Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by AK

0
0

Or perhaps the “slip” was the explanation you’re looking for?

No, the “slip” was what I was questioning. If the two files are identical, there was no slip.


Comment on Week in review by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

The BIG question is why the pause 1940-1976 is so much warmer than the pause prior to 1910.

Two essential points are:
1) When energy balance is certainly a limiting factor, one warming step is much more likely produced by natural variability than two successive steps.
2) The second step was predicted as an outcome of additional CO2 before it took place.

Large uncertainties remain, but that’s exactly the reason for the wide uncertainty range of climate sensitivity acknowledged by IPCC. More than that is not justified.

Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

> that forum discussion shows Cook et al are misrepresenting their results while their critics are accurately portraying those results

The first claim is false, or worse absurd, if we consider that misrepresentation is a public matter. The second claim is misleading at best, and rests on misrepresentation of Tom Curtis’ comments.

Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

I already answered your question, Don Don. In my first comments in this thread. On the other hand, you have yet to substantiate your crap you’re throwing at Jim D.

Jim D will ignore that crap. Just like Pekka would. This may explain why you’re asking me to be more like Pekka, and why I won’t.

Comment on Week in review by jim2

0
0

Would that be a whopping whooping crane?

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

The Cook paper was on (correcting myself slightly) the fact, from a previous poll, that 57% of the public did not know that scientists overwhelmingly agreed that human activity was causing global warming, while the actual scientists are 97% in agreement on that statement. It is a little complex to understand, which may be why the point was missed, and people started attacking the paper for something else entirely.

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

0
0

willard –

==> “The second claim is misleading at best, and rests on misrepresentation of Tom Curtis’ comments.”

Brandon has made it quite clear that it doesn’t matter what people say. What matters is how Brandon interprets what they say.

For example, Brandon has interpreted that Dan Kahan says that “you’re an idiot” if you don’t think that the universe began with a huge explosion. Of course, Dan never said that, but Brandon interpreted Dan as saying that, and therefore claimed that’s what Dan said.

See, it doesn’t matter what someone actually says. What matters is Brandon’s interpretation.

Here’s another example:

Brandon interprets what Neil deGrasse Tyson says to mean that he’s an atheist – so Brandon calls DeGrasse an atheist.

But DeGrasse doesn’t say that he’s an atheist. DeGrasse says that he does not accept the label of “atheist.” But DeGrasse says that if he had to assign a word to his stance on god, it would be “agnostic.”

So you see- it doesn’t matter what DeGrasse actually says. What matters is how Brandon interpret what he DeGrasse says.

I hope that I’ve cleared that up for you. I could provide more examples if you’d like. I tried to give links to clips where DeGrasse contradicts how Brandon misinterpret’s Degrasse’s beliefs, but Brandon put me into moderation at his blog when I did that. I’m guessing Brandon doesn’t like it when I provide links that show that his interpretations of what people say are in contrast to what they actually say?

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

0
0

What Jimmy Dee is saying is that microwaves cause water molecules to vibrate. Energy and frequency is related via the Planck constant. Higher frequencies have higher energies and are emitted at a higher temperature.

A weird odd narrative – strangely distorted – that suggests that Bose-Einstein statistics happen only in Bose-Einstein condensates – not true.

://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/be-stats.png

And that B-E condensates are at all relevant. Not merely utterly unproven but fantastically misguided.


Comment on Week in review by Joshua

0
0

willard –

==> “The second claim is misleading at best, and rests on misrepresentation of Tom Curtis’ comments.”

Brandon has made it quite clear that it doesn’t matter what people say. What matters is how Brandon interprets what they say.

For example, Brandon has interpreted that Dan Kahan says that “you’re an id*ot” if you don’t think that the universe began with a huge explosion. Of course, Dan never said that, but Brandon interpreted Dan as saying that, and therefore claimed that’s what Dan said.

See, it doesn’t matter what someone actually says. What matters is Brandon’s interpretation.

Here’s another example:

Brandon interprets what Neil deGrasse Tyson says to mean that he’s an atheist – so Brandon calls DeGrasse an atheist.

But DeGrasse doesn’t say that he’s an atheist. DeGrasse says that he does not accept the label of “atheist.” But DeGrasse says that if he had to assign a word to his stance on god, it would be “agnostic.”

So you see- it doesn’t matter what DeGrasse actually says. What matters is how Brandon interpret what he DeGrasse says.

