Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

Danny, “But I’d wager you’d be willing to work with them to try if asked, huh?”

Nope. Climate models need to know their limitations, the current generation don’t.

Since Gavin and the 50/50 +/-30 is a strawman for the believers, that compares GISS model E with GISS. If the models cannot capture the pre-1950 changes there is absolutely zero reason to believe they are replicating “furture” climate. To “answer” Judith, Gavin has to ignore pre-1950. That’s his model, it’s his job to fix it.


Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Barnes

0
0

The alarmists might have more credibility if they started from a position other than “the only possible explanation for warming/climate changes is human contribution to Co2″. The burdon of proof is those making that allegation, and so far, your “proof” is seriously lacking.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by JCH

0
0

Too busy. Has a lot on the late. Will get back to you on that.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by JCH

0
0

plate.

So in the meantime, smear smear, smear smear, oh what a joy it is.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by rls

0
0

I need to know. As a skeptic what is it that controls me? A herd, pack, or cabal? What will become of me as the years pass? What happens to old serfs? It appears that many of the denizens are also not young but unlike me, they are well read and nimble of mind. So to clarify, what will happen to an old, dull minded, serf?

Richard

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Brandon Shollenberger

0
0

JCH’s comment:

And yet, your side cannot write a paper that proves the WMP was warmer than today. Just one simple little paper.

Is a common sentiment that baffles me. Most people who’ve put any real effort into criticizing Michael Mann’s work agree him being wrong doesn’t tell us the MWP was warmer than modern times. Most will say we don’t know what past temperatures were well enough to effectively compare past and modern times.

The sentiment seems to be any answer is better than no answer, no matter how baseless the answer might be.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by climatereason

0
0

Richard

You by no means come across as old or dull minded but merely one who had had a life and had better things to do than get sucked too early into the fascinating but complex world of the ‘global warming/climate change’ nexus.

I would suggest you read more, follow links when presented in good faith by either ‘side’ and ask questions.

There are several standard books that would give you a wide background on climate, whether history or current matters.

I think quite a few were referenced in Judith’s ‘On my bookshelf’ feature a few weeks ago . If not, no doubt we could all suggest a number that would give you a well rounded view of the subject/.

Without having a well rounded view with information from the consensus and non consensus viewpoints it is difficult to objectively formulate your own viewpoint.

tonyb

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Danny Thomas

0
0

Richard, Please rest assured that you and I are part of a herd of our own. You (and therefore I) are not alone.

Tony B, Thanks for the book list reference. I’d not yet stumbled across that. Looking now!


Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by JCH

0
0

That’s not my sentiment. I agree with Mann in that it would be nice to contain the putative whatever.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Tonyb

0
0

Danny

It’s j’c’s book shelf’ you could usefully look at. The link is on the side bar.

A prime example of reading comments comes in the first ten or so posts when there was an interesting exchange between Kim, myself and others.

Further down there are links to courses, articles and other books, so the comments are as rewarding as the actual references to books that Judith provides.

Tonyb

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

Danny T
read Judith’s “50 – 50″ post on attribution and then read Schmidt’s response On Real Climate as Michael suggest
Good luck
Judith did not respond with hand waving snark ’cause there was barely anything coherent to respond to
Curry makes a simple clear point
Schmidt not
I’d be interested in your take

there is not much debate on Real Climate
because that side thinks doubters should be quiet
hence the free discussion you seek is hard to find

Also, we’ve seen a good exchange between Mosher and Pielke here over BEST
which makes me skeptical that temp data can be accurate to tenths of a degree
or that any such animal as average global surface temp can exist outside the ivory tower, at least with current observational tech

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Faustino

0
0

One herd doesn’t value human life much: BBC on geo-engineering and urban food production:

“Schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for billions of people, but might be required for the good of the planet, scientists say. That is the conclusion of a new set of studies into what’s become known as geo-engineering.”

Who determines “What is good for the planet”? Humans. Who decides that wigftp justifies damaging up to 4 billion people? Those same humans. Have the 4 billion been consulted? No.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30197085

“Urban agriculture is playing an increasingly important role in global food security, a study has suggested.

“Dr Drechsel said that when urban farming was compared with other (ie rural) farming systems, the results were surprising. For example, the total area of rice farming in South Asia was smaller than what was being cultivated in urban areas around the globe.

