Comment on Open thread by Generalissimo Skippy

January 25, 2014, 12:21 pm

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by RichardLH

A very marginal increase in surface temp over a land mass – even one as big as Australia – is not of much interest. Except as a partisan talking point. The rainfall deficit over the past couple of years has something to do with it.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=TXmx&ave_yr=0

On the plus side it looks like a soggy Australia Day over a lot of the country.

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/national_radar_sat.loop.shtml

For north eastern Australian rainfall – and global climate -the thing to keep an eye on is the blue V in the eastern Pacific.

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/national_radar_sat.loop.shtml

↧

Comment on Open thread by JCH

January 25, 2014, 12:22 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by Generalissimo Skippy

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by Generalissimo Skippy

You’re going to have to wait a long time.

red – SLR
blue – SAT

The pause is being caused by La Nina dominance, a characteristic of the south side of the PDO. We are in the negative side of the PDO, which Chef says will last a few more decades. He is the Einstein of the Outback: the Crocodile Dundee of IQ, “That’s not an IQ. (Get’s out his), That’s an IQ.”

There is simply no way he is wrong.

↧

Comment on Open thread by Generalissimo Skippy

January 25, 2014, 12:22 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by RichardLH

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by JCH

the blue V…

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomp.1.15.2014.gif

↧

Comment on Open thread by RichardLH

January 25, 2014, 12:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by RichardLH

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by Generalissimo Skippy

“I’m sorry but my relative weighting in my program of the significance of all the changes in the last fifty years”

That’s all right, I believe we have a 60 year cycle to account for.

↧

Comment on Open thread by RichardLH

January 25, 2014, 12:27 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by kim

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by RichardLH

lolwot | January 25, 2014 at 3:20 pm |

“See N-G on the last thread explain how 60 year cycle nets to zero since 1950″

And if that was one full .sine wave cycle..

Then it would all be down to any underlying trend.+- natural variation wouldn’t it?

↧

Comment on Open thread by kim

January 25, 2014, 12:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by Jim Cripwell

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by RichardLH

Fifty, sixty, what’s a decade among friends?
=========

↧

Comment on Open thread by Jim Cripwell

January 25, 2014, 12:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by kim

R. Gates, you write ” If you want to ask: How will the heat content of the ocean change by doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm, that is a legitmate question, and has been studied, ”

OK, let me ask that question. What is the reference that estimates how much the heat content of the ocean changes by doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv?

↧

Comment on Open thread by JCH

January 25, 2014, 12:33 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Mr. Lynch

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by Jim Cripwell

<a href="http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomg.12.30.2010.gif" rel="nofollow">Hottest year in the instrument record.</a>

↧

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Mr. Lynch

January 26, 2014, 11:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Bad Andrew

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by JCH

Good post.
Some grammar stuff: (a) where McIntyre is introduced (“expertise”) and (b) Parliament holding a “hear”.

↧

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Bad Andrew

January 26, 2014, 11:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by R. Gates

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Mr. Lynch

Joseph,

What qualifications do you rely on when evidence is presented to you that you woke up this morning?

Andrew

↧

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by R. Gates

January 26, 2014, 11:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by kim

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Bad Andrew

“There is expertise around but seemingly a dearth of it here…”
_____
Agreed. There is a higher entertainment value to CE than perhaps a year or two ago, moving it closer to WUWT, but still far enough away to be more interesting. If you want real expertise, there are some excellent climate-related MOOC’s out there, and of course Google Scholar if you want to “hit the books” on your own.

↧

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by kim

January 26, 2014, 11:37 am

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Bad Andrew

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by R. Gates

Look before you leap.
=========

↧

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Bad Andrew

January 26, 2014, 11:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by kim

“Bad and kim need to translate what was said into what they’d like to have been said ”

I didn’t translate anything. I gave my opinion about statist pinheads.

Andrew

↧

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Pekka Pirilä

January 26, 2014, 11:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Herman Alexander Pope

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Bad Andrew

That the hearings are more a show than place to learn is natural in a large country where the members of parliament have sufficient resources to collect information in other ways, and everywhere when the hearings are public.

The situation is somewhat different in a small country like Finland and with closed hearings. Even in this case the influence is certainly mostly small.

↧

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Herman Alexander Pope

January 26, 2014, 11:50 am

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by John Carpenter

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Pekka Pirilä

Every opinion should be judged on its own merits and by how well it fits with actual data.

If you say Earth is getting warmer and the data shows that Earth is not getting warmer, that opinion has no merit.

If you say that temperature is inside the same bounds that it has been inside of for ten thousand years, that opinion agrees with actual data and has huge merit.

If you can’t make skillful forecasts for 5, 12 or 17 years, and that is true, they did not, your 20, 30, 50 or 100 year forecasts have no merit.

↧

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by John Carpenter

January 26, 2014, 11:50 am

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Herman Alexander Pope

Joshua, maybe I misunderstood the tone of your comment, but it appeared to be a bit sarcastic. I took that as you disagreeing with the Crichton’s idea of when a consensus is invoked. So I tried to give an example of how I would interpret what Crichton meant. I took your comment as a very literal interpretation of what he was saying. If you put it in context with the two examples he gave following that statement, it does not appear it should be taken so literally to me.

↧

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by JCH

January 26, 2014, 11:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on The logic(?) of the IPCC’s attribution statement by Herman Alexander Pope

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by John Carpenter

a 20th Century PDO cycle

1. AMO is garbage
2. PDO appears to have 3 phases:

a. negative
b. neutral
c. positive

wrt to ENSO, these are likely La Nina dominance, ENSO neutral dominance, and El Nina dominance. As IZEN commented, the PDO cycle has zero trend. During the peak-to-peak period, the SAT went up by .04C per decade.

The peak-to-peak PDO lasted about 43 years.

↧

Comment on The logic(?) of the IPCC’s attribution statement by Herman Alexander Pope

January 26, 2014, 12:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The logic(?) of the IPCC’s attribution statement by Herman Alexander Pope

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by JCH

Roman Warm Period to cold period to Medieval Warm Period to Little Ice Age to Now is a natural cycle that averages close to zero.

That same cycle has been in place for ten thousand years.

Somehow, they have declared that cycle ended or does not or never did exist and they have replaced that natural cycle with a ten thousand year long hockey stick. The Consensus Theory and Models follow Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick and they ignore actual data for the past ten thousand years.

The actual data is the Earth Made Stuff.

Climate Model Output is manmade stuff.

CO2 Alarmist Theory is Manmade.

Climate Data is Real. It is real that temperature is inside the same bounds it has been in for ten thousand years.

↧

Comment on The logic(?) of the IPCC’s attribution statement by Herman Alexander Pope

January 26, 2014, 12:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Joseph

≪ Previous: Comment on The logic(?) of the IPCC’s attribution statement by Herman Alexander Pope

I put it at zero, plus or minus .3%

↧

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Joseph

January 26, 2014, 12:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on The logic(?) of the IPCC’s attribution statement by Herman Alexander Pope

” state funding agencies will favour climate science that preaches doom, since this justifies expanding the state’s power and money.”

It is my experience that politicians tend to avoid issues that are controversial and can lead to policies that may affect their constituents adversely. For example, I don’t think politicians really want to hear that global warming will harm the planet and we will need to drive up energy costs by putting a price on or taxing carbon emissions. What makes you think that politicians want this?

Also, do you have any other examples of political influence on science that results in predictions of doom?

↧

Latest Images