Nate Silver, the statistician who attained national fame for his accurate projections about the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, is parting ways with The New York Times and moving his FiveThirtyEight franchise to ESPN, the sports empire controlled by the Walt Disney Company…

At ESPN, Mr. Silver is expected to have a wide-ranging portfolio. Along with his writing and number-crunching, he will most likely be a regular contributor to “Olbermann,” the late-night ESPN2 talk show hosted by Keith Olbermann that will have its debut at the end of August. In political years, he will also have a role at ABC News, which is owned by Disney…

Before creating statistical models for elections, Mr. Silver was a baseball sabermetrician who built a highly effective system for projecting how players would perform in the future. For a time he was a managing partner of Baseball Prospectus.

At public events recently, he has expressed interest in covering sports more frequently, so the ESPN deal is a logical next step.

Mr. Silver’s three-year contract with The Times is set to expire in late August and his departure will most likely be interpreted as a blow to the company, which has promoted Mr. Silver and his brand of poll-based projections…

Speculation about the future of Mr. Silver and FiveThirtyEight heated up shortly after last November’s election, and he was wooed by no small number of other news organizations. Jill Abramson, the newspaper’s executive editor, and Mark Thompson, the chief executive of The New York Times Company, said earlier this year that they would try hard to sign Mr. Silver to a new contract…

He occasionally hinted in interviews and public appearances that his relationship with The Times had moments of tension. But it was mutually beneficial. The news organization gained Web traffic and prestige by hosting his work, and he received a salary, a wider audience and editorial support.

The same will most likely be true at ESPN.

Given that ESPN had the smarts to hire Nate Silver away from the TIMES, I also imagine the last couple of sentences will be true at ESPN. In another few weeks the new Fox Sports channel will debut and NBC’s first season of carrying sports from around the whole world will kick off with start of the English Premier League season.



  1. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Guyver—you are right, I am wrong. I apologize.

    Just where you said it was:

    Guyver says:
    7/24/2013 at 10:49 am

    So–do you agree, disagree, don’t know, or have no opinion on the notion of AGW?

    I don’t know. Do you claim to KNOW?

    /////////////////////////////////////////////////

    I even remember reading it the first time (Gak!!)….. and actually, I haven’t had a beer for two weeks now and cappuccino does not stimulate me so. I put my error down to the Gesalt of the entire thread. Reading even now, my ATTENTION is drawn to the interrogatory from you==for I too have clearly stated many times that “I Don’t Know….. etc”

    It is my general experience of you that you don’t answer direct questions but I should have recognized the clear exception.

    Again—you did answer directly, I missed it, I apologize.

    ((I still think you are a dishonest liar posing your ignorance as a spear against the best science available….but I’m tired of making this particular argument. Maybe I do need a beer???))

    • Guyver says:

      It is my general experience of you that you don’t answer direct questions but I should have recognized the clear exception.

      I like to think I usually answer questions. In all likelihood I did answer past questions but you may have not liked the way in which I answered them. If it didn’t make it to my rectal data bank, it’s probably not worth recollecting. 😀

      ((I still think you are a dishonest liar posing your ignorance as a spear against the best science available….but I’m tired of making this particular argument. Maybe I do need a beer???))

      Perhaps you should drink another beer. When you catch me in a lie, feel free to point it out. 😉

      You may find you’ll need more than one as you read this to your dismay: http://tinyurl.com/m52pwrv

      • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

        I laugh as I note I read these “dont panic” articles with one eye closed. “Everything you know …. is wrong.”

        There sure are “a lot” of them though. Every single point that the IPCC makes is contradicted by someone, somewhere. Almost makes you wonder what being part of a qualified panel of reputable scientists is “worth?” ……… and amusingly, if 50 years from now the IPCC is proven wrong, and the warming we see today is not as bad, reverses, or whatever THEN my holographic response will be: “so what is the best science available now telling us.”

        Nothing changes.

        • Guyver says:

          if 50 years from now the IPCC is proven wrong, and the warming we see today is not as bad, reverses, or whatever THEN my holographic response will be: “so what is the best science available now telling us.”

          Keep that thought, but let’s change the work load? I’ll start panicking when Science proves the IPCC right. 😉

          • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

            by then it will be too late. Thats the whole point.

