Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[Sonny Limatina]

Zoom, get my shit out of that box. I ain't dead yet.


To be fair to Ish, I'm sure a few emeritus types get astronomical royalties. But they're by far the exception, not the rule.

...and it's coincidental to the 'emeritus' aspect.

He just thought it sounded like Double Secret Extra Special Professor. He flat didn't know what it was.

 

[Peregrinator]

...and it's coincidental to the 'emeritus' aspect.

He just thought it sounded like Double Secret Extra Special Professor. He flat didn't know what it was.

His post was certainly far from the facts. Either a guess or extrapolating from a single point of data.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

His post was certainly far from the facts. Either a guess or extrapolating from a single point of data.

You can say it, it's OK.

He didn't know.

 

[Disgustipated]

His post was certainly far from the facts. Either a guess or extrapolating from a single point of data.

Actually, it looked like he gathered all that from several bad sources.

 

[Peregrinator]

You can say it, it's OK.

He didn't know.

*shrug*

He didn't know.

Actually, it looked like her gathered all that from several bad sources.

What?

 

[Disgustipated]

What?

Fixed, damnit.

 

[trysail]

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1


Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming
Paul Voosen, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?”

It is the overconfidence of “conventional” climate scientists that I always find so astonishing. It doesn’t take long looking at climate to work out that it’s really complicated, and probably not that well understood.

-Jonathan Jones, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Brasenose College
Oxford University

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-scientists/#comment-128550

​

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1


Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming
Paul Voosen, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?”

Your question is bullshit.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132865502/last-year-was-the-warmest-year-on-record-again

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/27/141748024/scientists-say-texas-agency-edits-out-climate-change

 

[trysail]

Your question is bullshit.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132865502/last-year-was-the-warmest-year-on-record-again

Sorry, pardner— it ain't my question.


The article asking the question was written by Paul Voosen and a link to that article was provided.

If this is "settled science" I'd sure as hell hate to see what "unsettled science" looks like.

__________________


Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming

Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?”



Paul Voosen, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Tuesday, October 25, 2011
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1

...When looking at the decade of stalled warming in light of these findings, it is clear that the solar minimum and volcanic sulfates played a role in lowering the energy imbalance. But focusing on them is a bit like -- and here Hansen invokes a hoary science truism -- the drunk looking for his keys underneath a streetlight. He lost his keys out in the darkness, but searches beneath the lamp, he says, because that's where the light is.

"Unfortunately, when we focus on volcanic aerosol forcing, solar forcing and stratospheric water vapor changes, it is a case of looking for our lost keys under the streetlight," Hansen said. "What we need to look at is the tropospheric aerosol forcing, but it is not under the street light."

***​

...Indeed, many of the scientists sorting out the warming hiatus disagree with one another -- in a chummy, scholarly way. Judith Lean, the solar scientist, finds Kaufmann's work unpersuasive and unnecessarily critical of China. Kaufmann finds Solomon's stratosphere studies lacking in evidence. Hansen and Trenberth can't agree on a budget.

It seems staggering, then, that in a few years' time a new consensus will form for the next U.N. climate change report. But it will, and lurking beneath it will remain, as always, the churning theories and rivalries, the questions, the grist of scientific life.

So, in the end, can anyone say explicitly what caused the warming hiatus?

"All of these things contribute to the relative muted warming," Livermore's Santer said. "The difficultly is figuring out the relative contribution of these things..."

 

[Ishmael]

The 'Drunk under the streetlamp' quip comes from Monte Carlo theory (which tries to model the path of the drunks staggers), which is one of the foundations of chaos theory. Which raises the question as to, 'if one is following chaos theory, how can one be certain where the keys are?' Indeed, how can one be certain that the keys even exist?

Hansen is seemingly saying that while the drunk has no clue where the keys are, he, Hansen, does. Has Hansen appointed himself the designated driver in this debate?

And speaking of lagging indicators, why is it that CO2 concentration is a lagging indicator? If one is to cleave to the AGW notion CO2 should be the leading indicator.

Ishmael

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Sonny Limatina's How To Argue Like The Crazy Man On the Bus In Three Easy StepsTM, yours for $19.97 or a go at your daughter:

Step 1) Make a statement questioning an issue. No pertinence or accuracy need apply here, because...

Step 2) Shift immediately to pointing out that "there are questions being asked" about the issue. Nevermind that they're your own, and substanceless. Questions are being asked!

