|
Post by Ratty on Nov 29, 2016 14:22:21 GMT
Tea leaves and Tarot cards are good too.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2016 14:35:09 GMT
The 'Age of Stupid' now has a poster boy! He could .by exposing just how two faced all other POTUS have been, become the 'Honest President' by just speaking his mind and following on from that so why he has spoken so broadly on what he considers to be the 'state of the climate' before he has had a chance of being briefed by the U.S.'s most learned climate experts escapes me? The ramification of the current polar woes ( across the coming winter) will bullet point his take over of the White house and probably rival the top news of that day? How will he be feeling knowing how he has committed to binning current understanding of rapid climate shift as climate spirals away from the old 'norms'? I think he has been briefed. Dr. Curry seems to have been in the loop. As far as climate alarmism, the money spent on stupid stuff is actually stupid. We all know that the climate will change. Some think it will get warmer, some think it will get colder. No matter warmer or colder there ARE a few certainties: 1. Sea levels will continue to rise. That is what HAPPENS during an interglacial period, which we hopefully continue to be in. 2. Prudent spending of scarce monies will more than address climate change. 3. The predictions, to date, that have been made have not happened. The world is awash in food, bountiful energy supplies are at hand. To hold back economic development because of a fear of what may happen 100+ years down the road is foolish, and clearly shows a lack of leadership. Leaders look at present problems, mitigate said problems as well as can be done. Ya just don't worry about what might happen in the future. The thinking of some continues to befuddle me. IF I was an alarmist, I would never plant a crop because I might not harvest a crop. A combine might break down, a planter might break down. It might rain too much or not enough. It might get too hot, or too cold. The reality is.......I plant a crop, adjust to the too hot, or too cold, too wet or too dry and get er done! The WP of Antarctica WILL melt out. That is what has happened in EVERY interglacial. The Holocene is NOT a special interglacial. The Sahara was green, lush grass lands. It is now rippling sand dunes. Climate changes. Accept it, run with it! Don't think that the end of the world will happen. It is this little thing called life!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2016 23:38:56 GMT
Code: I hope you hadn't sold your skis, with all the forecasts of warmth and no snow in your area? Looks to me like it is going to be one heck of a ski winter! The base seems to be growing by leaps and bounds!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 30, 2016 6:01:50 GMT
The 'Age of Stupid' now has a poster boy! We can agree on that! AFA Trump is concerned, here is Dr John Christy's take on the issue: “Expect some long awaited, rigorous examination of the theory/models,” John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said in an email. “The danger just isn’t there.” Many folks take Trump as stupid or corrupt. I am certain the former is wrong and I suspect the latter is as well. I think Christy who probably has been talking with administration people is aware of how this will come down. I myself performed a rigorous examination of the global warming theory, which I will explain below. I am an auditor by profession and quite a few years ago embarked on audits of science and technical issues. Now I am not a scientist but one does not need to be a stockbroker to audit a stockbroker, nor does one need to be a scientist to audit a scientist. Why is that? Thats because both are under expectations to document and complete a written due diligence of the steps they take to support the decisions/statements they make. And a written due diligence involves evidence, evidence supporting the representativeness of the evidence, a well documented description of the rationale, statistics, and if you can get it empirical experimentation either as a modeled proxy or better yet of the central claims. Auditing global warming is incredibly easy. You have most of it laid out by the IPCC for you. Never in my audit experience have I ever had a client provide so much information regarding whatever it is that I audited. It was all laid out and and bare to see. AR2 came out and explicitly said there was no evidence, no fingerprint that could trace global warming to an anthropogenic cause. Everybody was in agreement some warming had been occurring but no evidence was produced as to the cause of it. Of course the Summary for Policy Makers, edited not by scientists but politicians deleted most of the relevant language making that very point and few people read beyond the executive summary. But glory be there it is all laid out in the main body of the work. Then came AR3 where the fingerprinting evidence was laid out by Dr Ben Santer. He answered the call that was felt greatly needed to silence the critics. Fortuitously for Santer, the El Nino of 1997/8 arrived with perfect timing for the completion of Santer's work which ended with 1997 and was validated by 1998. That El Nino actually squelched the opposition and Santer's work slid through without a lot of criticism. But an auditor understands from careful reading of the science community that Climate claims can not be validated by one subsequent year. Though in 1999 when AR3 drafts were being finalized it would have been hard to uphold an audit finding that would cause an actual reduction of the number. The best evidence at the time it was not anthropogenic was the warming from 1912 to 1944 being of equal intensity. At any rate after that no warming occurred and the theory of the decadal steps in warming was formed. But within 8 years skepticism was being revived as the climate hit its first unexpected downturn at almost the exact time they were expecting the next upward step. Thats when Santer stepped in and said you needed at least 17 years to validate a climate change. . . .which I am sure was not just coincidental that Santer's entire fingerprinting exercise was done on exactly a 17 year period from 1980 to 1997. It was the only work done (it was also done by others replicating Santer's numerology) Yes it had warmed but really there was no evidence that it was due to CO2. In fact AR3 said as much when they said it had to be CO2 because they did not know of any other possible cause, an argument from ignorance. That assumption provided the underpinning of Santer's work. Auditors really hate this kind of situation. They know the whole thing might be a house of cards but they have little to point to as another potential explanation. This is where the poster boy of stupid steps in where he fails to see the failure potential of such science.
