Page 68 of 135 < 1 2 ... 66 67 68 69 70 ... 134 135 >
Topic Options
#1179558 - 02/03/2013 23:55 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
From the NIPCC [ Not IPCC ]

CMIP5 Model Representations of Cloud Structure

Quote:
Reference
Cesana, G. and Chepfer, H. 2012. How well do climate models simulate cloud vertical structure? A comparison between CALIPSO-GOCCP satellite observations and CMIP5 models. Geophysical Research Letters 39: 10.1029/2012GL053153.

Authors Cesana and Chepfer (2012) write that "clouds are the primary modulators of the Earth's radiation budget" and that they therefore constitute "the main source of uncertainty in model estimates of climate sensitivity," citing Randall et al. (2007); and as a result of this fact, they say that the modeling of cloud properties represents "a major limitation to the reliability of climate change projections," citing Dufresne and Bony (2008).

Faced with this problem, Cesana and Chepfer thus indicate that in order "to improve the reliability of climate change projections, it is therefore imperative to improve the representation of cloud processes in models."

But how much improving do the models need?

In broaching this important question, the two French researchers compare the most recent cloud representations of five of the climate models involved in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) effort that is describe by Taylor et al. (2012) with real-world satellite-derived observations obtained from the GCM-Oriented CALIPSO Cloud Product (GOCCP), which is described by Chepfer et al. (2010).

And what did they learn from this exercise?

In the words of Cesana and Chepfer:

(1) "low- and mid-level altitude clouds are underestimated by all the models (except in the Arctic),"

(2) "high altitude cloud cover is overestimated by some models,"

(3) "some models shift the altitude of the clouds along the ITCZ by 2 km (higher or lower) compared to observations,"

(4) "the models hardly reproduce the cloud free subsidence branch of the Hadley cells,"

(5) "the high-level cloud cover is often too large,"

(6) "in the tropics, the low-level cloud cover (29% in CALIPSO-GOCCP) is underestimated by all models in subsidence regions (16% to 25%)" and

(7) "the pronounced seasonal cycle observed in low-level Arctic clouds is hardly simulated by some models."

If a climate modeler asks you are we there yet?
- in terms of state-of-the-art models being good enough to predict the climatic future of the planet to a degree deemed adequate to inform both domestic and foreign policy on preferred energy sources of the future - you need to tell him or her no way!






Top
#1179693 - 03/03/2013 12:27 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14120
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Friday Funny – John Cook’s withdrawal symptoms

Posted on March 1, 2013by Anthony Watts

(1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/friday-funny-john-cooks-withdrawal-symptoms/#more-81117

WUWT readers may recall that this blog and other popular skeptic blogs are in the running for the 2013 Bloggies in the Science category, as detailed here. Also, for the first time, the website “Skeptical Science” (operated by John Cook of Australia) was in the running, which is a measure of how much penetration they’ve made despite their very low traffic rankings.

I’ve been alerted to a hilarious change in the 2013 Bloggies contest status of SkS by a reader.



=========================================================

chris y says:

March 1, 2013 at 6:11 am

Leo Hickman has a blog posting in the Guardian today about the ‘climate sceptics’ (whatever that is) ‘capturing’ the science and technology category. It reads like sour grapes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bl...ence?CMP=twt_fd

There is this tidbit at the end of the article-


“Reflecting such concern, I have learned that Skeptical Science, who have never lobbied to be nominated and are the only non-climate sceptic blog on the Science shortlist, has now asked to be withdrawn from the shortlist due to its concerns about the legitimacy of the voting process.”

=======================================================

LOL! Confirmed, see the center – “withdrawn by request” in this screencap today:



I suppose Mr. Cook also doesn’t support the democratic election process, where candidates put up signs, billboards, make radio and TV news appearances, make speeches, run newspaper and magazine advertisements, etc. all in the “vote for me” effort. It works for our USA political system, it works similarly in Australia, where Mr. Cook lives.

How odd that Mr. Cook thinks there’s a legitimacy issue here, when it simply models the Democratic political system of voting. The way the Bloggies system is setup, there’s one vote per email, and the user has to be real and answer the email for the vote to be legitimately recorded. Here are the rules:
■Any pages with dated entries that existed at some point during the year 2012 are eligible.
■Only one nomination ballot and one finalist ballot may be submitted per person.
■E-mail addresses are required to vote. You must use your own address and confirm the verification e-mail.
■If you verify a second ballot, your first one will be replaced.
■In the nomination phase: ■URLs are required.
■Your ballot must contain at least three unique nominees.
■Weblogs may be nominated for multiple categories.
■Nominees must suit the category they are placed in.

■Weblogs may win a category over multiple years a maximum of three times.

Source: http://2013.bloggi.es/#rules

If Mr. Cook can point out anywhere WUWT or any of the other contestants have violated the rules, now is the time to do so.

