Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by rls

0
0

JCH

The Rosenthal abstract says “We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.”

And here is an excert: “The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.”

Regards,

Richard


Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by rls

0
0

Captain

Thank you for enlightening me on this beautiful sunny, snow covered Michigan Monday.

Richard

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Danny Thomas

0
0

Jim2,
You’ve stated much more eloquently than I could. I’ve asked this question elsewhere w/o satisfactory response. (Hope not off topic). We have an understanding of the energy entering, but do we have a true measurement of that which is leaving? Plus, that which does not enter as a result of man’s changes (ACO2, et al and do they function only one way?).It seems this would be important to understanding. And is this modeled?

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Jan P Perlwitz

0
0

Do they “run hot”? What is the evidence for your claim?

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Greg Goodman

0
0

There is a curious temporal coincidence of major volcanoes and marked drops in solar activity. Whether there is any causal link between them is a whole other story. However, this does mean that there is a strong chance of mis-attribution. There is probably different sensitivities and hence different time constants for each as well, making identifying the correct proportion of the effects of each even more perilous.

The last two events were not the biggest on record, but both happened very close to solar max. Thus the cooling expected from the volcanoes will happen at about the same time as the drop in solar activity.

I recently discussed on this site evidence that volcanic forcing is being underestimated and hence sensitivity to it being exaggerated:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/06/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/

This would imply that the early 20th. c. warming that the models roundly fail to produce was due to changes in solar forcing. It would also mean that since 1960 the general downward trend may be masking part of AGW.

Now how will Monckton et al’s irreducible, which epitomises the AGW+”internal variation” paradigm, react to that situation?

Its single explanatory variable will also miss early 20th c. warming and model the *masked* AGW.

Apart from apparently shaking up some rigid beliefs amongst alarmsists ( which is surely useful ), I don’t think it helps much on attribution.

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Michael

0
0

Jan,

Objective evidence is for wimps.

This is blog-science.

Opinion is evidence.

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by HAS

0
0

Jan P Perlwitz
“Do they ‘run hot’? What is the evidence for your claim?”

This is lazy. You could be suggesting a whole lot of things.

Perhaps you think the models are not running hot relative to how hot they could be running, or perhaps you think the runs are not realistic because the inputs or the environmental assumption aren’t valid, or perhaps you think it will all come out in the wash, or perhaps you think the global mean surface temperature isn’t the appropriate measure of a hot model, or perhaps you think the models were never meant to be any good until 50 years have passed …..

The conversation isn’t going anywhere if you start off like this.

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Jan P Perlwitz

0
0
Arthur Smith examined the paper: <a href="http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_monckton_equation" rel="nofollow">http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_monckton_equation</a> I myself wrote some comments on it (in addition to <a href="http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com/2015/01/monckton-soon-legates-and-briggs.html" rel="nofollow">my blog post</a>): <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ny6UAs5I9_PBKoIle7tptLXjeAuQYTaznhxXvTrZLJU/edit" rel="nofollow">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ny6UAs5I9_PBKoIle7tptLXjeAuQYTaznhxXvTrZLJU/edit</a> ATTP picked on the absurd appeal to process engineers who were designing electronic circuits, which the authors used to postulate a very small closed-loop gain factor for the Bode-system gain equation in the model in the paper to prescribe the strength of feedbacks: <a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-designers-of-our-climate/" rel="nofollow">https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-designers-of-our-climate/</a> There is more in the discussion under the mentioned blog post, like the issue with the instantaneous redistribution of the energy throughout the whole model climate system in response to a radiative perturbation, which indicates a very small heat capacity of their model. Which is not physical, considering the huge heat capacity of the real climate system. Under the blog post, there is also an exhaustive discussion of Monckton's claim about that the Bode system-gain equation was used in the complex climate models. A claim that is false. His claim, according to which this was based on the Hansen (1984, 1988) papers, was thoroughly rebutted there. Monckton was also challenged by me to show where the Bode system-gain equation was used in GISS ModelE, since he claimed this and he displayed himself as someone who knew the code. Nothing. Despite of all that, he recycles this assertions here in his reply to Rud Istvan.

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Jan P Perlwitz

0
0

HAS,

So you think that asking for the information on which a claim is based was the wrong start. I’m supposed to talk about something w/o knowing what data, what assumptions, and what methodology were applied to derive a conclusion.

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Jim D

0
0

Monckton’s pocket calculator is running cold. If you take his model and apply his numbers to get the warming between 1950 and now you get about half the actual warming. Not much use for projection. Double it and you get a better transient value. Triple it for the equilibrium value.

