Kudos to Steve Mosher for being part of your presentation!
But I think you are too kind with your summation that Trenberth’s presentation was “40%” political. There is precious little data in it, and virtually all politicking.
But probably most telling is that Trenberth’s presentation looks more like something Al Gore would produce than would a scientist. Virtually no facts, and a lot of hype.
And yet, even though the parties are in agreement, and the science is settled, Nature refuses to cooperate.
In spite of our best efforts to generate surface warming by generating prodigious amounts of heat in the name of progress, temperatures fail to rise. A pause, I hear you say? Oh yes, you have examined the future, and see warming. I examine the present and the past, and I see no rising temperatures, globally.
Nor do you. Reject Nature’s reality, and substitute your own. If it brings contentment and peace, why not? It’s the only sane and rational thing to do, if you prefer your reality to reality.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Who can feel at home on the range today? Remember to always smile.
” Lueders said. “We will euthanize an animal during the impoundment if they exhibit dangerous characteristics, threaten the health and safety of the employees, display a hopeless prognosis for life.”
“So, we do have a protocol in terms of when we would euthanize animals,” she said. “But we don’t have any answers at this time in terms of the numbers.”
Dr. Curry’s presentation was far more detailed then Dr. Trenberth’s and certainly more to my liking in that regard. I would have liked to have been there to gauge the audience reactions to both. I do disagree that an El Niño in 2014-15, even a strong one, will prove anything about AGW, though some will make great noise to that effect should it occur and cause a short-term spike in tropospheric temperatures. AGW is a long-term proposition. One year in the troposphere or small group of years mean nothing as tropospheric sensible heat is such a small low thermal inertia part (and ocean dependent) part of the overall climate energy system.
Curry focused on Uncertainty, Trenberth on Consensus– so what really is new here?
Good..fixed nicely.
Dr. Curry, with respect, re: your slide #2, Bullet #3;
“Carbon dioxide and other so-¬called greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet”
So here we are 100 years plus after Arrhenius postulated this hypothesis (specifically that the average temperature will rise) and there is STILL NO PROOF that this is the case.
Arrhenius predicted (whoops, I meant projected, whoops I meant guessed) that folks would be farming in Greenland by now. Dr. Hansen predicted much larger temperature rises than have been observed. How many more predictions must we hear before the climate science community goes back and erases everything from the blackboard and starts over from scratch ?
Yes it’s painful, I’ve been on years long engineering projects that where summarily executed (with lots of employment pain) since they clearly could not meet the original performance specifications.
It’s about time the climate science community had a little house cleaning.
You all need to start from the basics and demonstrate in the lab that so called “back radiation” does indeed increase the average temperature of the Earth (or a simple farm greenhouse). FROM SCRATCH. All this other testimony before our elected representatives and caterwauling about all the evils that await us is doing the climate science community great harm.
You should be aware that there are several experiments that demonstrate that an IR opaque “layer” (i.e. plastic film) above a soil surface heated by the visible light from the Sun has no additional discernible effect (WRT temperature) than an IR transparent layer.
Referring again to your bullet #3; the “warming effect” does indeed exist, BUT it travels through the Sun/Earth/Atmosphere/Universe System at very nearly the speed of light in a vacuum. This is by all accounts quite quick. The missing heat left long ago; in fact it is “Gone With The Sunset”. That might make for a catchy movie title, what do you think ?
Cheers, Kevin.
Next time (hah!) we each need 30-40 minutes for a presentation, and then we should be questioned by Russ Roberts of EconTalk.
I hope you have a debate with Trenbert on Russ Robert’s podcast.
My take was that the audience was very impressed by your polite, logical, and well explained delivery – and quite put off by Trenberth’s aggressive and angry politics.
You had already shot down his 97% claim before he made it the basis of his attack. Bottom line was that you appeared to the audience as a thoughtful and respectful scientist, and he came across as an angry politician.
Neukom selected his proxies from a vast set of “things that leave records” and declared that the things whose curves somewhat match the curve of 20th century warming must be valid temperature proxies. What that does is narrow down the essentially random data sets into ones that are still random – but tick upwards at the end, so his data set is random signals that only share a final rise. Then he averaged all those, and lo and behold, they all pretty much cancel each other (being random) except for the uptick at the end, which is only there because that was the feature used to select them from the set of random things. That, of course, automatically wipes out everything but the current uptick, and the Hockey Stick is reborn through extreme mathematical and scientific ineptitude.
