Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by lolwot

$
0
0

The US right in particular seem to have become particularly good at imagining up stories that outrage them as a form of entertainment.

While in reality the idea that students have been “taught since kindergarten that you are not permitted to question the line that men and women are interchangeable” is ludicrous, many will happily believe it as it presents a simple-to-absorb cartoon picture of reality that simultaneously comforts and outrages them.

A recent example of such would be the made up stories that a certain Antarctic expedition had gone there to prove the ice had melted. False, but nice and simple as a tale, comfortably reinforcing their beliefs and not to be ruined by facts.


Comment on Open thread by Ian Nunn

$
0
0

First time on this site. Two questions. What is the starting point for climate models generally or does it vary widely. How far are they back-tested?

Comment on Week in review by jim2

$
0
0

From the article:
2013 was the fourth warmest year in the satellite era, trailing only 1998, 2010 and 2005, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The warmest areas during the year were over the North Pacific and the Antarctic, where temperatures for the year averaged more than 1.4 C (more than 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal. There were small areas of cooler than normal temperatures scattered about the globe, including one area over central Canada where temperatures were 0.6 C (about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the 30-year norm.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/03/global-temperature-report-december-2013/

Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Richard,
One of the major drawbacks of being a deceased genius is that you can’t squash anonymous underachievers on blogs who cherry-pick quotes from your body of work and make snide moral judgements based on their own dubious modern sensibilities. It would be interesting to see what Mencken would do to our little joshie.

Comment on Week in review by Theo Goodwin

$
0
0

“The laughable belief that there’s some overwhelming consensus on “climate change” must be overturned.”

There is no consensus belief on climate change, unless you make the proposition believed so vague as to be meaningless. Such a proposition is “The planet has been warming for 150 years.” Just about everyone subscribes to that belief, everyone including skeptics. But that belief could prove to be true while AGW and CAGW prove to be false.

The “consensus belief” challenge is a purely political challenge. The reins of power in the MSM must be wrested from the anti-science crowd that now holds them.

In general, for those who wish to hold themselves to high standards of debate, any claim of scientific consensus must be a claim about a rigorously formulated hypothesis. Anything less is just hot air. You will find only hot air in existing claims about a consensus on climate change. There is my challenge. If there is a consensus then please produce the rigorously formulated hypothesis that it is about.

Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)

Comment on Week in review by vukcevic

Comment on Week in review by Theo Goodwin

$
0
0

What I find most important in Gelernter’s essay is his criticism of the rabid response to Nagel’s thesis. It is truly remarkable that the rabid response appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education as a call to war against religion, as follows:

“Whatever the validity of [Nagel’s] stance, its timing was certainly bad. The war between New Atheists and believers has become savage, with Richard Dawkins writing sentences like, “I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sadomasochistic, and repellent. We should also dismiss it as barking mad….” In that climate, saying anything nice at all about religion is a tactical error.”

That is truly irresponsible.


Comment on Week in review by Joseph

$
0
0

But, Chief, you can’t publish anything without peer review. And if they all know AGW is a hoax, then those who publish that work are conspiring to promote that hoax.

Comment on Week in review by captdallas 0.8 or less

$
0
0

Willard, “Unless you wish to insinuate that the GWPF is not that effective because it was adopted by David Rose from the Daily Mail?”

Not at all, unless you consider David Rose as torturing GWPF concepts. The words of the 12 were not even compiled until about 250 ad so it is hard to tell how effective “they” really were since there have been about 41,000 Christian denominations.

Comment on Week in review by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

‘I’ve been too long in the wind and too long in the rain – Taking any comfort that I can’
Dixie Chicks

So here’s ARGO to 2012 – latest available it seems.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/d44a01fb-b994-47bf-879f-8992cf9a3b54_zps4dc095e3.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

Of course with new software – the first question to ask is do you know what you are really doing or are you just pushing buttons? I am trying to calculate anomalies – taking so long.

It is still the case that energy inputs – according to available data – peaked around the turn of the century. Lyman and Johnson 2013 – show a decline in OHC between 2003 and 2005.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=48

‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’

This can be seen in IR – a cooling of 0.7W/m2 between the 80′s and 90′s (AR4).

s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=109

And in cloud. A substantial increase in cloud radiative forcing to the late 90′s, the shift captured by Project Earthshine and many others in diverse ways and not much much change since.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=71

The future involves a decrease in solar intensity in the 11 yer cycle – and longer it seems. It involves as well the intensification of the current cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Variation – cooler SST and increased cloud cover seems a reasonable expectation for a decade at least.

Is there really any conceptual difficulty in the idea that solar tsi is peaking – and that reflected SW and emitted IR hasn’t changed all that much in CERES?

Or indeed that the PDV persits for 20 to 40 years?

Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”

Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

Cooling – or at least non-warming over the next decade at least seems quite likely.

That Cheech and Chong don’t understand – or don’t want to understand – and merely indulge in almost data and theory free narrative – seems par for the warminista course.

Comment on Week in review by GaryM

$
0
0

Wow, they were “beaming images” and “using the latest radio technology” and they deployed “Argo floats and drifter buoys in the sea – another first for the region – beaming their location at regular intervals to help complete the view of our planet’s ocean circulation.” (Gee, who knew we were only a few floats short of completing global coverage?)(But I am impressed that they were beaming both images and their location. There was apparently lots of beaming goin’ on.)

And of course “his tales of adventures and discoveries electrified the public”.

Quick show of hands. Who even heard of this quixotic “scientific expedition” before the geniuses got locked in the ice where they were hoping to show there wasn’t any? Who among us was electrified, and who do we see about that?

Comment on Week in review by lolwot

$
0
0

It’s the 100th anniversary of the McMawson expedition, a famous trek into the Rockies by a famous explorer. A local school decides to mark the occasion by sending out a school science geology field trip up into the mountains, following the trail taken 100 years earlier. Along the way they’ll do some science and put it up on their website, the whole town will be involved, a journalist is going to cover it for the local paper.

Unfortunately the bus breaks down up the mountain.

A bunch of old grumpy people in the town dislike modern science. When they hear the bus has broken down they become most excited.

“What a bunch of fools, those kids should be ashamed of themselves!”

“That teacher should be fired! How irresponsible to drive kids up a mountain!”

“Think of all the lives they’ve put at risk!”

“Sounds like it was just a free holiday for the teacher!”

“How arrogant of them to think they can drive up a mountain!”

“Yes I hope they have learned some humility”

“Look on the blog they say they played cards one evening! that proves it was just a holiday!”

“If they were having fun they couldn’t have been doing science! science isn’t supposed to be fun!”

“What about the cost! I am outraged at the cost Look how much the recovery of the bus will cost!”

“It wasn’t even cutting edge science they were doing!”

“Incompetent! McMawson managed to go up that mountain 100 years ago without a bus!”

“Shows how weak and pathetic they all are, that they couldn’t walk up the mountain like McMawson”

“Activists! They were all activists trying to prove the theory of plate tectonics!”

“How ironic then that the bus hit a rock!”

“Lets scour their blogs looking for other things they’ve done wrong”

“OMG look one of the teachers took their 6 year old daughter! how irresponsible! that PROVES it isn’t science!”

“Lets all put our deepest concerned faces on and go visit the mayor. Maybe we can get some science teachers fired!”

“yessssssss!” (*evil hand rub*)

Comment on Week in review by lolwot

$
0
0

The most upvoted denier comment on the guardian story is:

“Turney is Professor of Climate Change. He went to try and show the world how little ice there was 100 years after Manson. What a fool.”

So the most upvoted denier comment is a lie.

Deniers upvoting lies?

Comment on Week in review by Mi Cro

$
0
0

I don’t think of it as a hoax, more a shared hallucination or psychosis, delusions of grandeur.


Comment on Week in review by lolwot

$
0
0

Which leads to the next denier comment:

“The main issue is that the propaganda element of the expedition overshadowed the scientific side.”

So it works like this. Deniers make up lies about what the expedition was doing, example lie: “Turney is Professor of Climate Change. He went to try and show the world how little ice there was 100 years after Manson”

And then use such lies to proclaim “the propaganda element of the expedition overshadowed the scientific side”

And so they justify their lying with lies.

Comment on Week in review by kim

$
0
0

It’s his macedoinic oceanic ratatouille bouillabaise that is ambrosic theobromic.
Not to mention theophyllic,
Or theologic.
=========

Comment on Week in review by kim

$
0
0

It’s not new. It’s an ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd’. This one is Grand, the Works.
=====================

Comment on Week in review by kim

$
0
0

It’s a classic, an ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd’. This one is Grand Opera, spilling lushly into the audience.
==============

Comment on Week in review by Curious George

$
0
0

lolwot says: “I see a hell of a lot of activities on the expedition blog that fall under science not activism.” Examples, please? I’ll go to a zoo tomorrow, to see elephants and monkeys. That’t a hell of a pachyderm science and a simian science.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images