I want a 1-D printer that always gets the point.
Comment on Week in review by j ferguson
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by TJA
<i>Researcher can use practices like collecting data and checking significance until they get a positive result. This is called gambling in Los Vegas. It is not likely to yield a reproducible result.</i>
You mean like Dr Michael Mann?
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Jim D
Bottom line: M, S, L and B make two assumptions, both wrong. First, that the Ice Ages prove the climate can’t have much of a positive feedback, as if swings of 5-10 C are not proof of positive feedbacks in themselves. Second, that there is no heat in the pipeline, equivalent to the ocean having no heat capacity, also wrong. Their two parameters come out of these assumptions and make for a clown-car trip into a land of their own beliefs. Worse is that people who call themselves skeptics are falling for their arguments.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by angech2014
“But I understand that it can mean ” means it can mean anything.
So this means it means nothing, which means everything.
Can I join you on the loop of the rails . would either of us gain anything?
Not without transit anyway. Remember it might already have been on the negative rail hence no translation needed.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by angech2014
Why models run hot. Because they input parameters to give a heightened Climate Sensitivity.
Thank you Rudd,
Hopefully one or two people at a time will see the sense in these arguments.
↧
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Peter Davies
JimD, I can’t believe that we are reading the same paper. Please show where in the Monckton et al paper that these two assumptions were explicitly stated. I read through it several times looking for the two assumptions have been made.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Jonathan Abbott
I finished going through the paper a few days ago, and found two serious (and several minor) flaws in it.
The first is Figure 6, which I suspect the authors intended to be the ‘money shot’, which would convince laymen that the paper had somehow refuted dangerous anthropogenic global warming. It purports to show that the ‘irreducible model’ is a closer match to observations than anything the IPCC has published. To be frank, the figure is shockingly bad. The graph shows modelled decadal warming rates carried forward to 2050, compared to “the observed temperature trend of recent decades”. Two different decadal rates seem to have been selected (63 and 17 years), with no justification given for either. And, on what planet do we expect a linear extrapolation of recent temperatures to be necessarily indicative of future temperatures over the next 35 years? In any case, observed temperatures include the net effect of all climatic processes, not just the response to anthropogenic CO2, which is all that the authors have modelled. So how can the two possibly be directly comparable? Finally, even if it is true that the simple model closely matches observations, unless the net total of non-anthropogenic forcings is zero this can only be accidental.
Figure 6 is obviously beset with a number of fundamental problems and is exactly the sort of rubbish that sceptics get upset about when their opponents try it. Irrespective of other criticisms of the paper, it should never have been published with Figure 6 included in anything like its current form.
The other major problem is in the Discussion, where the authors make the claim that “The simple model confirms the hot running [of GCMs] and exposes several of the reasons for it.” In fact, the proposed model itself confirms nothing, as it is just a simple linear mathematical function. It is the value of net global feedbacks selected by the authors, which they then feed into the model, which creates the variance to the GCMs. I’m not sure exactly what the authors intended, but the conclusions of the paper seem to suggest that somehow it offers a mathematical rebuttal of the GCMs, not one based on parameter value selection. I think it would be easy to skim-read the paper and come away with completely the wrong impression. The paper should more accurately say ‘The simple model _can_ be used to confirm the hot running…’, but only if you agree with the authors’ selected feedback value. In this way, the paper more or less assumes its own conclusion.
I’ve posted up a full review here:
https://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/review-of-why-models-run-hot/
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Streetcred
LOL, Beth … that frozen corpse must had died from the heat!
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by mosomoso
A planet is, well…a planet.
A few centuries of penetration, observation, exploration and contemplation might produce models that are merely inadequate…as opposed to risible.
↧
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by fizzymagic
KevinK wrote:
<i>Funny thing about light, it bounces around all over the place at; well the “speed of light”, which is usually quite a bit quicker than heat can flow through actual materials (gases, water, soils, etc.).</i>
Sigh. This kind of thing is why skdragons bring discredit to honest skepticism.
Tel you what, Kevin: how long does it take your average photon emitted at the core of the sun to reach the Earth? Actually, it won't be the same photon, because of scattering, so let's just talk about the <i>energy</i> from the fusions at the center of the Sun. How long?
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Mike Flynn
Quote from the Monckton et al paper –
“Parameters of the simple model
The parameters of the simple model are now described.
4.1 The CO2 fraction qt
The principal direct anthropogenic radiative forcing is
CO2 .”
One need read no further.
A simpler model, verified by theory and observation –
– Global heat content increase as a result of CO2 in the atmosphere = 0.
This model is simple, accurate, uses normal physics, is extremely cheap, and can be operated without a supercomputer or a team of PhD researchers
It can predict floods, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, famine, extreme weather events, outbreaks of boils or Ebola, at least as well, if not better than current complicated GCMs.
It is interesting to note that models that didn’t predict that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would not result in temperature increases, is being compared to another more recent model which demonstrates that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere didn’t cause temperature increases.
