Comments on: Funded arrogance http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/ Tackling tribal groupthink Wed, 23 May 2012 08:38:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Charline Kamuda http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/#comment-94956 Charline Kamuda Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:06:14 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-94956 cheers lots, I must announce that your website is fantastic! cheers lots, I must announce that your website is fantastic!

Report this

00

]]> By: Jon http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/#comment-92098 Jon Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:53:16 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-92098 do you know that MJ can make you want to sleep? do you know that MJ can make you want to sleep?

Report this

00

]]> By: Bob Webster http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/#comment-45200 Bob Webster Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:27:36 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-45200 Apologies for the brain-o! "you're" should be "your" above ... YEEKS! Apologies for the brain-o! “you’re” should be “your” above … YEEKS!

Report this

00

]]> By: Bob Webster http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/#comment-45199 Bob Webster Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:26:54 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-45199 "club penguin help" Assuming you're comments are directed to Jonova.com, go to the "About" page to contact Jo directly by email. “club penguin help”

Assuming you’re comments are directed to Jonova.com, go to the “About” page to contact Jo directly by email.

Report this

00

]]> By: club penguin help http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/#comment-44603 club penguin help Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:29:26 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-44603 I have read a couple of the articles on this blog over the past few days, and I truly love your writing technique. I added it to my favorites website list and will be checking back soon. If you have a few moments, please visit my site and let me know what you think. I have read a couple of the articles on this blog over the past few days, and I truly love your writing technique. I added it to my favorites website list and will be checking back soon. If you have a few moments, please visit my site and let me know what you think.

Report this

00

]]> By: Bob Webster http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/#comment-42490 Bob Webster Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:37:17 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-42490 Nick, Here is an interesting update on the "Arctic is melting" claim from "the usual suspects": Comparing Arctic ice for April 13, 2010 to April 13, 2007 (the year summer melt was maximum, been growing ever since!): http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=13&fy=2007&sm=04&sd=13&sy=2010 While it is clear that there is more sea ice now than there was in 2007 on the same date, the real significance of this comparison is in the "% concentration" revealed by the nearly complete 100% (deep magenta) color of today vs. the major areas of lighter coloring for 2007. This indicates the ice is thicker and more uniform (because much of it is new ice which is harder and more durable) than it was just three years ago over a vast area of the Arctic Sea. This may be due to less infiltration of warm ocean currents under the ice(? - speculation). Another notable item from this comparison is the greater snow cover in 2010 than in 2007 in both Asia and North America. These images do not lend much credibility to "global warming" claims based on simulations from computer models and corrupted, inappropriate temperature data. Also worth noting: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=13&fy=1979&sm=04&sd=13&sy=2010 This compares April 13, 2010 with April 13, 1979 (the first year of Arctic satellite measurements). While there is marginally greater ice extent in 1979, the extent of thick "good" ice is evident from the many veins of 1979 ice that were of lesser concentration when compared with 2010 ice on the same date. Of course, 1979 was on the cusp of the change in temperature change from the lowering that began ca 1940 and ended in the late 1970s when the "global warming" hysteria followed on the heels of the "global cooling" hysteria from many of the same scientists who now champion global warming caused by humans ... ironically, they had been blaming global cooling on humans, too! Snow data was not recorded for many of the earlier years. Perhaps more interesting is to compare today's ice quality and extent to that of 1990: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=13&fy=1990&sm=04&sd=13&sy=2010 Note that the coverage is almost identical, but the quality of today's ice is far better. This was at a time when James E. Hansen was preaching his global warming doom and gloom to the US Congress to extract about $2 billion per year for climate studies. Hansen works for NASA who is always looking for funding and they looked the other way at Hansen's peculiar radicalism on climate change in exchange for the funding boost it gave NASA. Not sure how much interest there is in the topic of this particular line of comments, given it's been silent since late December (until your post). Bob Webster Vero Beach, FL USA Editor/Publisher WEBCommentary.com (http://www.webcommentary.com) Climate Resources: http://www.webcommentary.com/climate/climate.php (where you'll find this site on the recommended list). Nick,

Here is an interesting update on the “Arctic is melting” claim from “the usual suspects”:

Comparing Arctic ice for April 13, 2010 to April 13, 2007 (the year summer melt was maximum, been growing ever since!):

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=13&fy=2007&sm=04&sd=13&sy=2010

While it is clear that there is more sea ice now than there was in 2007 on the same date, the real significance of this comparison is in the “% concentration” revealed by the nearly complete 100% (deep magenta) color of today vs. the major areas of lighter coloring for 2007. This indicates the ice is thicker and more uniform (because much of it is new ice which is harder and more durable) than it was just three years ago over a vast area of the Arctic Sea. This may be due to less infiltration of warm ocean currents under the ice(? – speculation). Another notable item from this comparison is the greater snow cover in 2010 than in 2007 in both Asia and North America. These images do not lend much credibility to “global warming” claims based on simulations from computer models and corrupted, inappropriate temperature data.