“Likewise, total maize production in sub-Saharan Africa was not as large as the area under cultivation in urban areas around the world.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30182326

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Danny Thomas

0
0

As always, your guidance and insight is so very much appreciated. My learning curve is much like a proverbial “hockey stick”! (or is that schtick?—for Kim!)

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by hunter

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Bob Ludwick

0
0

@ Joseph

“The people who review grant applications for funding,.

Can you give me an example of climate related research that wouldn’t get funding?

.. and who review papers for publication..

Can you give me an example of a worthy paper that didn’t get published?

,
.and who invite speakers to colloquia..
I am not sure not being invited to lecture publicly will impede someone’s career. How does that work?”

Can you actually READ that with a straight face, never mind actually WRITE it with a straight face?


Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Danny Thomas

0
0

Completely OT, but wanted to share my Mum was raised in Gorston-on-sea and I still have family in the area. Love it. Grandad was a fisherman. Trying to verify but heard that a family member was caught after WWI trying to salvage large (brass, I believe) propellers (North sea?) near there and got arrested. No luck tracking down evidence.

As Kim mentioned in one of her posts, I fully agree that Villefranche is well worth the visit. So much history, but we Americans are guilty of thinking the world is only as old as our country.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Danny Thomas

0
0

John,

I will look at Curry v. Schmidt again, but from my first read I pretty much gleaned only that the science is not settled.

I’ve not delved at all into the temp. data bases but Mosher makes a great point with Crested Butte not being one, but effectively 6 different stations. This combined with our practice of using airports (lots of reflective surfaces and ever expanding heat islands) to collect data leaves me less comfortable with using surface temps as valid resources.

I’m bothered by Henson’s 30 year “climatology” beginning around the same time the Clean Air Act became effective making me wonder how the removal of aerosols by a presumably good set of laws may have led to “much ado about nothing”.

Toss in Tonyb’s wonderful historic references, and I sleep quite well at night.

But I look forward to others providing sleep depriving resources.

So much to learn.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Rud Istvan

0
0

The ‘group grope’/ ‘herd’/ informational and reputational cascades leading to conformity are not new issues. HBR was writing about them in business contexts. The GM ignition switch fiasco, Barnes and Noble v. Amazon being a couple of recent examples. In the business world, there are supposedly two structural ‘corporate governance’ correctives (bothnpf which corporations often seek to avoid). One is independent boards of directors. Two is actvist/dissident shareholders.
All the HBR mechanisms (many of which mechanisms are provided by ‘strategy’ comsultants), and the structural governance mechanisms are all missing from the IPCC, from ‘pal’ review, and apparently climate science generally. Only way to explain AR5 ‘increased confidence’ despite the pause. In the corporate world, that statement would have caused an auditor to fail to certify the AR5 ‘books’.
But structural reform of climate science won’t happen easily because of government grant systems, with governments beholden to NGOs and associated campaign funding (Tom Steyer, Sierra Club, WWF, and Greenpeace being examples). It will take a ‘shareholder revolt’ as happened in Austrlia last year, and perhaps in the US this year.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Rob Ellison

0
0

The shifts are abrupt, sometimes extreme and involve ice and snow feedbacks. The big changes between glacials and interglacials in the past 2.58 million years seem to involve insolation at 65 degrees north setting the scene for feedbacks related to thermohaline circulation.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by mosomoso

0
0

“One of the largest, known as Lohafex, was an Indian-German experiment in 2009 which involved dumping six tonnes of an iron solution into the South Atlantic to encourage plankton to bloom – trapping carbon which would then be sent to the seabed when the organisms died. Results showed limited success.”

Around the same time as these potty people were adding six tonnes of iron solution in the wrong way, the Big Dust from central Australia in 2009 (result of good rain leading to silt which is blown west in certain spring conditions favoured by El Nino) deposited an incalculable tonnage of iron in the Pacific, all in the right way. Maybe if someone had called the dust a “climate mechanism” it would have got more attention, especially if there were the usual implied downers about erosion and over-grazing.

Of course, the potty people would not have noticed and would not have cared. They were too deeply engaged in being potty. By the time you’re into geoengineering, your space-cadetship is well and truly completed.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images