            I can see I’m too harsh in my judgment of you. You aren’t lying here ((you might be but its not obvious)), you more likely are just behing dishonest ((more likely but again not overly obvious)), but what really comes across is how stupid you are.

            Lying, dishonest, stupid. YES–when you aren’t being one of these, I’ll let you know.

          • Guyver says:

            by then it will be too late. Thats the whole point.

            So you say. And how do you KNOW this to be true?

            Lying, dishonest, stupid. YES–when you aren’t being one of these, I’ll let you know.

            Skepticism == Lying, dishonest, stupid?!?!?! 😀

            Fascinating. You sound frustrated that your best logical fallacies have not yet been convincing enough.

            😛

      • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

        Perhaps you should drink another beer. When you catch me in a lie, feel free to point it out. 😉 /// Keep that thought, but lets change the work load? I’ll let you know when I think you are telling the truth.

  2. bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

    Tim says:
    7/25/2013 at 5:34 pm

    Oh yea, I see how much you paid attention there. You said of the man “This guy is a shill for Big Nuke.” even as he points out that nuclear power would like the doomsday co2 policy to be legislated because they are non-emission. /// He says that on the way to saying Nuke is the safest and cheapest energy source available. I hope such a silly position does not need to be argued against? Its a flat contradiction of the truth like saying that co2 is non-toxic.

    In the second link, he goes on to show that if 1000 nuclear plants were built to supplant carbon-based plants that the 50 year net effect {according to the exaggerated forcing of current models} would still be just above the noise floor with the most sensitive insruments available now. /// I don’t know what that means. I can make it mean something, look for the second link…perhaps when the issue is more on point, or more interesting in its own right? Big Nuke is just a continuation of government supported highly centralized Corporate Control of energy. Forget that the waste is Highly Poisonous, can’t be sequestered and has a half life of 250K years.

    bobbo, I don’t think you realize that it is the big oil, big energy, big insurance that have colluded to give you your belief on this matter, do you? //// How so? I post repeatedly we need to get off carbon and go Green.

    Everyone wants to get more $$ for less product — just look how effective the drug war has been for the CIA. /// Good to close on agreement.

    • Tim says:

      You’ll get no argument for ‘current’ nuclear power from me. But nuclear power does not have to be so toxic like The Hexxus from Fern Gully. It’s just that it is because all illegitimate {as if there were any other type} governments built them to make nuclear weapons.

  3. bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

    GGHAACCKKKK!!! Even I fall prey to the evil BS the FERP’s pump into the atmosphere more than co2:

    Keep that thought, but let’s change the work load? I’ll start panicking when Science proves the IPCC right. 😉
    Reply

    bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:
    7/26/2013 at 1:13 pm

    by then it will be too late. Thats the whole point.

    I can see I’m too harsh in my judgment of you. You aren’t lying here ((you might be but its not obvious)), you more likely are just behing dishonest ((more likely but again not overly obvious)), but what really comes across is how stupid you are.

    Lying, dishonest, stupid. YES–when you aren’t being one of these, I’ll let you know.

    ///////////////////////////

    As I’ve said 50 times–Science will never “prove” AGW. It can’t. But our language/brain is bent that way.

    Even when Miami and New Orleans are 50% inundated by sea water, the Greenland Ice Sheet is Gone, the North Atlantic Conveyor Belt shuts down, England is covered in Snow in June, and McGuyver has moved to Denver===>THAT will still not prove the concept of AGW.

    Like looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction—it instructive to pay attention to what words a moron uses to advance their position. Calling for proof often reveals wanting no change at all. Who does that?

    • Tim says:

      O.K. bobbo. You have convinced me. Now we need a solution. It has been shown that stopping co2 yesterday won’t change the (as per models) trends for the next couple hundred years. Let us innovate. I’ve got it. We’ll pump the atmosphere full of aluminum, barium, and strontium to reflect some sunlight and then contract Monsanto to engineer some plants that don’t die of aluminum toxicity — we’ll also make some schools that can handle autistic-like kids and the rest of the workforce that began dementia in their mid-twenties.

      No, wait…

      • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

        ….or something less impactful NOW because we started correcting the inputs earlier. But it will be one or the other. ie==better or worse/more impactful or less impactful.

        Right now, by doing nothing/making the trend even worse==we are forcing the worst outcomes.

        Smart people don’t do that.

        • Guyver says:

          Right now, by doing nothing/making the trend even worse==we are forcing the worst outcomes.

