Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Earth Day podcast from a skeptic view on Canadian radio : MP3 DOWNLOAD Tom Harris of Climate Science International
More public money spent reversing centuries of progress:
Monday, April 28th, EdinburghDonna Laframboisefrom 7:30-9:00 pm at the City Chambers, High Street.This is a free event, open to the public- a reminder from my events list discussion
That ' Legitimate Skepticism' post that someone mentioned here , did you guys get anywhere ? I didn't want to participate cos it seemed like a bunch of closed minded nutters, with circular reasoning and censirship trying to say "see we are right"- if I apply the rule of projection to interpret them... When they say skeptics are illigitimate, that means themselves are illigitimate, they are saying "we know are own comments are not really legitimate" ie their own statements contain lies for the cause like "there is no pause", "it's been proven the extra 1998-2014 heat caused by Co2 went into the oceans" etc.
AGW may not be worth worrying about...
"Because we don't know where or when the next major impact will occur, the only thing preventing a catastrophe from a 'city-killer' sized asteroid has been blind luck..."
geronimo -I think the latest on ocean heat content is this 2014 Lyman & Johnson paper.
Do you know, what mechanisms corral the heat into a big bundle, take it to the Pacific where it is swept under the sea by high winds?Apr 23, 2014 at 10:49 AM geronimo
The principal mechanism is called "making it up as they go along".
What alarmists call FACTS , we call theoriesWUWT post on Judith Curry's recent articles" most of what passes for facts in the public debate on climate change is: inference from incomplete, inadequate and ambiguous observations; climate models that have been demonstrated not to be useful for most of the applications that they are used for; and theories and hypotheses that are competing with alternative theories and hypotheses."-She quotes Freeman Dyson "The loose use of ‘the facts’ in the public discussion of climate change (scientists, the media, politicians) is enormously misleading, damaging to science, and misleading to policy deliberations."- They both agree Mann is a bad loser re his defense of the hockey stick
geronimoBe my guest.
Excuse me interrupting SandyS.
EM it seems to be a response to a paper suggesting they had exaggerated OHC in the past. I remember reading a paper, the authors of which I can't remember, where the authors had looked at the Argo data alone and used four different methods to analyse the data, all of them said the Argo data didn't show any increase in heat content.
Anyway this paper looks like they've been caught out, and can't deny it, but are saying that their new calculations are indeed lower but nearly the same, and the trend remains constant.
So ya boo sucks to you GK07!
I wasn't inspired by:
"The agreement shown in Figure S9 suggests that this may not be a bad assumption for the computation of the global integral of OHC700."
Anyway it's a pretty old paper, hasn't anyone else measured the ocean heat content in the last 5 years?
I am struggling to get to grips with how the atmosphere warms for 20 years and then the oceans warm for 16 years, I believe it's being blamed on high winds in the pacific, but doesn't that seem a tad implausible? Do you know, what mechanisms corral the heat into a big bundle, take it to the Pacific where it is swept under the sea by high winds?
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.