<blockquote>My point is that skeptics and conservatives (in my case) should not be rushing to Steyn’s defense because he is Mark Steyn. I always thought the pilfering and quoting of the Climategate emails was wrong, though I’ve heard most of the arguments why that was okay.</blockquote>
+ 0.5 to mosomoso
Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Edim
The tweets read like some climategate emails, more and more.
↧
Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Don Monfort
Slow down, joshie. Your eyelashes are coming unglued and your feather boa is shedding.
↧
Comment on Mann versus Steyn by philjourdan
And perhaps you could actually get some reputable sources that support your opinion instead of using Grant Fosters site where censoring is the key word, and facts are even more rare.
↧
Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Joshua
<blockquote>Logic Fallacy again. You do not have to be paid to follow orders.</blockquote>
Conspiracy ideation? What conspiracy ideation?
↧
↧
Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Tenney Naumer
Clearly you live in your own bubble with Morton’s Demon.
↧
Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Tim
You know, I think maybe it is you who is having the “revenge fantasies.” Look at your post again and consider your intemperate language.
↧
Comment on The case of the missing heat by Herman Alexander Pope
In this story:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-expands-antarctic-sea-ice-1.12709
They wrote: The paradox is that global warming leads to more cooling
Yep. It snows more when oceans are warm and wet. It snows less when oceans are cold and frozen and not wet.
This keeps Earth Temperature Well Bounded!
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by Jim Cripwell
Steven, you write “B) you’re a nut”
So, according to you, I am making progress. I used to be a moron; now I am a nut.
↧
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
The LOD goes through quasi-cycles, which means that the earth’s rotation is flipping between acceleration and deceleration swings (and this is not the centripetal acceleration which is always there with a rotating body). When the earth accelerates, water will tend to pile up on the eastern side of the oceans due to laws of motion. When it decelerates, it will go in the reverse direction.
The Stadium Wave paper placed a negative sign on LOD and therefore plotted it as a lagging indicator. However, as TallBloke pointed out, change the sign on LOD and it leads all the other Stadium Wave measures.
The Stadium Wave theory may need some work but what Wyatt and Curry put together is miles ahead of the baby chaos stuff that keeps on getting bandied about these parts.
In this house we believe in the laws of physics, and for every action at the scale of the globe there is a physical forcing function with enough energy behind it to make the effect measureable.
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
Seems to me the warmists case continues to shrink by the day. Their most potent argument from a PR perspective is the grossly misleading claims about this and that year being the xth warmest “ever,” conveniently forgetting that it’s all about trends, and the spectacular failure of the models on which this whole house of cards is built.
If we get actual cooling, it will be the death knell for what the esteemed Harold Lewis called “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by Wagathon
They AGW alarmist says an hour into it that the situation has changed since the 90s. We arguing whether we are at the top of the range or at the bottom of the range but no one is arguing that the climate is not changing at all. So, who are all of the people who in the 90s were busy claiming climate doesn’t change at all…? That is such a ludicrous statement to make.
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by Conor McMenemie
In the Black Sheep pub on Camberwell road watching Liverpool v Everton. Will get back 2 u sooooon.
↧
↧
Comment on UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC by George Turner
I found this bit particularly amusing.
Allen: The strength of the evidence lies not in the process of the report, but rests in the fact that results are reproducible. All the climate models show this, very difficult to construct a climate model that doesn’t show the anthropogenic impact. The data speaks for itself.
A model output is now data, and multiple runs show that the “experiment” is “reproducible” in a scientific context? It’s turtles all the way down!
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by David Springer
captdallas 0.8 or less | January 28, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
“Robert Way could be the most brilliant climate science the world will ever know”
A PhD geography student at University of Ottawa?
Dude. Geography isn’t even a science. It’s Arts and Humanities. Even so the Geography Dept. at U of O doesn’t even rank in the top 200 Georgraphy departments worldwide.
http://www.topuniversities.com/subject-rankings
When I mentioned Skeptical Science recruiting from the bottom of the barrel I wasn’t kidding
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
I use an all-pass filter and then get all the data.
You should try it sometime RichardLH!
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by RichardLH
Indeed, strange times indeed. Who denies what now?
↧
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by Don Monfort
Yes, isn’t it amusing. Alarmists throw IPCC under the bus in attempt to discredit wayward climate scientist. Isn’t this the first time they have ever pointed out, or admitted, an IPCC error. What a coincidence.
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by RichardLH
Natural Variability? There is none of that round here. It’s all (well possibly nearly all) C02. :-)
↧
Comment on Early 20th century Arctic warming by Generalissimo Skippy
The stadium wave addresses the propagation of a multi-decadal climate signal across the planet.
‘At all stages, seeds of regime reversal are embedded within the collection of sub-processes regulating the Arctic freshwater balance, thereby subtly and incrementally imposing ‘curbs’ on the prevailing trend of sea ice coverage, assuring an inevitable regime reversal years in the future. These negative feedbacks modify the Arctic freshwater balance through: i) sea ice related shifts in the Arctic Front and associated zones of precipitation and continental runoff; ii) ice cover associated sea-level-pressure changes that reorganize winds and thereby direction of freshwater and sea ice export between the Arctic Basin and marginal seas; iii) modified influx of warm, saline water into the marginal seas, particularly in the Atlantic sector; iv) and Pacific atmospheric circulation anomalies negatively feeding back onto the Atlantic freshwater balance through remote modification of precipitation regimes.’
Arm waving about whatever it is that you are arm waving about cuts no ice – pun intended. Invoking conservation of energy in this context is just another irrelevant silliness.
Your simplistic multiple linear regression is many unknowns in a single equation – unsolvable in any realistic fashion. It relies on a priori assumptions about scaling of parameters – to fit a specific agenda in your case. It has nothing to do with the stadium wave concept – where you taken a single minor component and keep postulating that this is the core of planetary signal propagation.
Repeating this endlessly in a blatant and forlorn attempt to generate traffic to your site is merely annoying and a waste of everyone’s time. It is time to move on from this ultimately misguided obsession with a simple scheme that can’t provide additional information about the past – something we didn’t already know – and certainly can’t predict the future unless you have some basis for understanding the propagation of the climate signal – and it’s causes. The quantification to the precision you claim is impossible – many unknowns in a single equation. It depends as I say on a priori assumptions about scaling of various components.
Even the past reconstruction is fundamentally wrong because you fail to incorporate a time integrated measure of Pacific variability. Which you dismiss as adding to zero over any time frame – but which is quite evidently not the case.
I really suggest you move onto understanding Earth systems rather than trying to shortcut the process with a simplistic mathematical representation that is nothing more than a scaling process in a multiple linear regression – but for which you absurdly claim are based on fundamental physical principles. And repeating it ad nauseum simply reveals your intellectual limitations and lack of a depth and breadth of understanding. There is much more to the world and climate than anything a multiple linear regression can say.
Have I dealt with this sufficiently to be able to ignore it in future?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
