tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post4599975904781505366..comments2024-03-28T08:51:18.908-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Memewatch: Krugman explains “default!”<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9280095220801054912013-10-15T21:32:15.392-04:002013-10-15T21:32:15.392-04:00Uh, no, in the "real" world, wealthy peo...Uh, no, in the "real" world, wealthy people and businesses borrow money even when they can pay cash because sometimes the benefits of borrowing outweigh the negatives of reducing your cash reserves. <br /><br />I wish I could take away the ability to borrow from every idiot who believes the government would be better off not borrowing at all, or as rarely as possible. No house or college for you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72959787074693673262013-10-14T13:42:02.569-04:002013-10-14T13:42:02.569-04:00Again, David "scientists" are doing no s...Again, David "scientists" are doing no such thing.<br /><br />Try reading something besides your go-to denier sites. It's called "intellectual curiousity."<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-82353600923741225972013-10-14T11:33:51.192-04:002013-10-14T11:33:51.192-04:00"Only by faith"
Well, and one of the la..."Only by faith"<br /><br />Well, and one of the largest economies in the world. <br /><br />And the largest military in the world.<br /><br />So, yeah other than "faith" it's just a house of cards, basically.<br /><br />As for "No one ever seems to suggest...," far from being a "great point" --it's utterly wrong: idiots are ALWAYS suggesting that idea. <br /><br />The fact the the US and world economies have never reflected the thinking of these idiots never seems to trouble them, that is to say, you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-23999924042312439202013-10-14T11:23:39.112-04:002013-10-14T11:23:39.112-04:00Anon, while you are trying to ignore the existence...Anon, while you are trying to ignore the existence of the pause, scientists are figuring out how to modify their climate models to account for it. E.g., this recent paper asserts that there's a long-term upward trend in temperature, but there's also a cycle that lasts several decades. The actual global temperature is the sum of the two. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/10/new-paper-finds-natural-ocean.html<br /><br />The IPCC proposed a different change in their models to account for the pause. They suggested that heat might somehow be going into the deep oceans.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-42181202571555931302013-10-14T10:48:31.509-04:002013-10-14T10:48:31.509-04:00Great point, Jayhawk. I expected inflation to tak...Great point, Jayhawk. I expected inflation to take off a few years ago and backed my opinion by buying gold. Obviously, that didn't work. <br /><br />But, if the US keeps doing quantitative easing, in effect printing $85 billion/month, our money is bound to lose value sooner or later. And, when inflation starts, I'm afraid it might be severe, because the dollar is supported only by faith.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-55549963452526293882013-10-14T09:38:29.126-04:002013-10-14T09:38:29.126-04:00Does no one ever consider the insanity of the prop...Does no one ever consider the insanity of the proposition that confidence in the US financial condition is maintained only if the government is able to borrow endlessly in order to pay its bills? And that the fact that it must borrow to pay its bills does not impair confidence?<br /><br />No one ever seems to suggest that confidence in our finances would be maintained if we were in a condition where we could pay our bills without having to borrow to do so.Jayhawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00756807802218022043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-36923436033794380322013-10-14T09:36:58.658-04:002013-10-14T09:36:58.658-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jayhawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00756807802218022043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-90608065649786154332013-10-14T07:44:27.269-04:002013-10-14T07:44:27.269-04:00David, not only are your three points wrong, they ...David, not only are your three points wrong, they are contradicted by the data.<br /><br />And no, you have no idea what "departure" means.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10121251258845067582013-10-14T00:41:24.626-04:002013-10-14T00:41:24.626-04:00gravymeister -- the glaciers have been melting for...gravymeister -- the glaciers have been melting for over 200 years -- ever since the end of the little ice age. Glacier growth or shrinkage is affected by factors in addition to temperature. Snowfall and soot both affect glaciers.<br /><br />As for warming in Greenland, that's just one spot. We know that the earth hasn't warmed for 16 years. So, if Greenland did warm, that was offset by cooling in some other areas.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26427785206215307922013-10-13T19:57:04.864-04:002013-10-13T19:57:04.864-04:00You forgot glaciers and Greenland melting.
The cha...You forgot glaciers and Greenland melting.<br />The changes there are recent and are statistically significant!!!gravymeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16075831177588700301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-2320375082179257292013-10-13T15:34:17.480-04:002013-10-13T15:34:17.480-04:00Correction noted, Anon.