The Bloggies has over a decade of experience in dealing with vote stuffing, and they have a good system to prevent it. Even the bots Mr. Cook has designed (that make fake comments in response to other commenters) would likely not be able to make a dent in vote totals, Apparently, even the American Geophysical Union thinks Cooks’s bots making fake comments are an OK thing.


Climate-change deniers have nowhere to hide thanks to an ingenious piece of software that detects inaccurate statements on global warming that appear on the internet and delivers an automated response on Twitter citing peer- reviewed scientific evidence.

The so-called „Twitter-bot‟ is the brainchild of Australian webmaster John Cook and software developer Nigel Leck, and is part of an armoury of tools Cook has developed to rebut common myths and inaccuracies about climate change.

Source: AGU: http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2011/09/08/john-cook-at-skeptical-science-wins-eureka-prize/

Hickman in his article points out that


The system prevents scripts and voting multiple times. The e-mail verification is the first step, and any ballots that look like they might have been automated or collaborated are flagged for me to review manually. Most climate sceptic blog fans do follow the rules.

The Bloggies proprietor, Nikolai Nolan said in the Hickman interview:


I’m considering various resolutions. But it seems that science blogs would rather complain about the results than try to submit nominations themselves, so I’m not very motivated. No point in eliminating sceptic blogs from the category when there’s not much down the list to replace it with. I also need to keep in mind that fixing the Best Science or Technology category might cause climate sceptic blogs to migrate to another category.

Or, maybe, Mr. Cook thinks there is a conspiracy to win. After all, he and his psych sidekick Dr. Stephan Levandowsky are big on conspiracy theory studies as a tool to smear skeptics, quite certain that climate skeptics are mentally aberrant, even though they never gave the readers of this blog a chance to vote in their horridly self serving and skewed survey. Given that, I think a case could easily be made for psychological projection in Cook’s thinking. That flawed sampling of actual skeptic websites could be why Lewandowsky’s paper was recently pulled from publication by the scientific journal.

But I think that Mr. Cook realized that given his low numbers compared to WUWT and the other highly trafficked blogs, he just didn’t have a fighting chance, much like some candidates in a political election just don’t get penetration with the electorate. So, instead, he did the one thing he could do; he took his ball and went home, while complaining about “legitimacy” of the process without even trying himself.

I think his intent was to poison the results with his claims of “legitimacy”, even though it is just like any political election, and like any political election, there are checks in place to prevent vote stuffing. I predict that whoever wins the category, Cook and Lewandowsy will try to turn the award into some sort of political tool under the guise of science, just as they did with their bizarre “Moon Landing” paper that sampled Climate alarmist blogs, but not climate skeptic blogs, and the most visible skeptic blog, WUWT, was purposely excluded, because, in my opinion, they didn’t want that large sample, as it wouldn’t have given them answer they wanted.

But, this behavior is pretty much par for the course given the juvenile antics we’ve seen from the cartoonist turned conspiracy theory publisher and the whole crew at SkS, who have some pretty disturbing things to say.

Here is Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) secretly conversing with his SkS pals on their off limits forum (which either got hacked or was left open by their own incompetence) and saying “we need a conspiracy to save humanity”. The Viet Cong comparison is a nice touch too. There’s talk of convening a “war council” too.


And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.

Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.

..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.

[As quoted by Geoff Chambers in this Bishop Hill thread. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html?currentPage=2#comments ]

Yes, I think we are dealing with Psychological projection on the part of Mr. Cook and SkS here, either that, or pure tribalism, where Mr. Cook couldn’t even stand to be in the same contest with climate skeptics.


Click on (1) link for inner links and comments.
_________________________
173mm Mar 2017
Best 79mm 16/1/17
2017 Total 485mm
2016 Total 649mm
2015 Total 375mm







Top
#1179697 - 03/03/2013 12:35 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14120
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics

Monckton explains why taking climate extremists to court works (and Uni Tas agrees to investigate).

(1) http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/monckto...to-investigate/

Christopher Monckton is cutting across Australia and leaving a wake behind him. He’s called for one Doctor’s deregistration, and one university Prof to be investigated for fraud. Today the VC from Uni of Tasmania has agreed do an investigation and “rigorously“. It is already having an effect. Below, Monckton answers the critics and explains why legal action is “the deadliest weapon”. He is after all, the man who took on Gore and won. He took on the BBC and won too. The Lord knows exactly why he’s doing this. How many prophets of doom will sit up and pay attention and think twice the next time they do a media interview? – Jo

PS: Don’t forget to see him in Perth next week, and Queensland the week after that.


“I am not prepared to sit back and let the liars, cheats and fraudsters win.”

Christopher Monckton



Why taking climate extremists to court works


Christopher Monckton

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

One or two commenters on the postings about “Dr.” Helen Caldicott on the unspeakable ABC and “Dr.” Tony dePress at the “University” of Tasmania have whinged that one ought not to seek to get “scientists” struck off or dismissed just because they have flagrantly breached professional ethics, lied, cheated and committed scientific fraud.

