Did any of the global warming scientists apologize for not predicting the pause?
By your own assertion what may we conclude about their normal vs. nutjob status from that?
hahahahahahahahahahahaaha!!!!!!!!!!!111
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by JeffN
“normal folks” don’t think it’s funny to blow up children who doubt.
And seriously, you think a billboard pointing out that the unibomber was a warmist is even in the same league of “violent rhetoric” as a polished, graphic video featuring a Hollywood star killing children for the thought crime of doubt?
Get a grip.
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by Robert I Ellison
The IPWP is a slightly deeper in La Nina – and less in El Nino but over a bigger area. The significance is due to the surface area of the warm pool as La Nina waxes and wanes.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ElNino/Images/sst_depth_1-97.jpg
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ElNino/Images/sst_depth_4-97.jpg
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ElNino/Images/sst_depth_7-97.jpg
The energy content in the warm mixed layer in a small part of the global ocean is of no great significance in itself – what is significant is the change in surface area exposed to the atmosphere as the warm pool flows east.
And Randy whining about being called names is perfect hypocrisy.
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by David Springer
Yes of course. There’s only one climate control knob and its name is CO2. No other governors allowed.
ROFL
You should listen to yourself. It’s really comical.
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by A fan of *MORE* discourse
A FOMD confession
POSTED: September 10, 2013 at 2:02 pmA first-draft of the above comment called Judith Curry’s (rhetorical?) question “dumb”. Please let me hereby acknowledge that *my* own embrace of “dumb” language was itself entirely wrong-headed, being both gratuitously rude (which I regret) and also forgetful that in science there are no “dumb” questions.
pokerguy (aka al neipris) requests “Hey there Fan, just for fun would you care to list some of the mistakes you’ve made and which you’ve apologized for, here on Climate Etc?”
It’s been my pleasure to oblige your curiosity *and* provide a lesson in rationality and civility, pokerguy!
Some folks sure could use that kind of lesson, eh?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by David Springer
“Could you possibly quote some of Willis’ data analyses and show us where he is wrong?”
Sure. His latest screed about CERES data mining. rgbatduke smacked him upside the head. It’s a recurrent theme. Doh!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/24/water-vapor-feedback/#comment-1597419
When Rob Brown at Duke University speaks you’d be well advised to listen. Eschenbach is not well advised of course. Even little old amateur me instinctively knew you can’t very well deduce water vapor amplification from only clear sky data. 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by cloud at any one point in time, duh. RGB quantified the boner from a top ten university physicist’s POV. RGB also reiterated a point I’ve been making for years that CO2 warming is best studied in the driest atmospheres we can find. And, near as I can tell, when we compare wet to dry atmospheres at the same latitude and elevation (tropical ocean vs. tropical deserts) we find that the dry climate has the higher mean annual temperature which seems to me like very compelling evidence that the net effect of liquid H2O on the surface is cooling which I guess also handily explains why we sweat water instead of sand. LOL
↧
Comment on UK-US Workshop Part V: Broadening the portfolio of climate information by Robert I Ellison
That’s a bit of a misrepresentation of the actual events, if put in the context of policy decisions. The gate controls were run as if the drought projections were the only side of the equation worth considering, because the policy planners built the hydrology infrastructure as if either one or the other possibility would threaten at the same time.
Your original statement – wong in fact as I have shown – and the rest is simply a list of technically improbable couterdredging couterfactuals.
The tragic details of Foreignland do not interest. You’ve already admitted you don’t know how to build controls with more than slight influence; why harp on exactly how to go about failing?
Then refrain from lying about it. Flooding is of course a universal fact of life and not an engineering failure – but don’t let the facts confuse you Bart.
e.g. http://www.weather.com/news/missouri-flooding-closes-roads-leads-rescues-20130806
Being wrong and then being an ass seems to be Bart’s SOP.
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Nothing stops a cat-ninja SQL attack!
↧
Comment on EconTalk: Christy and Emanuel by phatboy
Mike Flynn, to give you some idea about what the the UHI is, consider two situations:
a) A breezy garden lawn, and
b) An asphalt-covered courtyard surrounded by whitewashed walls
Which one wouldn’t you walk barefoot across on a hot summer’s day?
↧
↧
Comment on AAAS: What we know by The American Physical Society | Transterrestrial Musings
[…] as the AAAS seems to be going all ass hat, the APS is rethinking its position on the “consensus.” Mann’s, Romm’s et […]
↧
Comment on EconTalk: Christy and Emanuel by David Springer
car to airport, bus to terminal, jet to destination, bus to car rental, car to work
you forgot the travel by foot which is powered by what… peanuts?
↧
Comment on EconTalk: Christy and Emanuel by David Springer
“I suppose all those with electric and nat. gas powered cars should toss them out?”
No of course not. People can keep their toys. I have electric boats and airplanes and helicopters too. I even have some powered by rubber bands. But he said transportation not recreation.
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by Robert I Ellison
‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
This is pretty much the central message – in black and white – utterly explicit peer reviewed science – it can’t be said any more clearly or succinctly. Go away webby – the nonsense you are spouting is palpable.
↧
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by David Springer
That the clear sky determination of water vapor amplification is Ramanathan’s idea instead of yours increases the odds by orders of magnitude that it’s right. From 0.0001% to 0.01% I’d say. Just a rough estimate. Duh.
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by DrJohnGalan
Matthew R Marler | March 23, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
“No replication of their experiments has ever demonstrated a net energy output over and above the electrical energy put in during the startup”. Suggest you read Edmund Storms’ book, “The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” where the many papers from all over the world describing excess heat, helium and tritium production as well as transmutation are set out.
↧
Comment on EconTalk: Christy and Emanuel by Steven Mosher
Mike Flynn
UHI is due to several factors. Waste heat from humans ( 100 watts) and from human related processes ( exhaust heat from buildings, cars, etc)
is a minor component of the total effect. The major impacts come from
changes to the urban fabric.
1. replacing natural surfaces with surfaces of lower albedo. This decreases the enegy reflected and increases the energy stored (during the day)
2. replacing moisture bearing material with impervious material.
This increases the heat storage capacity. Heat is stored during the day
and released at night increasing tmin
3. Changing the roughness factor. tall buildings do several things
a) reduce the skyview at night, reducing escape of LW
b) create radiative canyons during the day
c) reduce turbulant mixing
4. building material that reduces evaoptranspiration
Waste heat is peanuts compared to these other factors.
Use google. and read
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by David Springer
“The end result was that Willis had written a modest improvement over published work.”
No he didn’t. He blogged about some data mining and a qualified peer reviewer didn’t just say it was wrong it was mocked. Rob Brown is Duke physicist, magna cum laude from Duke no less, with decades of experience. If he bitch slaps Willis’ uneducated scientist-wannabe carpenter ass you can be sure Willis deserved it.
↧
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by JCH
I get it just fine. I was making fun of the way you use abrupt.
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by David Springer
Lapse rate feedback. Greater surface evaporation with little change in temperature reduces lapse rate putting more total water vapor in the column but not greater relative humidity. Vapor must then rise farther for adiabatic cooling to reach the dewpoint. The clouds, now at a higher altitude thanks to increased CO2, have a less restrictive radiative path to space because there’s less air above them and a more restricted for reheating the surface because there’s more air below them. Ostensibly this creates the notorious mid-troposphere “hotspot” referred to as the fingerprint for anthropogenic warming.
Recent measurements and reanalysis of old data is coming up with evidence that lapse rate feedback has been underestimated in the models and average cloud height is indeed changing. Underestimating lapse rate feedback by a small amount puts clouds in the negative feedback column instead of positive which is all it takes to screw the pooch in long term temperature trend from global warming climate models.
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by JCH
How much did the climate change in the 20th century?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