However, do you agree w...Correction noted, Anon. <br /><br />However, do you agree with me on the following 3 points?<br /><br />1. Departure is the difference between a particular temperature and the average temperature over some chosen base period<br /><br />2. Since the departure today is roughly equal to the departure in 1997, the temperature today is roughly equal to the temperature in 1997.<br /><br />3. The lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 16 years casts doubt on mainstream climate models.<br />David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-485492375686411662013-10-13T15:12:11.812-04:002013-10-13T15:12:11.812-04:00If there is a long standing partisan bias in an ed...If there is a long standing partisan bias in an editorial board's positions, journalists who strongly disagree with those positions are likely to avoid trying to get a job there because they know any career there would be hampered by the fact that the people running the show disagree with what they believe.JoshSNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08034864979736555692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-39785315556154796292013-10-13T15:09:35.442-04:002013-10-13T15:09:35.442-04:00Well, David, you've just shown that the answer...Well, David, you've just shown that the answer to all the above questions is a very definite and even bery embarrassing (if you really did know what you were talking about), NO!<br /><br />"Departure is the difference between a particular temperature and the average temperature over some chosen base period.. I believe the base period used is the years shown in the chart: 1979 to 2013."<br /><br />Well, the chart clearly states that the base is the average from 1981 to 2010.<br /><br />So you really have no idea what you are talking about even when it is there in plain English.<br /><br />Please, David. Stop embarrassing yourself. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-40233290048626057002013-10-13T10:51:30.998-04:002013-10-13T10:51:30.998-04:00Anon --
Departure is the difference between a par...Anon --<br /><br />Departure is the difference between a particular temperature and the average temperature over some chosen base period.. I believe the base period used is the years shown in the chart: 1979 to 2013.<br /><br />Since the departure today is roughly equal to the departure in 1997, the temperature today is roughly equal to the temperature in 1997. In algebra,<br />D(2013) = D(1997) so T(2013 - Base = T(1997) - Base<br />So T(2013) = T(1997) <br />So global, temperature hasn't risen in the last 16 years.<br /><br />Anon -- What's your point? If your point is that today's temperatures are relatively high, then I agree with you. Temperature has been generally rising for several centuries -- ever since the end of the little ice age. But, that fact is independent of my point, that the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 16 years casts doubt on mainstream climate models.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-27915132644013621842013-10-13T07:37:57.332-04:002013-10-13T07:37:57.332-04:00You do know how to read charts, don't you, Dav...You do know how to read charts, don't you, David? You do know what that chart purports to show, don't you David?<br /><br />Hint: It doesn't show what you think it does. You do know "departure" he is measuring against, don't you?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-69814824786363606072013-10-13T01:29:01.051-04:002013-10-13T01:29:01.051-04:00Anon -- No scientist is denying the pause. The ...Anon -- No scientist is denying the pause. The world's scientists are trying to figure out why warming paused in recent years. There are all kinds of theories about what the pause means. I think it means that the various climate models are in doubt. Some scientists wouldn't agree with this interpretation. But, they wouldn't deny that the pause is taking place.<br /><br />You can see it for yourself at http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ <br />In 1997, the temperature departure was around 0.2. That's just about equal to the latest 13-month running average.<br /><br />David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-82560903909213324222013-10-12T19:45:56.288-04:002013-10-12T19:45:56.288-04:00"The fact is, warming stopped for a long peri..."The fact is, warming stopped for a long period of time, despite rapid growth in CO2,"<br /><br />And that is utterly false, David.<br /><br />But hey, what do the world's scientists know? After all, you got Google.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-31522016229271031142013-10-12T19:26:09.794-04:002013-10-12T19:26:09.794-04:00(Remember: the people lying to you are using 1998,...<i> (Remember: the people lying to you are using 1998, not 1997!). </i><br /><br />I am impressed by the use of an exclamation point. I guess that punctuation proves that your statement is correct!<br /><br />However, I'd prefer to see some cites showing all the people who you claim are tricking me by using a starting point of 1998. In googling around, I noticed the New York Times claimed that skeptics were improperly using a start date of 1998. Well, the ones I read aren't doing that. E.g., in June Christopher Monkton wrote: "No significant warming for 17 years 4 months." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/no-significant-warming-for-17-years-4-months/ Please show us all the skeptics who are improperly using 1998 as a starting point.<br /><br />Anyhow you can see the warming lull with your own eyes. Troposphere temperatures are more reliable than earth temperatures. They show a lull from 1997, starting before the el Nino warming. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/<br /><br />The fact is, warming stopped for a long period of time, despite rapid growth in CO2. This pattern doesn't fit the models that claim to show catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). I don't know what will happen in the future, but this pattern shows that the models are flawed.<br /><br />One theory propounded by the IPCC among others is that there missing heat which is hiding in the deep ocean. That claim acknowledges that the IPCC models are flawed, because these models don't contain mechanisms by which heat moves into and out of the deep ocean.<br /><br />Posted on David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-80992000656823309852013-10-12T17:45:15.130-04:002013-10-12T17:45:15.130-04:00DAinCA, Given your history, I'm fairly certai...DAinCA, Given your history, I'm fairly certain that you didn't actually check for yourself to see what the UK Met Office said. Although I'm a little surprised that you figured I wouldn't. Under the grammatically-incorrect headline "Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand," their website says this:<br /><br /><quote><br />Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming. <br /></quote><br /><br />So, the UK Met Office doesn't say anything about global temperatures since 1997 but of temperatures over the last decade. (Remember: the people lying to you are using 1998, not 1997!). The UK Met Office doesn't claim "no statistically significant increase"; they say the warming has increased "more slowly." They even explain the significance of 1998 in climate change denial.<br /><br />As an aside, there aren't "warmists." There are only climatologists. This is a term invented by the people who have duped you into thinking there's some controversy surrounding the science. Note that this isn't to say that the science is correct in its conclusions. Scientific findings are always subject to revision pending new data. You'll also find creationists who call biologists "evolutionists," as though there were two camps within the scientific community, one advocating the theory of evolution and one not. There aren't any "warmists" or "evolutionists" any more than there are "atomists" in physics. There used to be. Before Einstein settled things in 1905, some physicists thought atoms were real and some thought they were just useful abstractions to aid computation. Not any more. So for evolution; so for climate change.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-11771636099478614652013-10-12T14:31:44.553-04:002013-10-12T14:31:44.553-04:00deadrat -- There's no ambiguity. The UK Met O...deadrat -- There's no ambiguity. The UK Met Office specifically said that there's been no statistically significant increase in global temperature since 1997. The meteorologists there understand better than you or I why it would be inappropriate to start with 1998.<br /><br />The UK Met Office are warmists. They're on your side. The last thing they would do would be to finagle statistics to undermine belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-19994059831443319182013-10-12T14:24:22.718-04:002013-10-12T14:24:22.718-04:00DAinCA,
There's really no arguing with you. ...DAinCA,<br /><br />There's really no arguing with you. The measurements are averages over a particular year. You've been duped. The claim that you're citing isn't a scientific one about delta-T. When your sources say "16 years," they're counting years in which the averages were taken so they can include 1998 because that was a very hot El Nino year.<br /><br />You've jumped to remedies. Certainly nobody knows for sure whether any remedy would fix the problem. And there is a problem. But the topic under discussion is your refusal to check your sources, which once again have misled you.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85348324735443754362013-10-12T13:19:54.653-04:002013-10-12T13:19:54.653-04:00deadrat -- The fencepost algorithm doesn't app...deadrat -- The fencepost algorithm doesn't apply when you're measuring a <i>change</i>. E.g., if global temperature was the same in 2013 as it was in 2012, this would be called no change for 1 year, not no change for 2 years. Anyhow, this is just semantics. The fact is that from 1997 to 2013 there's been no statistically significant increase in global temperature.<br /><br />You claim that "There is a consensus among scientists that the "A" in AGW is apt and that the warming is a danger" You're partly right. There is pretty much a consensus that some part of global warming is anthropogenic. However, there's no consensus about how much of the warming is due to man nor is there a consensus it's dangerous. This is simply a wishful thinking statement that's often repeated.<br /><br />Anonymous -- yes we have actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 since 1960 and estimates going way back in time. See http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ So, how does that prove that CO2 causes global warming and by how much?<br /><br />BTW, there's nothing like a consensus that the remedies being bandied about would fix the problem (if there is a problem)David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-52830591737025602052013-10-12T12:53:38.495-04:002013-10-12T12:53:38.495-04:00DAinCA,
It's called the fence-post algorithm....DAinCA,<br /><br />It's called the fence-post algorithm. If you want to count years inclusively between two given years, subtract the earliest from the latest and add one. 2013-1998+1 = 16.<br /><br />That's why when you saw your ignorant talking point advanced by people who duped you in 2012, the claim was about no change in 15 years. Next year, there will have been no change in 17 years.<br /><br />There is a consensus among scientists that the "A" in AGW is apt and that the warming is a danger. So let's suppose that Obama overstated that danger in a tweet. Do you think that's equivalent to the Republican error of dismissing AGW as a hoax?<br /><br />And, naturally, we do have to suppose that Obama tweeted what you claimed. That's because he didn't. The tweet in question came from an account that Obama gave to OFA, the political organization that grew out of his 2012 campaign organization.<br /><br />Once again, somebody told you something you agreed with, and you failed to check it out. No surprise there, eh?deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9932486318940078802013-10-12T12:20:44.728-04:002013-10-12T12:20:44.728-04:00David is behind the curve. He's repeating the ...David is behind the curve. He's repeating the spin of a few days back that is no longer operative after the boys on Wall Street made a few phone calls to D.C.<br />irishguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05214796640416172528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9078636659391191072013-10-12T12:16:36.066-04:002013-10-12T12:16:36.066-04:00David, I was at a seminar just this week where one...David, I was at a seminar just this week where one of the clear signs of intelligence was discussed in detail, and it was the ability to accept evidence and adjust theory if need be, as well as the curiosity to seek more evidence.<br /><br />Thanks to modern science and technology, we have millennia worth of data about the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and it's effect on global climate.<br /><br />So what is your reaction to all that evidence? You want to isolate it to the last 16 years.<br /><br />And you know what? Even that tiny slice of data fails to "prove" what you think it does.<br /><br />You'd know that if you had the intellectual curiosity to look deeper into the question. Instead, you stopped at the point that you were told the data supports your previously mistaken preconceptions.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com