yes, the truth hurts.
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Edim
↧
↧
Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by captdallas 0.8 or less
Chief, I guess webby and Tamino are trying to say climate is noisy. Whoda thunk it?
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-saiqfI6G46U/UWG1VSJeiFI/AAAAAAAAHvg/mIhRHcrRgkQ/s931/dye3.png
↧
Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by WebHubTelescope
Thanks to Joshua, we are reminded how poor Chylek’s time series analysis skills are.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Generalissimo Skippy
Earth sciences
↧
Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Bart R
blueice2hotsea | April 6, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/sharp-practice.html
http://blogs.hbr.org/anthony/2012/10/dont_make_these_mistakes_when.html
Get it, yet? No? Read a book.
↧
↧
Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Jim D
Fan, thanks for pointing this paper out. Interesting to look at the long view, and potential impacts of broader ranges of CO2 variation. I will read it more closely with interest, but it is wide-ranging from snowball earth to what it takes for a Venus-like response, and why that is unlikely (evaporating the oceans). Also about the habitability of earth for man and mammals as the wet-bulb temperature exceeds 26 C in larger areas, and the fossil fuel resources making this state possible in the long term. Lots to ponder.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Wagathon
so you are saying global warming is more science then political science?
↧
Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Generalissimo Skippy
Webby just went into a meltdown on the US policy post. Funny as hell – talk about noisy. He hates us with the intensity of a thousand suns. Crazy as a loon comes to mind.
Chylek’s time series analysis is obviously better than tamino’s. What a surprise. Webby doesn’t even know what the question is. Same ole rubbish it seems.
↧
Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Generalissimo Skippy
‘I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.’ Richard P. Feynman
Minding your knitting is a principle that is best observed in the breach bt one wonders if bart can knit anything at all.
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Bad Andrew
“the fake science of climatology would not exist without the Democrat Party”
This is true. One doesn’t even need to look past Al Gore(D) (difficult task anyway for obvious reasons).
Andrew
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by lolwot
“My ‘projection’ for this decade: less than 1.8 ppm/year in average. According to you it should be much more than 2.0 ppm/year (2000s decadal average), because human emissions are skyrocketing.”
I would think there was already little hope of that
2010 2.43
2011 1.83
2012 2.67
I was actually surprised 2012 was so high. 2nd highest annual rise on record with no El Nino.
↧
Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Generalissimo Skippy
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Edim
No, most of it is political. And some good ol’ science within paradigm.
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Edim
lolwot, yes I was surprised too. The annual change will reduce with the temperature after ~2015.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Brandon Shollenberger
Bart R, I think you need to reconsider your views on what is and is not “American.” What you describe as “Un-American to the core” is actually a fundamental aspect of America.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by kim
Put the intensity of a thousand suns in front of a fan, and whaddya get?
============================
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist
The MEI was mostly positive for 2012. We will get more frequent and intense La Nina over a decade or three more – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703 – and the TSI has peaked or nearly so.
‘With the overall MEI indicating ENSO-neutral conditions, one can still find several key anomalies in the MEI component fields that exceed or equal one standard deviation, or one sigma (compare to loadings figure), that may flag either El Niño or, mostly, La Niña. Significant negative anomalies (coinciding with high positive loadings) indicate strong easterly wind anomalies (U) over the equatorial Pacific near the dateline. East of Australia, significant northerly wind anomalies (V) are found straddling about the same longitudes. Significant positive anomalies (coinciding with negative loadings) cover the eastern Indian Ocean near Western Indonesia for the zonal wind field (U). In the same vein, significant positive SST anomalies (S) extend from the Philippine region towards Hawa’ii. All of these anomalies are typical for La Niña conditions.’ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
The SOI is always noisy – http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml – but is a useful indicator for ENSO some 6 monhs in advance. It is suggesting La Nina later this years.
El Nina conditions for later this year seem increasingly likely – http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomnight.4.4.2013.gif – if you know what to look for.
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Skiphil
Without regard to which “side” of things may feel aggrieved in any particular exchange, permit me to make an analogy between banter and pranks:
Some ppl in this world think that anything they like to do to someone else for laughs is a “prank”….
Although there might not be one bright line of definition, I’ll say that what distinguishes both “banter” and “prank” from something malicious is that the recipient should truly feel eager to laugh along with the person dishing it out.
i.e., a good practical test of whether one’s teasing remarks are light hearted “banter” or more malicious “insult” would be, will the object of the remark laugh along with it? Or is that person more likely to take offense?
When I used to deal with cases of student discipline on a university campus, some ppl liked to say anything they did to another was only a “prank”….
If the recipient is not laughing, that’s a good indication that it’s not a mere prank. Here, if the recipient is not enjoying the attention, that’s a good indication of an “insult” rather than mere “banter”…..
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Skiphil
p.s. I’m not going to provide any more info about the following, so you can take it or leave it as you please, as it’s coming from a pseudonymous web poster, but……
Many years ago as a college undergraduate I was involved in playing a notable prank on one of the 19 people who is now a member of President Obama’s PCAST.
I think this person will still laugh heartily if reminded of that event but I haven’t brought it up in a while………………. it does bring a smile to my face as I type these words, small world indeed sometimes.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by WebHubTelescope
Get a default answer for a blog that purports to attract rational discussion regarding climate skepticism. How quaint.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