Now of course, proponents of the various models will claim that the temperature has indeed risen, but the heat involved has gone to sleep, or natural variation has removed the heat somehow. Both models state that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm the globe, but the arguments appear to be about which model is more effective at demonstrating that adding CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t actually cause warming at all.
My proposed simple model says the same thing in one line. No need to argue any more, chaps. You can all toddle off and do something useful.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Mike Flynn
Fizzymagic,
Sigh. Sigh.
Tell me, if you would be so good – what is the speed of light if not the speed of light?
What other speed would it travel at? The speed of sound, perhaps?
Possibly you agree with Tyndall that heat is transmitted by indivisible atoms pushing their way through the ether. Maybe light, likewise, requires a luminiferous ether through which to travel, and it slows down or speeds up depending on whether it senses the presence of GHGs.
And no, light of different frequencies does not travel at different speeds, regardless of what you may have been taught. They all travel at, well, the speed of light, surprisingly!
I assume you jest. I hope so, anyway.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by PMHinSC
Mike Flynn | March 1, 2015 at 10:55 pm |
Rud,
I am not so much a skeptic, more an unbeliever.
As I write this there are 89 comments. I rarely read all of what are usually extraneous comments. This post is the exception as there is a lot of meat at this feast. I don’t claim to follow all of the technical details but am struck by the fact that this is an excellent academic conversation. What is missing, however, is data. The physics says this should happen; the physics says that should happen; and yes I believe the physics, at least as much of it as we know. Until there is real world climate data supporting the physics (and currently, despite claims to the contrary there isn’t), I agree with Mike Flynn’s comment “I am not so much a skeptic, more an unbeliever.” I appreciate and listen to Christopher Monckton and Rud Istvan writings and will continue to read and learn from them. But the bottom line is “show me the data.”
↧
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Steven Mosher
nice job Rud.
there’s more.
.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by jeez
Yes Mike, and a decrease in albedo (which is effectively what happens) causes an increase in temperature. CO2 is black paint for Infrared.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Steven Mosher
1. Not all models run hot
2. some models run hotter than others.
3. Diagnosing this is a MODEL by MODEL affair.
Models can run hot for the following reasons.
1. bad observations.
2. Chance
3. Inaccurate, incomplete forcings during the forecast period.
4. Innaccurate, incomplete physics.
#1 can be diagnosed by re evaluating temperature series. See Cowtan and way. They may still be missing excess warmth in the arctic
#2. Can never be eliminated, it can only be narrowed by collecting more data. waiting.
#3 can be address by re examining the inputs. For example, over looking
issues such as volcanic forcing
#4. once you address 1-3 , then you can start to investigate #4, although this work can be parallelized, dont mess with the hard stuff until you’ve eliminated the easy stuff.
which is it? what combination? theres an uncertainty monster for you.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
Unless the rank ideologues are stopped, they will persist until the nation is bankrupt.
↧
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by jeez
Or deep red paint if you wish. Earth and its atmosphere are a big ball. CO2 changes the color and therefore the amount of energy absorbed. It’s really not nearly as complicated as people make it out to be. The details are complicated, but not the big picture.
↧
Comment on Week in review by TomJorgensen
Dear Dr. Curry, I’ve been a lurker for over a year now, and in the past I’ve enjoyed watching the rigorous debates between skeptics and believers. But with the witch-hunt the debate has turned dark. I am particularly troubled by Joshua and David Appell. Joshua seems to the think the witch-hunt is just a “witch-hunt”, his only concern being “Republicans did it too!” Appell is silent, other than to grill you on your funding, which indicates to me he has no problem with the witch-hunt. This scares me, because I fear these guys would love nothing more than to use government power to silence debate and enforce their beliefs of “proper” funding and “proper” research. The use of government power to enforce a “consensus” is only one step away from outright violence. I hate to say it, but I’m wondering if it’s time for you to realize that you are trying to engage in constructive debate with tyrants. Perhaps it’s time to circle the wagons and cut these guys off (i.e., block them)? Am I missing something? No joke, I think these guys want to destroy you and have no problem using government to it. At the very least, I’d consult a lawyer…..
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Mike Flynn
jeez,
Of course you are correct. This exactly why an opaque sunshade is preferable to a transparent one. It is also how Tyndall explained elevated temperatures at high elevations. It is also why maximum temperatures on the Moon, given the same exposure time to direct sunlight, and with the same absorptivity, are far higher than anything achievable on Earth as a result of exposure to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun.
You are also correct in stating that when you step out from under your black or deep red umbrella, you will warm up. The moon has little atmosphere and is significantly lacking in your CO2 black paint for infrared.
You are correct in saying the big picture is not complicated. There isn’t any CO2 warming, and if it doesn’t exist, there’s not much point worrying about it, is there?
You can look for experimental verification of your theory, and I will deliver my most fulsome apology, if such can be found. You may well be the first in history, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
