cowtan & way is not a dataset . it is another interpretation of estimations,among many other interpretations of estimations.
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by bit chilly
↧
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Shub Niggurath
What about the Tom and Jerry dataset and the Tom Dick and Harry Adjustments? Why aren’t they included?
Calling estimates data.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “I would not discount solar variations so much.”
If there is anything that should be discounted it is solar given no one can agree on anything solar. Sunspot number reconstructions likely agree well with temperature due to general atmospheric optical depth limits caused by among other things volcanic aerosols. So to avoid the Wrath of Svalgaard, consider Sol y Vol instead of TSI.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by jim2
The Land Of Oz gets it right. From the article:
…
Today Australian Environment Minister Greg Hunt told assembled Antarctic scientists, that they need to find a way of broadening their funding base – they will have to raise charitable and commercial funding, to supplement funds provided by the government.
According to Greg Hunt;
“Whether it’s in relation to the walrus population, whether it’s in relation to penguins, you can have iconic species which can attract community interest,”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-10/more-funding-icebreaker-flagged-in-antarctica-strategy/5804654
Hunt announced that the Australian government is putting up a lot of funding – paying for a new Icebreaker, and several other projects – but not all the funding which was promised by the previous government.
According to Hunt, “Along with the Bureau of Meteorology super computer, the investment will approach $500 million, … that wasn’t funded. The cupboard was bare. The cupboard was empty when we opened the doors and came into Government.”
…
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by AK
That seems to be one of those longwave-can’t-warm-the-water ideas that has been knocking about on skeptical sites for years.
More like “won’t-warm-the-water-as-much-as-shortwave”. Well supported here.
↧
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Jim D
Expected solar variations in TSI can quantitatively account for long-period irregular waves of amplitude 0.2 C seen in the global temperature record. Even the relatively fast sunspot cycle is detectable in the temperature record.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Jim D
AK, don’t you find it interesting that the day-night variation is less than the longwave variation?
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by PMHinSC
The last paragraph of my 6:03 comment should have read:
If Lewis and Curry is “evidence that CO2 has been the main driver since 1950…” than the GCMs are also such evidence; which is exactly what the dispute is about. Your answer could also be interpreted to mean that until “Lewis and Curry 2014″ there was no <b>evidence</b>. By default your answer is that there is no <b>evidence</b> abundant or otherwise.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “Expected solar variations in TSI can quantitatively account for long-period irregular waves of amplitude 0.2 C seen in the global temperature record. Even the relatively fast sunspot cycle is detectable in the temperature record.”
That gives you almost 35 years of only slightly disputed data. If you go longer you can tease out a rough Hale cycle correlation almost as large as the uncertainty in the surface temperature record. Since the correlation isn’t prefect and the cycle aperiodic, lots of indirect “potential” effects can come into play. It is just as likely that there is a common orbital (tidal) influence as there is a direct solar “TSI” influence. The CMIP or any other model would include estimates of “forcing” which you can compare to latitude bands and basins to see where the estimates miss the mostest. That is one way of using a model, see where it is most wrong and go from there.
↧
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Hockey Schtick
“That seems to be one of those longwave-can’t-warm-the-water ideas that has been knocking about on skeptical sites for years.”
The notion that LWIR can significantly heat the oceans debunked [by RealClimate, indirectly and inadvertently]
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by AK
AK, don’t you find it interesting that the day-night variation is less than the longwave variation?
Expected. Most solar radiation is SW, passes right through the skin layer. LW doesn’t really change that much between day and night.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by John Smith (it's my real name)
“rational policy development”
funny
Vietnam, War in Drugs, democracy for Iraq, federal education policy, NSA data gathering, ACA, plus whatever brilliant stuff the EU is up to (which I don’t hear much about since I’m American)
don’t see much rationality in the historical record
they ain’t gonna find the “hypothesized heat” ’cause the hypothesis has failed
a rational debate about it may not be possible
Seriously. looking for rationality in human affairs may be the fundamental error of rational thinkers
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by AK
Furthermore, a reduced temperature gradient of 0.002ºC could at the very, very most result in an increase in bulk ocean temperature of 0.002ºC.
As I’ve said before, this is nonsense.
↧
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by John Smith (it's my real name)
? threading foxtrot uniform
my comment went way up scroll
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Jim D
Longwave radiation from the atmosphere works by reducing the cooling rate of any surface, including water. It’s the net loss of energy that is reduced. Why is that so hard to understand?
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “Longwave radiation from the atmosphere works by reducing the cooling rate of any surface, including water. It’s the net loss of energy that is reduced. Why is that so hard to understand?”
I think everyone pretty much gets that except for Cotton, Appell and FOMD :) Thing is, long wave is created by the cooling it is restricting. Remember the “they are all interrelated” comment? You tend to pick the last one and assume everything is “normal” to come up with a grossly overestimated idealized impact. You seem to be proud of it too since it gives you a chance to save the world, precautionarily speaking of course.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Matthew R Marler
a fan of *MORE* discourse: <i> The world wonders … why so many folks choose short-sightedness.</i>
What reasons do you have for ignoring the other warm epochs since the end of the last ice age? On their time scale, the present warming is about on time, and will be followed by cooling.
↧
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by maksimovich
Wind is a significant constraint in the SO to differentiate between SW /LW .Interesting the pretty image used by RC ,tells us a different story from the ships log ie it was a windy journey 40-50 knts large swells 2-5m
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Hockey Schtick
re “Furthermore, a reduced temperature gradient of 0.002ºC could at the very, very most result in an increase in bulk ocean temperature of 0.002ºC.”
AK says “As I’ve said before, this is nonsense.”
Could care less if you said it before, doesn’t make it true.
Prove it & show your work.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Wagathon
You are starting to sound more like… A fan OF *GEORGE BUSH*
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