Get with the picture. Going to court is the deadliest weapon we have against the extremists who have lied and lied and lied again to save the Party Line.

Lies have consequences. I spoke in the Hunter Valley last night. A mining engineer spoke up after my talk. His mine was having to pay an extra $1 million a year in carbon taxes. He will cling on for a few months in the hope that Tony Abbott, immediately on taking office, will zero the rate. Then, and only then, hundreds of workers’ jobs may survive.


From now on, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy. If the various authorities to whom I have complained … fail to respond, the next thing they will get is court orders requiring them to reply properly, with costs and indemnity orders too

The agony on his face was palpable. Those who comment here should not allow themselves to think that the debate about the climate is a mere senior-common-room colloquy with no real-world consequences. Jobs, families, livelihoods are on the line.

I have seen that same fear and agony on the faces of miners, farmers, fishermen and property-owners throughout Australia. The carbon tax is shutting your nation down. The working guy is being hurt first and worst. He spends more of his hard-earned income on fuel and power than most. The carbon tax is a poll tax on the poor.

We have had some good court victories. In 2007 the London High Court condemned Al Gore’s mawkish sci-fi comedy-horror movie. It found nine errors so serious that the court ordered 77 pages of corrective guidance to be circulated to every school in England. The judge said: “The Armageddon scenario that he [Gore] depicts is not based on any scientific view.”

Two days later, Gore won the Nobel Mickey Mouse Prize. But he was holed below the waterline. Now he is seen not as a prophet but as a profiteer.

The whingers of the do-nothing brigade were at work even then. The lawyers refused to file the case on the ground that there was no chance of success. They were fired.

The new lawyers said we could not possibly win on the science and refused to use any scientific testimony. The judge threw the case out. I recovered the position by instructing the lawyers to write to the judge asking if he had even seen Gore’s movie before he had reached his judgment without holding a hearing.

Tellingly, the judge did not reply. I insisted on – and got – a new judge. This time the lawyers did what they were told. I wrote 80 pages of scientific testimony. Bob Carter and Dick Lindzen– bless them both – worked from the document in crafting their evidence, and signed off as expert witnesses. As soon as the other side saw it, they collapsed and settled, paying the plaintiff $400,000.

Going to court works because the Forces of Darkness know they will be cross-examined. They know their lies will be exposed. So they crumble.

“Dr.” Michael Mann, fabricator of the “hockey-stick” graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period, sued Dr. Tim Ball for calling the graph scientific fraud. Tim Ball’s defence was to propose showing the judge the many dodges by which “Dr.” Mann had done what “Dr.” Overpeck had called for in 1995: “We have to abolish the medieval warm period.”

Rather than face cross-examination, “Dr.” Mann gave up the case at a cost that cannot have been much less than $1 million.

I sued the BBC a couple of years ago when they did a hatchet job on me. I had been told – in writing – that I should have the chance to alter any points that were inaccurate. Fat chance.


So I lodged a High Court application for an injunction. The BBC’s first reaction was to deny that the director-general’s office had received my letter. Not having been born yesterday, I had delivered the letter myself and had insisted that the director-general’s personal assistant should sign for it.

I insisted on seeing the programme before it was broadcast. It was a disgrace. I wrote to the Director-General listing two dozen factual errors and numerous other biases in the schlocumentary. No reply.

So I lodged a High Court application for an injunction. The BBC’s first reaction was to deny that the director-general’s office had received my letter. Not having been born yesterday, I had delivered the letter myself and had insisted that the director-general’s personal assistant should sign for it.

The BBC crumbled and cut the programme from 90 minutes to an hour, taking out the overwhelming majority of the vicious nonsense. There were still some objectionable points, so I went into court.

I fought the case myself. When I introduced the two barristers and three solicitors for the Beeb, the judge interrupted me and said: “Lord Monckton, I fear I must draw your attention to a potential conflict of interest. You see, I am a member of your club.”

I had no objection and invited the BBC’s expensive QC to give his opinion. He had no objection either, but added: “Er, I too have a conflict of interest. I also am a member of Lord Monckton’s club.”

The judge did not prevent the Beeb from leaving a few barbs in my side. The BBC issued a lying statement that I had lost. But the judge held that I had “substantially won” the action. A 90-minute programme had become 60 minutes. The Beeb had lost. Big-time.

One interesting follow-up. The creep who made the programme had visited me in Scotland and asked me, on camera, about the medical invention that cured me of 25 years’ crippling illness four years ago. I had said it showed promise against various infections, but until we had done the clinical trials that are now in preparation we were not making any claims.

The creep said my answer was too long and complicated. He asked me simply to list the diseases the invention might be effective against. I said, “We have had some promising indications and, subject to clinicial trials, it is possible that we can cure [followed by a list of infections]”. The clip was edited dishonestly. What was broadcast was “We can cure the list of infections]”.

In no time an Australian climate extremist at Melbourne “University” had complained to the medical regulators in the UK that I was conducting unauthorized clinical trials. The complaint failed when I pointed out that the BBC programme had evilly tampered with what I had said, the extremist had lied in correspondence and, in any event, he had no standing to interfere.

