Yes. Although the cold weather can also be connected to natural variability, otherwise known as ‘weather’. It’s pretty normal for tropical cyclones to become extra-tropical when they reach the extra-tropics.
Comment on Week in review by Lucifer
↧
↧
Comment on Climate dynamics of clouds by Rob Ellison
‘In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions.
This rule should be followed so that arguments based on induction be not be nullified by hypotheses.’ Isaac Newton
No Stephen – I take the self referential circularity of the argument and lack of an observational basis to be diagnostic of complete blather.
It is the difference between induction and wild flights of fantasy. Not even hypothesis – because hypotheses by the nature of science are testable and certainly not correct unless tested.
↧
Comment on Week in review by mosomoso
“Already influential is work he did on climate engineering, which found that when global warming was posed as a problem that could be solved through human ingenuity, not by limiting growth, hierarchical-individualists were more likely to support action.”
So the unctuously idolised Kahan believes in closing sales with demographically tailored pitches. He’ll sell you a white elephant with hierarchical-individualist appeal.
Please. Gimme a break from these I’m-on-your-side warmies who are going to get me where I’m culturally cognitive. I actually prefer the old mullahs of alarmism like Gore. At least those forlorn polar bears were cute.
↧
Comment on Climate dynamics of clouds by Mike Flynn
John Carter,
I presume by actual climate scientists, you mean people who actually know that climate is merely the average of weather, rather than the self proclaimed climatologists who frantically pretend climate is something else.
Any number of studies, emanating from any number of fools, frauds, or delusional second rate wannabes, demonstrate only the abilities of charlatans to part suckers from their money, in the main.
Is it the foolish leading the demented, or the other way round perhaps? What is it that this pseudo-scientific charade is supposed to achieve? World peace? An end to want? Possibly, even, a chicken in every pot?
Anything is better than nothing, which seems to be the sum total of all the billions wasted to date.
For a small fee, I will allow you to worry about the future on my behalf. After all, what harm could it possibly do?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
=> “Which is why I wonder why our hostess pays any attention to Mann, Schmidt, Trenberth, and the others in this motley crew. They have demonstrated a lack of integrity, which poisons the well of dialogue.”
Fascinating, indeed, how selectively our much beloved “denizens” integrate what they read.
Why would the quote you excerpted only apply to the work of scientists you disagree with? Why aren’t Lewis and Curry included in the “motley crew”: Judith shouldn’t pay any attention to?
Oh. Wait.
I forgot.
“Advocacy” is just another word for “science I don’t agree with.” Once we agree on that definition of terms, your comment makes complete sense.
Nevermind.
↧
↧
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by Peter Lang
Pete,
+1
+10 for point 9
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
“Climate is “regionalized” weather patterns, from the gist of my understanding.”
err no.
close, but read harder
↧
Comment on Climate dynamics of clouds by Rob Ellison
Carter’s opening premise is seemingly millions of years out.
The real facts stripped of extreme and incoherent verbosity is that recent warming (1944 to 1998) was some 0.4K at 0.07K/decade. It seems very unlikely that this rate will continue in the 21st century.
The rational approaches to new energy sources in the 21st century – and these are needed – are fairly obvious. It includes this – http://www.ga.com/energy-multiplier-module – as a fallback if nothing better comes along.
But clouds are an interesting Earth science question – and not an excuse for another long winded and self referential, ideologically inspired rant.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Peter Lang
David L Hagen,
Have you see the cost per MW, per MWh storage capacity life cycles and life expectancy? Could you please post a link.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by John Smith (it's my real name)
“Conservatives Don’t Hate Climate Change, They Hate the Proposed Solutions”
not sure I would call myself a “conservative”
but I am a “denier,” therefore I must a “conservative”
according to the authors of this “study,” I “deny” science because I find the implications “scary”
no
they only thing I find scary is trash “research” like this
however, photos of Mitch McConnell are scary
even when they have no relevance to the subject
Really, the mindlessness of this kind of stuff is disturbing
↧
Comment on Week in review by Danny Thomas
Hi Steven,
I’m a reading, I’m a reading. I got this: Climate: “a region with particular prevailing weather conditions” and when I looked further I see that vegetation is part of the definition of a climate, but I’m not clear on if the vegetation arises as a result of the typical weather patterns or not.
This was an simplistic way for me to try to describe perceptions. I don’t try to generate my own weather forecasts other than seeing fronts on maps and low/high pressure systems, and wind isobar patterns. And then I don’t try (as I’m not educated) to then do probabilities for rain, for example.
So when I’m communicating with scientists as to how to communicate with me (and all the other non scientists out there) about climate, I don’t want it dumbed down, but I do need it in a language I can digest. And even then, based on the accuracy of weather forecasting, I seek out several sources and (for lack of a better description) I “meld” them in to a generalized forecast in my little bitty brain.
I guess I’m then transposing that thought process (and I bet I’m not the only one) on to the topic of “climate change”.
Point me. I’ll go.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Indeed, that is the holiday brochure definition of climate. Not quite what the journals or the title of this website are talking about, but OK as another use of the term.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
‘Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one’s own mind without another’s guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) “Have the courage to use your own understanding,” is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.’ Immanuel Kant – http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html
There was a discussion yesterday of the nanny state – http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/nannies-and-nudgers/5856694 – the new threat to the Enlightenment. Climate get’s a mention of course.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by chris moffatt
No? what then? and don’t be so patronizing. Not everybody is as smart as you!
↧
Comment on Week in review by Danny Thomas
I’m reasonably smart. Eh, average intelligence, I’d say. But I’m not at all afraid to admit I’m ignorant in this which I’ve not yet been educated. I can learn and am willing. No one can know all about all.
Chris, I appreciate your consideration more than you can know. I have a distinct feeling that Steven is setting me up for something positive and I’m up for a teaching moment even if I’m the student. Frankly, that’s part of why I’m here.
What Rob shared above I also find to be of high value. I’ve been out of school for way more years than i care to share. I’ve got to re learn how to learn. I recognize my limitations and know that there will be things out of my grasp. Which was what I was attempting to convey in the original posts.
Some others will just have to meet some of “us” part way or communication will never take place.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
From the study:
participants in the experiment, including both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. They were then asked to evaluate a proposed policy solution to address the warming.
When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read.But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement.For Democrats, the same experiment recorded no difference in their belief, regardless of the proposed solution to climate change.As study authors Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay wrote in the introduction to their paper about this study, this shows “not necessarily an aversion to the problem, per se, but an aversion to the solutions associated with the problem.”
I’d be curious to read from my much beloved “denizens” some of their speculative explanation for the described results (assuming their comfortable doing so w/o reading the study’s methodology section).
I mean such results might suggest motivated reasoning on the part of SWIRLCAREs, but as we all know from reading Judith and the comments at Climate Etc., motivated reasoning only applies to SWIRMCAREs.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
ugh. They’re.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
John –
BTW –
I’d be curious to read your explanation for why it is “trash.” You seem to be convinced w/o reading it, but I’m not as bright as you and can’t see why it is so obviously flawed.
And I know that it would be a waste of your time actually reading it since you can tell that it’s “trash” w/o reading it, but in case you are interested you can get a copy sent to you:
↧
Comment on Climate dynamics of clouds by Stephen Wilde
There are plenty of relevant observations and my model can be falsified if the real world fails to follow the sequence I have specified.
No problems so far :)
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Hmmm, what could’ve motivated Kahan to reason in such a fashion?
=========
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
