Showing posts with label Dana1981. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dana1981. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Climate Sensitivity less than 3° ??? . . . SO WHAT?

Time for a reality check to remind us of what the real issues are and what the continued disingenuous crazy-making of the like of LaFramboise, Watts, McIntyre is going to cost our children.



A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios (via Skeptical Science)
Posted on 13 February 2013 by dana1981 Recently there has been widespread discussion that perhaps the Earth's climate is not quite as sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 as climate scientists previously believed, which would be good news, because it would give us more time to reduce human greenhouse…

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong

 Since I'm already involved in a Hansen discussion thread over at the SkepticSociety's forum I found this recent post and the comments following another sad example of so-called "skeptics" ability to twist facts and avoid reality. 

James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong 
Posted on June 15, 2012 by Anthony Watts
"From their Die kalte Sonne website, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning put up this guest Post by Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) on Hansen’s 1988 forecast, and show that Hansen was and is, way off the mark. h/t to Pierre Gosselin of No Tricks Zone and WUWT reader tips.
{...}

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

SkS: “Poor Pielke Analysis”. . . Dear Dr. Pielke can you explain?


Here’s a case in point and a worthy addition to this little collection.  ;-)

Contrarian-skeptics {as opposed to Informed-skeptics} are slippery fish to catch, but if you don’t mind my saying so, I think I caught a floppy one yesterday.
 

I was reading 
Lessons from Past Predictions: Vinnikov on Arctic Sea Ice
Posted on April 27, 2012 by dana1981 over at skepticalscience.com

Quite the interesting read ~ basically examining an Arctic Sea Ice study from way back in 1999 by Vinnikov. et al. and explaining the evolving science and incoming data through the lens of Vinnikov’s models and projections.  Anyone interested in better understanding the conflicting claims regarding the future of Arctic Sea Ice owes it to themselves to familiarize themselves with this article and Vinnekov’s work.
 
Well, I got to the section “Poor Pielke Analysis” and find this gem: