Trofim Lysenko was once sitting pretty. So were Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, briefly.
Comment on Week in review by Canman
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by angech
Jim D, natural variation, because it’s “natural”, cannot become more or less important with time. It has no ranking, it just is.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
Fan provide a very nice graph of intrepid explorers experiencing nature in all its grandness. Of the virtual wave of humanity bumping elbows with polar bears along the Northwest Passage, it appears at the graph only the Lady Dana has completed its passage to date. This is not to say some others not on the graph have made it though.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by Eric
“Evidence” Brandon? As every good “sceptic” knows, the uncertainty monster demands absolute proof before any action can be contemplated. Evidence is meaningless. The only thing that matters is proof. Bring in absolute proof or you got nothing.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
It can become less important when something else is growing in its effect every decade. It’s all relative.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by angech
again, natural variability has no scale or relative strength, it just is, so it cannot decrease by 10% a decade or increase by 10% a decade or it wouldn’t be natural.
No one even can give an accurate measure of what is now so stop quoting the hooey of 10% a decade.
It doesn’t exist.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
You can read the last sentence of the abstract.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
I see you wish to play the Warmist insulation ploy. I thought even the most died in the wool fanatical Warmist had realised that insulators do not increase the temperature of that which they insulate, unless possessing an internal heat source, which rather negates the argument that CO2 possesses any warming properties.
Even so, according to you, increasing the amount of insulation should increase the temperature, but it seems not to, at least according to Warmist measurements. And in fact, putting more blankets on a corpse – or surrounding it with ever increasing concentrations of CO2 – increases its temperature not one jot.
Your argument, and that of your fellow Warmists is specious in the extreme. Nonsensical, but then some people assign magical properties to pyramids constructed from coat hangers, so you at least have company in the bizarrium which you inhabit.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Week in review by miker613
Well, as far as my points (1) and (2) are concerned, I think that “denying the pause” is a reasonable thing to do. The climate is a complex of vastly many variables; we look at one tiny slice of it with mean surface temperatures. There isn’t any reason to expect that one slice to grow smoothly in a vast chaotic mass of variables. Just because that one variable didn’t move doesn’t at all mean the system didn’t gain heat.
But if that one thing (mean surface temperature) is what we are supposed to care about above all else, it becomes important to know if we can predict it. At all. Does it make sense for a scientist to say, If CO2 goes to __, surface temperatures will go up somewhere between __ and __? Seems like an important question, but not one where we have any well-tested answer. The models that were supposed to answer it have failed validation badly right out of the box. That’s the “pause” that I think is important: the surface temperature didn’t go up when all the models said it should. Or not nearly fast enough.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Mike Flynn, suppose the surface is warmed by the sun, but the atmosphere insulates against the escape of heat. Now does the surface warm when you add more insulation? It’s a basic mechanical engineering question.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by stan
The overwhelming majority of science studies are wrong. Science has no quality control. Why would any intelligent person believe anything scientists say when no one checks anyone else’s work?
What kind of idiot spends hundreds of billions of dollars without checking people’s work? The hubris of alarmists is so bad we probably need another, more extreme, term to describe it adequately.
↧
Comment on Week in review by angech
arctic sea ice extent, has it reached it’s minimum?
PIOMAS high, AO index negative, Temps north of 80N below freezing.
but it will not turn.
time for some really strong wishful thinking.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by naq
You say you want small…
http://news.yahoo.com/stephen-hawking-god-particle-could-163109712.html
you might not be able to handle the small.
↧
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Vaughan Pratt
1. I meant how do you value the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age?
I don’t, Matt. It’s not a meaningful question for me. Define “since the LIA” and point me at a reliable source of temperature data for that period and I could make up a value, but I doubt it would be terribly meaningful.
Based on the Central England Temperature since 1660, I’d say the LIA ended in 1750. Do you have a different dataset suggesting a different date?
For background the Central England Temperature, CET, smoothed to a 25-year running mean, was remarkably stable at 9.1 °C from 1750 to 1900, after which it shot up 1.1 °C over the next 100 years. From 1672 to 1710 it was very cold, dropping as low as 8.4 °C in 1685, arguably a Little Ice Age for central England, which then experienced a brief warming that peaked at 9.5 °C during 1710-1750.
2. I refer always to the next doubling, taking what we have now as the reference,
The previous doubling (from 200 to 400 ppmv) took 20,000 years. The next doubling (from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv) will take around 75 years based on the present rate of increase of CO2.
What you could learn by running your favorite car into a big haystack at 1 mph doesn’t tell you much about what would happen at 270 mph. No record exists of the planet Earth ever before experiencing a CO2 doubling that took place in less than a century. I don’t know about your definition of “unprecedented” but that sure meets mine!
judging that climate change since the end of the LIA has been beneficial on the whole.
Judged by whom (statisticians or geophysicists?), beneficial to whom (nomads or farmers), when (century), and where (latitude)?
How much of the next CO2 induced warming (should it occur) do you think will be bad.
Like I said, the result of running a car into a haystack at 1 mph is no basis for guessing what will happen at 270 mph.
3. Whatever logic you do buy, what is your current opinion regarding future rainfall change? A moister atmosphere does not “have to” mean more rain; do you think it will?
It sounds like you’re judging “moister” in terms of absolute humidity. Relative humidity is a better basis for forecasting precipitation. What is your current opinion regarding future relative humidity?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
Sorry for jumping the threading, but it was becoming tiresome.