Step 3) Repeat Step 2.

Order now and we'll throw in Sonny's "How to Speak Fake Latin in Two-Word Doses!" for free!

 

[Sonny Limatina]

The 'Drunk under the streetlamp' quip comes from Monte Carlo theory (which tries to model the path of the drunks staggers), which is one of the foundations of chaos theory. Which raises the question as to, 'if one is following chaos theory, how can one be certain where the keys are?' Indeed, how can one be certain that the keys even exist?

Hansen is seemingly saying that while the drunk has no clue where the keys are, he, Hansen, does. Has Hansen appointed himself the designated driver in this debate?

And speaking of lagging indicators, why is it that CO2 concentration is a lagging indicator? If one is to cleave to the AGW notion CO2 should be the leading indicator.

Ishmael

I'm just quoting this because of the continued comedy.

That's not really what "Drunkard's Walk" refers to.

Maybe that's a description of the Drunkard Emeritus's walk, though.

 

[KRCummings]

I've asked the Lit President to appoint me Poster Emeritus.

Of course I'll still be posting but I'll get a significantly higher salary for doing it.

 

[trysail]

New climate study deals blow to skeptics
By Matthew Knight, CNN

London (CNN) -- An independent study of global temperature records has reaffirmed previous conclusions by climate scientists that global warming is real.

The new analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project examined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 data archives stretching back over 200 years in an effort to address scientific concerns raised by climate skeptics about the data used to inform reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dummies to "Berkeley!" in 5...4...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/climate-study-warming-real/

_____________________


http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1


Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming
Paul Voosen, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?”

It is the overconfidence of “conventional” climate scientists that I always find so astonishing. It doesn’t take long looking at climate to work out that it’s really complicated, and probably not that well understood.

-Jonathan Jones, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Brasenose College
Oxford University

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-scientists/#comment-128550

​

 

[phrodeau]

Not your question? Then why is it in your post in such a barefaced way?

 

[Peregrinator]

The 'Drunk under the streetlamp' quip comes from Monte Carlo theory (which tries to model the path of the drunks staggers), which is one of the foundations of chaos theory. Which raises the question as to, 'if one is following chaos theory, how can one be certain where the keys are?' Indeed, how can one be certain that the keys even exist?

Hansen is seemingly saying that while the drunk has no clue where the keys are, he, Hansen, does. Has Hansen appointed himself the designated driver in this debate?

And speaking of lagging indicators, why is it that CO2 concentration is a lagging indicator? If one is to cleave to the AGW notion CO2 should be the leading indicator.

Ishmael

Why do you even bother to post on this subject any more? Anyone reading any of the threads on AGW in the last three months has now seen you to be lying, or at the very worst making claims that are obvious bullshit.

See below in this post, and above for "emeritus" and Professors' salaries.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37990855&postcount=32

*chuckle*

Nice try Perg. I'm going to refute each and every single point that you posted, and I'm going to do it with data captured by many scientists that were out to support the whole AGW theory. Obviously this is going to take some time.

Put up or shut up, Ishmael. Post the data you promised or admit you can't back up any of your ideology-driven horseshit.

 

[Peregrinator]

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1


Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming
Paul Voosen, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?”

From your link:

If scientists were going to attribute the stall to natural variability, they faced a burden to explain, in a precise way, how this variation worked. Without evidence, their statements were no better than the unsubstantiated theories circulated by climate skeptics on the Internet.

This is fun.

Beneath the sheen of consensus stating that human emissions are forcing warmer temperatures -- a notion no scientist interviewed for this story doubts -- there are deep uncertainties of how quickly this rise will occur, and how much air pollution has so far prevented this warming.

Trysail, you're especially going to love this one:

For several years, Trenberth, at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has challenged his colleagues to hunt down the "missing energy" in the climate. Indeed, much to his chagrin, one such exhortation was widely misinterpreted when Trenberth's letters leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in 2009. Trenberth has received so many queries related to the email that half his professional website debunks misreadings of a single sentence he wrote years ago.

 

[trysail]

From your link:

Trysail, you're especially going to love this one:

Yup, a restatement by Trenberth that he and climatology cannot find the missing heat which needs to be located if the hypothesis is accurate.



Where in the world is Waldo ?

 

[Peregrinator]

Yup, a restatement by Trenberth that he and climatology cannot find the missing heat which needs to be located if the hypothesis is accurate.



Where in the world is Waldo ?

