Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by John M

September 3, 2014, 1:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by John M

$

0

0

Well I’m not sure anything is *completely* understood in science :)

But your point is well taken. Certainly the source of my interest is time frame, which is paramount. I’ve found little to persuade me there isn’t a general warming trend, but I’m not convinced there isn’t time to develop a better understanding and thus better solutions. The argument of skeptics seems to be we’re nowhere near a tipping point and we need a far better understanding of all the moving parts before any solution is viable. I sure hope that’s right because we’re not doing anything substantive for a while.

---

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by PA

September 3, 2014, 1:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by John M

$

0

0

“Lambda = Change in Temperature/ Change in forcing”?

Well… Lambda isn’t a constant. The response of water temperature with respect to LW radiation forcing is nonlinear. Lambda is sensitive to type of surface, temperature of surface, and type of forcing.

The ocean temperature at the equator is relatively impervious to LW radiation that only penetrates to millimeter depths. It mostly increases latent heat loss. Latent heat loss is the primary source of heat transfer from the equatorial ocean.

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Wagathon

September 3, 2014, 1:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by kim

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by PA

$

0

0

Kevin Trenberth Science Communication Quiz -- <strong>Did Trenberth say this?</strong> <blockquote>We know that the whole ocean is warming and sea level is rising at unprecedented rates. The pattern of observed warming is unlike any natural variation and the rates of change are faster. Hence we can prove that the observed warming is not natural and we can point to the cause: observed increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap infrared radiation from escaping to space.</blockquote>

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by kim

September 3, 2014, 1:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Jeffn

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Wagathon

$

0

0

It’s not the temperature of his model, it’s the content of his charicature.
================

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Jeffn

September 3, 2014, 1:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by kim

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by kim

$

0

0

Curry’s statement about Obama only “lacks specificity” to people who aren’t paying any attention.
Obama has pronounced climate change to be settled several times, including his recent announcement that he was going the “imperial president” route viz the EPA (though I’m betting you object to that “imperial” formulation for any action since 2008).
Here is one of many many many:

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/196757-obama-climate-change-is-a-fact

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by kim

September 3, 2014, 1:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Jeffn

$

0

0

You can bring a hortotutor but you cannot make him learn.

Abject apologies to Dorothy, I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy. Now won’t you please answer the phone?
================

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Wagathon

September 3, 2014, 1:52 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by kim

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by kim

$

0

0

What we do know is there has been a lot of corruption in the climate community. And, nothing speaks more loudly about such corruption than examples of when periods of historical cooling suddenly become evidence of current global warming –e.g.,

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by kim

September 3, 2014, 1:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Tom Scharf

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Wagathon

$

0

0

Better, would he say it now?
============

---

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Tom Scharf

September 3, 2014, 1:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by popesclimatetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by kim

$

0

0

I think one can pretty easily articulate what the Obama administration’s position is regarding climate change, and can certainly look it up rather easily.

What Trenberth’s meaning of uninformed is is i think a bit more mysterious. Based on previous statements and such I would estimate it is:

1. The earth has warmed over the 20th century
2. Warming presents a clear and present danger.
3. Immediate and costly action is required to mitigate the effects.

One of those, or all, or something in between. Who knows?

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by popesclimatetheory

September 3, 2014, 1:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Tom Scharf

$

0

0

They really may have only 97 people on the petition, or more likely less. You can get close to 97 % with 32 or 33 for and one against.

I could be wrong now. I would like to see.

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by PA

September 3, 2014, 2:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Stephen Segrest

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by popesclimatetheory

$

0

0

Well…

Gavin is sort of right. The satellites are precise but not accurate.

The satellites are generally calibrated to an internal source. So relating a detection level to an absolute temperature is a little nebulous (which is why they try to orbit a successor instrument prior to its predecessor failing and intercalibrate the two instruments). So they aren’t very accurate.

However they can measure differences, like a change in radiation, very precisely.

