Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Predictions for 2016

EM, have you considered that your magic number is wrong? Or are you relying on trustworthy climate scientists? Or are you relying on science from more than 20 years ago, which is now considered to be old hat, by Raff?

I do understand the basics of energy in v. energy out, similarly money in v. money out.

How old did you say your magic number is? What is it's provenance? What is your reason for trusting it to be correct, when climate science cannot explain the pause?

If someone is living a lifestyle that exceeds their declared earnings, something is not right.

Dec 29, 2015 at 11:35 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Yes EM which model? Not one that starts in 1985 so that it hides a lack of skill over historical data. Not one that is endlessly rewritten to hide the lack of predictive ability. Not a spread of them that cover anything from thermogeddon to zero warming. Not one that stops in 2050 so that we can't see the rediculously wide spread of predictions by 2100.

Hansen's first graph of 'projections' was at least an honest attempt to present possibilities under different conditions. Modern graphs are designed to lie to the public and hide how truly talentless climate scientists are. Do you feel dirty for repeating such a crude deception or does it come naturally to you?

Dec 29, 2015 at 11:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

EM, perhaps it would be simpler if you listed the Climate Scientists, that should be scrubbed from the scientific record.

If you want to have pure physics, you need to start with a clean slate.

Dec 30, 2015 at 12:35 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf do you think Mann's HS is the latest on the subject? Time stands still only for "skeptics" fighting yesterday's battles. It is a bit pathetic still to be obsessed with the same graph after nearly 20 years.

Dec 30, 2015 at 1:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff, is that the old hat Hockey Stick science that should be disregarded that climate scientists dare not criticise? That Mann is being funded to maintain in court?

Why don't we disregard Arrhenius? In fact most of climate science?

What has Climate Science ever done for us?

What do you now consider to be wrong with the Hockey Stick, that you did not learn from those who questioned climate science's assumptions? Mainstream Climate Science never questioned the Hockey Stick, but now wants it forgotten.

What are you arguing for now, which in a year or five, you will want people to forget, because it was old hat, or just totally wrong?

Dec 30, 2015 at 1:36 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Funnily enough, even 5 years ago, the zealots at Real Climate were fighting in defence of the hockey stick
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/#more-4431. Why should that be if it was out of date, as suggested by Raff. Why the continued claims that it has been validated by studies that show temperature reconstructions that look totally different?

Dec 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

golf charlie

Ocean heat content figures from NOAA. Read the WO co!umn. Units are 10^22 Joules/year.

The calculations for energy gain derived from temperature and sea level rise I did myself two years ago. Feel free to check them. Basic A Level physics and algebra. All the measurements and coefficients are freely available.

Tiny CO2

We were discussing science. Where has your sudden attack of conspiracy theory come from?

I have noticed a repeated tendency for posters here to descend into conspiracy ideation and insult after losing the argument. You should be ashamed of such petulance.

Dec 30, 2015 at 12:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Diogenes

"Why the continued claims that it has been validated by studies that show temperature reconstructions that look totally different?"

This graph compares the original Mann et al 1999 data with the ensemble of 70 proxies compiled in Marcott et al 2013.

Perhaps you would care to justify your statement that they look totally different.

Dec 30, 2015 at 12:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Diogenes

Sometimes I hate the internet.

I think my last link failed. Try this one .

The upper graph compares Mann and Marcott.

The lower graph shows a few other individual proxies.

I find it difficult to see your assertion that Mann and the others are completely different.

Dec 30, 2015 at 12:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM: how long has NOAA been making such detailed observations (“detailed” being a comparative term, when you consider the sparse observations to date, particularly of deeper levels, and the pitifully few ARGO buoys presently extant)? To what accuracy are the measurement equipment calibrated? How frequently is this accuracy checked? Given that the oceans are a bit larger than the local boating lake, how can they be sure that the data they are getting it is truly indicative of the conditions within the thousands of cubic kilometres, proportionally, each buoy is measuring, or that these conditions are truly altering? I moot that it will take several decades of ARGO data before any tentative assumptions can be made of the conditions in the oceans, and whether or not they are really altering significantly. Even if the number of ARGO buoys, as well as other systems of measurement, were to increase several-fold, I doubt that conclusions would be able to be surmised any quicker. It is interesting that, despite the agreed term for observations to indicate possible trends in climate being thirty years, you are happy to leap onto just less than ten years’ data, as they just happen to support your ideas.

Your use of the term “conspiracy ideation” also gives us an interesting insight into the workings of your mind and the conclusions it latches onto, and it really is not a pretty sight.

Dec 30, 2015 at 12:45 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

EM, so if I produce a set of figures for sea level that have been maintained by an obscure sect of seafishing monks on a remote island for 500 years, does that overrule NOAA?

It is amazing how after all these years of looking for evidence of man's effect on the climate, a Government funded organisation can suddenly find some suitably adjusted data that has been maintained all along, at taxpayers expense, that had previously been forgotten about.

If 'new evidence' suddenly came to light in US Government records, proving who shot JFK, it might be treated with cynicism

Dec 30, 2015 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I can't wait for Mann's Hockey Stick to be returned to the match stick pulp from where it came. The number of climate science experts that will come out of the scientific closet to say they always knew it was rubbish, but didn't want to rock the boat, as it might upset the consensus..

Climate science expertise will take on whole new meanings, in legal circles, the media, and slang.