You could use the same method to pick “proxies” that matched the MWP or any other period and show that there hasn’t been any climate variation before or since. You could even do it with stock prices for temperature proxies.
They showed the LIA too, so…
George Turner believes “Neukom selected his proxies from a vast set of “things that leave records … this data set is random signals that only share a final rise. “
Denialism by George Turner, supplemental information by FOMD.
Of *COURSE* Neukom et al were deliberate fakers, George Turner. `Cuz that’s what *ALL* those scholars do!
• Darwin cherry-picked his fossil record, and
• physicians cherry-pick their smoking/cancer data, and
• virologists cherry-pick their HIV/AIDS data, and
• chemists cherry-pick their ozone-layer data, and
• ornithologists cherry-pick their pesticide-data, and
• historians cherry-pick their bible-authors, and
• sociologists cherry-pick their abstinence data, and
• economists cherry-pick their healthcare data.
Oh d*mn those paleoclimatogists!
blouis79,
I take your point somewhat, but in a properly designed kiln, for example, the temperatures involved and the kiln’s purpose ensure that the heating elements do not touch the contents to avoid the possibility of undesirable consequences. One of these is unexpected superheating, which can lead to molten material eating through the kiln floor, and escaping the kiln. The point is that radiation is the preferred method of energy provision. Conduction takes place subsequently, at a rate dependent on the physical properties of the object.
Be careful where you place your kiln!
As to convection, a properly constructed electric kiln is sealed as well as possible. The internal temperature is designed to be isothermal throughout, but of course varies a bit, due to the fact that heat is extremely hard to trap, and to be forced to go where you want it to. Convection effects are therefore minimalised, as you don’t want your ceramics to be fired unequally.
I have done CO2 greenhouse heating experiments in a reasonable vacuum, something around 0.005 mbar, and then filled the chamber with CO2. I no longer have access to most of the equipment, but it isn’t all that expensive – under 2,000 AUD or thereabouts. That includes precision power supply for your heat source, high precision temperature sensor target, vacuum pump, chamber etc. Obviously, a few other bits and pieces come in handy.
I find borrowing better than buying.
Good luck, and have fun!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
AFOMD,
With regard to your list of scholars, would you mind nominating those you consider scientists?
Once you have excluded the non scientists, we may be able to continue the discussion. In the meantime, I think you are a tad harsh damning all paleoclimatologists. Some of them might actually be using the scientific method.
What are your views?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Jim D,
I assume your solution is to provide inputs, to a model, which generate the results you desire.
Is this correct, or have you left something out?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Wigley might be an interesting case. In the Climategate emails, he took some fairly strong positions against Mannian methods, he clearly is a strong believer in climate models, but he seems to have, perhaps, a bit more integrity, a bit less politicizing streak, than some of his colleagues. Maybe that is why he’s gone quiet, maybe — even though he is on the alarmist team — he doesn’t like their tactics?
Glad to explain. The inputs suggested give tropospheric forcing, not tropospheric+stratospheric. It is a more suitable forcing for the surface response.
In addition to Pekka, now Nullius in Verba and Berenyi Peter have made the same suggestion to Willis at WUWT. No response yet.
chanel cosmetic bag
Hi there! I could have sworn I’ve visited this
site before but after looking at some of the posts I realized it’s
new to me. Anyways, I’m definitely happy I stumbled upon it and I’ll be book-marking it and checking back regularly!
From the article:
Oil and Gas
Ohio regulators halt fracking site, drawing link to quakes
Friday, 11 Apr 2014 | 12:45 PM ET
The Associated Press
…
State geologists in Ohio have for the first time linked earthquakes in a geologic formation deep under the Appalachians to gas drilling, leading the state to issue new permit conditions in certain areas that are among the nation’s strictest.
A state investigation of five small tremors in the Youngstown area, in the Appalachian foothills, last month has found the high-pressure injection of sand and water that accompanies hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in the Utica Shale may have increased pressure on a small, unknown fault, said State Oil & Gas Chief Rick Simmers. He called the link “probable.”
While earlier studies had linked earthquakes in the same region to deep-injection wells used for disposal of fracking wastewater, this marks the first time tremors have been tied directly to fracking, Simmers said. Five seismic events in March were all part of what was considered a single event and couldn’t be easily felt by people.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101576489
Jim D,
I think I understand. The more suitable forcing gives you the answer you desire. If it doesn’t give the desired answer, it is obviously not as suitable.
Are there any objective rules which are used to determine which forcings are more suitable, or is it a case of every modeller for himself?
Thanks in advance.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
![\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}")
