Nikon Pix
via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O
I just took these with my Nikon P900, while walking the dogs in the South Boulder Wetlands this afternoon – which the City of Boulder and the University of Colorado want to destroy.
via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O
May 4, 2017 at 02:00PM
Top Pix From The Afternoon
via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O
All taken with the Canon SX720 pocket camera.
via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O
May 4, 2017 at 12:29PM
Tunes Played On A Tropical Piano
via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach. Crossposted from my blog, Skating Under The Ice. Contents: Adventure, plus minimal science. Feel free to ignore this if you wish.
After I wrote my last piece about my trip to Fiji, things have just been moving too fast to write. I’ll just take up where I left off, at Janice’s Skinny Bean Cafe in Pacific Harbour. It’s in a large complex of shops and apartments called “Arts Village”. I used to live in one of the apartments, so was old home week for me. The Arts Village is kind of shabby and rundown, but we love it. There’s Kundan Singh’s grocery store, a bank, several restaurants, apartments, a kind of Fiji Theme Park, and lots of folks.
By Douglas J. Keenan in Pajamas Media
Phil Jones tried to hush my paper. SUNY Albany won’t discuss the investigation my paper initiated. And QUB ignored my three FOI requests for their data.
Some of the emails leaked in Climategate discuss my work. Following is a comment on that, and on something more important.
In 2007, I published a [1] alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The emails show that Tom Wigley — one of the most oft-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate — [2]. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to convince the journal editor not to publish my paper.
After my paper was published, the State University of New York — where the research discussed in my paper was conducted — carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed — contrary to the university’s policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report’s release.
But I was not allowed to see the report. Truly Kafkaesque. Continue reading “Tunes Played On A Tropical Piano”
New Study Confirms: The Warming ‘Pause’ Is Real And Revealing
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
http://ift.tt/1WIzElD
Credit: concernusa.org
GWPF Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse takes a close look at some recent developments in the long-running global temperature ‘pause’ controversy.
A new paper has been published in the Analysis section of Nature called Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus.’ It confirms that the ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ is real. It is also rather revealing.
It attempts to explain the ‘Pause’ by looking into what is known about climate variability. They say that four years after the release of the IPCC AR5 report, which contained much about the ‘hiatus’ it is time to see what can be learned.
One could be a little sarcastic in saying why would Nature devote seven of its desirable pages to an event that some vehemently say never existed and maintain its existence has been disproved long ago.
Now, however, as the El Nino spike of the past few years levels off, analysing the ‘pause’ seems to be coming back into fashion.
The authors of this recent paper delicately tread a line between the two opposing camps saying, on the one hand, that both sides have a point and their particular methods of analysis are understandable. But on the other hand they make it clear that there is a real event that needs studying.
As someone who has paid close attention to the ‘pause’ for almost a decade I am perhaps more attentive than most when it comes to a retelling of the history of the idea and the observations. The authors say the pause started with claims from outside the scientific community. Well, yes and no.
It was tentatively suggested in 2006 and 2007 by climate sceptics many of whom were experienced scientists and quite capable of reading a graph and calculating statistics. A decade after it was raised, every time the ‘pause’ is debated it is a tribute to those who first noticed it and faced harsh criticism.
It was the sceptics who noticed the ‘pause,’ and in doing so made a valuable contribution to science. For years it was only analysed and discussed on the blogosphere before journals took notice.
There is nothing new in their recent paper or that hasn’t been discussed by the GWPF. Perhaps that will give pause for thought for some who see battle lines drawn between pause supporters (sceptics) and pause busters (scientists).
What the authors miss, with their three definitions of the pause, is a simple fact we have often pointed out. Look at HadCRUT4 from 2001 (after the 1999-2000 El Nino/La Nina event) until 2014 (before the start of the recent El Nino event) and you will see the temperature is flat.
Apart from the recent El Nino there has been no global increase since 2001, even though there have been El Ninos and La Ninas in that period. Now that’s what I call a pause.
Continued here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop http://ift.tt/1WIzElD
May 4, 2017 at 11:00AM