That's quite a horseshoe nail there, and a red herring at that. The rest of the article details how it doesn't falsify the hypothesis.

 

[Ishmael]

Why do you even bother to post on this subject any more? Anyone reading any of the threads on AGW in the last three months has now seen you to be lying, or at the very worst making claims that are obvious bullshit.

See below in this post, and above for "emeritus" and Professors' salaries.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37990855&postcount=32



Put up or shut up, Ishmael. Post the data you promised or admit you can't back up any of your ideology-driven horseshit.

Well, I suppose you might do some research there Perg. According to Wiki univ. professors are salaried at the 86 to 91 percentile of ALL working folks. (Which you can look up yourself, I no longer cater to idiots, assholes, or the lazy.) Is that lower to mid working folks? The Cornell study, very recent, shows that those professors at 'named' univ. are in the 89 to 94 percentile. (ibid above parenthetical.)

As far as Emeritus goes, goggle "university professor emeritus salary" and see what you get. What your find is an litany of univ. on-line employee manuals which define what a professor emeritus is in their terms, and it's not what those, like you, are thinking it is. The title is extended for various reasons and among those reasons is the ability for said professor to double dip, for the univ. to gain prestige, because said professor is a grant magnet, and for the reason that you, and others, seem to associate with the title. It is obvious from the reading that the term has been cheapened for the purposes of the Univ. getting on with the business of the Univ., not at all unlike the fact that in the financial industry you find so many with 'director' and 'VP' titles. The difference being that in the realm of academia they actually receive a substantial boost in salary, something the titled folks in the financial industry don't necessarily enjoy.

I can't wait for the Berkley group to incorporate the the ocean temperature results into the overall picture. And I'm especially interested in the source of the data set they select to use.

Ishmael

 

[IrezumiKiss]

More housing motherfuckers going on in this thread. And I ain't talking about Tudor mansion construction, either!

 

[Peregrinator]

Salaries:

http://chronicle.com/article/Average-Faculty-Salaries-by/126586/

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sciencesalaries.html


Emeritus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_States says:

A good friend is a prof-emeritus from UAF. One day, he came back to his office and another name was on the door. His stuff was all thrown in a box and in the closet down the hall. The Uni still uses his name to show experience in his field, but he gets squat for it.

Well, I suppose you might do some research there Perg. According to Wiki univ. professors are salaried at the 86 to 91 percentile of ALL working folks. (Which you can look up yourself, I no longer cater to idiots, assholes, or the lazy.) Is that lower to mid working folks? The Cornell study, very recent, shows that those professors at 'named' univ. are in the 89 to 94 percentile. (ibid above parenthetical.)

As far as Emeritus goes, goggle "university professor emeritus salary" and see what you get. What your find is an litany of univ. on-line employee manuals which define what a professor emeritus is in their terms, and it's not what those, like you, are thinking it is. The title is extended for various reasons and among those reasons is the ability for said professor to double dip, for the univ. to gain prestige, because said professor is a grant magnet, and for the reason that you, and others, seem to associate with the title. It is obvious from the reading that the term has been cheapened for the purposes of the Univ. getting on with the business of the Univ., not at all unlike the fact that in the financial industry you find so many with 'director' and 'VP' titles. The difference being that in the realm of academia they actually receive a substantial boost in salary, something the titled folks in the financial industry don't necessarily enjoy.

I can't wait for the Berkley group to incorporate the the ocean temperature results into the overall picture. And I'm especially interested in the source of the data set they select to use.

Ishmael

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed the post I quoted above with the links to sources and the definition of "emeritus," as well as Thor's experience. Feel free to post your sources here, instead of a disingenuous exhortation to "look it up yourself." You and I both know that when someone says that it means they're lying or there's some reason the source is questionable.

While we're talking about research, though, there's this:

*chuckle*

Nice try Perg. I'm going to refute each and every single point that you posted, and I'm going to do it with data captured by many scientists that were out to support the whole AGW theory. Obviously this is going to take some time.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37990855&postcount=32

Just how long do I have to wait before you admit that the data doesn't exist and that you were either lying or bluffing?

 

[Peregrinator]

I can't wait for the Berkley group to incorporate the the ocean temperature results into the overall picture. And I'm especially interested in the source of the data set they select to use.

Ishmael

The whole damn world is waiting for them to publish more results.

 

[thør]

The whole damn world is waiting for them to publish more results.

It's going to be a while........