<em>Here's Greenpeace protesting a Russian oil rig with an oil-powered ship saying we must end "Addition to Oil." Is this hypocrisy?</em> ~Patrick Moore (ICCC9 July 8, 2014)
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Wagathon
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Wagathon
<a href="http://evilincandescentbulb.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/lvinc-ba1.jpg" rel="nofollow"></a>
↧
Comment on Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean by rishrac
It is the physics.That’s why the math is wrong, it’s flawless. When was the incoming and outgoing radiation measured? Do you have an idea of how much the percentage of co2 has changed since they measured the outgoing and incoming? If they used the same calculation today would it reflect the reality today? They aren’t saying anything about the retention of heat anymore. It has disappeared from the conservation all together. All those brilliant explanations of UV passing thru and being converted to IR which is retained by the co2. If the amount of heat that was being retained was still rising, don’t you think they’d be screaming about it. OMG, a tipping point. This is their core argument.. Also they have no explanation for the MWP or the LIA in relation to the amount of co2. Neither event could have happened. Admitting either and the math, physics and theory go bye, bye. Which if I keep jumping up on my soap here, will be sooner rather than later. The Great Lakes freezing over is an impossibility according to this math. This ‘flawless’ math is what made them so certain.
I wonder what they are thinking privately. Since the temps have leveled off, it means that the outgoing and incoming have balanced. And if the oceans are responsible, then what were they doing during the 1998/1999 time frame, by all accounts the warmest year on record? If half the warming is due the ocean dumping heat, then the equation is wrong, and so is the theory and , no surprise, their predictions.
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Wagathon
Inserting an image? didn’t work for me either…
↧
Comment on Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean by tetris
There was a period, not too long ago, when we were told by you and your oh so arrogant ilk that the science was settled: any and all warming that could be found during the 20th century – one way or the other: “adjustments” anyone?- was incontrovertibly due to human activity. Anyone questioning that settled “truth” was and still is smeared as a denier.
So how does it feel Gavin, to now be reduced to debating on blogs other that RC -a site that has fallen off most peoples’ screens and has lost any relevance it may have had, even as a bore hole- the incontrovertible role and degree natural variability now plays at the core of the CAGW/CACC debate?
I’m sure its hard to swallow, but the skeptics were right all along in questioning the CO2 dogma so roundly propagated at RC. The hard empirical data continue to confirm this, and whatever is left of you as a properly trained scientist should understand that.
Eating crow, in particular, is a dish best served cold.
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Steven Mosher
judith the interesting thing is that the researchers avoid asking the question directly about politics.
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Wagathon
<a title="Is it Okay to Get Politics Out of Science?" href="http://i0.wp.com/evilincandescentbulb.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/agw-kabuki.jpg?fit=1000%2C1000" rel="nofollow"></a>
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Wagathon
that doesn’t work either…
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Mike Jonas
http://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-losing-trust-science-study-finds-114401347.html
This Yahoo! (ie, left-leaning) article “Conservatives Losing Trust in Science, Study Finds” refers to a paper in the journal American Sociological Review.
“[...]The trouble with assessing the public’s opinion of science over time is that few public opinion polls asked questions about trust in science before the 1980s. One major survey, the General Social Survey, did ask Americans about their trust in the scientific community starting in 1974, however.”
“[...]But only conservatives showed a change over time. At the beginning of the survey, in the 1970s, conservatives trusted science more than anyone, with about 48 percent evincing a great deal of trust. By 2010, the last year survey data was available, only 35 percent of conservatives said the same.”
“[...]The finding wasn’t the result of conservatives being less educated than in the old days, he said. In fact, the decline in trust was most obvious among conservatives with a bachelor’s degree or higher.”
“[...]“It’s almost a contradiction,” [Gordon Gaulet, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of North Carolina] said. “We use science because it has this objective point of view or credibility to figure out which policy to use … but by doing that it becomes politicized.”
“Interestingly, public opinion on science in Europe and Japan skews differently than in the United States, Gaulet said. There, skepticism about the scientific community usually comes from the left. The reason may be that the issues on the scientific forefront in Europe (genetically modified food, nuclear power) tend to push liberals’ buttons, while those in the United States (climate change, stem cell research) tend to bother conservatives more. [...]“
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by gnomish
joshua:
you can trust your life and your world to these:
↧
Comment on Open thread by Dave Peters
Tony — Much appreciate your latest.