From now on, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy. If the various authorities to whom I have complained about la Caldiclott and “Dr.” dePress fail to respond, the next thing they will get is court orders requiring them to reply properly, with costs and indemnity orders too.

Then the police will be called in, and any regulator failing to investigate my complaints will be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact of organized, systematic fraud.

Now that I have seen and heard the heartbreaking stories of farmers driven off their land by crazed officials threatening to prosecuting them for shifting a rock; of fishermen tricked out of their fishing grounds by crafty bureaucrats asking them to nominate zones they did not want regulated and then regulating only those zones; of miners driven to bankruptcy as their industry dies; of householders having their electricity cut off because they cannot pay the monstrous carbon-tax-driven increases; of businessmen terrified that if they mention the carbon tax at all they can be fined $1.1 million; of the regime of terror in the countryside that has driven thousands of farmers off the land in the name of absurd environmental over-regulation; now that I have seen all this and more in just a few weeks, I am not prepared to sit back and let the liars, cheats and fraudsters win.

In most instances where I should like to help, I have no standing to intervene. But if the liars tell lies about me, if the fraudsters deny the scientific truth when I speak it, if the cheats make up baseless personal attacks on me, then I have the opportunity to fight back, not so much on my own behalf as on behalf of the silent, broken millions who cannot speak for themselves and whom your political class no longer bothers to represent. Someone must speak for them and fight for them. It may as well be me.


Click on (1) link for inner links and comments.
_________________________
173mm Mar 2017
Best 79mm 16/1/17
2017 Total 485mm
2016 Total 649mm
2015 Total 375mm







Top
#1179705 - 03/03/2013 12:54 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Thanks for posting that SBT... that was an amazing read... Forwarded onto facebook....

Top
#1179707 - 03/03/2013 12:56 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14120
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics

Continued from WUWT post above:

Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies

Posted on 1 March 2013 by John Cook

(1) http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-SkS-withdrew-from-the-Bloggies.html


The Weblog Awards, aka the Bloggies, is an annual competition honoring blogs in various categories. Finalists are chosen by online nomination and winners are chosen by online voting. This year, Skeptical Science made the finalists of the Science and Technology category. Yesterday, I requested that SkS be withdrawn from the competition, as reported in the Guardian. Why? Because the Bloggies have become inextricably associated with anti-science blogs.

In an inversion of reality, the Science and Technology category is dominated by anti-science blogs that post conspiracy theories about the scientific community, deny the full body of evidence and reject the scientific consensus. The fact that 4 out of 5 science finalists are anti-science demonstrates that the integrity of the Bloggies Award has been compromised. I, like any pro-science blogger, am not comfortable with the notion of competing for an award that has previously been won by anti-science blogs.

It's worth considering why there is such an asymmetry with the award swarmed by readers of anti-climate science blogs but ignored by legitimate science and technology blogs. Quite simply, this is all they've got. Anti-science blogs reject the consensus of evidence in the peer-reviewed literature. They reject the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. They value the opinion of anonymous internet users over climate scientists actively publishing climate research in the peer-reviewed literature. They clutch at any life preserver to ward off the rising tide of evidence for dangerous man-made global warming, as demonstrated by the zeal that led to 9 anti-science blogs appearing in the finalists of various categories.

Can the Bloggies free themselves from the association with anti-science and attract back the interest of the science blogging community? It's a tough ask but I see only one way to achieve this. Anti-science blogs should not be allocated to a science category. An expert panel could take an active role in filtering the nominees, to ascertain that they properly qualify in the category for which they have been nominated. Perhaps instituting such a policy may attract science and technology blogs back to the Bloggies Awards in the future, although it may take time for the association with anti-science to wear off.


The Webby's are open to anyone who wants to nominate, there is a process which has been honed to stop vote stuffing, which I guess is the real reason why JC decided to pull the nomination.

After all these are the people who have a track record of developing and implementing a spam bot to flood Twitter accounts with pretargeted responses to certain words and catch phrases - smacks of desperation more than a legitimate attempt at debate. Pretty sad when you have to rely on underhanded tactics to gain a following and what is even worse is that they have no concept of the actual damage they do themselves every time they are exposed.
_________________________
173mm Mar 2017
Best 79mm 16/1/17
2017 Total 485mm
2016 Total 649mm
2015 Total 375mm







Top
#1179735 - 03/03/2013 14:48 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
So legitimate scientists interested in any field that goes against the grain, and as we so called sceptics know this is how science works anyway, will be shunned and blocked of recognition of their work???


Edited by Greg Sorenson (04/03/2013 10:05)
Edit Reason: Referring to Nazism is imflammatory

Top
#1179738 - 03/03/2013 14:58 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14120
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Pretty much if you don't embrace the cAGW dogma you are shunned as a non believer/infidel/fake sceptic or whatever the latest catch cry/word of the week is this week.

It's a crying shame and an pretty pathetic and sad indictment on the pro side that they now spend more time attacking climate change sceptics and propping up the meme instead of trying to prove the science.
_________________________
173mm Mar 2017
Best 79mm 16/1/17
2017 Total 485mm
2016 Total 649mm
2015 Total 375mm







Top
#1179906 - 03/03/2013 20:31 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Poor diddums.... cry

Perhaps he found out he couldn't 'help' with the voting, as Mann and himself could at Amazon for Mann's book review (The Hockey Stick Wars)... wink

Mann => Cook
Quote:
… I'm anticipating a flood of spam from WUWT as soon as the book is released. If anyone else wants a PDF copy of the galley proofs in order to write a review for Amazon (and can received a 6Mb email attachment), let me know and I'll email you the PDF…


Cook => Mann
Quote:
Emailed the second round of SkSers a copy of the book. Any other stragglers, not too late to put in a request (you've got till February actually). I'm expecting to see reviews from all of you, btw! :-)


Cook
Quote:
I've been informed that activity on Mike Mann's upcoming book will begin around Feb … and supposedly the Amazon launch on March 6. So possibly we can start posting reviews on March 6 but who knows, might be earlier. To all SkSers who I emailed a copy of the book, can I suggest you read the book and have your book review ready in the holster by early/mid February ready to go at a moment's notice.


Mann => Cook
Quote:
it now sounds as if Amazon.com could go live w/ kindle version as soon as Jan 31st, so Amazon reviewers should be lined up and ready to go then if at all possible. WIll provide any further updates when I have more info. My publisher is urging reviewer-writers not to write blog reviews then (they have a later rollout schedule in mind for blog reviews), but it is ok to submit Amazon reviews then---and as we know, it will be important to do this quickly once Amazon opens their reviews to offset efforts of deniers. Again, its (sic) looking like this will be *Jan 31st* and we should operate under that assumption!


At the book’s release on Amazon.com., one commenter smugly observed:
Quote:
Thats a heck of a lot of people who have managed to read the Kindle edition in about 3 hours since it went on sale ;-)



_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1180114 - 04/03/2013 01:08 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Getting effen desperate now me thinks????

Al Gore’s Reality Drop spreads climate change science through gamification.....

A new social media tool called Reality Drop from former vice president Al Gore aims to counter false information about global climate change by turning discussions into a game.

According to the video, which you can watch above, dirty energy companies spread false information and rumors through media access and online outlets.

"Reality Drop uses game dynamics to counteract the confusion, promote the spread of scientific truth and help us win the heated climate change conversation, wherever it's raging," the video's narrator says.

Reality Drop works by aggregating climate-related information from online media sources. A scientifically backed claim is attached to each report marked as false, which a user can then copy and paste into a comment, thus performing a reality drop. Users earn points for spreading information, voting on posts and directing people to the Reality Drop website. A leaderboard displays features the site's top users.

You can view the website here.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/2/4056590/al-gores-reality-drop-spreads-climate-change-science-through


Edited by Simmosturf (04/03/2013 01:11)

Top
#1180131 - 04/03/2013 07:20 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
From Jo Nova:

The January 7th heatwave supposedly broke all previous “daily” records in this category — a dubious honor since no-one can remember any records like it.

It’s a bit like winning the Side-Jump. It’s not an event anyone knew was on until the medal ceremony. Worse, no one knows how the event was measured, even after the Gold Medal was given away, because the rules are kept secret.

Where are the methods?

Chris Gillham and others asked the BOM and apparently a whole new historic analysis of daily temperatures (based on the AWAP station network) will be released soon. Hopefully it’ll be a fully digitised dataset back to 1911 that researchers can look forward to, but, once again, the bureau is scoring newspaper headlines with black-box procedures that are not complete enough yet to publish.

Is it so urgent that the public had to hear about “record” heat now, rather than after the calculations had been published and reviewed? It’s rather like the “compelling psychology research” (showing we’re all nutters) that still isn’t published six months after the headlines. No one can replicate it, check it, or point out the flaws. It is good marketing. It isn’t science.

The new “area daily average” comes from 700-800 records which sounds impressive. But as far as the independent audit team can tell, more than half of these have been operating for only 30 to 50 years. Our last major heatwave was 1939, not 1972, so many of those thermometers weren’t even recording temperatures the last time Australia got seriously hot.

How many thermometers have 100 year records? Just 16.

The brutally simple average of all the temperatures recorded at 721 weather stations on Jan 7th was 35.1C, not 40.3C. The extra 5 degrees is produced by a form of area weighting to average the thermometers over the entire nation. Most thermometers are located on the cool outside edge of Australia, not the hot middle of the country where hardly anyone lives. So there are not many thermometers with long records to average across the center.

The BOM team, quite realistically, needs to make up for the non-random way those thermometers are placed. But there are many ways to “average” the numbers and different datasets to use (like HQ, ACORN, AWAP). No-one suggests that the BOM ignored the 382 cooler stations within the 721 known to the audit team, but the average of the hottest 339 stations is 40.3C. Curious.