          So you say.

          Smart people don’t do that.

          They don’t make hasty conclusions or other logical fallacies either.

    • Tim says:

      bobbo, did co2 from man do this?

      http://livescience.com/37977-underwater-cypress-forest-discovered.html

      Because I feel really bad about reincarnation if we did. Although, I would hate never to have gone 100 miles north of the bitches (beaches) and pick 70 million year old shark’s teeth out of sandstone north of Montgomery.

      • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

        The sea level being lower 50K years ago? No–I don’t think co2 is the relevant variable here/then.

        It is NOW though.

        Thats the point.

        Whole lot of stinkin thinkin going on here: “Gee, the wifey isn’t home right now…. she must be off having an affair with some other man.” /// aka–only one explanation for anything. Looks rather stupid in other contexts.

      • Guyver says:

        I would hate never to have gone 100 miles north of the bitches (beaches) and pick 70 million year old shark’s teeth out of sandstone north of Montgomery.

        We had prehistoric land sharks 100 miles north of the beaches 70 million years ago?!?!?!!?

        http://telly.com/GVSNS

    • MikeN says:

      New Orleans is already inundated by sea water you fool. Did you miss Hurricane Katrina?

  4. MikeN says:

    IPCC scientists have admitted pushing for more alarmist levels of reports because they want to push a political agenda.

    • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

      Everybody does.

      Whats your point?

    • MikeN says:

      Pretty obvious. That the IPCC reports cannot be trusted as they are political reports. We see it when they instead of using peer-reviewed science use reports issued by WWF and Greenpeace.

      • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

        Pretty Obvious the point made is that ALL info sources are biased according to one dope or another. To call a report biased is simply to reveal one’s own bias.

        Until/unless a VERY SPECIFIC allegation is made.
        “Oh look—they want funding.” doesn’t cut it.

        • Guyver says:

          To call a report biased is simply to reveal one’s own bias.

          Until/unless a VERY SPECIFIC allegation is made.
          “Oh look—they want funding.” doesn’t cut it.

          Hypocrite.

          You do that all the time when you do a genetic fallacy by citing someone is on the payroll of big oil or some other bias.

          You frequently disqualify an expert on the merits of bias alone.

        • MikeN says:

          This is a person involved in writing the reports admitting that he is biased in favor of alarmism to push an agenda. Admitted it to James Annan figuring he was one of ‘the team.’

  5. MikeN says:

    Correlation is not causation, but a lack of correlation is no causation.

    How come all this CO2 has been emitted in this century, and temperatures haven’t moved? Several years ago, when this trend was less than a decade, the scientists assured us it was just natural variation and it would take 17 years or more of no trend to falsify the models. Well, now we are at 16 years and counting.

    • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

      I don’t know what gross generality you are combining with what other gross generality and lies to make such a statement.

      I thought they found all the missing heat in the ocean below 2 miles deep or some such thing.

      All depends on “exactly” what you are talking about. 99% of such issues are misunderstandings of the data because NONE OF US are qualified to interpret the reports on our own and the filters that get us the news we think we understand are either agenda driven themselves or otherwise corrupt and lying.

      So—what EXACTLY are you referring to and have you read only the Headline or did you evaluate the entire body of the report to assess the “on the other hand” remarks?

      AND AS ALWAYS—-whats your theory as to how all that green house gas can be pumped into the atmosphere but MAGICALLY===>NOTHING HAPPENS?

      Silly Hoomans.

      • Guyver says:

        99% of such issues are misunderstandings of the data because NONE OF US are qualified to interpret the reports on our own and the filters that get us the news we think we understand are either agenda driven themselves or otherwise corrupt and lying.

        And yet you promote alarmism in spite of all that.

      • MikeN says:

        When you write ‘I thought’, you are usually wrong. They didn’t find any missing heat. The heat is missing from their models, so they guessed it must be there because there models say there is heat missing.

  6. MikeN says:

    > that is why I enjoy the subject of AGW: NONE OF US know anything about the subject

    Speak for yourself, Hillary!

  7. bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

    Guyver says:
    7/27/2013 at 7:29 am

    To call a report biased is simply to reveal one’s own bias.

    Until/unless a VERY SPECIFIC allegation is made.
    “Oh look—they want funding.” doesn’t cut it.

    Hypocrite.

    You do that all the time when you do a genetic fallacy by citing someone is on the payroll of big oil or some other bias.

    You frequently disqualify an expert on the merits of bias alone. /// Someone issuing a report that favors Big Oil and they are paid by Big Oil===bias. Someone seeking funding to do research===not bias until you show something more specific.

    Big Oil has a specific desired outcome—lets burn more oil.
    IPCC—has no such position but rather are an unbiased source of scientific information. YOU don’t like the info they publish, so you say they have bias. Yes….its tricky. Enough wiggle room for stupidity to pose as balance.

    • Guyver says:

      Someone issuing a report that favors Big Oil and they are paid by Big Oil===bias.

      Maybe, maybe not.

      Depends on the truthfulness of the findings. Just means you need to evaluate things with a bigger grain of salt.

      IPCC—has no such position but rather are an unbiased source of scientific information.

      BS. It’s got a bias and position by design. But that doesn’t mean they’re not capable of seeking the truth. I have to evaluate how they reach their findings and what their conclusions are.

      YOU don’t like the info they publish, so you say they have bias. Yes….its tricky. Enough wiggle room for stupidity to pose as balance.

      I don’t care either way. We all have bias in one way shape or form.

      I’m more interested in how conclusions are reached and whether they’re well grounded. You don’t like my questioning of authority / methodology so you call me a denier. Your “best evidence” for cause is correlation. Doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.

  8. bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

    MikeN says:
    7/27/2013 at 9:03 am

    When you write ‘I thought’, you are usually wrong. They didn’t find any missing heat. The heat is missing from their models, so they guessed it must be there because there models say there is heat missing. /// Very garbled. So much so I have to guess at what you mean. “The Model” predicted the air temp and ocean temp would be X. They measure the prediction and find together they are something less than X. Where is the missing heat the model predicted? So–they look for other places==places not previously measured–the DEEP Ocean where they assumed heat would not be transfered and they found they were wrong. Captured heat easily goes from Atmosphere to Sea Surface to Middle Ocean —AND—to deeper ocean levels which was not thought and not measured and so not included in the model. Now it is.

    That is the “missing heat” issue I am aware of. If there are others, you’ll have to describe/link to them.

  9. bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

    MikeN says:
    7/26/2013 at 9:20 pm

    IPCC scientists have admitted pushing for more alarmist levels of reports because they want to push a political agenda. //// I’m already smiling. Got a link?

  10. bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

    I have to admit that the Medieval/Roman warming period “sounds like” good evidence the current warming may be all to natural causes. My memory was that the phenomenon was more due to the locality of weather than the world average temperatures, but I didn’t want to speak to fast. So…. I finally got around to looking it up.

    Yep–its a BS argument the Science Deniers tell only a half truth about. You know what the other half is…. right? Like saying that Bangladesh is having a net gain in land surface. How come EVERYTHING the right puts out is a lie?

    Ha, ha.

    http://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

    • MikeN says:

      Well the paper they refer to is based on citing a paper that was withdrawn, because the skeptics pointed out its flaws.

      http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/19/pages2k-gergis-and-made-for-ipcc-journal-articles/

    • MikeN says:

      Incidentally, if the argument made is correct, then it still means that global warming is not a problem. I have heard Michael Mann asked about this, where he said basically that Medieval Warm Period was local because there was a counteracting force in the tropics. ‘Wouldn’t that mean that climate models vastly overstate warming?’ “I agree with that. There’s a reputation out there that I am some sort of climate alarmist, but I think there is a missing negative feedback.”

      Somehow he never includes that detail when he is attacking big oil funded skeptics on his Twitter feed.

      So take your pick, medieval warm period was limited in scope, means that there is a long term natural process that is tamping warming, Mann suggested the Pacific Thermostat Hypothesis, which would act as a negative feedback on CO2 caused global warming as well.

      Or you can go with the hockey sticks are wrong, and the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warm, so maybe natural causes account for more than currently being modeled, and the damage from warming is not that great.

    • Tim says:

      That link to “a major paper” there is a (currently discredited) Mann (currently discredited scientifically but he may win a defamation suit against a journalist that made allusions to him as molesting science like Sandusky porked the kiddos) apologist piece of tripe. http://skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confirms-hockey-stick.html

      Realclimate is dead to me ever since they refused to correct their critique upon Micheal Criton’s fictional work State of Fear in which they completely confused to the point of reversing the roles of antagonist/protagonist.

      Perhaps, you might want to direct me to some Popular Mechanics articles to refute controlled demolishion?

    • MikeN says:

      http://climateaudit.org/2013/05/09/pages2k-online-journal-club/

      According to Nature, the whole field is not yet mature enough to review.

      • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

        Maybe but your link is to a blog not to Nature and the statement is made by a comment to that blog. Two steps away from what you claim.

        Why so misleading?

        • MikeN says:

          I’m not sure if this is conFusion or something else. You know, sometimes blogs have these things called hyperlinks.

          • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

            Why Mike…… its like….. thats not the issue.

            Keep it up, and I’ll have to put you down as a McGuyver.

          • Guyver says:

            Keep it up, and I’ll have to put you down as a McGuyver.

            You’re smoking some good stuff.

  11. MikeN says:

    I don’t think this is a good move for ESPN.
    Nate Silver was good at Baseball Prospectus, and good at The New York Times, but I wonder if he moved on because he was bored. He wants to do something new, but what is he going to do at ESPN that’s new?

    • Tim says:

      Well, he could be the first ESPN weatherman giving semi-accurate numerical-based predictions so that those who really give a shit can bet on teams based on slippery, muddy, or not performance.

  12. MikeN says:

    Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.

    Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported “this is what we think, because we asked our pals”. It’s essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “la la la I can’t hear you”.

    But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html

    • MikeN says:

      And this from a guy who lost a bet to a climate skeptic about whether there would be a new temperature record in the next(last) 5 years.

    • Tim says:

      I guess that would be Richard Lindzen. Here is a lecture in which he lays out the politicization right up front. All IPCC bowing bobbo’s out there should take note of that organization’s first head, Bert Bolin.

      “”From the 1970’s, there was a general feeling that ‘climate change’ would be an excellent vehicle for a variety of agendas. People openly espousing this included Bert Bolin, who was an adviser to the Swedish prime minister, and later the first head of the IPCC…

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw

      • MikeN says:

        Nah, not Lindzen. James Annan has a blog post where he calls out Lindzen for not putting up the money after saying he would be willing to bet on lower temperatures. Seems Lindzen started asking for 50-1 odds.

  13. MikeN says:

    Fight brewing with journalist David Appell trying to defend Michael Mann. Mann has been lying, including to Penn State’s inquiry and in his book, claiming that Steve McIntyre asked for a spreadsheet.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/26/guy-callendar-vs-the-gcms/

  14. bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

    Forget the “personalities” and look at the science.

    What would pumping co2 into the atmosphere most common sensically do?

    If you want to argue “NOT” raise the temperature, then you need to do more than chip at the IPCC report==>you need to propose your own alternate theory and mechanisms with its own model and predictions.

    …………………Go!

    • MikeN says:

      No you don’t need to propose an alternate theory. It is the climate scientists who have proposed a theory, and this theory is found wanting. The null hypothesis is natural variation.

      Your question has been answered many times, and the video I posted explains it well. CO2 warms the atmosphere, but not as much as the IPCC claims, and thus no serious damage. CO2 by itself would only warm the planet a little. If there is negative feedback, which is pretty typical for nature, then you have even less warming. It appears the latest IPCC report may indeed be walking back their previous claims of high warming, in response to newer papers. James Annan in particular made some comments to IPCC about how there estimates do not reflect the latest literature.

      • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

        Mike==that is an excellent response. Right on the mark. Thank you. ((Damn!!–I can’t use that challenge anymore!==course, I will follow what the IPCC actually does predict in its next report. So far, what I recall is all the “leaks” have been that the warming is even worse than predicted? eg–increased melt water from Greenland etc?? A chaotic data field can be viewed or cherrypicked without a bias even recognized?))

        Have you followed the issue of Ocean Acidification close enough to opine on whether or not that is an issue that requires a change in World Energy Policy? Of course, I think its an issue second only to the warming issue, but maybe I have it reversed?

