I guess we will have to take your word for it. When did you double-check your Geiger?
Comment on Towards mass marketed electric vehicles by Curious George
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by andywest2012
Thanks Paul, and you’re right on regarding Robert Phelan’s comment too, which somehow I managed to miss when it was made but I’ve now located at WUWT.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Jim D
The skeptical scientists need to raise their game. Their stuff has been very weak so far mostly relegated to blog postings. Monckton showed you can get stuff published even if it is not anything substantive. The skeptics have not done their own temperature record, they have not done their own paleo research, and they have not done their own projections, so there has been no debate. You need to get your scientists to first produce things and then the debate can start. If I was a skeptic, I would be very disappointed in the quality of skeptical science that we have seen so far. It just doesn’t challenge any of these areas, and looks like nibbling around the edges. Push your scientists. It is very poor so far. The Republicans in Congress are resorting to talking about Mars, CO2 overdose effects, and global wobbling while they wait for a real argument, and that is the barometer for where the skeptics are.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Steven Mosher
Jonathan the evidence I have to doubt your account is the lack of your ability to
A. Give the arguments
B. Cite specific sources where you learned it
My sense is that you never really understood the argument you rejected.
Prove you did
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan
The Paul Homewood central south america two step manufactured warming thing is getting interesting media traction. Graham Lloyd in Australia, Delingpole in the UK. Just discovered than another blogger essentially showed the same thing for the entire Artic last year, and has a cache of documented progressive changes to Iceland in 1900, making it ever colder then.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by TJA
Do you think the planning for rising seas will go as well as the light duty replacement for the Great Lakes ice breaker Mackinaw went?
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
‘Hardships for Nuclear Power in the US’ appears yo have the wrong link?
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Tuppence
There is a very good reason consensus climate science is prolific and skeptical less much less so.
Consensus science is given virtually all the tax money.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Quondam
Matthew,
Thank you for the time spent wading through my notes. I’ve perused several articles by Henk Dyjkstra and have tagged them for more thorough reading. I would translate the model you propose as a steady-state object receiving 240W @5600K and emitting 240W @200K. One might also add an additional nonthermal input from a slowly relaxing internal rotational degree of freedom as well as fluctuations from a host of internal modes. It’s a basic thermodynamic calculation to find the rates of entropy creation and free-energy dissipation given the two temperatures.
Dissipation implies that work is being performed at a constant rate, but what work? The system is definitely far from equilibrium. It’s internal configurational entropy must therefore be less than that of an isothermal or equilibrium configuration and work must be continually expended to prevent relaxation towards equilibrium. Some might call this stirring the pot – convection? Suppose structures appear such as thermal cells. Formation of structures will further reduce configurational entropy moving the system yet further from equilbrium and require yet more effort to counter relaxation unless the structures themselves facilitate stirring.
I haven’t a clue for reconciling time’s arrow with exact differentials, the essence of thermodynamics. It would be neat to show that nature always finds the quickest path, but that might require more than the 2nd law. A lot of effort has been already spent in unsuccessful searches for entropy extremal principles in nonlinear thermodynamics. I’ve offered arguments for dissipation extremals. How they bear up under closer scrutiny, twt, but the real point is that thermodynamics should be playing a much larger role in climate science. period.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Lucifer
“Wouldn’t you say that makes it worse than we thought?”
No you don’t.
You can say that it’s happening and at least the data is consistent.
But ‘worse than we thought’ is contradicted by evidence:
The water vapor effect hasn’t even kicked in properly yet. It’s a dry heat.
That’s probably wrong.
In the seasonal response, water vapor responds within a month.
Some, Dessler comes to mind, say that water vapor has responded.
The warming rate we observe probably DOES include whatever water vapor feedback will occur already.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “Paleo shows us that changes of hundreds of ppm are not a weak effect on global climate by any stretch of the word.”
If you don’t bother figuring out cause and effect you can paint any picture you like.