For most Australians on Jan 7th the heatwave averaged somewhere around 35C, not 40.3C.

To have any legitimacy with a new record, the BOM needs to publish its methods that explain how temperatures can be calculated every day over a hundred years from weather stations that in many cases didn’t exist. How else would we know it was a reasonable effort? We all know that tweaked black-box statistics could be used to achieve meaningless records that drive news headlines. Of course, the BOM wouldn’t stoop that low, would they?


More
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1180212 - 04/03/2013 12:31 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Trapped as Climate Changes, Giant Gusts of Hot Air Trigger Weather Extremes

During the month of July 2011, the United States was seized by a heat wave so severe that roughly 9,000 temperature records were set, 64 people were killed and a total of 200 million Americans were left very sweaty. Temperatures hit 117 degrees Fahrenheit in Shamrock, Texas, and residents of Dallas spent 34 consecutive days stewing in 100-plus-degree weather.

For the past couple of years, we’ve heard that extreme weather like this is tied to climate change, but until now, scientists weren’t sure exactly how the two were related. A new study published yesterday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals the mechanism behind events such as the 2011 heat wave.

What it comes down to, according to scientists at Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), is that higher temperatures caused by global warming are disrupting the flow of planetary waves that oscillate between Arctic and tropical regions, redistributing the warm and cold air that usually help regulate the Earth’s climate. “When they swing up, these waves suck warm air from the tropics to Europe, Russia, or the US, and when they swing down, they do the same thing with cold air from the Arctic,” lead author Vladimir Petoukhov of PIK explained in a statement.

Under pre-global-warming conditions, the waves might have initiated a short, two-day burst of warm air followed by a rush of cooler air in Northern Europe, for example. But these days, with global temperatures having climbed 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century and escalating particularly sharply since the 1970s, the waves increasingly stall out, resulting in 20- to 30-day heat waves.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/...ather-extremes/

Top
#1180222 - 04/03/2013 13:17 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14120
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Nice comment from Jo Nova post about electric cars. See Link as (1)

(1) http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/electri...comment-1230221

Originally Posted By: old44 on Jo Nova


January 26, 2013 at 11:33 am · Reply


Overheard an augment about the evils of coal, the counter-argument went along the lines of:

CO2 comes from coal, coal comes from fossilised trees, fossilised trees come from living trees, living trees growth comes from CO2 therefore coal is carbon neutral.
_________________________
173mm Mar 2017
Best 79mm 16/1/17
2017 Total 485mm
2016 Total 649mm
2015 Total 375mm







Top
#1180260 - 04/03/2013 15:33 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
PIK is notorious for being known as the centre of European climate alarmism and as for those giant waves, well we see them here in southern Australia all the year round as those highs and lows drift through in a periodic wave like fashion.

And that is basically what the Potsdam Institute [PIK] with it's stable of full on climate alarmists like Shellnhuber and Rahmsdorp using models, claim is happening.
The high temperatures in a high pressure are the result of subsidence of the ten or so thousands of metres deep air column [ about 30 metres an hour rate of subsidence in the air column which heats the column due to the compression effects similar to the warming of a bike tyre pump when you pump up the tyres ] in the high pressure cell and the consequent heating effect raises the Water vapour holding content of the air column so water vapour does not condense out into cloud droplets and clouds.

So there is a lack of cloud cover in such a high pressure cell which in size can span distances similar in size to most of Australia at times, which leads to clear skies and increased heating of the ground surface and air column from solar radiation as well as the heating effects from the subsidence and increasing pressure of the air column.

And so we see increasingly high temperatures as the high pressure cell gets blocked from moving which is what is happening in some parts of the Eurasian continent such as happened with the Moscow heat wave of 2010 [ ? ] and consequently very high temperatures will often be recorded some days after such a blocking high has just sat in the one location.
There was a very cold region in central Siberia in the opposite position in the atmospheric circulation pattern during that Moscow heat wave but the bigoted media didn't want that to emerge even though it was quite prominent on he temperature maps. That was at the height of the global warming scare campaign by the green alarmists and their running dogs in the media as the communists use to say..

And the opposite situation also occurs leading to extreme cold temperatures in winter as the near record low temperature [ somewhat in question ! ]in Oymyakon in eastern Siberia of a few days ago due to the very intense winter high pressure which settle for weeks over the region leading to clear skies, rapid increases in out going Long Wave radiation and with the very low sun angle not very much solar heating to replace the OLR so the temperatures drop way, way down for most of winter.

PIK through it's modelling has just tried to drum up another extreme weather scare on what is a perfectly normal event that has occurred and and will re-occur at irregular and unpredictable intervals over the years in all the mid to high latitude regions of the planet.

From Ole Humluns' Climate4you this polar map of the wave like pressure distribution over the NH and rotating slowly in fit and starts around the northern hemisphere polar regions.