I hope that I’ve cleared that up for you. I could provide more examples if you’d like. I tried to give links to clips where DeGrasse contradicts how Brandon misinterpret’s Degrasse’s beliefs, but Brandon put me into moderation at his blog when I did that. I’m guessing Brandon doesn’t like it when I provide links that show that his interpretations of what people say are in contrast to what they actually say?

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

0
0

Let me try that one again.

I suggest you move on Jimmy Dee – because this is just too silly.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

Yes, the Wally Broecker (1975, Science) paper, the first to mention global warming, predicted the second phase of warming before most of it happened, just based on a sensitivity and CO2 growth as estimated at that time. Broecker also put the 1910-1940 warm phase in the context of 80- and 180-year natural variability cycles that are typical of what had been happening over the past 800 years according to Greenland records. He predicted a 2010 temperature that was unprecedented in those records, and it happened.

Comment on Week in review by curryja

0
0

This was an unscripted response to a question. Should have been ‘dominates’ not influences.

Comment on Week in review by David Springer

0
0

Got some kind of data to support you claim, chilly?

Probably not, eh Climate Etc readers? ;-)

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

Rob Ellison, you misunderstood. Try again. At, for example 100 K, do you think that all the H2O molecules in any proximity are distinguishable by their rotational quantum numbers or not? Do you think BE statistics applies to distinguishable particles or not?

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

0
0

==> “This was an unscripted response to a question. Should have been ‘dominates’ not influences.”

So, then, you are saying it is “foolish” to think that more than 50% of the warming over the last century is attributable to anthropogenic CO2.

Not just that it is unlikely that, or unknown whether, more than 50% of warming over the last century is ACO2 caused.

If I’m not mistaken, then that is something new from you. I mean it seems that you are quite certain there. If I recall correctly, you previously felt that there is a non-negligible possibility that more than 50% of warming over the last century is attributable to AC02.

I guess you still think it’s possible, but that it would be foolish to think it might be true?

Looks like Mr. Monster is getting awfully small in your perspective.


Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

0
0

This is really very simple. The C13 paper abstract claimed that “97.1% endorsed the consensus position…” What consensus position? Here is a hint, from C13:

“Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).”

It’s the IPCC statement. The IPCC statement is quantified-most of the global warming. In C13 they lumped quantified and unquantified ratings together and employed other dubious shenanigans to get the meaningless 97% consensus BS. There is no data supporting a 97% consensus that humans have caused >50% of the warming. Period. Everybody knows it. Case closed.

Comment on Week in review by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

Taz doesn’t get it. He just spins out of control when you push the right buttons.

Photons straightforwardly obey B-E statistics because a photon, having no mass, is indistinguishable from another photon. And the fact that h𝜈 is often around kT, the degeneracy conditions are easily met.

But for massed particles, the situation is completely different.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

The forcing change under BAU in the 21st century will be 2.5 times that in the 20th century, so even if it was (dubiously) only 50% then, it will be that much larger going forwards, and should be easily the dominant effect on climate.

Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

0
0
Jim D: <i>The audience clearly was not only the Marshall Institute members, especially the ones that asked questions. When one says he has been to Greenland and it is even worse than the climate scientists are saying, and another asks why she is only applying uncertainty to the consensus view and not her own, and another asks what her actual change to policy-making would be, it is a tough audience. </i> Add to that it was the National Press Corps, and those lectures are frequently broadcast nationwide by NPR. I wonder if that one will be broadcast nationwide.

Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

> The Cook paper was on (correcting myself slightly) the fact, from a previous poll, that 57% of the public did not know that scientists overwhelmingly agreed that human activity was causing global warming, while the actual scientists are 97% in agreement on that statement.

Yes, Jim D. From the horse’s mouth:

An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

More than a year-and-a-half after the publication of C13, we still encounter readings that goes against the very first paragraph.

Also notice the sentence that elided Brandon:

There aren’t a lot that specifically quantify AGW, but there are a good number that essentially endorse the IPCC report, which is equivalent to endorsing AGW as greater than 50%.

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The%20Consensus%20Project/2012-01-24-Defining%20the%20scientific%20consensus.html

Dana simply wanted to avoid an assumption that he accepts anyway.

Hyperreal, I tell you, Jim D.

***

I see that Brandon has yet to sanitize the IPs and the emails.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images