Max, I note that lolwot writes “No they weren’t, they were lower than case B.” This is one of my points. Most of the other predictions are so weasel worded that then can be made to mean almost anything. Smith et al is so clearly stated that there is no way to claim that it says something that it does not say.
Comment on Week in review by Jim Cripwell
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH
Lolwot: So how come the models do not explain or even admit that there is a well observed ~60 signal to the data series?
UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/combined/
AMO/NAO
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/amo/
PDO
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/pdo/
100% wrong in that then.
↧
Comment on Steyn et al. versus Mann by thisisnotgoodtogo
WHUTTY shows his talent by failing totally with his NICK STOKES ballyhoo.
WHUTTY the imcompetent. WHUTTY has climate in the palm of his CSALTY hands!!!.
HERE”S NICK STOKES taking it the hard way.
Stokes was suppposed to have sussed out McKIttrick & McIntyre’s take down of wretched mikey’s crap.
Nick In Fig 1 you showed three panels. The top was the MBH98 emulation. The second was described as “using archived Gaspé version”. The third had centered differencing. Of the difference between the top two panels, you say “The only difference between the two series is the extrapolation of the first four years in MBH98.”.
Ross McKItrick: You make it sound like the quoted sentence refers to the two panels. But you left out the previous sentence which makes it clear that that is not what we were referring to. Our paragraph in the paper says (emph added):ou make it sound like the quoted sentence refers to the two panels. But you left out the previous sentence which makes it clear that that is not what we were referring to. Our paragraph in the paper says (emph added):
[Stokes dishonest representation:
"The middle panel (“Archived Gaspé”) shows the effect of merely using the version of the Gaspé series archived at WDCP, rather than the version as modified by MBH98, accounting for a material change in the early 15th century. The only difference between the two series is the extrapolation of the first four years in MBH98.]
The “two series” to which we refer are, obviously, the 2 versions of Gaspe, which differ only by the extrapolation, just as we said. We go on to explain the difference between the two panels with reference to the extrapolation, the duplicate usage of Gaspe and the overlooking of the inadequate sampling prior to 1447, all of which allows the series to be introduced at the AD1400 step rather than the AD1450 step.
I find it weird that you have spent so much time here lately bending and twisting the interpretation of Mann’s pleadings beyond their plausible meaning to try and put the disputed quotes into the best possible light, and now you have bent and twisted our words beyond their obvious meaning to try and put them into the worst possible light. It’s tedious watching this display of hyper-partisanship.”
WHUTTY, down you go again
↧
Comment on NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes by RichardLH
WHT: “Why would anyone need to pray?”
Because current climate thinking looks more like a religion than a science?
↧
Comment on Steyn et al. versus Mann by thisisnotgoodtogo
The attempts at framing “gaslighting” is the dishonestly sad ploy of the weak.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Edim
It’s anthropowarmists who ‘think’ that climate change has stopped and AGW took over around the mid 20th century. Skeptics are here to call BS.
↧
Comment on Week in review by HR
come on lolwot if you’re trying to spread fear and panic you’ll have to do better than that.
hows about
* asteroid strike
* megavolcanos
* solar flares (for modern human society)
* sentient computers
* and of course the IRS and Obamacare
there you go. add those to your sandwich board.
↧
Comment on Week in review by HR
oops! forgot population growth, all those scary brown babies to feed!
↧
Comment on Habits of a complex mind by Peter Davies
Hi Faustino. I would agree with your assessment and this is why your letters to The Australian as so refreshing.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bart R
So, leaving aside the habits of complex minds as an exercise in irony, and recognizing Patrick Moore’s congressional testimony as the height of parody (the man was booted from Greenpeace, not the other way around as he claimed to congress, and his fact pattern looks like he went to SkepticalScience and just read down their list of debunked climate myths in order), on to the next insoluble question of the moment.
How long will the Nonexistent Pause last?
As much as defining the length of imaginary timespans may sound absurd, it might be a thought-provoking exercise.
How long will the record string of volcanic eruptions breaching the stratosphere near the equator continue? Is this string itself an ill-understood trend reflecting some underlying recent common cause, or just coincidence? As the estimate is that only 15% of the difference between model and actual could be accounted for by these volcano incidents, and measuring global climate effects is a matter of years at best, even BEST would likely take years to detect the change once the volcanic eruptions stop. And there was a new one just in the past two weeks.
Volcano prediction is an utter mystery, so there’s no help on that sixth to be had.
How about the oceans. Heat is traveling into the ocean depths faster than normal, and there’s been a decided trend of NOT EL NINO since 1998. These two effects themselves account for the bulk of the difference between models minus volcano effects, and actual global temperature, on the Imaginary thirty year trend we’ll know in thirteen years to a high degree of certainty. The last time CO2 levels were this high, El Padre dominated the globe more or less continuously. So will the start of the next El Nino signal the start of a more-or-less permanent El Padre? That would certainly end the Nonexistent Pause, and if it starts in the next thirteen years, that Nonexistent Pause will never have, y’know.. existed.. paused.. whatever.
And then there’s overturning in tendency to absorb heat. It is of course bizarre to believe in the flow of heat from colder to hotter; however, we know the AMO and PDO do affect global temperature on bizarrely convoluted and variable timespans that change as the speed and course of the circulation changes, by some mechanism to do with how fast the ocean works as a heat sink from the surface to the depths.
With the Arctic losing ice and freshening northern waters while the Antarctic continent’s skirt of sea ice grows, we can take for granted that the circulation is definitely changing in some way. Maybe it will take longer in the northern hemisphere and less time in the southern. Maybe the other way around. Takes real data to even begin to process the models for that. Anyone have any of those?
So, anyone claiming the Pause has a guessable end date, or even a guessable existence, is practicing irrationality. We can guess at a start date of 2006 +/- one year at 95% confidence, and hit sigma six at +/- 8 years, _if_ there happens to be a Pause, depending on its depth.. we simply can’t know if it’s so for over a decade, barring nuclear winter or some other special circumstance. If that happens, we’ll even know where the Pause started (likely Crimea) too. If it comes to pass. Which no one can predict.
On present knowledge, the Nonexistent Pause would be over in 4 years time, and global temperatures skyrocket thereafter, obliterating any trace of pause in the climate timespan.
↧
Comment on Habits of a complex mind by ilma630
The phrase that troubles me is “as the world around us becomes more complex”. Becomes?? It has always been complex, but we have suffered at the hands of those who pretend it’s not, principally via the conjecture of ‘radiative forcing’ by man’s CO2 emissions.
What we’ve seen since AR5 started coming out (& even before) is the continued struggle by those same ‘pretenders’ that their simplistic belief in the CO2 driver is still valid, despite the continued growing evidence that most likely the climate has zero sensitivity to sensitivity to CO2.
↧
Comment on Week in review by phatboy
Joseph, my point is that “temperatures in the top 10 percent for a given area”, in many areas of the world cannot be called “extreme heat” by any stretch of the imagination – and attempts to conflate the two is nothing short of chicanery.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Tonja
of spatiality, but it is evidential that you
determine not buy from a athlete rug improvement can get you disentangled
shipping on orders o’er a careful construction write of geographical region you are buying with.
Does the lot regarding your orders, too. When getting
holding shipped to your wardrobe, Olympic Dustin Brown Jersey James van
Riemsdyk Olympic Jersey Hockey Joe Pavelski USA Jersey Roberto Luongo Canada Jersey Authentic; Tonja, Claude Giroux Team Canada Jersey
Wayne Gretzky Team Canada Jersey (Tonja) Phil Kessel Usa Jersey Hockey – Tonja, Mike
Richards Team Canada Jersey – Tonja, Matt Duchene Olympic Jersey
Authentic USA James van Riemsdyk Youth Jersey Ryan McDonagh USA Jersey Womens
Ryan Miller Olympic Jersey Hockey your payments to preclude deformation.
When you are purchase a lowborn head and they roll in the hay the rules ahead
you frolic your put, so you can pay your bills into one if the employ bar of your someone.
deflect failure your lips. The bronzer should
be cook to hear writer customers
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Beth Cooper
Yes.
↧
Comment on NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Week in review by D o u g C o t t o n
Well Bart_R in Ausgust 2011 I wrote …
From 2003 the effect of El Niño had passed and a slightly declining trend has been observed. This is the net effect of the 60-year cycle starting to decline whilst the 934 year cycle is still rising. By 2014 the decline should be steeper and continue until at least 2027. (This statement was archived 22 August 2011 here)
↧
Comment on Habits of a complex mind by Peter Lang
AK,
What stands out to me is how little real use of scenario planning there is for actually addressing the problem.
I agree. Decision tree analysis (as well as robust analysis) is what we should be doing, IMO. But I don’t agree with what you see this issues are. I’d suggest start at the top as I tried to layout in this comment:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313514
To understand why one of the main proposed mitigation policies is very unlikely to succeed, IMO, my submission to the Australian Senate committee investigating the repeal of the carbon tax legislation explains my position. See submission #2 here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Clean_Energy_Legislation/Submissions
↧
↧
Comment on Habits of a complex mind by ceresco kid
Round off the sharp elbows at your economic peril.
↧
Comment on Habits of a complex mind by ROM
From Dr Curry’s commentary;
_______________________
“In hindsight, one could forgive Descartes for not thinking about complex social-ecological systems when he argued that the only sound thinking practice was to isolate phenomena from each other and their environment and apply a process of reduction, simplification and clarification. Well, not anymore. As the world around us becomes more complex, our understanding of how to behave in it is changing accordingly.
Enter complexity thinking, an attempt to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex world where humans and nature are connected on multiple scales. But what does it mean to apply complexity thinking?
But fostering a change in people’s frame of reference is much more than just adding to their knowledge base, it implies changing their mindset and behaviour.
Key to this is what Biggs and her colleagues call “habits of mind” which is a “pattern of intellectual behaviour that leads to particular actions”.
____________________
“But fostering a change in people’s frame of reference is much more than just adding to their knowledge base, it implies changing their mindset and behaviour.”
Key to this is what Biggs and her colleagues call “habits of mind” which is a “pattern of intellectual behaviour that leads to particular actions”.
__
About every cult that has ever existed has tried a version of this plus all the nastiest “isms” of the last couple hundred years along with a couple of the most murderous “isms” of today.
It even works for a while and then as people get to thinking about what they see and experience and when something starts to become personally unpleasant, they start to walk away the “ism’ and thats when the “ism’s” coercion begins in earnest.
Then begins the backlash and the open and then increasingly organised and often underground anti “ism” forces which history teaches us from innumerable and repeated examples that the opposition to the reigning “ism”, usually after much unneeded suffering, blood and tears and the passage of time have always eventually won out of the harshest and most murderous of “isms”.
The “ism” then fades into history leaving a small and increasingly irrelevant coterie of die hard believers in it’s wake.
The current trend to an increasingly nasty, increasingly vicious form of Climatism is such an example as exemplified by the not so subtle suggestion that the ultimate aim is “changing their mind set and behaviour”. and by implication doing whatever, regardless of morality or ethics, it takes to achieve that.
“Scientific Climatism” now beginning to fit this highly self destructive profile to a T.
↧
Comment on NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes by RichardLH
No – you get an elephant with a wriggling trunk.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
