Search results

:lol: It makes me laugh.

The modelling is also intended to examine how the climate responds to various forcings and scenarios, and has been on many occasions confirmed once the data were collected. And that shouldn't be surprising. General Circulation Models work from first principles, so it should be expected that...

Never heard of the Suess Effect I see...

Agreed. Don't think that I was lumping you in with those folks who place all their trust in pictures and camp awards. Though there are plenty of those folks at Watts' web emporium of lunacy. :lol:

Blogging research standards are pretty lax! Or rather they can be...

Not the first time Watts has been caught using something bogus, in this case a photo/caption combination. The fact that the ship surfaced at the North Pole in 1959 is not bogus, the picture depicting an ice free pole however is. Or rather it's a photo taken at a different location and time of...

Yep. The anomaly for UAH is the current temperature minus the 1981-2010 average. The anomaly for NOAA comes from GHCN which is a century average. With warmer temperatures in the last 30 years, obviously the anomaly for UAH is going to be much smaller than GHCN. In fact when you use a common...

The sea ice doesn't have to entirely melt for the North Pole to be ice free...

Hah, a Reagan appointed judge, sitting on the Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals: I've become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy Federal Judge Richard Posner: The GOP Has Made Me Less Conservative : It's All Politics : NPR

Where's the evidence of tampering? Oh that's right, there is none. And Pielke Sr's problem? He's comparing anomalies with different baselines. The divergence between the NOAA data and the UAH satellite data disappears when you use a common baseline.

A post by "skeptical" scientist, Roger Pielke Sr. has me chuckling. He has a new paper out soon, and he is looking to generate some buzz about the differences between the surface temperature record, and the lower tropospheric temperature as measured by the microwave sounding satellites. He...

Depends. Probably not so good, unless you have a way of checking after the fact.

Sort of. That may be too fine a shell to put all the parts in though...I figure you of all people would like the take away, that stats don't trump the biology. That's a standard message in all of the stats classes I ever took.

Drink? To go with your whine? Try some water.

:roll: Ahh, so pointing out the flaws in basic understanding of the press articles you link to implies that I'm too smart for this place? Sheesh, fragile ego. Sorry to burst your bubble Walt.

See, part of the problem with the so-called skeptics is that most aren't that savvy about the science or the statistics. What Phil Jones said was that there had not been any statistically significant warming in the past 15 years. That doesn't mean the planet didn't actually get warmer. It simply...

Seems the marketing department at Merck Schering Plough may have stepped in it big time. The FTC is now investigating, as Merck released a chewable formulation of their Claritan allergy medication, with cartoon characters on the box, and free stickers inside! How they didn't anticipate the...

Yes, about that, his interesting perspective includes lying about what's in the IPCC report. So he's either uncritically swallowing some nonsense he read somewhere, or perhaps he never was actually following the science, and was only making money. As far as changing opinions go, the physics...

I'll bet you didn't know that the sky actually is falling. More greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere trapping radiation from the planets surface, as a result the upper atmosphere cools, and as a result the upper atmosphere becomes more dense, it contracts. The "sky" is falling. This would...

Except the finger prints on the evidence don't match that of the sun. Though I can see the appeal of having something like that on Matlock. The demographic is more friendly to the pseudo-skeptics.