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Stephen Segrest

September 3, 2014, 2:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Kip Hansen

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by PA

$

0

0

Recently, I saw a TED presentation about Dr. Alice Stewart, who in the 1950’s THOUGHT she had found a link between expectant Mothers who had received x-rays and childhood cancers. It took medical science over 25 years to acceptably prove this linkage.

As I listened to this TED lecture, the similarities with GW/CC seemed to be spot on — and applicable to “both” sides of GW/CC debate.

In retrospect, was Dr. Stewart wrong when she advocated the potential “catastrophic” impact of receiving X-rays to children’s cancer?

In retrospect, was the medical community consensus wrong in their “Group-think” mentality for over 25 years?

Is it reasonable to expect Industry (in this case, the makers of x-ray equipment) to aggressively fund independent research that could find their product is harmful?

As the TED lecture points out, we need the “right kind” (not agenda driven) of both Advocate and Skeptic working together.

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Kip Hansen

September 3, 2014, 2:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Stephen Segrest

$

0

0

You must actually look at Trenberth’s PowerPoint linked in the first paragraph. It reminded me of a poorly done High School Science Fair Project, poorly reseached, entire Politically Correct, and without value. I quit writing CliSci articles as a result => the opposition’s Best was so pathetic, it wasn’t worth my time and effort.

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by steven

September 3, 2014, 2:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by John M

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Kip Hansen

$

0

0

JCH, don’t be silly. EXXON pays me to drill. Just the other day I got a coupon for $5 off an oil change in the mail. It isn’t obvious but it must be from them. They tracked me down to pay me off and it isn’t the first time I’ve gotten big oil money.

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by John M

September 3, 2014, 2:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by popesclimatetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by steven

$

0

0

The point is *no one* has an honest comparison. There seem to be none with a “reasonable minds can differ” mentality in any area of climate science. Or they’re shouted down by the respective you’re either for us or against us crowds.

---

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by popesclimatetheory

September 3, 2014, 2:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Holly Stick

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by John M

$

0

0

Open Arctic is not a bad thing. Warm Oceans and Open Polar Oceans are necessary to provide snowfall to rebuild ice on land.

You need to learn about the Polar Ice Cycles.

Herman A. (Alex) Pope
Pope’s Climate Theory

http://popesclimatetheory.com/

Retired Aerospace Engineer
NASA-JSC- 1963-2007
alexpope13@gmail.com
281-734-2110
When the oceans are warm and wet, it snows more and that bounds the upper limits of temperature and sea level.
When the oceans are cold and frozen, it snows less and that bounds the lower limits of temperature and sea level.
CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water.

Look at it, think about it, and let me know what you think.
I want to know what you think about my theory and about the presentations at the climate conference. You may select this link to my NEW Short Version of my Climate Theory.

http://popesclimatetheory.com/page56.html

I do want to know what you believe about Climate Temperature and Sea Level Regulation.

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Holly Stick

September 3, 2014, 2:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Rob Starkey

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by popesclimatetheory

$

0

0

Evidence:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/03/31/205733/report-koch-industries-outspends-exxon-mobil-on-climate-and-clean-energy-disinformation/

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/04/12457/revealed-alec%E2%80%99s-2014-attacks-environment

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/02/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-organisation-funders

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/multimillionaire-backers-of-climate-change-denial-thinktank-revealed-9707267.html

Why are you people so determined to remain ignorant?

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Rob Starkey

September 3, 2014, 2:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by AK

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Holly Stick

$

0

0

Holly
What is it you believe your links show reliable evidence of???

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by AK

September 3, 2014, 2:19 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by John M

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Rob Starkey

$

0

0

@Holly Stick…

Evidence? Or just wasting people’s time? I long ago stopped bothering with anything you said.

Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by John M

September 3, 2014, 2:21 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How long is the pause? by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by AK

$

0

0

It was rightfully pointed out that the Drexel study I cited lumps a number of right wing groups into the “denial organization” category (AEI, Heritage, etc.) which the study actually refers to as the “climate change counter-movement”.

It was never meant to be the last word. Now I see why no one ever cites anything around here. Here’s a link for your convenience (it was in the SA article). The language in it is overtly slanted. The pie charts summarize the recipients most readily.

http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx