|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 11, 2016 1:46:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 11, 2016 20:28:55 GMT
 Article in today's Australian by Michael Asten, a Professor of Geophysics. It is slowly becoming respectable to be a "Sceptic" or "Denier". |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 11, 2016 20:41:16 GMT
View AttachmentArticle in today's Australian by Michael Asten, a Professor of Geophysics. It is slowly becoming respectable to be a "Sceptic" or "Denier". A quick google shows Asten has been a "Sceptic" or "Denier" for many years, teaches in Melbourne and is often published in the Australian. Warmists are a long way from losing the battle - even that Southern outpost of cold the Antartica is looking warmer, the Aussie press is full of funny stories about the science being settled and it is only natural that resources are turned away from AGW |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 12, 2016 0:52:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 12, 2016 1:12:42 GMT
Andrew
After the large EL Nino in 1998, planetary temperatures fell about 0.7 degC over the next two years.
If the same change occurs as the current EL Nino decays, that would take planetary temperatures to below the 30 year running average.
That might to be hard to explain!
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 12, 2016 3:52:31 GMT
The Sum of All Fears  |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 12, 2016 4:07:32 GMT
Every time Gavin & Friends criticize CA, they end up looking foolish. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 13, 2016 15:30:18 GMT
Time series of US daily heavy precipitation (95th percentile) are analyzed to determine factors responsible for regionality and seasonality in their 1979-2013 trends. For annual conditions, contiguous US trends have been characterized by increases in precipitation associated with heavy daily events across the north, and decreases across the south. Diagnosis of climate simulations (CCSM4 and CAM4) reveals that the evolution of observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) was a more important factor influencing these trends than boundary condition changes linked to external radiative forcing alone. Since 1979, the latter induces widespread, but mostly weak, increases in precipitation associated with heavy daily events. The former induces a meridional pattern of northern US increases and southern US decreases as observed, the magnitude of which closely aligns with observed changes especially over the south and Far West. Analysis of model ensemble spread reveals that appreciable 35-yr trends in heavy daily precipitation can occur in the absence of forcing, thereby limiting detection of the weak anthropogenic influence at regional scales. Analysis of the seasonality in heavy daily precipitation trends supports physical arguments that their changes during 1979-2013 have been intimately linked to internal decadal ocean variability, and less to human-induced climate change. Most of the southern US decrease has occurred during the cold season that has been dynamically driven by an atmospheric circulation reminiscent of teleconnections linked to cold tropical east Pacific SSTs. Most of the northeast US increase has been a warm season phenomenon; the immediate cause for which remains unresolved.Corresponding author: Martin Hoerling, NOAA/ESRL Physical Sciences Division, R/E/PSD 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80303-3328, Martin.hoerling@noaa.gov journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0441.1 |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 15, 2016 18:48:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 15, 2016 23:45:31 GMT
I especially like the thing about explaining it in a way that physicists can understand it. Not sounding all that settled to me. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 15, 2016 23:55:13 GMT
I especially like the thing about explaining it in a way that physicists can understand it. Not sounding all that settled to me. That's the point, it really ISN'T all that settled!!! |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 16, 2016 3:05:54 GMT
I especially like the thing about explaining it in a way that physicists can understand it. Not sounding all that settled to me. That's the point, it really ISN'T all that settled!!! Sounds way to much like the Climate Department trying to convince the Physics Department while hung over from the Al Gore Hockey Stick Party and still woozy from the Ben Santer Fingerprinting statistical koolaid. Of course all the party favors handed out no doubt really set the whole thing in motion. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 17, 2016 0:54:15 GMT
nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/In his State of the Union Address, President Obama invited “anybody [who] wants to dispute the science around climate change . . . to have at it.” The Supreme Court’s response? Thank you, Mr. President, for the offer. We will. On Feb. 9, the court upheld a delay of Obama’s war on fossil fuels, which is supposed to “stop climate change,” in the form of new restrictions on factories’ greenhouse-gas emissions. Apparently a majority of the court is less confident of the “science around climate change” than Obama is
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 17, 2016 12:20:40 GMT
nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/In his State of the Union Address, President Obama invited “anybody [who] wants to dispute the science around climate change . . . to have at it.” The Supreme Court’s response? Thank you, Mr. President, for the offer. We will. On Feb. 9, the court upheld a delay of Obama’s war on fossil fuels, which is supposed to “stop climate change,” in the form of new restrictions on factories’ greenhouse-gas emissions. Apparently a majority of the court is less confident of the “science around climate change” than Obama is I wish that were so - but it isn't. I believe the reason was that the procedural niceties had not been followed as the law required. The SCOTUS does not make scientific judgements. Of course the reason that the full procedures were not followed by the EPA is that the EPA is in a bust-a-gut rush to get as much through as possible before January next year when they are concerned that their top cover and their budget may suddenly disappear. If I worked in the EPA now I would be looking at CSIRO in Australia and their severe budget and staff cuts and be looking for a safe tenure in a left wing University. There is a good chance that EPA in its current form may cease to exist in 12 months. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 19, 2016 13:44:38 GMT
|
|