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by mosomoso

0
0

This idle hobbyism is no science. It just costs like a science.

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by HAS

0
0

Jan P Perlwitz
“So you think that asking for the information on which a claim is based was the wrong start.”

Yep.

If you don’t disagree they run hot this is easily dealt with. Just say so.

If you do tell him why.

As of now I haven’t got the faintest idea what you think about the subject.

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by russellseitz

0
0
For Judith to ask and answer: " Have worse papers been published in prestige U.S/EU journals? Yes." recalls both Sturgeon's Law , wherein the astute science fiction writer assertedt "Ninety per cent of published papers are crap" And Minsky's Corollary, in which the noted information scientist replied : " So are 95% of the remainer." This certainly applies to the thousand most cited climate science papers of the present age, but the skeptic's dilemma is that at the present rate of skeptical publication, several doublings of CO2 may pass before the erstwhile skeptics publish 200 papers under peer review rigorous enough to result in papers generally cited by authors other than themselves. In the interim, MSLB exemplifies Sturgeon's 90%, and , face it , the <i>Science Bulletin</i> in which they chose to publish remains globally as obscure as ever. Citation indices and impact factors don't lie- ask around China and you will find that in terms of journals Chinese authors brag about , the Chinese equivalents of<i> Science </i>and <i>Nature </i> are, no surprise, <i> Science </i>and <i>Nature </i>

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by HAS

0
0

BTW so you understand my view I’m somewhat further back on GCMs.

I worry about how they seem to model worlds on which the absolute temp ranges in-sample over at least a couple of degrees even after tuning, and what that all means for their utility in a world where even basic physical properties are non-linear with temp. Not to mention other stuff.

My judgement at this stage would be to consolidate down to a couple of teams internationally working on GCMs, not to fund any science that simply applies the models’ output as if it represents the real world, and use the finds released elsewhere.

And I’d move all climate research groups that want to make statistical inferences under their local Prof of Stats.

If only life were that easy.

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by beththeserf

0
0

Viva human curiosity, viva science’s testability.
Alack human falliblity and tricky Naychure’s
oh so complex interactivity … it’s turtles all
the
way
down.

Weak sun and incidence of volcanoes? Say,
we’ve some correlation but what does it imply?
Correlation due ter what? Scientists posit –
maybe solar flares causing atmospheric changes
altering the earth’s spin to trigger earthquakes?
…Say, are we there yet, climate scientists?

https://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/volcanic-activity-correlated-with-solar-minimum/comment-page-1/


Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Cam

0
0

I had the very same though after watching Professor Andrew Dessler from Texas A&M use the bode equation to confirm his positive feedback hypothesis. (Find it here about 13 minutes in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60).

He also seems to be ignoring milankovitch cycles, however it did occur to me that whilst the cloud and water vapour feedbacks may be positive when the Earth’s mean temperature is low that does not mean that they are positive when the earth’s mean temperature is higher.

These two papers seem to address this but I haven’t had a chance to look through them in full yet.
file:///F:/Images/87780.pdf

http://www.clidyn.ethz.ch/ese101/Handouts/roe09a.pdf

Happy reading

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by JustinWonder

0
0

Yet another paper. If we get enough of these we can light a fire.

Science in a reproducibility crisis:

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-science-crisis.html

So models are simplified representations of reality, and a simplified model is a simplified simplified representation of reality. And then there’s chaos …

There were, give or take, 1300 physics PhDs awarded In the US per annum for the last decade and how many papers published? And for climate science? And we are supposed to do what with that?

“Let me take you down, ’cause I’m going to … Strawberry Fields, nothing is real, nothing to get hung about…”

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by davideisenstadt

0
0

Steven Mosher, thank you for noting the meaninglessness of the multi model mean…
I think that even for pragmatic purposes, it is ill-suited for consideration.
Of course one at a time, most of the current GCMs dont look so good.

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by David in TX

0
0

Since when are people concerned with global average precipitation, Mosher? The selection pressure is for global average temperature. I repeat, in a reasonable world we’d toss out the models which are running hot and retain those that aren’t for further refinement.

Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by David in TX

0
0

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Monckton et al were justified in using decadal average temperature increases. IPCC advertised an expectation of 0.2C to 0.3C/decade temperature increase in third assessment report. To their chagrin it is MIA for nearly two decades since and the observed trend over the whole satellite period (1979 forward) is ratcheted down to 0.13C/decade as a result.

Personally I would have not have used a 63yr HadCRUT decadal average as I don’t believe there is a credible global average temperature measurement accurate to hundredth’s of a degree/decade other than satellite measurements.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images