Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

February 8, 2015, 1:04 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by jim2

$

0

0

Tonyb,

“Obviously the worlds policeman has given up the role…”

Obama has given up, but the entire nation has not. That said, many in the US, perhaps most, are war weary after approximately a decade in Afghanistan and Iraq. We spent much blood and treasure. If Europe, China, India – all have been targets of Islamic terror – are “all in”, we can make some progress. It is a classic case of the “prisoner’s dilemma”.

I wonder what France has been doing lately. I think Spain caved in long ago. Where is India after Mumbai? Indonesia? Italy? Japan? I don’t think it is fair to expect that my two sons are going to go risk life, limb, and mind if the rest of the world is going to wring it’s hands.

---

Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

February 8, 2015, 1:06 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

$

0

0

Been there, done all that.

Comment on Week in review by jim2

February 8, 2015, 1:08 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

$

0

0

Comment on Week in review by jim2

February 8, 2015, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by jim2

$

0

0

Selective bombing will be a good start. Like the King of Jordan said – take out their family, friends, and the clerics who tell them to convert the world to Islam.

Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

February 8, 2015, 1:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by jim2

$

0

0

Yo, jimmy! Here is McIntyre’s take on the M&F response:

“I’ve done a quick read of the post at Climate Lab Book. I don’t get how their article is supposed to rebut Nic’s article. They do not appear to contest Nic’s equation linking F and N – an equation that I did not notice in the original article. Their only defence seems to be that the N series needs to be “corrected” but they do not face up to the statistical consequences of having T series on both sides.

Based on my re-reading of the two articles, Nic’s equation (6) seems to me to be the only logical exit and Nic’s comments on the implications of (6) the only conclusions that have a chance of meaning anything. (But this is based on cursory reading only.)”

You better get over to CA and tell him where he went wrong, jimmy dee.

Comment on Week in review by jim2

February 8, 2015, 1:14 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Tonyb

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

$

0

0

From the article:
…
Yesterday, Jim Clifton, the Chairman and CEO of Gallup, an iconic U.S. company dating back to 1935, told CNBC that he was worried he might “suddenly disappear” and not make it home that evening if he disputed the accuracy of what the U.S. government is reporting as unemployed Americans.

The CNBC interview came one day after Clifton had penned a gutsy opinion piece on Gallup’s web site, defiantly calling the government’s 5.6 percent unemployment figure “The Big Lie” in the article’s headline. His appearance on CNBC was apparently to walk back the “lie” part of the title and reframe the jobs data as just hopelessly deceptive.

Clifton stated the following on CNBC:

…

After getting that out of the way, Clifton went on to eviscerate the legitimacy of the cheerful spin given to the unemployment data, telling CNBC viewers that the percent of full time jobs in this country as a percent of the adult population “is the worst it’s been in 30 years.”
…

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/gallup-ceo-i-may-suddenly-disappear-for-telling-the-truth-about-obama-unemployment-rate-video/

Comment on Week in review by Tonyb

February 8, 2015, 1:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by rls

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by jim2

$

0

0

Don

You were talking about water vapour on the previous thread. Did you see this?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

Tonyb

Comment on Week in review by rls

February 8, 2015, 1:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Tonyb

$

0

0

Joshua

Saying “stuck in stupid” is not equivalent to “you are stupid”. If stuck, there is a way out. In many cases it only requires logic.

It appears that the 8% came from the Obama administration. It is propaganda, a misleading number trying to hide an abysmal economic record. There is no direct link between US GDP and electricity demand and there should be no surprise that electricity demand remains flat during mediocre economic growth.

Your link appears to be an activists organization merely doing what such organizations do. Touting its accomplishments at the expense of truth.

Keep warm,

Richard

---

Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

February 8, 2015, 1:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by rls

$

0

0

Rosanne Rosannadana!

Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

February 8, 2015, 1:19 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by HAS

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

$

0

0

Danny Thomas, thank you for the link to the rebuttal by Marotzke and Forster. It looks to me as though it restates rather than rebuts the claim by Nic Lewis that dF is computed from dT.

To me, the main point of M&F is that the 15yr 62 yr trends have been shown to be never reliable.

I am still puzzled about whether deltaT in M&F’s regression refers to difference in temperature or difference in linear trend.

Comment on Week in review by HAS

February 8, 2015, 1:22 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

$

0

0

Getting up just now I too saw the response at Climate Lab Book.

What they seem to be saying is what they really did was what Lewis suggested in his equation 6; fit ΔT = ΔN / κ + ε . This avoids the circularity but as Lewis notes “this equation only deals with the element of forcing that is associated with ocean etc. heat uptake, not with the (larger) element associated with increasing GMST, and it does not include α”.

It isn’t however what they described in their paper, nor what Jim you seemed to be going on about.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

February 8, 2015, 1:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by HAS

$

0

0

Don, that is what you get with amateurs. They don’t know the meaning of dF, or what the term “forcing” means in the climate context.

Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

February 8, 2015, 1:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$

0

0

Jim D: He missed that dT and dN contain canceling high-frequency components because dF, by definition, is only low-frequency forcing determined from the slow part of the temperature change over longer periods.

Nevertheless, as dF is computed from dT, the ultimate regression model is circular, as claimed by Nic Lewis. It’s the formula for computation of dF that is used, not the verbal “definition” of dF.

Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

February 8, 2015, 1:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

$

0

0

I hope that this repost gets into the correct thread:

Danny Thomas, thank you for the link to the rebuttal by Marotzke and Forster. It looks to me as though it restates rather than rebuts the claim by Nic Lewis that dF is computed from dT.

To me, the main point of M&F is that the 15yr 62 yr trends have been shown to be never reliable.

I am still puzzled about whether deltaT in M&F’s regression refers to difference in temperature or difference in linear trend.

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

February 8, 2015, 1:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

$

0

0

==> ” There is no direct link between US GDP and electricity demand

Your completely confident argument is interesting, given the economic arguments I often see from “skeptics” about how ACO2 mitigation will reduce GDP growth and cause children to starve in Africa.

So help me to reconcile your argument with the ones I see so often here at Climate Etc…

So does the lack of direct link that you assert in the US apply to all countries? If not, what are the inclusion/exclusion criteria that you use as the basis for determining where there is/isn’t a direct link between GDP growth and electricity demand?

---

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

February 8, 2015, 1:29 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Joshua

$

0

0

HAS, it was as I said, because the high-frequency parts are contained within dT and dN and these cancel by design to leave dF without the high-frequency part of dT. Nearly at the beginning I said that dN decorrelates dF with dT. This was the point. dF and dT are not correlated to the extent that Lewis thought. There is only a long-term correlation through the a constant.

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

February 8, 2015, 1:30 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Berényi Péter

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$

0

0

Yeah. Keeping warm’s going to be an issue. Looks like we’re about to be buried with another 1’+ of snow, and temps down to -9 on Friday (with a high in the single digits).

Too bad I’m not a “skeptic” – when I might be tempted to see an upside to this kind of weather.

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Berényi Péter

February 8, 2015, 1:30 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Joshua

$

0

0

Well, if you are so knowledgeable about climate issues, tell me something please.

1. How much is the average net entropy production flux of the terrestrial climate system (in W/m²K)?
2. According to computational climate models what is supposed to happen to the net entropy production, if atmospheric CO₂ concentration is increased?
a) increases
b) decreases
c) remains unchanged
3. How does the mathematical expression connecting CO₂ concentration to entropy production look like?

These are entry level questions about a heat engine radiatively coupled to its environment.

Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

February 8, 2015, 1:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Berényi Péter

$

0

0

Danny, “Because radiative forcing over the historical period cannot be directly diagnosed from the model simulations, it had to be reconstructed from the available top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance in Forster et al. (2013) by applying a correction term that involves the change in surface temperature.”

Since you don’t know dF you have to use T to estimate F.

That is the approximate F using Hadley products and Berkeley combined with NCDC products with the model mean F estimate based on the model mean T. You determine the approximate F using 5.67e-8x(T)^4 Since you don;t have a direct measure of either T or F since everything is approximated anyway, you have a large range of possible Fs and Ts to chose from but without independent physical measurements they are inter-related. that would be circular. Converting an estimate of F based on T at the surface to an estimate of F at the top of the atmosphere, doesn’t get you away from the original T that had to be measured or assumed to begin with.

That gives you a range of guestimates for T(surface) and base on that you get the range of estimates for F(surface). Now which one are you going to used to estimate TOA dF and call independent?

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

February 8, 2015, 1:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$

0

0

What matters for regressing is whether dT and dF are correlated. They are not. Forcing is defined as being independent of temperature. The dN term has the role of decorrelating dF with the natural variations in dT. You don’t see El Ninos in dF, but you do in dT and dN.