I had that idea, too.
Comment on The Big Question by Dagfinn
↧
↧
Comment on The Big Question by David Springer
Dagfinn | January 30, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
“David Springer, I don’t recognize my opinion in your opinion of it.”
Understandable. It’s hard to recognize much of anything in your opinion.
“You say “You droned on about how percentage of anthropogenic global warming cannot exceed 100% for what seemed like forever.” I didn’t say that it cannot exceed 100%. I said that’s what I thought until recently. And I “droned on” about that for one short paragraph.”
Ah. So even you didn’t read it all. LOL Count how many times and where you used “half”, “50%”, or some related objection carping about a figure in excess of 100%. You droned on for 3000 frickin’ words about a simple trivial complaint that could’ve been explained in 300 words.
“In other words, you’re still not engaging the substance of my article. Unless you can do so, there really is no point in us having a discussion.”
There was very little substance to engage. So you don’t like expressing anthropogenic warming in anything other than a pie chart where the components sum to 100% of the area. I get it. It’s trivial.
↧
Comment on The Big Question by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Max_CH, I believe a “truly smart guy” will say “I will try to find out.”
↧
Comment on The Big Question by Don Monfort
That seems a little extreme, Springer. It’s not very sneaky if she didn’t alter the time stamp on the comments. Isn’t it the prerogative of the blogger to insert comments following comments they want to answer. Or could there be some other explanation for the out of order sequence? Does the sequence do Judith’s argument any good? Basically, what are you talking about? And is it that important.
↧
Comment on The Big Question by Dagfinn
No. You still don’t get it.
↧
↧
Comment on Atlanta’s 2″ catastrophic snowfall by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
“The annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society is being held in Atlanta starting this weekend [link]. This week’s disaster is a counterpoint to the theme of the meeting, which is Extreme Weather – Climate and the Build Environment: New Perspectives and Tools. “
At this point, any attempt to connect “extreme weather.” with so-called AGW/climate change is simply propaganda, unsupported by even the IPCC.
Of course, that won’t stop them.
↧
Comment on The Big Question by DocMartyn
Judy is well know to be the ‘Napoleon of Time-Stamp manipulation’; sort of like a cuter Professor Moriarty.
↧
Comment on The Big Question by Dagfinn
(That was for David Springer.)
↧
Comment on The Big Question by Mi Cro
So super warm water is brought to the surface in the eastern Pacific and changes global climate? It is all a bit bizarre.
It doesn’t seem so odd to me, changes where ocean moisture and heat enters the continent, changes the jet stream path. All of those would make a difference.
In fact I’ve wondered if the area north and south of the path of the jet streams have changes, since they determine the boundary between tropical and arctic air masses, if the area has changed that would change the real GAT (regardless of the mush that’s presented as GAT).
↧
↧
Comment on Mann versus Steyn by qbeamus
The problem, as Steyn alluded to in one of Judith’s quotes of him, is that our legal system only reaches the right decision (if it does), after spending a fortune on discovery. Being told that what you said was ok, after all, only after you have spent $500,00 on lawyers is not a meaningful vindication of free speech. You don’t get the money back after you win, you know.
↧
Comment on Atlanta’s 2″ catastrophic snowfall by RiHo08
DocMartyn
The gender of the wife is immaterial. What is important: the two fight fair and respect each other in the morning.
Dave Springer
It all comes down to who is and when does the signal caller say: “on your mark, get set, go!” to get the 10% on the road first. You need a designate signal caller to get everybody going in the right direction and reading from the same script. That ain’t a mayor. Too busy listening to who is whispering in their ear and trying to determine which way the wind is blowing. Wrong set of skills when a non-political storm is brewing.
I like the idea of schools are out first, the only trouble with that idea is: who is home to let the kids in the house, and in particular, where to go in the house that is safe if your kid is a latch key kid. Need a family emergency plan: “if I’m not there when you get home, go to Sarah’s house, I’ve already spoken to her mom.
↧
Comment on Atlanta’s 2″ catastrophic snowfall by mosomoso
Maybe we need to stop “selling” climate for a while. While “Superstorm” Sandy was very large in area and came into the wrong town (with the wrong mayor and development history) on the wrong tide, it was not a hurricane of any category at landfall. As for “polar vortex”, I dare say there is a circumpolar vortex and it has a bit to do with bad winters in the northern hemisphere, but using it as a sell on “extreme” and “your new climate” is more than a stretch. I mean, Polar Vortex would be a good name for a new mountain bike or energy drink…but really!
The North West of Australia is a true cyclone alley, and the strongest ones (though not the most) arrive quite late in the SH autumn. When you haven’t had any big disasters up there for a while, it’s just too easy for climate propagandists to make a fuss when the Big One eventually strikes. Sadly, the people we should look to for balance, historical perspective etc are the very ones beating the drums. (I know, I know. A sober old scientist with an historical perspective won’t be able to get himself chained to a fence with Daryl Hannah.)
44 years ago a forest area a bit to the south of where I live in NSW had a full blown tornado, Australia’s biggest known, possibly F5. It happened on New Years Day in the unlikeliest of places. When you mention the Bulahdelah Tornado it sounds like a complete joke. But if it were to occur now, could we trust our Green Betters and our intellectual leaders for some perspective?
Really, where do you go for some perspective these days? Who do you have to sleep with to get some perspective?
↧
Comment on Atlanta’s 2″ catastrophic snowfall by Jan P Perlwitz
@timg56:
Lets be honest about who has been pushing the extreme weather storyline. The same people who a decade ago said weather wasn’t climate.
A statement about the frequency of extreme weather events (and how it may change with climate change) is a statement about climate. A statement about a single weather event (and then drawing false conclusion from it regarding climate) is not.
↧
↧
Comment on Atlanta’s 2″ catastrophic snowfall by Tim
If you want to make a “foresighted” plan, you had better assume that nothing will be done about CO2 and think about contingency plans for mitigation.
– Possible climate change in the future is a distant worry.
– Loss of a job and savings due to a lousy economy is a crisis.
You warmies claim to be so smart, yet you can’t see that nothing is going to be done in any kind of a hurry.
↧
Comment on The Big Question by Bob Ludwick
@ Edim
“This is plausible IF ACO2 (plus other less important anthropogenic factors) had an effect, because that’s roughly when the emissions became significant.”
Well, yeah, but as Jim Cripwell and his good buddy Bill of Occam like to point out, until the climate does something that it has never done before, the MOST plausible conclusion is that it DOESN’T have an effect. At least no measurable one.
↧
Comment on Atlanta’s 2″ catastrophic snowfall by Jan P Perlwitz
@Steven Mosher:
Question: during 1993 to 2001 when OHC paused, why did folks refer to surface air temperature increasing as opposed to OHC pausing?
Why are you asking such a loaded question? What about you show first that the presumption, on which your question is based, is correct?
↧
Comment on Atlanta’s 2″ catastrophic snowfall by Generalissimo Skippy
This single indent is absurd – creating super unwieldy threads. It is about time the experiment was dropped.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/30/atlantas-2-catastrophic-snowfall/#comment-445660
Wind shear in tropical cyclones occurs with the Coriolis force. Springers reference refers to higher latitude thunderstorms and extra-tropical cyclones spinning off the polar front. This seems different from Katrina which was mentioned – and which was certainly a tropical cyclone – and the 2013 cyclone (or hurricane) season which also refers to tropical cyclones.
I really don’t need 5 minutes on the internet to become an instant expert – it has been part of my life for decades. Of particular interest is assessing the cyclone risk to the Great Western Hotel.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Cyclonetracks_zpsd3ce6e8c.png.html
But tropical cyclones in the Atlantic seem to depend more on AMOC and ENSO.
http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2013/dec2013/dec2013.pdf
↧
↧
Comment on Mann versus Steyn by qbeamus
“But if you can’t prove someone has committed an illegal act you can’t accuse them of it.”
That is incorrect. The 1st Amendment guarantees us the right to express our beliefs without interference from the government. The Supreme Court explicitly held, in NYT v. Sulliven, that this guarantee is inconsistent with a libel law that requires proving a statement to be true as a defense. Thus, they expanded the defense to “absence of malice.” Under the new standard, one need only prove that one did not proceed with reckless disregard for the truth.
Note that this means that one can successfully prove they are not guilty of defamation by proving that (1) the statement they made was false, but (2) they didn’t know it was false, and (3) they would have known it was false had they acted reasonably, but their negligence resulted in them not knowing it was false. Negligence is a lower standard of mens rea than recklessness–that is, to be reckless, one has to have behaved worse than merely being negligent.
↧
Comment on Atlanta’s 2″ catastrophic snowfall by Wagathon
I am skeptical about the head of a free thinker ever being the Royal Prince of the British Chicken Brigade.
↧
Comment on Atlanta’s 2″ catastrophic snowfall by Steven Mosher
guys I just ask questions.
people always say look at the data. as if it spoke for itself.
you want answers? go torture some data.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