Dec 30, 2015 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Let's not be hard on EM nor on Raff. They give us things to think about. Even if it's just putting into English exactly why something they have said is wrong. BH would be poorer (less entertaining) without them, so let's be courteous to them.

EM does have several trademark mannerisms. One of them is to pick up some new term that he has just come across and throw it into the conversation as if he has used it all his life.

Obviously EM has been reading stuff whose origin can be traced to one of his scientific heroes, Professor Lewandowsky. The term "conspiracy ideation" has entered EM's vocabulary and he now throws it around as if it were part of normal English language, rather than recently coined jargon from the unreal world of psychology academics.

Dec 30, 2015 at 1:32 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

I beg Tiny CO2's pardon.

Make that four conspiracy theorists.

Dec 30, 2015 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Make that four conspiracy theorists.
Oh? Who be they be? (Note: supporting evidence WILL be required.)

Dec 30, 2015 at 1:45 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Martin A

I can not agree with your indulgence of EM and Raff: this was meant to be an interesting and humorous thread but they have ruined it as they have many others.

Dec 30, 2015 at 2:49 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung, look on the bright side! Raff and EM want us to forget about the Hockey Stick, because they know it is no longer accepted as valid, and climate science has moved on. What this means is that they KNOW the Hockey Stick can't even be recycled into something useful.

Flaws in the Hockey Stick WERE NOT found by Climate Scientists, and Climate Scientists won't admit there is anything wrong with it, just that they have 'moved on'.

How much money has been wasted on trying to prove the Hockey Stick? How many psientific works are cited as supporting the Hockey Stick?

The blog Real Climate, was created to defend climate science against the likes of Steve McIntyre. They appear to distance themselves from Michael Mann, one of the starname co-founders of Real Climate, but he has been ghosting writing on various blogs and publications.

For anyone who has not read it, 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' by Andrew Montford really is worth reading!

Dec 30, 2015 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Evidence of conspiracy ideation?

A few quotes.

" a Government funded organisation can suddenly find some suitably adjusted data that has been maintained all along, at taxpayers expense, that had previously been forgotten about."

Golf charlie

"

""Why the continued claims that it has been validated by studies that show temperature reconstructions that look totally different?"

Diogenes

"Modern graphs are designed to lie to the public and hide how truly talentless climate scientists are. "

Tiny CO2

"Statistical Analysis of Global Temperature (so-called) Data is Inherently Nonsense"

Martin A

"” Surely, even you should get a little suspicious when the only factor that is affecting the climate just so happens to be the only thing that humans (perhaps) might – just might – be able to have some (or, more likely, none whatsoever, but let’s not go there, eh?) control over."

Radical rodent

Dec 30, 2015 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM, do tell us more about how the false science of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick came to appear so many times in IPCC Publications, Science Magazines, and Newspaper Headlines around the world, yet was never publicly criticised by Climate Scientists who believed in CO2 being the driver of global warming.

Is that UN-Nobel cause corruption, if it is not conspiracy?

Dec 30, 2015 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

But for it to be conspiracy ideation you have to prove that what we wrote isn't true. That's why Dr Lew removed the question about the Iraq war from his study - can't accuse people of making up a conspiracy when it's genuine. Give it up EM, AGW hysteria is over. Paris was a flop.

Dec 30, 2015 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2, you must remember that top psychologist Lewandowsky, is all that top climate scientists have remaining, to rely on. Apart from Cook's 97% consensus, the US President, and the Pope. An unlikey alliance, even in politics. Maybe the Dalai Lama was out with the lads when they popped around to ask him to join in.

Of course EM has his 'Magic Number', that never featured in big lights before.

Dec 30, 2015 at 5:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I've posted this many times, EM, but here is a comparison of many different proxy reconstructions in the 4th April, which all look very different from the MBH stick:
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2015/01/i-hope-im-dreaming/#comment-4354

Why people on the alarmist side seem to believe that these curves look like hockey sticks is for them to say. Call me a conspiracy theorist all you like, I merely suspect stupidity in action.

Dec 30, 2015 at 7:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenes

Dung, here's a proposition. If you prefix a discussion subject with something like 'True believers only:' (or whatever, 'TBO', 'Private...), I won't comment there. I imagine EM will be happy to comply too. Then you can have your own little chats in your own echo chamber. Is that fair?

Dec 30, 2015 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

"” Surely, even you should get a little suspicious when the only factor that is affecting the climate just so happens to be the only thing that humans (perhaps) might – just might – be able to have some (or, more likely, none whatsoever, but let’s not go there, eh?) control over."
How, on God’s good Earth, can that possibly be construed as “conspiracy ideation”? Unless, of course, you believe that this is some sort of coding for “conspiracy ideators” to gather around and cluck over – an idea that rather smacks of conspiracy ideation, to me. I take it you are not in the slightest bit suspicious of the convenience that human-produced CO2 is the principle driver of the climate, particularly when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that CO2 has any of the dire effects attributed to it, at all.

One of the key elements of constructive debate is that both parties contribute positively with data, interpretations and opinions. When one is challenged or questioned, then one is required to offer an answer to the question(s); avoiding, evading or totally ignoring the question does not help others to build a positive image of the questioned; to resort to ad hominems, vitriol or ridicule will only help to build a more negative picture. The only one who has control over the image you project is yourself, Raff.

Dec 30, 2015 at 11:03 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, his science has run out, so he has to attack in the only way climate science has left. Climate science has really progressed in name calling since Lewandowsky shared his professional expertise.

Dec 30, 2015 at 11:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie