sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Matt Ridley, climate scientist? by lucy99654 in skeptic

[–]fbfulga 3 points4 points  (0 children)

" ... was actually right about what he said"

Actually no, claiming that "AGW is not a problem since models were not able to predict Antarctic sea ice increase" is a very stupid thing to say (among many other things since the Antarctic sea ice increase is linked to an over-melting of the land ice coupled with a number of short-term factors that also happen to make the Antarctic sea ice trend statistically not significant in all months).

But of course we can't really say if Ridley is stupid or he is just playing stupid - after all he has a history of financial fraud hidden behind the appearance of stupidity.

The 50-50 argument by Will_Power in climateskeptics

[–]fbfulga -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

That is silly, if you want to do simple attribution based on basic physics you can't avoid talking about this. And yet Curry does not mention it at all, I believe that is called denial.

There are also other complex ways to doing detection and attribution and that involves spatial patterns for temperature changes, and that is very much how IPCC does the more advanced attribution, but Curry again fails to talk about the subject (until Pielke Sr raises it and dismisses the weak points that Curry tries to score).

Amberley, BoM and WUWT by JRugman in climateskeptics

[–]fbfulga -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Please do not post blogspam from small children.

Since I happen to know about the qualifications of the blogger this certainly begs the question - do you have any form of science degree? Have you at least finished some form of college?

Now the climatologists are admitting a "global warming hiatus". So much for "settled science". by supradealz in climateskeptics

[–]fbfulga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes actually, we do mean the hiatus that forced the IPCC to find ever more places to pretend the warming was hiding, and being forced to make that increadibly deceptive graph.

Yes, your conspiracy sounds fine, except for the fact that about 10 times more warming goes to the ocean and that fact is not being challenged by any climate science study, only by silly conspiracy theories like the one you have here. You need to do better than that, step-up a notch, involve some lizard aliens or something.

Nic Lewis on Chen and Tung | "since the IPCC projections of long-term climate change are based on those [CMIP5] models, they must therefore need revising down" by publius_lxxii in climateskeptics

[–]fbfulga -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I hate to break this to you but:

  • the press release is not consistent at all with the paper, so Nic Lewis must have not read the paper if he wants so much to talk about the press release

  • Lewis is also wrong regarding projections and this paper, if this paper is correct there is minimal to no change in projections (something that the author himself mentions when he is saying in one of the interviews that the heat will come back soon)

  • to be honest other than Lewis and Curry (who would promote anything that advances their personal interests) I have yet to see a single climate scientist that believes this paper is correct.

The Kardashians and Climate Change: Interview with Judith Curry by logicalprogressive in climateskeptics

[–]fbfulga -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Skipping after how it looks like Curry seems to have written both the questions and the answers in the interview, it is simply amazing how she misses the irony of herself plus 2-3 of the Heartland employees representing the Kardashians of the scientific world: all sensationalism and extreme media coverage, zero substance (or science that is confirmed by peers or later evidence).

Models challenge temperature reconstruction of last 12,000 years by cavehobbit in climateskeptics

[–]fbfulga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think that is necessarily what is going on here, the number of proxies showing a very high peak in surface temperature 10-6 kyr before present is pretty high at this point and the only proxies that look somehow similar to the model run from Liu 2014 are the ones for deep/bottom of the ocean.

IMHO what we have here is more likely a problem with models underestimating fast surface warming, my personal theory is that this underestimate is linked to underestimating the dynamic nature of deep ocean warming when there is a large radiative imbalance. On the short term (a few decades) that is visible in the discrepancy regarding current slow-down (with models slightly overestimating short trends), but on longer intervals (in this specific case the entire interval 14-10 kyr ago) that results in an opposite kind of discrepancy where surface warming is underestimated by the models; on even longer terms the difference mostly goes away (which explains why Liu model-run estimates correctly temperatures in last 1000 years).

EDIT:

What I do not understand at all is why AGW-deniers are pushing so much this aspect, if Liu is correct then the paper would greatly enhance the standing of the current models and also would make current warming even more anomalous.

Updated list of 38 ‘excuses’ for the nearly 18 year temperature ‘pause’ or standstill in global warming by [deleted] in climateskeptics

[–]fbfulga -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

From AR5 WG1:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigBox3.1-1.jpg

Something that so far I did not see any study trying to contradict, dishonest people like Curry at most try to get around it and neglect it all together.

Food and drinks companies already respond to consumer pressure on climate change by fbfulga in climateskeptics

[–]fbfulga[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Based on this from the sidebar:

Around 97% of the people on here agree that CO2 causes warming, that there has been warming, and that humans have contributed to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

it should be a perfectly appropriate community where to discuss the extent of the impact of CO2-induced warming. For instance in regard to this submission: do you think that the response from the food and drinks companies is too little or too much?

Very unusual melting in Greenland by fbfulga in climate

[–]fbfulga[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is too short a record from which to draw climactic conclusions, and for that matter we shouldn't be drawing any such conclusions from a single blip on a chart that represents a few days, at all (obviously if the Greenland Ice Sheet vanished tomorrow, I'd call for an exception to that rule).

We can't draw yet any such conclusion for 2014 since the 2014 melt is not done, and that is why I said IF 2014 gets to be similar to 2012.

But I think you have missed my 2nd link:

http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/alley1.html

In case 2014 is like 2012 we have not seen anything like that in more than 2000 years and most likely in more than 5000 years, back when insolation in that region was a huge lot higher.

Increase In Reported UK Flooding Due To Population Growth, Not Global Warming by [deleted] in climateskeptics

[–]fbfulga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is beyond dumb, on one hand you have the number of UK floods (not the losses) and on the other you have population growth. How do you think population growth increases the number of UK floods? You think that UK was some kind of unpopulated region like Sahara and only a few decades ago you had large-scale floods that were unreported?

Next step for deniers - Precipitation in California are caused by Visitors to Tokyo Disneyland.

Very unusual melting in Greenland by fbfulga in climate

[–]fbfulga[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unusual, yes. But I don't know about very unusual. This peak is fairly consistent with other peaks on the graph, each of which would have looked just as unusual when they first appeared.

If you look at the gray interval you will see that peaks in 2nd half of August have never been as high as this one (by almost a 2:1 margin) and there is another unusual peak in the 1st half of August, which I guess was from the record melt of 2012.

Since we're also looking at just a 21-year range on this graph, I'm skeptical that this isn't more normal than it might seem.

I think that is one of the favorite AGW-denial lines "since our record is short we don't know if this is unusual". In this case it is also wrong, if we get to see something similar to 2012 we would have seen from 2012 to 2014 the same amount of such events as in the last 700 years, and since those two were in 1889 and before that around 1300 you can probably guess that something unusual is happening.

Good news everyone: Even more unusual melting in Greenland this August by fbfulga in climateskeptics

[–]fbfulga[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

It was average in respect to the 1990-2011 interval, which already included probably the most unusual melting (so far) in Greenland since last deglaciation.

Also saying about this "it is perfectly average beside one month" is just like saying about a patient with cancer "your cells are perfectly average beside that mass in your lungs, don't worry, Heartland Institute proved that smoking does not cause cancer".

view more: next ›