Also worth noting:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=13&fy=1979&sm=04&sd=13&sy=2010

This compares April 13, 2010 with April 13, 1979 (the first year of Arctic satellite measurements). While there is marginally greater ice extent in 1979, the extent of thick “good” ice is evident from the many veins of 1979 ice that were of lesser concentration when compared with 2010 ice on the same date. Of course, 1979 was on the cusp of the change in temperature change from the lowering that began ca 1940 and ended in the late 1970s when the “global warming” hysteria followed on the heels of the “global cooling” hysteria from many of the same scientists who now champion global warming caused by humans … ironically, they had been blaming global cooling on humans, too!

Snow data was not recorded for many of the earlier years.

Perhaps more interesting is to compare today’s ice quality and extent to that of 1990:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=13&fy=1990&sm=04&sd=13&sy=2010

Note that the coverage is almost identical, but the quality of today’s ice is far better. This was at a time when James E. Hansen was preaching his global warming doom and gloom to the US Congress to extract about $2 billion per year for climate studies. Hansen works for NASA who is always looking for funding and they looked the other way at Hansen’s peculiar radicalism on climate change in exchange for the funding boost it gave NASA.

Not sure how much interest there is in the topic of this particular line of comments, given it’s been silent since late December (until your post).

Bob Webster
Vero Beach, FL
USA
Editor/Publisher WEBCommentary.com (http://www.webcommentary.com)
Climate Resources: http://www.webcommentary.com/climate/climate.php (where you’ll find this site on the recommended list).

Report this

00

]]> By: Nick- BMW Parts Expert http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/#comment-42185 Nick- BMW Parts Expert Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:27:49 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-42185 Wow, this is a lively discussion. I will enjoy following it as it unfolds and hopefully contributing. Wow, this is a lively discussion. I will enjoy following it as it unfolds and hopefully contributing.

Report this

00

]]> By: BLouis79 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/#comment-22274 BLouis79 Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:24:32 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-22274 BTW, the whole anti-carbon thing appears a convenient lie for an Al Gore double play: 1. making money on carbon trading 2. making money on nuclear power stations as the only "clean" alternative that can reduce carbon emissions to meet large reduction targets Did you know you only have to buy 3/5 people on a committee to get a Nobel Peace Prize! BTW, the whole anti-carbon thing appears a convenient lie for an Al Gore double play:
1. making money on carbon trading
2. making money on nuclear power stations as the only “clean” alternative that can reduce carbon emissions to meet large reduction targets

Did you know you only have to buy 3/5 people on a committee to get a Nobel Peace Prize!

Report this

10

]]> By: BLouis79 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/#comment-22275 BLouis79 Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:24:32 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-22275 BTW, the whole anti-carbon thing appears a convenient lie for an Al Gore double play: 1. making money on carbon trading 2. making money on nuclear power stations as the only "clean" alternative that can reduce carbon emissions to meet large reduction targets Did you know you only have to buy 3/5 people on a committee to get a Nobel Peace Prize! BTW, the whole anti-carbon thing appears a convenient lie for an Al Gore double play:
1. making money on carbon trading
2. making money on nuclear power stations as the only “clean” alternative that can reduce carbon emissions to meet large reduction targets

Did you know you only have to buy 3/5 people on a committee to get a Nobel Peace Prize!

Report this

00

]]> By: BLouis79 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/#comment-22273 BLouis79 Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:18:36 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-22273 Kiehl and Trenberth's global energy budget appears a useful fabrication for IPCC, even the newest version has serious issues: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf As far as I can tell reading, the global energy budget based on best available measurements of ingoings and outgoings doesn't balance. The total effect of CO2 is within the measurement error of many energy budget line items. Because the budget doesn't balance (out of balance is way larger than total CO2 effect), the computer model is used to make best guesses as to what the "correct" budget items should be. The CO2 forcing appears to be a computer model creation which is consistent with the computer model. One could remove CO2 completely from the energy budget and still make the computer model balance and the warming trend would be the same because the net radiative forcing that is assumed to cause the temperature rise is exactly the same. The harder I look, the worse it gets for climate predictors. Kiehl and Trenberth’s global energy budget appears a useful fabrication for IPCC, even the newest version has serious issues:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf

As far as I can tell reading, the global energy budget based on best available measurements of ingoings and outgoings doesn’t balance. The total effect of CO2 is within the measurement error of many energy budget line items. Because the budget doesn’t balance (out of balance is way larger than total CO2 effect), the computer model is used to make best guesses as to what the “correct” budget items should be. The CO2 forcing appears to be a computer model creation which is consistent with the computer model. One could remove CO2 completely from the energy budget and still make the computer model balance and the warming trend would be the same because the net radiative forcing that is assumed to cause the temperature rise is exactly the same. The harder I look, the worse it gets for climate predictors.

Report this

10

]]>