any warming that could take place. Have you done the same you would have been correct in your prediction. Well done. Climatological predictions are easy with the proper uncertainty ranges (i.e. huge). For example: I predict that 2019 average temperature will not reach the UK Met Office central value prediction and 2019 will become third to fifth warmest year.

    0 0

    dpy6629 | December 31, 2018 at 8:23 pm | I agree that Robert E. provides information that is interesting, especially the references. dpy, He has his own blog and his own skills, I have never discovered why he took it upon himself to post so heavily on Judith's blog. I do not see the plus that you seem to. Geoff.

    0 0

    Javier, The weakness of that graph from the Met Office is that the shaded areas of grey, representing "the 95% uncertainty range" have no connection with scientific reality. At a minimum, there is a +/- 1 degree C at the 2 sigma level (if that is the appropriate metric) and it is strongly possible that the +/- 1 deg C also expresses 1 sigma uncertainty. This is not a personal opinion plucked from the ether. I have studied the historic Australian record for decades. It cannot be "improved" so much by adding it to the sparse African continental record, or any other, to make a global record. One cannot make a silk purse from a cow's ear. Think of the sophistication and distribution of thermometry in the 1850-60 era at the start of the graph.The claimed +/- 0.25 for 2 sigma is pathetic and comical and the product of simplistic wan***s. Geoff.

    0 0

    Happy New Year to Judith and all the followers here. My wish is that the establishment comes out of their own silos and becomes as knowledgeable about the climate history and their own science as some of the denizens. That might result in some revelations and ease the pathological obsession with certain doom. Relax and enjoy the ride.

    0 0

    I know, Geoff. But this is like when you go watch a Marvel superhero movie. You have to accept superpowers. Otherwise you have to reject the entire movie. This is the way we measure global temperature and you and I are not going to change it. It does reflect global warming and cooling so it is not totally incorrect. It is important to remember that it cannot be trusted prior to 1950, and that it cannot be corresponded to proxy temperature changes.

    0 0

    bigterguy, Yes, the Victorian result only applies to one region, although if you had read the two (peer-reviewed) papers attached to my blog post, you find that lunar affects actually apply to large sections of the southern hemisphere. In addition, the dominant source of heating and cooling of the Earth's atmosphere on sub-decadal time scales [other than the variations caused by daily and seasonal varaitions] are due to the El Nino/La Nina oscillation. I have shown that moderate to strong El Nino events (that are part of this ENSO cycle) are triggered by lunar tidal effects. So indirectly, lunar tides are in fact a significant contributor to the warming and cooling of the Earths on inter-annual to decadal time-scales.

    0 0

    Matthewrmarler, The peaks in the rainfall anomalies for Victoria match not just the period of the lunar Draconic cycle but also its phase. The matching periods is suggestive of a link between the two that warrants further investigation. The additional matching of the phase between the two phenomena indicates that there is the possibility of a plausible link. I have spent the last eight years trying to establish if that link is supported by the observations. There will be a paper coming out later this year that [I believe] will conclusively prove this link.

    0 0

    as you can see, "selective" being the operative term

    0 0

    Judy here is another example of Cliff's general bias and highly selective censorship finger: While he is not at all shy about trimming away well reasoned and substantive criticism from "lefties", he is markedly less so, to the extent essentialy of providing a "safe space" for some rather spurious and often vindictive language, for "righties". You can see for yourself in his more recent blogging and as an experiment ( I know scientists love those!) I will print here my own response to one example there, and we might see his censorship in action. I hope not but we (perhaps only you and me anyway) shall see: My text: "In regard to the regular commentor "Placeholder": It should be obvious to all by now that "Placeholder" holds and expresses freely an animosity and general contempt for anyone who he perceives as a typical denizen of Seattle. In fact, this sentiment is often the entirety or no less than half of his prodigious communications, as is evident in his response to the above Eric Fisk. Speaking for myself, I don't particularly mind this, as any libertarian minded person surely wouldn't, considering our inalienable right to free speech. The one thing I do take offence at is that "Placeholder" is a name that somehow I doubt is written onto any birth certificate, Kenyan or otherwise, and as one can see written directly below in the rules and regulations and I quote: "This blog does not allow anonymous comments." It seems to me only courteous (and apparently required) that if "Placeholder" is inclined to respond as he does to a person who not only shows respect to our intelligence through a well reasoned and respectful articulation of his thoughts but then signs with his name and an identifiable photo that "Placeholder" should at the very least sign his name with something a little bolder than a rather strange pseudonym. And if really honourable, an indication of which town he lives in...... and presumes to represent, it would seem. Signed: Bruce Kay of Powell River, BC

    0 0

    Yes. As always, thanks for being the adult in the room. I hope the effort you expend in that area helps your new career overall. I can see that there's a potential conflict between being a spokesperson for moderation and sanity on the public side, and being a lower profile "responsible" business owner. In any event, you are an important voice in the climate debate and we appreciate your persistence.

    0 0

    I enjoy your contributions and hope you stick around. I don't want this blog turning into an echo chamber. But I have a feeling that if you're gone someone else will pick up the slack.

    0 0

    That's pretty significant. For the lifespan of one person (my grandmother, for example, lived in PA) a person would have to move 200 miles north to get the same temperature. That's amazing, and it's only going to get worse. Ask anyone if they think the temps for locations 200 miles north are warmer or colder. Ask then if their farm had the same growing season as those 200 miles north (keeping to the same altitude, of course.) Lots of change already, and lots coming.

    0 0

    I do learn stuff from RIE, he is very welcome here (of course also Jim D). However, I do try to limit how much one person can dominate the comment threads.

    0 0

    I plan on getting back to the Arctic sea ice, but may not happen until later in the year.

older | 1 | .... | 4097 | 4098 | (Page 4099) | 4100 | 4101 | .... | 4134 | newer