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, suppose the surface is warmed by the sun, but the atmosphere insulates against the escape of heat. Now does the surface warm when you add more insulation? It’s a basic mechanical engineering question.”
I am assuming that, in the best Warmist tradition, you are not seeking knowledge, but rather attempting to be both condescending and patronising at once, Alas, the slings and arrows of outraged Warmism make no impression on my thick Unbeliever skin. If my assumption in incorrect, let me know and I will of course offer a sincere and fulsome apology to your good self.
But to your bad faith question. The short answer is, of course, no, but I fear that is not the answer you had already determined I was to be browbeaten into providing. Your question as it stands is a pointless example of Warmist nonsense, and assumes that the person being questioned is a gullible fool. You make two assumptions, both of which may be true, but are insufficient to draw any particular conclusion, let alone one that supports the Warmist point of view.
Without desiring to make you look any more gullible than you have demonstrated so ably to date, I can do no better than suggest that you perform your own experiment. You will rapidly ascertain the reason for the lack of experimental confirmation for the Warmist hypothesis – it requires magic to effect its operation.
Magic being in short supply, and satellites reading surface temperatures with somewhat wider spacial reach, and possibly greater precision, than was heretofore the case, the Warmist hypothesis runs out of steam. Your magical one way insulator no longer works, and the Earth’s surface stubbornly refuses to warm. Don’t blame me, maybe the Warmists need to chant the sacred Manntra faster or louder or both.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Vaughan Pratt
Arrhenious. [who] was the first to realise that the rare atmospheric gas, CO2, could absorb large amounts of heat and adversely effect future climate.
Not true at all. The English physicist John Tyndall realized this more than 40 years before Arrhenius, based on experiments in the early 1850s with the ratio spectrophotometer he invented. He found that a number of gases, of the kind we call greenhouse gases today, absorbed a significant amount of infrared radiation, and measured the extent to which each did so. Based on his measurements he realized that if Earth’s atmosphere had no greenhouse gases the oceans would be frozen solid.
Arrhenius’s contribution was the logarithmic dependency of surface temperature on level of atmospheric CO2, which he determined by measuring how much infrared radiation from the Moon was received at the Earth’s surface for different altitudes of the Moon. Low altitudes simulated more CO2 along the path of radiation. He used a Langley bolometer to measure the radiation. In 1880 Langley was able to measure the amount of thermal radiation from a cow at 400 metres, and Arrhenius published his logarithmic law 16 years later.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by Mike Flynn
KNR,
There are no climate scientists. There are people who claim to be climate scientists, and of course these numbers will change depending on the pecuniary advantage to be found by claiming to be a climate scientist, rather than a second or third rate mathematician, physicist, mammalogist or such.
Some of them even give the impression that they have received a Nobel Prize for their Climate Science work, but this is, of course, nonsense.
The climate is merely the average of weather over an arbitrary period, and any reasonably intelligent twelve year old can calculate averages, using nothing more than basic arithmetical skills.
So called climate scientists can predict the future no better than you or I, which probably gets up their collective nose no end!
The wonder is that anybody was gullible enough to believe the Warmists, but if politicians were involved, I suppose it was inevitable.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Vaughan Pratt
the case in the ocean is mostly for beneficial effects.
I have no idea myself. However being married to a marine biologist, plus having two marine biologists (married to each other) as renters of my house in Pacific Grove, I have a sample of three telling me there are only detrimental effects on the ocean from increasing atmospheric CO2.
What are these beneficial effects you’re claiming for CO2 on the ocean?
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Matthew R Marler
Vaughan Pratt: I don’t, Matt. It’s not a meaningful question for me. Define “since the LIA” and point me at a reliable source of temperature data for that period and I could make up a value, but I doubt it would be terribly meaningful.
That’s fine with me. Some of the people who advocate immediate drastic action to prevent future warming write as though the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age has been unequivocally bad, without the qualifications that you wrote about.
The previous doubling (from 200 to 400 ppmv) took 20,000 years. The next doubling (from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv) will take around 75 years based on the present rate of increase of CO2.
The better estimates are ca 140 years.
If you truly have no opinion on whether warming to date has been beneficial or non-beneficial, and whether warming in the future will be beneficial or non-beneficial, then by inference you do not engage these non-opinions when you decide whom and for what policies to vote for. By implication you can have no opinion whether, for example, California AB32 is likely to be worth the cost. It’s a fair opinion, imho, if consistently held.
My judgment, based on information to date, is that warming since the (difficult to pin down) end of the Little Ice Age has been largely beneficial; and that warming and other climate change projected, based on CO2 increase, is likely to be beneficial for the next few decades. Beneficial for whom? For the agricultural industry, broadly conceived to include Agribusiness and small-scale farmers; and for people who buy their produce.
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Matthew R Marler
Vaughan Pratt: <i> It sounds like you’re judging “moister” in terms of absolute humidity. Relative humidity is a better basis for forecasting precipitation. What is your current opinion regarding future relative humidity?</i>
Neither absolute humidity nor relative humidity is that important. What is important is the rate of the hydrological cycle. On the whole, I think that the rate increases with higher temperatures. Not everywhere has been well studied, but California precipitation is higher on the whole with warm Pacific Ocean than with cool Pacific Ocean. Vapor pressure increases are superlinear in base temperature, so a 1C increase in temperature causes greater increase in rate of evaporation at 15C than at 5C, and greater at 25C than at 15C. This is one of the areas of research that i expect to be very informative in the next 2 decades.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
