Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

manacker, yes, this is why they didn’t attribute it except to the warming trend. The study was about how to evaluate the changing rate of new temperature records against a changing background trend. There is also a tutorial about their method here. It’s good for people who want to think. If you can understand it, you are a step ahead of Pielke.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/on-record-breaking-extremes/


Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

0
0

Rising oceans, warmer oceans, declining global continental glacial ice, especially in Greenland and Antarctica is evidence the system is retaining more energy. This is not just potential or theoretical, but actual and measured over many decades.

Comment on Week in review by manacker

0
0

Bart R

The scientific basis for the paper you pooh-pooh (correlations between planetary motion and solar activity) is no more “hairy-fairy” than the CAGW notion that ppmv atmospheric changes in a trace gas (CO2) will cause us all to fry.

Both ideas seem equally ludicrous.

But you enthusiastically embrace one while rejecting the other.

Why?

Max

Comment on Week in review by pokerguy (aka al neipris)

0
0

“Anyone who states that the hot July 2010 in Moscow was “with 80% probability a result of human GHG emissions” is simply spreading unsubstantiated BS, and you know it Jim.”

Max,
The thing is, he doesn’t know it. True believers suffer from some sort of cognitive impairment whereby critical thought is no longer operative. The minds of true believers acts as a filter which keeps out all information contrary to the CAGW party line.

Even NOAA, the very belly of the beast, came out with a paper debunking the role of GHG in that heat wave.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html

Comment on Week in review by Scott

0
0

Max,
Thanks, that is a good reference.
Jim D,

please stick to telling us the time in the UK rather than serial misinformation and weather denialism.

Just kidding, the time in UK was useful.
Scott

Comment on Week in review by Tonyb

0
0

Max

This old chestnut again. I wrote about the 3 or 4 extremely hot summers in Russia during the mid 1800′s here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/

Mind you, the hottest period in Russia was probably around the 1530 to 1560 period when records I have seen in the Scott polar institute in Cambridge seem to suggest that the northern sea route opened up for the first time. One of these days I hope to get around to writing an article on that possibility.

Tonyb

Comment on Week in review by manacker

0
0

Jim D

Got it.

It was warmer in Moscow in July 2010 because it was warmer globally.

So it’s no longer a result of AGW, but just of global warming.

But that’s not what the study I cited showed. It showed that this was a local or regional phenomenon, not a result of a global one.

Hint: Go to the original papers rather than rehashes by outfits like RealClimate or WUWT when you want real information.

Max

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

Read this account from Rahmsdorf before judging their argument. Pielke is not looking very good in this one. It is just statistics, not attribution, so Pielke doesn’t even need to know any science to understand Rahmsdorf’s work.


Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by Edim

0
0

“If AGW is proven wrong, it involves changes in our understanding of scientific principles such as radiative forcing and thermodynamics.”

Not at all! In your understanding, yes.

Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by AK

0
0

We should adapt to the realities of climate science by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. That’s one type of adaptation that makes perfect sense.

As long as you don’t raise the price of energy.

Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by R. Gates

0
0

Of course AK, sensible heat or “temperature” is only one way among dozens of forms of energy in the climate system, and the thousands of measurements of it made daily at all levels of hydrosphere and atmosphere gives us a better and better estimate of the comings and goings of energy in the system. Fake-skeptics hate this fact.

Comment on Week in review by Bart R

0
0

Don Monfort | March 30, 2014 at 5:06 pm |

Again with ‘insinuate’. Are you sure you know what the word means?

I’ve said it flat out.

Are you trying to diminish the claim?

And why won’t you address it?

Either Pielke Jr. perjured, or Holdren did.

Are you too cowardly to state which one you believe it to be? Nevermind insinuation, come out with it.

Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by R. Gates

0
0

Arno Arrak: Simply compare the shape of the Keeling curve with the shape of the global temperature curve and you will see that they absolutely do not correspond. There is one additional test you can perform, and that is checking when a warming starts and when it stops.
——
The really big thing that Arno fails to mention is that the flux of sensible and latent heat is more important to tropospheric temperatures than anything else on sub-decadal scales. The majority of energy in the atmosphere had to pass through the ocean first. Fake-skeptics hate this fact.

Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by R. Gates

0
0

“It’s just one of those handy catch phrases, like “the warmest decade since [fill in the blank], that really tells you nothing more than that the Earth’s climate continues to warm from the little ice age.”
——
It is a sure sign of true denialism in full spring bloom when the late 20th century warming is attributed to LIA recovery. This is classic– thanks for the example.

Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0


GaryM | March 30, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
CAGW could be completely wrong just by getting one of the feedbacks wrong – clouds, water vapor, etc.

So GaryM is for continued funding of climate science to get these numbers correct. They won’t get corrected on their own, that’s for certain.

Own goal.


Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by Jim D

0
0

The scientific method is to have a Theory built on previous theories, and to have Evidence that it works. This is where AGW is. A lot of skeptics think you need proof, but actually, look it up, you only need Evidence in science. Proof is for mathematics.

Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0


AK | March 30, 2014 at 3:08 pm |

More religious dogma. And denial.

That’s what I mean. I look at the consensus science and see nothing egregiously wrong. Yet AK can see everything wrong but can’t articulate the problem except to say the solution is chaotic.

Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by gbaikie

0
0

“AK | March 30, 2014 at 10:12 am |

My own studies of the archaeology of past cultural “failures” suggests a common pattern (often explicitly mentioned in the research I read): a culture will continue to increase, in size, population density, or usually both, pushing the limits of its host ecosystem to support it.”

I think it’s due to crazy ideologies and pseudoscience.
Germany was growing power until Hitler came along. Russia was very impressive nation before Marxism.
One can’t say China failed as world superpower, due overpopulation.
Nor one say China high population would be factor in preventing it becoming major world power in the future.
It’s under population in the future is getting threat.
And to assume the US is overpopulation is just stupid- and is an example of destructive ideologies because lots people can imagine the US as being over populated.

Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by lemiere jacques

0
0

as gdp/ wealth is correlated with energy consomption, you don’t have to think much, just have a look at your income.
Somebody who doesn’t fly will save money ..and spend it for something else..
quite unavoidable..
just look at your income.

Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0


You seem to want to imply that, because it “would rank as the biggest bone-headed mistake that scientific consensus has ever produced”, it therefore can’t have been a mistake.

Sure. I am certain that the aggregate of scientific understanding hasn’t made a mistake. It’s never happened before on this scale.


Edim | March 30, 2014 at 5:14 pm |

Not at all! In your understanding, yes.

Look at it this way, if the consensus science is proven wrong, everyone will be at Edim’s door asking for help to figure out how nature works. And then we will ask Marler if Edim has exaggerated a little bit.

That’s because these two guys understand everything and can overturn textbook science on their own. Their intuitive knowledge is just that special.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images