Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Joshua

‘A strong hypothesis should include speculation about what to expect would happen if it holds, as well as what to expect would not happen.”

Ya, A couple of examples. When we were testing the effectiveness of
stealth designs say x sq meters versus 1/10th x, we started the test with an expectation: smaller will be better. And to do it right you even had to have an estimate of how much better to plan the test. you wanted a test that had Power given the expected effect size.

With UHI for example I had read everything skeptics wrote. UHI in a city is 1C, 2C, 3C more! And so one expected that if you divided stations
in rural and urban you would see a difference.

So you try seperating by population. and you find no clear effect

hmm

so you change the defination of urban and use nightlights. you expect a difference. no difference.

so you change the definition of Impervious surface area. no difference

so you change the definition of urbaan built areas.. no difference

so you change it to a combination of many features… no difference.

To people on the outside, they just think try something different. ty this try that. and you want to know at what point will they give up their belief that there is a detectable difference.

If they have to do the work.. if they have to bet their belief.. my observation is they give up their beliefs earlier.

So, you give folks the tools encourage them to do the work themselves.
because formulating and testing your ideas and failing is a great teacher.


Comment on Week in review by gymnosperm

$
0
0

And YOUR funding, Mr. Appell? Drivel for the masses media enterprises. Evangelistic university press releases. Preach to the choir concertos.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$
0
0

PA, you noticed that image was just November, right? May tells the opposite story. The most common error associated with this widely publicized picture is to ignore or forget the 6 ppm annual variation from vegetation that peaks just around spring. Why do the skeptics never want to show May, you may ask?

Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Steven Mosher,

Whilst I appreciate that you have the right to waste your time in whatever fashion you choose, I am curious as to the point of trying to adjust historical records of weather events.

If all historical records of temperature, cloud type and cover, wind speed and direction, relative humidity and so on were to miraculously vanish, who would be the worse for it? As curiosities, some people have an interest in historical records of various types, just as people who collect minerals, or stamps, or empty beverage cans.

There does seem to be considerable heat generated about the methodology employed to perform a seemingly completely pointless task. As a hobby, it seems harmless enough, even better if you can convince somebody to pay you to indulge yourself.

Is there actually a point to any of this, is it just a shared semi obsessive pastime?

As Nature seems indifferent to any of the models, projections or predictions, maybe the time, effort and money, going into endless recasting of history, might be better employed to understand the workings of Nature.

I suppose if your obsession Is adding, dividing, averaging, interpolating, estimating, or creating millions of more or less random numbers, then trying to change to something else might be difficult. I understand if this is the case.

I just thought I’d pose the question, on the off chance others might share my view.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Jim D,

I might ask why the Wonderfully Wacky Whimsical Warmists GHE charts and graphs never show what happens at night, in the absence of sunlight.

Is it because the surface cools, regardless of CO2?

Or does the Woefully Wondering Warmist World bathe in the demiglow of a constant and never changing average amount of insolation? Where total internal reflection, the Fresnel effect, and all similar normal physics are discarded in favour of paranormal physics?

Even Gavin and his ilk are now apparently having second thoughts. They appear to be reaching the conclusion that Natural processes are subject to Natural variation. Obviously, there should be a law against it!

Sorry to laugh at it all, but it is a little ridiculous, isn’t it?

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Week in review by PA

$
0
0

JD – the point is the Northern Hemisphere isn’t 83% of the CO2 problem IE fossil fuel emissions may be a contributor to the CO2 rise but not the cause of the CO2 rise.

Comment on Week in review by Rhyzotika

$
0
0

Just did it, went a few pages deep. Most of it is about the ice-core lags — which I already know about. I’m still trying to understand how all consensus folk can admit the huge lag, but not see that as undermining the basic claim of CO2 drives warming.

There’s a few things about 20,000-10,000 period. Almost nothing about truly short-term stuff like yearly or decadal.

The one surprise was in CO2Science’s review article – apparently someone found the lag in re-glaciation as well!

Comment on Week in review by PMHinSC

$
0
0

Milke Flynn: I just thought I’d pose the question, on the off chance others might share my view.”
Sounds like a good view to me. No other field of science would accept the cavalier manipulation of data as is done in “Climate Science.” Particularly when those who are doing the manipulation concede that it doesn’t change the result.


Comment on Week in review by PA

$
0
0

Another objection is that “global temperature” combines land surface air temperature and sea surface temperature measures. Land surface land temperature measurement and sea surface temperature measurement make some sort of sense – since you are measuring global temperature. Land air and sea surface is a synthetic number.

It is like combining red delicious apples and tomatoes for a “red fruit index”. Yes, you get a number, Yes, you can regularly “improve” tracking precision (just like with historic data). No, it isn’t really meaningful.

Comment on Week in review by tonyb

$
0
0

Ulric

Agreed. Pay-walled papers make it difficult and expensive to find the full picture. If it is publicly funded research it is difficult to see why we should pay twice.

tonyb

Comment on Week in review by PMHinSC

$
0
0

There is a rule in politics that the more time you spend explaining an answer, the more likely the answer was wrong. So it is in Climate Science; the more time you spend explaining why you manipulated the data, the more likelihood that you shouldn’t have manipulated the data.

Comment on Week in review by parochial old windbag

$
0
0

Just listen to yourselves. Ego vs ego. Everyone bristling. Smarty-pants. He said, she said, why I oughta…..

Comment on Week in review by thisisnotgoodtogo

$
0
0

I hear Professor Curry is a terrific baker. And I love apple crumble.

Comment on Week in review by beththeserf

Comment on Week in review by beththeserf


Comment on Week in review by vukcevic

$
0
0

Proton storms induce ionospheric electric currents.
“As the magnetospheric ring current and the auroral electrojets and their return currents that are responsible for geomagnetic activity have generally North-South directed magnetic effects (strongest at night), the daytime variation of the Y or East component is a suitable proxy for the strength of the SR ionospheric current system..”
Y component measurements (using Gauss magnetometer) since 1840s are currently used to recalibrate the existing sunspot records (Svalgaard et al)
But what all this has to do with the CET ?
Proximity of the N. Atlantic and effect of its SST (the AMO).
Data shows direct correlation of the AMO to the geomagnetic Y (East) component

Comment on Week in review by vukcevic

$
0
0

Why 60N ?
N. Hemisphere’s climate is under control of the polar and sub-tropical jet-streams, whereby the long term zonal-merdional positioning of jet streams depends on the extent and strength of three primary cells (Pollar, Ferrel and Hadley).

.

Comment on Week in review by beththeserf

$
0
0

tonyb,
pay ‘n pay’n pay agen,
that’s how it goes,
everybody knows.

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Joseph

$
0
0

That’s for them to decide. Not you.

Well by all means make the case that they need to…

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Joseph

$
0
0

Beg to differ. Annan and Hargreaves among others have recommended the upper legitimate limit be trimmed to 4.0 C. the after midnight paper by Otto et al. for AR5 made a substantial shift in distribution of sensitivity estimates to the lower side and there have been follow up papers, Lewis and Curry for example that stress the lower estimate range. Pretty much every higher estimate you can find will be based on papers published prior to 2007, AR4.

You may refer to as “consensus science” but I am not sure how it differs from just plain science. There may be a consensus around certain ideas but applying a label to the research being done is just that, a label.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images