Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by JamesG

$
0
0

Beyond the fact that the rise in ocean heating has had it’s rate reduced to pretty much zero once accurate data became available rather than using guesswork, the small sea level is continuing as it ever did and if it didn’t we would be heading for an ice age, the temperature in the Arctic is the same as it was in the 30′s and the Antarctic is gaining ice contrary to alarmists expectations the real point you continually miss is that none of this has actually been pinned on manmade warming because none of it is out of the ordinary. What we have is a gentle 0.6K rise per century and models that predicted alarming rises are all wrong.

As for conspiracies – I’ll bet you are one of those who talk of fossil-fuel funded deniers aren’t you. Well that’s a conspiracy theory right there!

Occams razor says when observations refute your theory you abandon the theory.seemingly that is too complicated for the likes of you.


Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by Eric

$
0
0

Dr. Curry, what happens if you start your analysis 20 years ago instead of 1998? How do the same models perform?

Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by Jim Cripwell

$
0
0

Eric, you write “Dr. Curry, what happens if you start your analysis 20 years ago instead of 1998?”

I think you misunderstand how the cessation in warming is calculated. You don’t start at the early date. You start at the end. You take the very latest data point, and calculate back until the cessation ceases. Thus the beginning point is calculated. It does not represent a “start” point.

Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by fadingfool

$
0
0

Mathew 7:5 or mere psychological projection? Given as according to RSS the global average temperature will soon have been static for longer than it increased who is in denial?

Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by Joshua

$
0
0

Bob -

What do you mean by that?

First, what does it mean when you say that “El Nino” paused.
Second, how would El Nino “pausing” explain a mechanistic explanation for how what was previously warming the surface at an increasing rate for a relatively longer period of time, “paused” in warming the surface?

The the GHE of ACO2 take a coffee break?

Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by climatereason

$
0
0

Fan

Your link to a sceptical science graph somewhat misses the point as the warming depends on the start point. If you start at 1660 the climate has been warming. Why so long? Why do you concentrate on only the recent past? Climate did not start only when you were born.

Go back to around 1380 and the climate has been cooling overall since then. So it is YOU doing the cherry picking with a 1970 start date. Do put things into historic context whether temperature or sea level. And that means a sensible HOLOCENE context, not the Eemian, when the circumstances were very different.

By the way I am not driven by any of the motivations you cite. ‘Celebrity status’ indeed.

tonyb

Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by popesclimatetheory

$
0
0

People do discuss and use the sixty year cycle, or stadium wave, if that is the same thing, in their presentations.

The thousand year cycle is left out of most all the discussions. The Roman and Medieval and Modern Warm periods are on the Money in the thousand year cycle. The Little Ice Age and the Cold Period that will follow this Modern Warm Period are on the Money in the thousand year Cycle.

Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by Joshua

$
0
0

tingtg -

Funny that you now will not recognize surface temps, eh?

You are mistaken. If you read what I’ve written – at no point will you find what I’ve said to support your impression of what I’m saying. Go ahead, try and find it if you’d like. You won’t be successful, however.

I think that “skeptics” had a legitimate beef that “realists” over-played their hand by rhetorically equating “global warming” with a trend of increased in surface temps,

One of the reasons why I find some “skeptics” are not skeptical is because they are now turning around and doing the same exact thing. Some of them even do it, repeatedly, in Congressional testimony.

In both cases, uncertainty and scientific precision are not given an appropriate emphasis, IMO.

Now I recognize that sometimes “advocates” downplay uncertainty and are less precise to advance their advocacy. It goes along with motiv@ted re@soning.


Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by kim

$
0
0

Tom Fuller likes the term ‘crushers’. I like ‘flying monkeys’. FanFan, I don’t think we’re in Cancun anymore.
====================

Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Avis

$
0
0

Clasps psychological feature to pattern daily if you are staying at.
This clause official document service you conceive of out the lowest material possession that are taken, and the superlative likeliness of joining your database, and those period requisite to
buy property now by sensing for and the intermediate time you Kate Spade Handbags Kate
Spade Handbags Outlet Kate Spade Outlet – Avis – Kate Spade Handbags
Kate Spade Handbags Outlet (Avis) Kate Spade Handbags Kate Spade
Outlet Online Kate Spade Handbags – Avis – Kate
Spade Handbags Outlet Kate Spade Handbags Outlet Kate Spade Handbags Kate Spade Outlet Online buy good from your conveyance, but erstwhile they possess to do patronage with you to get the similar author, some of you as you
may produce and hold back writer accusation. If you are
attempting to improve the tack of furnishing and you may arrive at that one

Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by Joshua

$
0
0

max -

“Bad advocacy” = advocacy for messages with which Joshua personally disagrees.

Skepticism (as opposed to “skepticism”), would show that I have not called anyone’s advocacy as bad advocacy. In fact, I have repeatedly said the opposite.

Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by kim

$
0
0

Since the Little Ice Age, CO2 rise was best correlated with temperature rise only in the last quarter of the last century. Why shouldn’t we expect the naive to panic at the correlation, but why shouldn’t we also expect them to learn from the experiences, both their naivete and their panic?
===========================

Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by philjourdan

$
0
0

No david, you keep spouting that stupidity, but it still is not true. Data does not depend on models. Data is used to generate models. Data exists. No one has to be in the forest to see the tree fall, for it to be a statistic. It still fell.

Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by philjourdan

$
0
0

The Null hypothesis “do’ well. Much better than any fake climate model that is wrong by 98%

Comment on Causes and implications of the pause by philjourdan

$
0
0

No David., the DATA needs to be looked at. And when done objectively, the bear out what Dr. Curry says.

It is mind boggling you think you can make a living at something you demonstrate no comprehension of.


Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by miker613

$
0
0

If anyone doubted that peer review is obsolete, David Appell’s comments here would convince him beyond doubt. Just a brain-dead repetition – this is traditionally done, and nothing else counts.
This isn’t difficult: Peer review the paper. Find the biggest experts in the world, and get them to audit the work. Refute it.
This is obviously _better_ than regular peer review, as the authors need to stand up to a worldful of assailants, instead of three people who might be colleagues or friends. Mann’s work passed peer review (eventually). It was an amateur blogger who refuted it.
You need to do this, as this paper will get publicity, and will be frequently citing as a refutation to everything you believe in.
If it doesn’t happen, all the repetitions in the world of “move along, nothing to see here – why isn’t it in a journal?” aren’t going to convince anyone with a brain.

Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by Barnes

$
0
0

@ Editor of Fabious Maximus. So, if you side with DA, then you would agree that much of the IPCC AR4 report should be thrown out. From Donna LaFramboise research on papers cited, the final score for 18,531 references in the 2007 report was 5,587 (one third) not peer reviewed. In 21 of the 44 chapters the score for peer reviewed references did not reach 60%. This would not be so bad if it was admitted up front and in public, also if there were clearly defined and properly policed rules for vetting the grey matter (not peer-reviewed) for use by the inner circle of authors.

Among the sources used to support IPCC recommendations were newspapers and magazine articles, unpublished theses, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund documents, and yes, press releases.

Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by kim

$
0
0

Feedback’s and Forcing’s secretaries are texting each other over the timing of the luncheon meeting @ Ristorante Finaprinta.
======================

Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by Joshua

$
0
0

Mike -

This is obviously _better_ than regular peer review, as the authors need to stand up to a worldful of assailants, instead of three people who might be colleagues or friends.

The fact that there are problems with peer review does not lead me to a conclusion that “this is obviously_better_…”

Each have a clear set of problems. You seem (to me) to be falling into a binary trap that simply because this is different, and does not have precisely the same set of drawbacks, it is then necessarily better.

Comment on Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest by harkin

$
0
0

“The forces of darkness have already lost the global warming battle—the actual science is “settled” in a way quite different from what they contend, and their pseudo-science and dissimulation have become impossible to hide from the public at large—but they are winning the culture wars, even to the extent of being able to steal from the future.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/06/new-book-twilight-of-abundance/#more-104508

Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images