I dipped into your web page briefly, day before last, but have been engaged with a back and forth w/ Lord Monckton on another thread. I can see you are dug in with your vantage as deeply as I, likely a conviction which reaches across a long stretch.
My activism, such as it is, is episodic. During the past year, I’ve mainly been commenting upon what I regard as very abusive use of the El Nino Grande by the entire minimalist tribe, including the host here. (Beating us warmists up with a nostrum composed of thirty-five parts noise, to one part signal–the shame of it!) More than once, with persistent opponents, after about volley number five, I’ve ended with the exasperated challenge: “Oh yeah? Well put the damned Ice Cap back atop the Arctic Ocean, I’ll be all ears. Barring that, I want balls-to-the-wall nuclear substitution, wherever practicable, now!”
I used to occasionally visit a modest NOAA library in Silver Springs, D.C., back when I was in the government (’70’s). A climatologist there once gave me a cartoon graph, depicting a meandering temp/time trace, with a band of shading labeled “noise”, which lead to a prolonged rising departure to starboard, depicting the emergence of some future detectable human signal. No one, and I mean no one, thought of early century 20 decades as “CO2 signal.” This was pre-Vostok and pre-Ramanathan, so getting anyone to move against something at least a century out, was enormously difficult (at the time we were struggling to enact Dr. Schlessinger’s mandated shift to an all-coal power sector, and one of my few successes was helping secure funds to keep Mauna Loa funded!) The MBH Nature graph, actualized that cartoon. If your work can indeed shake my conviction that deteriorating polar float ice is anthro, it will be a profound, if humbling relief. I,of course, am eyeing these modern conceptualizations of the Pacific as a multi-decade thermal capacitor, as a way to sneak CO2 into that early century causality.
Lastly, I’d surely appreciate your thoughts on the contribution offered by Rutgers’ Dr. Jennifer Francis:(two U-2bs)
(for dummies:)
(&, full monty:)
At monty, 29:50, she is queried about natural cyclicity, quite possibly based upon your scholarship.
Also likely, if she is onto actual causality (if Earth is even capable of “actual causality”), the subjunctive mood will abruptly lift from our long-running tug of war. Forget the swelling Hadley Cell’s threat to Phoenix/Vegas, the wolf is right at the door in California. That big warm spot in the Gulf of Alaska, and recent elongation of jet meanders, possibly
getting persistently sticky with the Rockies…? If so, California might as well pack up life. And I’m talking making it through next summer.
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by AK
@ Jim D | <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/22/jc-interview-with-oilprice-com/#comment-620526" rel="nofollow">August 23, 2014 at 11:10 am</a> |
<blockquote>AK, I stated a goal, not a method. There are good ways and bad ways of achieving this goal, but first people need to agree on the goal, and some are not there yet, before designing a method, [...]</blockquote>Yes, well, I stated a goal as well: a <b>modified</b> goal. The goal you stated is widely used, and properly regarded, as a stalking horse for socialist agendas. The one I stated is modified to be much less useful for that purpose, which might well make it more acceptable for many you say <i>"are not there yet"</i>.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
Energy efficiency.
I expect Joshua to argue that it’s not a no regrets policy.
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Ed Barbar
Whut:
“There will always be some oil that remains, and the experienced rhetorical tactician will use that against you.”
