Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by Pierre-Normand

0
0

That’s true, R. Gates, however lolwot was referring to sea surface temperatures. They also are unusually high right now in spite of ENSO being in a rather cool phase.


Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

According to Norman Loeb and colleagues El Nino cause planetary cooling – oceans and atmosphere – and La Nina warming.

However – the oceans haven’t warmed for a decade at least following the cloud changes at the 1998/2001 climate shift.

e.g. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=23http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=135 -
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=0

This is something that is lost on space cadets.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by DocMartyn

0
0

Jim D, there has be no change in the annual temperature cycle of the Vostok station at all.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by lolwot

0
0

And now he’s wailing about global cooling just as he wailed about WMD in Iraq.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by Tom

0
0

Not quite the same size but they are on the new adjustment as I type.

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by Tom

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by lolwot

Comment on Arctic sea ice minimum? by Chief Hydrologist


Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by blueice2hotsea

0
0

Pekka – [Pachauri's] actions were studied by KPMG and he was cleared of charges of misconduct. Telegraph had to apologize and pay legal costs.

Thank you for this information.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by GaryM

0
0

Michael and Willard,

You still haven’t made any argument. Bush made a lot of stupid appointments., he was a progressive Republican. he tried to appoint a hack like Harriet Meiers to the Supreme Court because she was loyal to him.

I’ll give you one more shot: The fact that Bush appointed Pachauri means he has been a great IPCC head because…….

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by GaryM

0
0

Every employee of the IPCC should be fired. The answer should be the IPCC has zero employees.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by climatereason

0
0

Fan

What has this got to do with US debt and your attitude to it unless you are complaining that yet more money will be shoved at James Hansen thereby increasing your collective debt.

Do you have a weekly quota of links to him that you must post? Are you being paid to do it? Are you being blackmailed?

Just put your usual set of smilies along the bottom of your reply and I will take that as code that you are being blackmailed by Hansen. Help is at hand Fan.
tonyb

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Joshua

0
0

Oh, and BTW – I forgot:

Joshua, I was replying in exactly the same ‘guilt trip’ script hat FOMD has been using.

“Mommy, mommy, he did it fiiiirrrrrrsssssst.”

Never seen that before.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

0
0

Oh, Joshua, you silly boy! I didn’t name anyone! Nor (unlike some I could name!) have I even suggested that I should be the one to “determine what topics should be discussed” here or anywhere else!

So, by all means, do feel free to continue to drop your little strawmen and/or ride your little hobby-horses to your little heart’s content (or at least as long as our gracious hostess – who has far more patience than I – is willing to tolerate them!)

But – as a Bridgeplayer – I do reserve my right to call a spade a spade, and the presence of thread-jacking comments and/or topic-diversions as …well … the presence of thread-jacking comments and/or topic-diversions!

Run along now, Joshua, and just deal with it, eh?!

OTOH, if you want to continue playing these silly little attention-seeking games of yours, by all means do so! But be forewarned: much as I am loath to hurt your tender little feelings, I have much better things to do with my time than reading (or responding to) thread-jacking comments and/or topic-diversions.

And so … as we used to say in the good old days of Usenet … “plonk”!

P.S. You could take FOMD with you (or not!)

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

And yet ARGO is showing 0.69mm/yr steric sea level rise in a period of declining ocean fresh water content. CERES is showing that all warming in that period was from a slight reduction in cloud cover. The change in CO2 forcing was certainly not enough to make much difference at all over such a short period. We are talking about an order of magnitude difference in forcing.

I estimated 5.7 million km^2 based on winter AO and the state of the Pacific. The nascent La Nina doesn’t seem to be evolving as fast as I thought it would in the current cool IPO. In fact it seems to be retreating.

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomnight.9.9.2013.gif


Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

TonyB, how can *any* discussion of “the best available climate-change science” avoid talking about James Hansen?

Well, folks try at least three maneuvers:

• timidly focus on short-term cycle-science (Curry/Monckton), or

• goofily obsess over personalities and politics (Laframboise/Watts), or

• obsess about US national debt (TonyB’s inexplicable method).

None of these seem like much fun to me!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

If the heat entered the atmosphere without extra CO2 – added heat wouldn’t stay there at all. Extra CO2 is what changes the fundamental energy dynamic of the atmosphere.

How that interacts with the global energy budget is a topic I am mightily bored with.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Chuck L

0
0

Fan and Joshua, if you are not concerned with national debt and massive unfunded government liabilities at a time when interest rates are at historical lows, then you are clueless about finance. When interest rates go up, which they will (10 year treasuries have already increased by 140 basis points since May), the debt service will increase exponentially and the interest alone plus fixed outlays like SS, Medicare, etc. will exceed tax revenues. TonyB is absolutely correct

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Now there’s a perfect analogy. Resistance is futile.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Joshua

0
0

Hilary,

You are on record as whining about my comments. Rather regularly, in fact.

But be forewarned: much as I am loath to hurt your tender little feelings,…

I can assure you, nothing that you have said nor could ever say will hurt my feelings. Your fantasies about my feelings being tender (let alone little) are misplaced.

I have much better things to do with my time than reading (or responding to) thread-jacking comments and/or topic-diversions.

Wow! I am so impressed with how important you must be, and how judicious you are in allotting your time. The only problem is that you contracted what you just said there not once, but twice, in the previous comment in this sub-thread as well as by writing that very comment.

But if you do sometime have some time you feel like wasting, you might address the point I was making:

But – as a Bridgeplayer – I do reserve my right to call a spade a spade, and the presence of thread-jacking comments and/or topic-diversions as …well … the presence of thread-jacking comments and/or topic-diversions!

Your determination of what is or isn’t thread-jacking suffers from a confusion between your opinion and fact, by virtue of being arbitrary (not in the sense of being random, but in the sense of being subjective).

Such is always the case in the blogosphere. Or if you have some way of non-subjectively making that determination, go ahead and provide your explanation. My guess is that your definition of “thread-jacking” and “diversions” amounts to nothing other than people expressing opinions you don’t like. I’d be willing to wager that your determination of which comments are “jacking” or “diverting” is entirely selectively associated with viewpoints you aren’t in agreement with.

But perhaps I’m wrong. Which “skeptics” here do you think have been “thread-jacking” or “diverting.” Not that I buy the determination to begin with, but it would be interesting to watch you demonstrate non-selectivity in your reasoning.

Go for it.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images