Capn, What are your thoughts on climate resistance being variable with temp? Does that fit with Dallas's tropical SST threshold hypothesis? Check out Nic Lewis's post today on CE is you can. I posed the question to Nic <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2015/04/20/pitfalls-in-climate-sensitivity-estimation-part-3/#comment-757813" rel="nofollow">here.</a>
Comment on APS discussion thread by Ron Graf
↧
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by AK
Whenever I hear the word “central” WRT to committee manipulations, I’m always reminded of the “Central Committee of the Communist Party”.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by David Skurnick
I am disappointed by the small number of comments from ATS members.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D
TE, one standard deviation per 1/3 of a century is not much different from the rate so far.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Jim D
A questionnaire could have been done based on these statements with options of strongly/somewhat agree/disagree and neutral. These would be the statements that can be made into questions. Some redundancy here.
1 – Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue that poses the risk of significant disruption around the globe.
2 – While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.
3 – Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing.
4 – The potential consequences of climate change are great and the policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.
5 – The connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever.
6 – To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science.
7 – The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases, as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate.
↧
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Ron, “Capn, What are your thoughts on climate resistance being variable with temp?’
If by climate resistant you mean sensitivity, without a doubt it is temperature sensitive. Deep convection depends on convective triggering temperature which is a modeled parameter (several ways of estimating btw) and varies with actual SST. So climate “resistance” varies with temperature and if models cannot get tropical SST right, they cannot produce a reasonable estimate of “sensitivity”
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Ron Graf
In Dr. Curry’s testimony before congress this week she described climate change as a wicked problem. A casual vernacular of describing something as wicked, like wicked cool, did not seem to fit the seriousness of the remarks. I hope the congresspeople’s staff also decided to Google the term and would find that it’s a social science term coin in the 1960s to describe a politically intractable problem. Examples are, drug abuse, nuclear weapons, poverty and aids. The last example shows a little dating of the Wikipedia citing. Aids it is now thought may be curable within 10 years (hard to imagine this day in 1982 in one of ABC’s Peter Jennings’ global doom countdown Aids specials.) Climate change was listed first but it is different from the others in that we are not even positive that it is a problem at all. There are lists of characteristics to define a wicked problem. Here is the shorter one:
1) The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution.
I would add the solution requires the expansion of government and regulatory powers.
2) Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
We will never be safe enough to disband the restrictions. Aids may not fit.
3) Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong.
Moral, ideological or religious belief must be entwined.
4) Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.
5) Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one shot operation.
Eliminating the tool to trial and error for evaluation makes analysis of progress perpetually subjective and complex to quantify.
6) Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions.
If it didn’t require a massive sacrifice (security, liberty, wealth) it wouldn’t be a problem.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by russellseitz
When Beththeserf invokes Karl Popper:
‘If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want:
we shall for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look
away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous
to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to
obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in
favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would
have been refuted.’
is she referring to the NIPCC report ,or denialist blogs in general?
Either way, it’s a hard case to falsify.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Ron Graf
“…models cannot get tropical SST right, they cannot produce a reasonable estimate of “sensitivity”.
I like to think of sensitivity as the reciprocal, resistance, for visualizing a direct relationship (through cloud albedo) with Clapeyron, which being logarithmic would make resistance non-linear to temp.
You might back me up in the likely event Nic says no. ;)
↧
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Ron Graf
Overall, I somewhat agree. Questions 5 and 7 I somewhat disagree.
8) We acknowledge that Western industrialization must be curtailed in willing countries to the extent we are not able to replace energy with perpetually sustainable sources.
9) Reparations for harm to climate and severe weather caused by AGW must be set aside to fund the afflicted victim countries on a continual basis.
10) There is no need to have peer reviewed studies subjected to data disclosure or review by those not of acceptable stature in the scientific community.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by mosomoso
You know the rule, Mark: the great bulk of earth doesn’t count. Bo-ring. Deep hydrosphere? Yawn. It’s probably a heat storage. Whatever.
The people who have persuaded us to refer to the actual climate as “internal variability” long ago dismissed those two hot balls called Earth and Sun from their computations and prognostications.
Now, on to the hard science. Let’s talk about the behaviour of certain gases within glass receptacles.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by bedeverethewise
I liked Brian Burke’s comment. Especially where he was speaking about this part of the APS statement:
The potential consequences of climate change are great and the policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.
Burke said, “Finally, potential consequences should be said to be “substantial” instead of “great” and policies “may” determine influences on climate. Saying “will” implies an efficacy to policy that is simply unjustified. It is unclear that any politically achievable policy is capable of having a measurable impact on temperatures.”
This kind of thoughtful and critical look at the language points out how a professional statement should be done, with words that mean something and represents facts. The statement as it stands appears to be about marketing first with very little substance behind the words, like a second rate toothpaste advertisement.
Having said that, I think Burke leaves too much on the table. Even a word like “may” goes too far. Given current technology and the state of the world, I would say that it is pretty clear that there are currently no politically achievable policies capable of having any measurable impact on temperatures. We need to spend a few decades inventing before we can start engineering an solution that could have a measurable impact on temperature.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Jim D
There is a variable resistance that increases with time. This is basically the water vapor that acts as a resistance by blocking or undoing some of the Planck response. As the oceans get warmer, there is more of it, and the ocean warming is delayed by its various overturning circulations.
↧
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Joshua
==> “This is the kind of thing that made people like Limbaugh, Watts, Levin, et al. the targets of such vitriolic attacks from the left for decades.”
GaryM makes an excellent point. Levin, Watts, Limbaugh, they’re such victims.
‘Specially Limbaugh.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Steven Mosher
he has gone on to a more interesting project that one of our guys spent some time on.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by David Springer
Ken Konetski | April 20, 2015 at 9:42 am |
“So, David, Is your suggestion to Ms Curry, and others who are trying to find and disseminate more info on the subject, to quit? Stop trying?”
Kvetching gets old, Ken. My suggestion is they get elected to leadership positions or work to get like minded others elected. Talk is cheap.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Steven Mosher
Brandon you are free to take the code and the data, run it and write a paper proving your case.
it may be interesting it may be relevant but you have to prove that. So far you havent.
Now, Cowtan and Way did find a way to show that a minor difference could have impact.
you havent done so yet.
when you do send me the published manuscript.
or easier show how RSM is a superior method. easy peasy.
↧
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Michael Cunningham
I think that the separate thread is a good idea, we can see the APS members’ views without wading through a great preponderance of non-APS posts. There might be other occasions on which a separation would be valuable.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Steven Mosher
D Hagen
”
Feynman is applying the scientific method of providing evidence that challenges the conventional model showing its inadequacy. ”
DUH.
It is not my argument that he WASNT.
Here is my argument:
1. people quote feynman and his argument that it is the scientists
job to explain all the evidence and information that could contradict ones belief.
2. feynman didnt actually DO what he recommended.
in short, dont read what feynman Says you should do, look at what he actually DID. OBSERVE what he DID.. what you’ll find is that most of his proclaimations about how scientists behave is a fairy tale
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by jim2
GaryM didn’t use the word “victims.” But they are targets of the left.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