Its certainly one thing to deeply hold a belief in global warming being man made but its an abuse to try to force others to believe this as well. When an auditor of financial statements comes to one of these types of dilemmas they may have to concede the number stated on the financial statement lacking evidence that it is wrong. But no competent auditor will stop there. What they do instead of trying to con the entire nation into believing the number is true, they write a very painfully written note to the financial statement that very clearly states the uncertainty surrounding the number on the financial statement. Having had to write a few of those I know how difficult they are to write to make it abundantly clear to a potential investor or lender as to how uncertain that number is when the damned number is front and center in the mathematics of the financial statement. that takes great penmanship as what you want to achieve is equity with the number on the sheet of paper. the note cannot be long because then it will not have adequate impact and it can't be short because of not adequately stating why the number is uncertain. The objective of the auditor is to give enough equally billed information to an investor so he can personally make the right choice for himself and understand the level of risk he is accepting. Such should be the approach of the IPCC. Most of the participant scientists support that policy. But ultimately the final edits are done by politicians with backing from a choirboy concerto of brown nosing scientists. And as I have stated the main body of work is good, whats bad is the cherry picking that ends up being the Summary to policy makers, a summary penned by policy makers of a certain persuasion and not scientists. In political arenas you get no such equal airing of facts as you do in the model of audited financial information. You get Climategate where the scientists you want the President to consult conspired to deceive the public on the uncertainty in the numbers they were presenting. An auditor could go to jail and certainly could be impoverished by legitimate lawsuits if it was found out he came even within a 10 foot pole of where these people went with it. These guys got a pass because it was a benefit for their institutions and the politicians knew what their role had been in ignoring major statements of uncertainty that are there for all to see that want to wade through the 100's of pages of work. Our climategate conmen were the choirboys aiding the policy makers doing the summaries. Here the uncertainty is clear the entire number the entire amount of warming attributed to CO2 is uncertain and then some because it could in fact create cooling instead.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 30, 2016 6:10:39 GMT
-6°c outside right now...central UK. Thats really pretty cold for us!!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 30, 2016 6:47:49 GMT
First there were McIntyre and McKittrick; now we have McIceFisher. Good piece. McIceFisher, may I use that in another place? If "yes", is there anything you would like left out?
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 30, 2016 7:23:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 30, 2016 10:49:02 GMT
First there were McIntyre and McKittrick; now we have McIceFisher. Good piece. McIceFisher, may I use that in another place? If "yes", is there anything you would like left out? Sure go ahead if you like. I see no reason to leave anything out. Of course I will deny everything. I take my hat off to McIntyre and McKittrick. What i wrote is a summary of what I found reading quite a bit of the IPCC paperwork but unlike the work of McIntyre and McKittrick it lacks fundamental documentation and explicit references.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 30, 2016 11:39:19 GMT
First there were McIntyre and McKittrick; now we have McIceFisher. Good piece. McIceFisher, may I use that in another place? If "yes", is there anything you would like left out? Sure go ahead if you like. I see no reason to leave anything out. Of course I will deny everything. I take my hat off to McIntyre and McKittrick. What i wrote is a summary of what I found reading quite a bit of the IPCC paperwork but unlike the work of McIntyre and McKittrick it lacks fundamental documentation and explicit references. Better get busy then ...... Thanks, BTW.
|
|
|
Post by bryson on Nov 30, 2016 11:46:58 GMT
Theodore back in 2014 you said" The range is between 3.5 to 4.5 Celsius decline in temperatures by the mid-2030's Glenn. We certainly shall pass drop by 2 Celsius mark easily in the 2020's as cooling can be quite abrupt, as many tend to forget." is this forecast still true is that going to happen?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 30, 2016 12:16:32 GMT
Theodore back in 2014 you said" The range is between 3.5 to 4.5 Celsius decline in temperatures by the mid-2030's Glenn. We certainly shall pass drop by 2 Celsius mark easily in the 2020's as cooling can be quite abrupt, as many tend to forget." is this forecast still true is that going to happen? I am sure that Theo could answer for himself. However, from Wattsupwiththat there is this post: "Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record. According to satellite data, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino." wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/28/steepest-drop-in-global-temperature-on-record/Sudden temperature drops are quite likely if you turn off the input heating. If the temperature drop continues to the level they were at before the 1998 El Nino we would be more than half way to Theo's forecast.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Nov 30, 2016 15:20:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 30, 2016 16:34:10 GMT
Meaningless metrics GW. The hypothesis is that CO 2 causes heat to be 'trapped' in the atmosphere. To falsify that hypothesis heat needs to be measured. Temperature is not a measure of heat content in the atmosphere as the enthalpy (specific heat) of the atmosphere varies considerably dependent on humidity. Most of the changes in temperature shown could also be caused by keeping the heat constant and varying humidity. So stop quoting temperature and start using joules/gram or Kilojoules/Kilogram. All you need to know is the relative humidity at the time of the observations and you can calculate it.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 2, 2016 12:27:33 GMT
"So far in November.....in the US.....the ratio of "new record daily HIGH temperatures" to "new record daily LOW temperatures" is an astounding 63 to 1." Well that looks like a warm November for the lower 48? it goes on with
"How astounding? I'm glad you asked. During the highest month ratio since 1920.....the prior record was 38 to 1 during February of 1992. During the "crazy" month of March 2012...the ratio was 32 to 1 (there were over 10,394 highs to 325 new lows).
So far in November.....we only have 51 new record low temps in the US (that ties the old record of 51 from Feb of 1992). But we have 3,223 new record highs....and back in Feb 1992 there were only 1,960 new highs."
I know you guys don't like 'measured temps' but I'm sure impacts on the ground are showing just how odd a month the u.S. has just had ( not just Tennessee!!!)
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 2, 2016 13:15:42 GMT
|
|