        • MikeN says:

          That is another scare tactic that they are using to sell the agenda. First the correct term would be ocean neutralization as the ocean is basic with a pH over 8. Even if it goes to acid level, that is still just a small change in ion concentrations; most of the food you eat is acidic. The primary scare tactic is with people dumping acid in water or ocean and showing bad effects like coral disintegrating. Except CO2 is not an acid. It would create more carbonic acid, but that is not the same thing as dumping acid in the ocean. Indeed, corals build their structure from Calcium carbonate constantly while shedding, so it is not clear that there is a negative effect in the first place.
          Last I saw, pH has gone from 8.25 to 8.14 which could just be natural variation. Or it could be a trend which would eventually take things towards acid side of 7. pH levels change daily, monthly, yearly at different locations with a much larger range than has been shown in these measurements.

        • MikeN says:

          http://seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm

          Most interesting part has nothing to do with acidification and is the description of ‘slush’.

        • MikeN says:

          >I can’t use that challenge anymore!

          Never stopped you before.

          • bobbo, who thinks nothing is wrong with child porn===other than any encouragement to take the original pictures…. and even then, it depends says:

            Copy and paste any argument I have admitted is wrong that I have used again.

            You had a chance there Mickey…..then you shit it on.

            Same as always.

          • MikeN says:

            Not sure what you think you are wrong about. I’ve posted that numerous times, but for some reason this time you think you can no longer issue the challenge.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            My interpretations of your prior postings to that effect is that they were criticisms of the current model WITHOUT an alternative theory yourself “of where the co2 goes” and such.

            What I didn’t recognize until now is that an alternative theory can be simply the IPCC model with 99% of its components, and then you simply give a different value to a few of its key components.

            Not really a different theory–but close enough.

            I am just a casual reader of the literature–not an event attendee as yourself. My current impression is that the IPCC already thinks their co2 sensitivity measures are too conservative and are starting to get “alarmist” as the melts increase, storms increase, and no effort at all is being made to correct, stop, reverse this co2 loading into the atmosphere.

            I wonder what the IPCC and the consensus of qualified scientists would think of the proposition/theory/model that co2 is even less senstive? Would they buy that just a general unsupported guess that its some negative feedback mechanism cut the mustard?

            When they do, I will too.

          • MikeN says:

            So what is it you think you are wrong about?

          • MikeN says:

            Storms increase is really an IPCC lie. Roger Pielke pointed out this error in the last report and they never corrected it. Now the latest SREX report from the IPCC has reported differently, to the point where anyone claiming increases in things like hurricanes and other phenomenon is speaking contrary to the IPCC. This hasn’t stopped various scientists who see linking to extreme weather as necessary to push the public in their direction.

  15. MikeN says:

    >the warming is even worse than predicted? eg–increased melt water from Greenland etc??

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/25/oh-what-a-difference-a-year-makes-in-greenland-melting/

    • bobbo, who thinks nothing is wrong with child porn===other than any encouragement to take the original pictures…. and even then, it depends says:

      Surface melting/slush NOT the same thing at all.

      Just more Mickey shit.

      You negate the exepertise you do possess by lowering yourself to such stupid arguments. Qualified respectable experts not only make good arguments, they avoid bad ones as well.

      You choose who you are.

      • Tim says:

        My blood just ran cold. I never new about the thermohaline global conveyor. Slush is bad. Bad. Bad, bad. Slush indicates some melting and that could make the water less dense and that would make that current stop and then mixing {because everybody knows microscopic bioturbation could never ever drag water around with them} would not occur into the deep oceans carrying oxygen down so all the little ugly, glowy fish will die and then the bigger fish and the sea gulls next. It’s a total Soylent Green all because you (and people like you) just had to keep opening the refrigerator door to check on the delicate state of those beer slushies.

      • MikeN says:

        The slush I am talking about has nothing to do with Greenland ice melt. Read the ocean acidification link.

        • Tim says:

          I know that. That is why I was responding to the Greenland surface slush as per the link you provided!

          Speaking of biomass, if that did turn out to be some kind of ‘organism’ in ALH 84001 then I wonder what part of the earth’s crust could be such actual biomass?

          http://lpi.usra.edu/lpi/meteorites/life.html

  16. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    MikeN says:
    7/29/2013 at 10:16 am

    Storms increase is really an IPCC lie. /// Most usually the IPCC says one thing and the Mass Media/Shills reports that thing incorrectly.

    I “assume” the IPCC does say storm frequency and/or intensity will increase “over time.” Not next week, and the next big storm cannot be casually linked to AGW.

    Mike–do you agree that as water and atmosphere increase in heat that storms will be more frequent and/or higher intensity?