somewhere in your curve oil shale will be profitable. So, I don’t see the big scary drop. More like a step function.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wagathon
<em><b>Fukushima Radiation Proves Less Deadly Than Feared</b></em> by Robert Peter Gale & Eric Lax (Bloomberg)
<blockquote>Radiation spikes detected in the weeks and months following the Fukushima accident caused concern and sometimes panic. One day a higher-than-permissible level of iodine-131 (300 becquerels per liter, or less than 0.00008 parts per trillion) was detected in the drinking water in Tokyo. People immediately emptied stores of bottled water. However, the amount of contamination in Tokyo water was so low, Tokyoites would have had to drink 6 quarts of it a day for a month to get the same radiation dose that an airline crew member receives in a year of flying between Los Angeles and Tokyo. </blockquote>
↧
Comment on Week in review by David L. Hagen
On what basis? As an engineer, there is a strong argument for energy efficiency. Economic optimum insulation thicknesses are often double conventional installation practice. However, when calculating optimums, you must include heat generation by people and energy use within the building, as these can be large relative to the heating energy demand. Under optimum insulation, half or more of the heat needed may come from people and energy use – resulting in a downward shift from the external “balance temperature” from the typical 65 F (5F below the control temperature) used for “degree day” calculations. See:
Hagen, D.L. “Optimum Insulation with Internal and Solar Heat Gains.” The Sun: Mankind’s Future Source of Energy. Proceedings 7th International Solar Energy congress, Paper No. 1072, Session 42-2, New Delhi, India, Pergamon Press, January 16-20, 1978
↧
Comment on Week in review by David L. Hagen
<b>Does homogenization "correct" or "politicize" temperature trends?</b>
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/23/australian-met-office-accused-of-manipulating-temperature-records/" / rel="nofollow">Australian Met Office Accused Of Manipulating Temperature Records</a>
<blockquote>One of the most extreme examples is a thermometer station in <b>Amberley, Queensland where a cooling trend in minima of 1C per century has been homogenized and become a warming trend of 2.5C per century. </b>This is a station at an airforce base that has no recorded move since 1941, nor had a change in instrumentation. It is a well-maintained site near a perimeter fence, yet the homogenisation process produces a remarkable transformation of the original records, . . . <b>In Rutherglen in Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35C became a warming trend of +1.73C.</b> She raised her concerns (repeatedly) with Minister Greg Hunt.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/australian-met-office-accused-of-manipulating-temperature-records/" / rel="nofollow">GWPF summary</a>
<a href="http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/heat-is-on-over-weather-bureau-homogenising-temperature-records/" / rel="nofollow">Heat is on over weather bureau ‘homogenising temperature records’</a> Jennifer Marohasy</a>
<a href="http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Amberley-sent-to-Lloyd.png" rel="nofollow">Graph Pre vs Post Homogenization</a> 3.5 C/century difference!
Similarly see <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/" / rel="nofollow">Darwin Zero - Before and After</a>
<blockquote>It is highly improbability that a station would suddenly start warming at 6 C per century for fifty years, no matter what legitimate adjustment method were used (see Fig. 1).</blockquote>
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Curious George
Do you happen to know what makes hydro a non-dispatchable technology?
↧
Comment on Open thread by climatereason
Dave
Thanks for your very interesting comment. As it happens my greatly extended piece on arctic ice variations was published just last night.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-two/#comments
It now contains hundreds more references than the version I posted here for you a couple of days ago.
We can detect periodic melting of arctic ice at least every hundred years or so (to a greater or lesser extent). I wrote about the 1820/1860 melting and there was a melting around 1730 and around 1530 it appears-according to information at the Scott Polar institute in Cambridge that I visited- that the Northern sea route became navigable around 1540. (It then became navigable again in the 1930’s.) T
The book ‘The Viking World’ gives ample evidence of the relatively ice free Arctic that the Vikings enjoyed. It can be traced from the 9th century when King Alfred was asked to sponsor an expedition to the Far North to hunt bowhead whales
As regards MBH, I carried out a reconstruction of CET to 1538 and took the opportunity of examining the reconstructions of Dr Mann and Hubert Lamb to the same date.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
This idea of a relatively static climate for a thousand years until modern times bears little scrutiny. Climate can be highly variable as numerous historical observations can confirm. Such proxies as Tree rings fail to find any changes in climate as they are ill suited for this task. The sudden uptick in modern times only occurs when a highly variable instrumental record is grafted on to the static paleo proxies.
Incidentally I make reference to meandering and stuck jet streams in this work. They are apparent when you look at the historic record and weather becomes stuck in one mode or other or alternatively changes rapidly.
The huge increase in population in California and the resultant upsurge in demand for water is certainly not helping your drought
I will listen to the Dr Francis’ piece later.
Good luck with Monckton. He is an interesting character but he does not speak for me.(nor does Heartland or the GWPF)
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by David Wojick
Replaced by what, Philbert? Author pays (and controls)? Government pays (and controls)? Having readers pay puts them in charge.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
