<i>Bad Andrew | February 5, 2015 at 8:44 am | Reply
“things are never equal”
If things are never equal, then why do you tack a thing that never happens on to your speculation?</i>
Because idjits insist that the fundamental physical mechanisms of greenhouse warming is a speculation
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Rob Ellison
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Steven Mosher
Rud is wrong again.
And springer gets the assist on the own goal.
I suggest that rud actually download a gcm
I suggest he join the user group
I suggest he plow through code. I started in 2007.
I suggest he look at metadata requirements for
Cmip submission to find some things he thinks there is no record of.
I mean something very specific by tuning.
The systematic adjusting of uncertain parameters to force a match between model outputs and observations.
If someone has 32 knobs to turn and tweaks a couple
To match 20% of the observations… That’s not tuning. It’s not curve fitting. Calibration might be a better term. Or BFM
If someone has 32 knobs and they systematically turn them to force an agreement between the model and the entire time series of observation.. Then they have tuned or fit the curve.
You think they tuned?
The hindcast isn’t that good.
Very simple point
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by Reality check
One factor that rarely come up is that scientists often believe that their argument is so persuasive, so self-evident, so absolutely compelling that no one could possibly disagree. They see no reason to have to defend it—why would they? It’s obvious to them and it should be to you too. It is totally incomprehensible to these individuals that anyone anywhere could actually disagree with them. If this does happen, the person disagreeing is somehow defective, not the theory that the speaker is putting forth. It’s a very, very pervasive belief in global warming science.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by A. Voip
Eli, said the same thing.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Steven Mosher
I like springers guitar example.
To tune a guitar you twist a knob until the note produced matches a reference note.
Look at gcm output a single run.
Compare it to the reference.
See how frickin out of tune it is.
It would be like springer passing you a guitar that was off by half a note and then you accused him of tuning it.
Well he played with knob. Wouldn’t be the first time
↧
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Bad Andrew
Rob,
“idjits”
I see that you have once again devolved into speculating AND name calling. So much for science. Yay Warmers.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Steven Mosher
You didn’t listen closely.
Listen for the words
Inform policy
Uncertainty
In short the output is not being sold as something certain. It’s an uncertain piece of data.
Note also that other concerns also drive policy.
Finally climate models have zero to do with obamas pen and phone. He don’t need no climate model to
Out smart establishment rhino nitwits
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Danny Thomas
Don, & Steven Mosher
I read where it’s indicated models are not “validated” by reality. So can anyone help me to understand when they are “invalidated” by it? Is this a better question?
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by AK
<blockquote>But I have looked at pumped hydro and yes the problems I listed are known. The difference you are proposing is what??</blockquote>Well, pumped hydro won't “<i>drop sediment out</i>” if there's no sediment in the water being pumped <b>into</b> the upper reservoir. It would need to be covered, of course, but that would probably be needed anyway to control evaporation. The cost of floating material to cover it would probably be less than that to seal the bottom.<blockquote>Your belief for tomorrow, you have to support.</blockquote>Actually, I don't. My entire thesis is predicated on the <b>assumption</b> that it will. However, in the approach I outlined, phased roll-out would be timed based on continuing cost reductions. If they don't occur, then some fall-back plan would have to be implemented.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by David in TX
The blog owner, who happens to be a PhD climate scientist, former dept chair of Earth Sciences at a Georgia Tech, with published papers dealing with climate modeling disagrees with Steven Mosher who has zero professional credentials in any field of science.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/09/climate-model-tuning/
JC comment: This paper is indeed a very welcome addition to the climate modeling literature. The existence of this paper highlights the failure of climate modeling groups to adequately document their tuning/calibration and to adequately confront the issues of introducing subjective bias into the models through the tuning process.
Tuning/calibration is unavoidable in a complex nonlinear coupled modeling system. The key is to document the tuning, both the goals and actual calibration process, in the manner in which the German climate modeling group has done.
Stop pretending to be an expert Mosher. You’re not going to win this argument by redefining what is understood as model tuning by professional experts in the art. If your goal is to look like an uninformed argumentitive piker then mission accomplished.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by nickels
Nice find David in Tx. I forgot to search here first again, dang!
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by nickels
oops, wrong thread:
Nice find David in Tx. I forgot to search here first again, dang!
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by JustinWonder
Vuk
I was just wonderin, doesn’t volcanic ash, settled upon arctic ice, decrease the albedo of the arctic ice?
↧
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by JustinWonder
Great post, so much to digest.
And now, time for a little, very little, humor:
So volcanos might actually warm the climate? Do we have to turn the hokey stick upside down?
Sorry, that was low hanging fruit.
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Right, that one has peak forcing about 5 months after the event and peak response a month or so earlier.
The stratosphere has peak response about a year and a half after the event.
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by opluso
Very interesting post. Is it being submitted for publication elsewhere?
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by JustinWonder
Wag,
Wrong (I learned this from you know who). Humans are the main driver of climate, modifying the climate to suit our bathing. It’s gonna get hot HOT, I say, and the seas are gonna rise way up. Don’t believe me? Waterfront property is dirt cheap now and headed down. You can’t even give away a Malibu beach house. Poor Barbara S., she has a stranded sand asset. There should be government grants for people with soon to be drowned beach mansions. Oh, the humanity…
↧
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by vukcevic
Hi
1. Iceland is an island created by magma (high basalt content) pouring out between separating plates. Subduction areas volcanoes are result of sinking and melting of the crust, thus amount of magma expelled is dependent the amount of sinking material.
2. Solidified lava is easily dated; I suppose geologists use subsequent layers area and volume calculations. I often see quoted ‘x or y km3’ of lava for centuries or even millennia old eruptions. Vesuvius (of Pompeii infamy 79AD) is quoted as 9 km3 of pumice.
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by Greg Goodman
“Right, that one has peak forcing about 5 months after the event and peak response a month or so earlier. ”
Fig 4 does not even show the response. I’m more that willing to discuss any relevant criticism but please read and understand the article rather than posting from the hip.
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by vukcevic
Justin, thanks. it was a slip-up, but from the rest of the sentence it is clear what is meant. (blogging a lot today, mostly on WUWT).
it should be:
… ash is eventually deposited on the Arctic ice decreasing the albedo and speeding the surface ice and snow melt.
Albedo is a measure of the “whiteness” of a surface, black = 0, white = 1.
I need to read what I write..
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