It has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions that changes in ocean circulation due to opening of the Drake Passage and the closing of Panama had huge impacts on both climate and atmospheric CO2. CO2 had no significant impact on the changes in the ~41ka to ~100ka glacial cycle rates. There is a crap load of climate change where CO2 is playing follow the leader. Ignore it all you like since you are definitely in the mainstream of climate science :) Climate politics is your niche JimD.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Jim D
As we saw with BEST, if there is anything with any hope for skeptics, the Kochs would be funding it. That didn’t turn out so well, but the money is there waiting for someone with an inkling of an idea. However, they find it is more effective just to pay Congressmen, who are not scientists as they keep telling us, to counter the science.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Tuppence
Jim D also doesn’t seem to quite grasp what a skeptic is.
It simply a person that questions or doubts something. It is not necessarily a person with a rival theory (although he may also have one). An auditor, lIke Climate Audit is. Broadly, climate science is found wanting by auditors (the Hockey stick fraud, the models out of whack and in need of fiddling/tuning, etc).
Staved of funding, being an auditor can be the only activity many skeptics can afford.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Tuppence
So the Kochs can rival what govenment spends on Climate and related science in all the universities and labs it funds put together? What are your numbers?
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Joseph
It’s only skeptics who are trying to paint their opponents as catastrophists when they are really severe negative consequencists.
Call me someone who accepts the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists. I don’t believe these scientists are trying to fool the world into doing something about global warming, trying to fake it grant for money, or are incompetent. So I think the mainstream view is a reflection of what is known about the science. I assume you don’t.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Ruth T
Jim keeps referring to what government climate scientivists do as “science”, whereas even he knows it is just pseudoscience in the pay and service of politics.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan
The Willie Soon thing is very ugly. Briggs has returned heavy factual fire, showing Laden to be a Liar. Reposted on WUWT for more exposure.
Laden may or may not be bright enough to realize how much impact the new Briggs, Soon, Monckton paper might have.
I think the paper would have been much stronger if there had been less zeal to discredit the Bode feedback equation and to calculate negative net feedback from grey earth SB ~1.2
(1) the 1/(1-f) net feedback equation is stable and valid to the inflection at about 0.75, as shown in the paper’s figure 5. Not 0.1. Even the IPCC’s overstated WV and cloud feedbacks are only f~0.65. Lindzen uses the Bode model in Lindzen and Choi 2011. It is not ‘bolted onto’ GCMs, whose ECS are determined from the century runs as described in the CMIP5 experimental design paper by Taylor, Meehl et. al. 2012 in BAMS.
(2) Reestimate equation transience r from the typical IPCC TCR/ECS ratio gives 0.76, not 0.82. Reestimate Bode f 0.25 by halving WV from 0.5 to 0.25 (for which there is empirical evidence in the fallacious constant UtrH (guest post from early 2012), missing tropical troposphere hotspot, and the CMIP5 underestimation of precipitation by half), and cutting cloud feedback from 0.15 to 0 (for which again there is much empirical evidence, laid out in essay Cloudy Clouds). Bode f~0.25 gives equation feedback sum ft ~ 1.5. Plugging those quick reestimates into the paper’s irreducibly simple sensitivity equation, using the other parameters derived in the paper (lamda~0.31, k=5.35, q~0.83 gives an ECS ~1.75. That is remarkably close to Lewis and Curry 2014, Loehle 2014, even Callendar 1938. In other words, it foots. That is powerful.
Even if a ‘lukewarm’ conclusion, is still near half of the IPCC alarm estimate, is at the low end of their plausible range, and suggests no need for drastic immediate action using IPCC’s own criteria.
Essentially, the new paper is a simple way to show the sensitivity impact of GSM overestimate of humidity and cloud feedbacks, and places the AR5 discussions of those uncertainties into sharp relief. Maybe that is why the Laden smear. Or maybe he is just a nasty piece of business.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by steven
You don’t need to fund your own science to be a skeptic. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptcal showing up in the literature all the time. You just have to read it.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Jim D
Do you ever wonder why the auditors don’t do their own independent paleo reconstructions more often? Are they afraid of criticism? Again, they just nibble around the edges of the large numbers of publications in this area and bring attention to a small percentage of those papers leaving the rest unscathed. The blogosphere gives a very misleading impression of the effect of auditing in the field as a whole.
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Ruth T
How can you say question some or other measurement if you can’t afford to measure it yourself?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