From Wiki
Quote:
The Arctic oscillation (AO) or Northern Annular Mode/Northern Hemisphere Annular Mode (NAM) is an index (which varies over time with no particular periodicity) of the dominant pattern of non-seasonal sea-level pressure variations north of 20N latitude, and it is characterized by pressure anomalies of one sign in the Arctic with the opposite anomalies centered about 37–45N.[1] The AO is believed by climatologists to be causally related to, and thus partially predictive of, weather patterns in locations many thousands of miles away, including many of the major population centers of Europe and North America. NASA climatologist Dr. James E. Hansen explains the mechanism by which the AO affects weather at points so distant from the Arctic:

Positive and negative phases of the Arctic Oscillation
"The degree to which Arctic air penetrates into middle latitudes is related to the AO index, which is defined by surface atmospheric pressure patterns.
When the AO index is positive, surface pressure is low in the polar region. This helps the middle latitude jet stream to blow strongly and consistently from west to east, thus keeping cold Arctic air locked in the polar region.
When the AO index is negative, there tends to be high pressure in the polar region, weaker zonal winds, and greater movement of frigid polar air into middle latitudes."[citation needed]
This zonally symmetric seesaw between sea level pressures in polar and temperate latitudes was first identified by Edward Lorenz [2] and named in 1998 by David W.J. Thompson and John Michael Wallace.[3]
The North Atlantic oscillation (NAO) is a close relative of the AO and there exist arguments about whether one or the other is more fundamentally representative of the atmosphere's dynamics; Ambaum et al. argue that the NAO can be identified in a more physically meaningful way.[4]

&
Climatologists are now routinely invoking the Arctic Oscillation in their official public explanations for extremes of weather.

The following statement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center: State of the Climate December 2010 which uses the phrase "negative Arctic Oscillation" four times, is very representative of this increasing tendency:
"Cold arctic air gripped western Europe in the first three weeks of December. Two major snowstorms, icy conditions, and frigid temperatures wreaked havoc across much of the region...The harsh winter weather was attributed to a negative Arctic Oscillation, which is a climate pattern that influences weather in the Northern Hemisphere. A very persistent, strong ridge of high pressure, or 'blocking system', near Greenland allowed cold Arctic air to slide south into Europe. Europe was not the only region in the Northern Hemisphere affected by the Arctic Oscillation. A large snow storm and frigid temperatures affected much of the Midwest United States on December 10–13...."[7]




Bluntly, PIK in their usual fashion are trying to hang extremist climatism onto a perfectly normal but irregular and unpredictable climate phenomena that is perhaps some millions of years duration.

Top
#1180264 - 04/03/2013 15:40 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford
CO2 comes from coal, coal comes from fossilised trees, fossilised trees come from living trees, living trees growth comes from CO2 therefore coal is carbon neutral.
_________________________

This is the best quote I have seen in years . Shame I didnt think about it my self .

Wonder how warmistas would try to debunk it .

Top
#1180279 - 04/03/2013 16:12 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3900
Coal is solar energy...
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1180380 - 04/03/2013 18:50 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Arnost]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14120
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Originally Posted By: Arnost
Coal is solar energy...


Yep, couldn't have said it better myself wink
_________________________
173mm Mar 2017
Best 79mm 16/1/17
2017 Total 485mm
2016 Total 649mm
2015 Total 375mm







Top
#1180396 - 04/03/2013 19:38 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
'Angry Summer' made worse by climate change: Commission

Government's Climate Commission says the weather extremes experienced around the country this summer were made worse by climate change.

If an athlete takes steroids for example... their baseline shifts, they'll do fewer slow times and many more record-breaking fast times.
The same thing is happening with our climate system, as it warms up, we're getting fewer cold days and cold events and many more record hot events.
In effect, it's a climate on steroids.
Professor Tim Flannery

Climate Commission chief Professor Tim Flannery says that while Australia may have always been a land of drought and flooding rains, the nation is now experiencing a "climate on steroids".

"I think one of the best ways of thinking about it is imagining that the baseline has shifted," he said.

"If an athlete takes steroids for example... their baseline shifts, they'll do fewer slow times and many more record-breaking fast times.

"The same thing is happening with our climate system. As it warms up, we're getting fewer cold days and cold events and many more record hot events. In effect, it's a climate on steroids."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-04/cl...climate/4550894

Top
#1180397 - 04/03/2013 19:40 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
liberator Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/11/2010
Posts: 280
Loc: Kyabram
Considering all the recent reports about this years summer breaking so many records I am now finally convinced global climate change is real. Just wondering why all the broken cold records in the Northern hemisphere were hardly mentioned anywhere that I can find...- Sibera - is this also because of climate change? Doesn't matter a season does not make climate but the trend is obvious.I will continue to beleive it now, don't need to visit here anymore your work is done, and a waste...

Top
#1180496 - 04/03/2013 23:25 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Arnost]
S .O. Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 31/01/2011
Posts: 1515
Loc: Southern Victoria
Originally Posted By: Arnost
Coal is solar energy...


They've been looking for " Solar Energy's holy grail ( Solar Storage ) .

Coal is the easy answer .
Reckon if we took it to the CEC grants dept. as a proposal it might get off the ground for say a $2 MIL grant !!!!! ;-)
_________________________
" Solar Powered "

Top
#1180518 - 05/03/2013 06:57 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
Originally Posted By: SBT

Monckton explains why taking climate extremists to court works (and Uni Tas agrees to investigate).

(1) http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/monckto...to-investigate/


“Dr.” Michael Mann, fabricator of the “hockey-stick” graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period, sued Dr. Tim Ball for calling the graph scientific fraud. Tim Ball’s defence was to propose showing the judge the many dodges by which “Dr.” Mann had done what “Dr.” Overpeck had called for in 1995: “We have to abolish the medieval warm period.”

Rather than face cross-examination, “Dr.” Mann gave up the case at a cost that cannot have been much less than $1 million.




Michael Mann debunks the lies that Monckton has said about him...

Michael Mann:

As professional climate change deniers become increasingly irrelevant and desperate, so do their distraction and smear efforts. These are mostly just noise in the background these days, as the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding. Occasionally, though, I will debunk the most egregious of the smears and falsehoods, both to set the record straight, and to arm readers w/ the information necessary to evaluate the credibility of the various actors in the climate change denial campaign.

The first of today's examples comes courtesy of his excellency "Lord Monckton" (http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton) and Australian climate change denier Joanne Nova (http://www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova). Nova credulously quoted Monckton as he made the usual long-discredited accusations about climate scientists, including me, Jonathan Overpeck, etc. Here is the statement, with scare quotes intact:

""Dr". Michael Mann, fabricator of the “hockey-stick” graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period, sued Dr. Tim Ball for calling the graph scientific fraud. Tim Ball’s defence was to propose showing the judge the many dodges by which “Dr.” Mann had done what "Dr.”Overpeck had called for in 1995: “We have to abolish the medieval warm period…Rather than face cross-examination, “Dr.” Mann gave up the case at a cost that cannot have been much less than $1 million." (see
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/monckto...to-investigate/ ).

What is most peculiar about the false assertion that we "gave up" the defamation suit against Mr. Ball (it is very much alive and well thank you) is that this statement appeared on the very day that my lawyer, Canadian libel expert (he quite literally wrote the book on the subject: http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2028422.Roger_McConchie) Roger McConchie, was DEPOSING BALL as part of the discovery phase of the lawsuit.

One would think that Ms. Nova would have wanted to fact check such a claim. It would have been rather easy for her to contact my lawyer, for example, to see if there was any veracity to Monckton's claim. McConchie's contact info is readily available on the web: http://www.libelandprivacy.com/roger-mcconchie_bio.html

But perhaps Ms. Nova *did* try to contact McConchie and was unable to reach him…since he was BUSY DEPOSING BALL on that day ;-)

http://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist
_________________________

Top
Page 68 of 135 < 1 2 ... 66 67 68 69 70 ... 134 135 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
124 registered (Weather_Viewer, No-Logic, Rainheart, nocturnal1, Adele, bec131, Willow, S.Novaehollandia, KBO, chapo, terawatt, mysteriousbrad, Ellywin, breezy04, Locke, Tales, R.Dangerfield, shell, NQ_Dee, Majors Daughter, gwilli, Swigman, Moldy, Briscell, Manly, poona, Un_stable, Chookie, dizzigirl1, nicabocca, sangas, Blowin', Popeye, Kevin QLD, Blinky_Bill, morts, exodus, pkgjmg, scorpion70, Rainbose, rainthisway, Snapper22lb, Ollieo, sharjay, Jezza, aloahjay, Grazina Ajana, Steven, BlueStorm, BThomas, Lowndsey, woodhouse, camtsv, Turbo Taxi, Hagrid, darwindix, Whisper, StormQueen, StevefromSurfers, magic74, Rain Whisperer, Markus, ol mate, wxra, weather junky, phreeky, rainbeam, kmack43, Sidney, FujiWha, Ahab, FNQ, Macktown, troycookie, Homer, Smallfry, Ms.Weatherfreak, Cyclone_Tim_, Perfect Storm, StormCapture, Squid, mick87, rolive, CraigA74, Alex144, Tempest, marakai, explorer, TrentG, Tan, Pappa D, Unmanned, Kat_, Miss T, ThunderBob, SnowedIn, bber36, Aussea, OverDrive, Max744, gwebb, Drought declared, Anon5, Keethy, ayrfam, Steve O, AKM80, cold@28, goninja88, Steve777, ScubaSteve, BigBen, Dan101, Chris Stumer, redbucket, Allik, Tropical Desert, Buzz Buzz, 6 invisible), 911 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Jamar, jimi747, Zephyr
Forum Stats
29193 Members
32 Forums
23562 Topics
1445376 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image