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      ……((I should always give it a minute or two))….. or would you affirmatively state that some negative feedback cancels that out?

    • Tim says:

      I would not expect them to increase over time from *global* warming. It is a difference in temps that drive the big extra tropical storms. Global warming would suggest an equal warming and since you’re so fond of stuff melting up north then liquid water is very much warmer than what frozen ground can get down to. Surely, nobody is suggesting that any extra heat is accumulating in the tropics only? Though this would tend to increase water vapor there if that heat were translating to higher ocean temperatures. But those models suggest that the heat should kind of come from top-down (which it seems not to be) and warmer air aloft tends to reduce deep convection. Negating effects such as wind shear {tends towards greater with greater global difference} then warmer waters *should* lead one to expect more hurricanes but, as I’ve pointed out before, this transferres latent heat to sensible heat and above the clouds so now the heat is above the *blanket* and can radiate back out into space.

      Without any deferment to current scientific absolutes, my *intuition* says a little warmer earth is a kinder, gentler, misty earth with less modulation in temperature with season, more even precipitation, and less deep convection that more extends rather than migrates land suitible for agriculture.

    • Tim says:

      But, just in case I’m wrong about the blessings of carbon then we’d better start applying solutions. Here is a good one. No pressure, it’s just a suggestion.

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=vM3J7jDqYDs

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        My knowledge of weather events doesn’t cover this issue. My guess would be that high temp differences affect only the speed of a front or mass passing over the ground–moving from high to low pressure areas with speed proportionate to the pressure difference. Pressure and temp relate to one another but its not simply direct.

        Warm oceans feed the strength of rotational weather formations and the total water vapor involved in non rotational formations.

        So–how would more warming affect ocean based rotational storms? I’d bet real money each degree of warming positively and proportionately affects (Hurricane) strength/wind speeds.

        I’m tempted to link to any website on weather and claim the answer is right there. All you have to do is find it==and don’t fail to use the links on those websites too.

        • Tim says:

          I’ll just try to adress the first part addressing frontal storms both tornadic (spring/fall) and winter monstrosities, for now. It is not so much that the ‘speed’ of a front is so important or changed. What a greater difference between the northern lattitudes and the sub tropics does is to change the discontinuity in height of a boundary due, in part, to differing density( yes thats related to mass as you correctly pointed out). This can drive a stronger jet stream — like ‘spilling’ over the edge but the coriolis deflection yeilds that ribbon of air at the interface. This upper-level feature then drives lifting at those boundaries though a kind of bernoulli effect — like turning the shower on and then the curtain is sucked toward it; like how a carbuerator works to ‘suck’ at the venturis.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossby_wave

          a warmer globe *should* tend to reduce this weather driver even if only due to less ice/less albedo at the poles.

    • MikeN says:

      Well, the IPCC has somewhat backed off of the claim, while others keep saying it. The lie was in the last report, which they refused to correct. They had the facts when they were writing the report too. By and large, weather has not gotten worse in any detectable way, except for damage costs because there are more things being built now. Whether it will get worse is a different story.

      In the same talk where he said climate models vastly overstate warming, Michael Mann argued for more drought in the Southwest, for the same reason, La Nina like conditions.

  17. MikeN says:

    As for sea level rise, I’ve already mentioned that there is no acceleration, the same rise with and without CO2. Another point is that sea level rose even while we had global cooling or no warming. 1885-1915 cooling, 1915-1945 warming, 1945-1975 cooling and 1975 to 2005 warming. Looks like we have CO2 putting a small increase on a cooling phase of a natural cycle.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/30/part-2-comments-on-the-ukmo-report-the-recent-pause-in-global-warming/

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Mickey—I’ve told you before: “You negate the exepertise you do possess by lowering yourself to such stupid arguments. Qualified respectable experts not only make good arguments, they avoid bad ones as well.” ////

      So–I’m going to give you my AGW Alarmist Liberal Nanny State Please Make Energy More Expensive Kneejerk Response, and then google a bit on what I say for as I have also said before—the issue of AGW is a good one because I don’t know anything about it, therefore it is a good issue for me to reflect on how I come to know a subject, take a position, and change my mind. You should try it some time.

