Unquestionably believe that which you said. Your favorite justification seemed to be on
the net the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to you,
I certainly get annoyed while people think about worries that
they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and defined out the whole thing without
having side effect , people can take a signal. Will probably be back to get more.
Thanks
Comment on Climate Smart Agriculture by spraying for bed bugs
↧
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
The problem Wagathon is that you are nowhere near the militant stridency of the long-gone commenter known as <b>cwon14</b>. That guy had the ammo that makes you look like a kitten in comparison.
↧
Comment on Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? by dp
Steven – the fraud is that Jones and others, if they are worth their pay, knew theirs was but one solution to a complex problem but by their non-scientific actions attempted to force as the only reasonable solution. Jone’s failure you highlight is a symptom of the attempted larger fraud. You are ignoring motive and a clear attempt and intent to commit fraud, and it is not flattering. No cookie.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Wagathon
The most amazing thing to witness, for me, is that so many Leftists — especially those in the government education industry — do not realize they were witness to the golden age of America and played a major role in its fall.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Chiefio says
“The inability to consider other than simple space cadet memes is a psychopathology. “
I don’t know what exactly that means but it is obviously something that drives the chief crazy. So here is another straightforward analysis
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/05/proportional-landsea-global-warming.html
This particular analysis combines OHC, SST, land temperatures, and the global temperature anomaly into a nice little package.
↧
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Wagathon
Det gäller förstås sammanfattningarna (Summary for Policy Makers) som skickas ut till politiker och journalister (sent out to politicians and journalists) men även allt från tekniska rapporter och stödjande material till själva den mångsidiga huvudrapporten (liberally translated is a pack of lies for the consumption of liberal idiots).
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
The two-month cycle is described here:
http://www.whoi.edu/cicor/page.do?pid=19476&tid=282&cid=39812
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Wagathon
“klimatsamfundet har arbetat i mer än 20 år för att skapa en vetenskaplig konsensus om antropogen klimatförändring. analyser från flera discipliner stöder slutsatsen att processen för det vetenskapliga konsensussökandet som använts av ipcc har haft den oavsiktliga konsekvensen att snedvrida både vetenskapen och de tillhörande beslutsprocesserna” ~Judith Curry
Translated from Swedish: The climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Analyses from several disciplines supports the conclusion that the process of the scientific consensus, the conclusion reached by the IPCC, has had the unintended consequence of distorting both the science and the related decision-making processes.
Sounds to me like the beginning of a new global consensus on the validity of global warming alarmism and not that long after we all smelled the stink of rotten fish in Copenhagen. Progress!
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Pekka Pirilä
The optical depth is not constant, but a optical depth that depends on GHG concentrations.The optical depth alone tells very little about the GHE, other factors are also important as you also explain in connection to the Figure 6 of your 2010 paper.
I can only wonder why you have failed to look more at the implications of Figure 6. Repeating the calculation for higher CO2 concentration tells immediately that the forcing from doubling CO2 is close to the value 3.7 W/m^2 (not exactly as the clear sky calculation is obviously not a full analysis, Myhre added an estimated effect of clouds to that).
↧
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Bart R
Not to interrupt, but is there a term in these equations that takes into account the change in the height of the solar tide, too?
It’s difficult to conceive of an accurate treatment of optical depth that did not also consider depth.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by BatedBreath
The simple version is openness, where climate science as a whole scores 0/10.
Epitomised by the IPCC’s leading light Prof Phil Jones famously saying Why should I show you my data when I know you’ll try and find something wrong with it?.
A comment that neither got him sacked – as it ought to have – or even officially reprimanded, and which most of the climate science profession chose to leave uncriticised – indicating their approval for violating the basic principles of science in the cause of political activism (they are after all politically financed).
Climategate of course revealed a lot more fundamental antipathy to openness.
And recently, more resistance to openness has emerged. In the wake of Climategate, UEA organised and financed an ‘investigation’ into themselves, which unsurprisingly exonerated themselves. But they refuse to allow anyone to see the emails of this ‘investigation’.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Bart R
BatedBreath | May 4, 2013 at 2:52 am |
Please, by all means, place this 0/10 into context for us.
How does Astronomy rate, in comparison?
Cosmology?
Astrophysics?
Pharmacology?
Genetics?
Radiology?
Robotics?
Run down a list of the sciences you’re familiar with, and rate them for us, to show the validity of your rating system.
After all, Climatology is a tiny field, with a tiny amount spent on it compared to these others. Certainly the literature is ample for validating and verifying your rating system.
By the way, could you publish how it works? After all, one would imagine the first step in using an “Openness” rating system would be demonstrating its own openness.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Max_OK
Waggy, the Golden Age is being replaced by the Platinum Age. Things just keep getting better and better for me. I can’t think of another era I would rather be living in.
I’m not sure why you are so bitter and pessimistic, but I suspect it’s because you are aboard the Titanic of political philosophies, and you know the boat is sinking. You waste time complaining about the rising water, when the smart thing would be to abandon ship.
↧
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Bart R
For instance, does this latest rehashing owe anything in its provenance to http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/3/26/making-science-public.html or is its echo chamberistic quality merely coincidental?
Since we know Phil Jones was demoted and relieved of duties in the wake of investigations, and the UK has pretty strict HR laws regarding public disclosure of personnel issues, how can we confirm what you say is accurate?
Also, wouldn’t a balanced narrative include questions of GWPF funding and lobbying activities, at the very least?
It’s not that I disagree at all that Climatology deserves a low rating — most sciences do, the state of Openness in Science is deplorable. I just don’t want rating systems to be discredited and losing their power because they’re so inept.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by manacker
Max_OK
Agree with you on the “Platinum Age”.
It’s not quite “summertime” yet (in this part of the world), but the “livin’ is easy”.
Except for some cold, snowy winters and springs, climate is getting better all the time – let’s hope it keeps improving that way (a couple more degrees of gentle warming like we’ve seen the past 100 years would be nice).
Max_CH
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Pekka Pirilä
The variability in the rates of condensation and evaporation is linked to (atmospheric) solar tides and that does certainly affect optical depth a little. Otherwise the effect is probably small as the optical depth is determined by the mass of the atmosphere rather than by it’s depth in kilometers.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by manacker
Peter Lang
Agree. If the goal is decarbonization, nuclear is a key component of the “no regrets” solution. In fact, it’s the only viable alternate. The problem is political (USA, Europe, etc.).
Webby
Agree with you that improving energy efficiency and reducing waste is another key component of the “no regrets” solution.
But the rest of your comment is the usual silly blah-blah:
For shame Manacker, for always trying to twist any act of logical policy into a barbaric act.
Huh?
Whazzat?
Improving GDP$ per ton of CO2 emitted (as the world has been doing) is a “barbaric act”? (Sounds like a “logical policy” to me.)
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist
‘Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.’
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
Yeah – like sunspots aren’t an indicator of solar activity.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Herman Alexander Pope
cutting greenhouse gas emissions is really not needed. There is no real data that shows we have any kind of warming that is harmful There is no real data that shows we have any kind of sea level rise the is harmful.
Why stop something that causes green things to grow better and that is not causing any problems that can be proved by any data?
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Steven Mosher
Harvard MBAs. dear sweet jesus Bart. Have you ever had a Harvard MBA work for you? Prolly not. Here’s the kind of crap you see from Harvard
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/rogoff-reinhart-deficit-research-false/print
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