      As for sea level rise, I’ve already mentioned that there is no acceleration, /// yes, and I responded using the wiki link you know that my own simple eyeballing showed there was current acceleration (the slope of the line from 10-15 years ago was steeper than other earlier segments of time). That is arguable if you want to find another chart, which you did not, or take a shorter more recent time, which you did not. AKA==you are just full of BS. But the capper is the statement/analysis I made that a steady rate increase was bad enough and still a cause to action. You did not respond to that either. Mikey===you are just full of BULL SHIT. Like too many right wing cranks, you are NOT CAPABLE of analysis, response, dare I say THINKING. Only capable of repeating talking points. You obviously have the skills/knowledge base to ENGAGE YOU INTELLECT. Why you so dumb?

      the same rise with and without CO2. /// Yea, but co2 IS INCREASING, so your comment is pure misleading rhetoric. The model does need to account for lack of acceleration I agree. Whether it does or not–I don’t know.

      Another point is that sea level rose even while we had global cooling or no warming. 1885-1915 cooling, 1915-1945 warming, 1945-1975 cooling and 1975 to 2005 warming. /// Each period should have an explanation—or be a mystery. I don’t know if it matches, but I recall one such explanation was that because of the weather “shifting” to the North, rain was falling in new areas and being absorbed by the Earth rather than making its way to the ocean. This phenomenon was not in the model and can only work on a temporary basis. Probably work only once or twice? I don’t know—it is complicated.

      Looks like we have CO2 putting a small increase on a cooling phase of a natural cycle. /// NO you dumbass shit for brains IDIOT. co2 is a green house gas. It increases heat retention. Any cooling phase comes from some other mechanism. A very bad DEFINITIONAL FAIL on your part. Not keeping your science before your DOGMA.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/30/part-2-comments-on-the-ukmo-report-the-recent-pause-in-global-warming/ =====I’ll be surprised if this is on point: does it discuss much more resolved the claimed leveling of ocean rise or acceleration or whatever Moose Turd Pie you offer up for the uniformed to munch on?

      Bad Mickey.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        From the link, near the start:

        ” As shown in Figure 1 and discussed in the first report in this series, sea level has continued to rise throughout the period of the recent pause.

        What they fail to acknowledge is that sea level is a terrible proxy for global temperatures. //// Ha, ha. All I have is my own High School science classes, post grad popular general reading, trying to bake croissants/cronuts as a hobby==and I know that water heats and cools very slowly compared to air. So==whether water/ocean is a good or bad proxy for global temperatures I think must be dependent on what you are after?

        On my own I came up with ocean level as an objective agreed upon measure that took into account of “all” the variables==plus you can see it for yourself. I am still of that opinion. I will start to skim the link now as they have made a stupid completely definitional point. They could have just as easily said that air temps are a poor proxy for global temps!!

        They are air heads!!!!

        Ha, ha.

  18. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    I’ve stopped reading the link. Too complicated for me and I don’t want to spend too much time on a subject I’m very satisfied to read summary reports on.

    Its not my thought, a friend posted this elsewhere as a comment, AND I haven’t read it anywhere but the problem with trying to dissenct a fact dense presentation is WE DON’T KNOW ENOUGH to be anything but bowled over by the filtered facts/charts presented. Thats why EXPERTS have to do it.

    Where was I?–oh yeah==my friend said that all these anomalous cooling events can be explained simply by noting that all the “natural cycles” would be cooling the earth right now. Its the co2 loading that is driving temps up over the natural cooling. That “sounds good” in a way==but makes no difference at all to most subjects.

    Ha, ha.—almost sorry I brought it up….but I’ll leave it here for those who might make more use of it than myself.

    Again===save me from the nitpicking cherry picked BS. I’ll take the summary report from qualified experts. Not blog sites run by one person.

    • MikeN says:

      That’s just what I said, natural cycles with CO2 adding warming to the current cooling phase, but you were undergoing conFusion again. The second point from the link is that while there was cooling, sea level was rising, therefore sea level is not a good proxy for global temperatures.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        ….and as I said just before you===just the opposite.

  19. MikeN says:

    >Most usually the IPCC says one thing and the Mass Media/Shills reports that thing incorrectly.

    So where do you fit in?

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Well, I’m not in Mass Media, and I’m not a shill…… but to be fair, no doubt I get a few things wrong from time to time. I have no goal. More an exercise in self reflection. I do hate BS though.

      I wish I needed to ask you the same question.

  20. China Cheap nfl Hats Wholesale For Sale


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 13846 access attempts in the last 7 days.