Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by richardswarthout

June 20, 2015, 4:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by catweazle666

$

0

0

Jim D

I appreciate your answers, but the last few make me sad. Your trust in the RealClimate figure is misplaced. I have chapter 10 in my library and that figure is derived in a chapter 10 figure describe as an assessment. It is a figure showing the results of subject opinions of a small group of attribution experts. A couple of years ago Curry and Webster had a back and forth with Hegerl et al and this excerpt may be relevant:

IAC Review provides a starting point for a description of what is suitable: “… it is unclear whose judgments are reflected in the ratings that appear in the Fourth Assessment Report or how the judgments were determined. How exactly a consensus was reached regarding subjective probability distributions needs to be documented.”

Once again, I am sad that those you trust are deceptive. They are not open and seem content in allowing readers to be overconfident, allowing them to believe that the IPCC conclusions are objective and statistically provable.

Sincerely,

Richard

---

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

June 20, 2015, 5:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by richardswarthout

$

0

0

> A couple of years ago Curry and Webster had a back and forth with Hegerl et al and this excerpt may be relevant: […]

Citation needed.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

June 20, 2015, 5:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

$

0

0

> allowing them to believe that the IPCC conclusions are objective and statistically provable.

Sure, “extremely likely” looks exactly like a statistical proof, e.g.

In January 2014, Keevash established that, apart from a few exceptions, designs will always exist if the divisibility requirements are satisfied. In a second paper posted this April on the scientific preprint site arxiv.org, Keevash showed how to count the approximate number of designs for given parameters. This number grows exponentially — for example, there are more than 11 billion ways to arrange 19 schoolgirls into triples so that each pair appears once.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150609-a-design-dilemma-solved-minus-designs/

From the horse’s mouth:

Based on the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties, this WGI Technical Summary and the WGI Summary for Policymakers rely on two metrics for communicating the degree of certainty in key findings, which is based on author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding:

• Confidence in the validity of a finding, based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence (e.g., mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, expert judgement) and the degree of agreement. Confidence is expressed qualitatively.

• Quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding expressed probabilistically (based on statistical analysis of observations or model
results, or expert judgement).

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

That’s the first box, on the second page.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Mike Flynn

June 20, 2015, 5:24 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by richardswarthout

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

$

0

0

Willard,

Expert judgement? This is supposed to be science, laddie!

X of course, stands for the unknown quantity, and a spurt is a drip under pressure. Hence, x-spurt, or in Warmspeak, expert.

And just who are these experts who can quantify the future? Hansen? Mann? Schmidt? Or just a motley assemblage of even lesser lights?

It is my expert judgement that you are full of it. Have you any peer reviewed evidence to the contrary? I thought not.

It is also my expert opinion that the IPCC knows as much about the future as I do – or maybe even less, but I don’t want to be accused of boastfullness, being the shy and self effacing chap that I am!

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by richardswarthout

June 20, 2015, 5:40 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kcom1

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

Willard

I can’t believe that my comment misled you. Certainly a small group of attribution experts, with no accountability to the public, no explanation of its conclusions and ratings, no explanation of its lines of evidence, should be suspected of hiding something; not an objective something, but most likely a subjective something, with all players agreeing. Call it what you want, but it is sad that too few question them.

Respectfully,

Richard

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kcom1

June 20, 2015, 5:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Kip Hansen

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by richardswarthout

$

0

0

Why should anyone have a position on the nonsense term “carbon pollution”?

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Kip Hansen

June 20, 2015, 5:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by ordvic

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kcom1

$

0

0

The piece by John Perkins [ Nature: Beware of climate neo-skepticism (calls out JC and Steve Koonin) ] makes statement about ” the risks of ‘tipping points’ with large, nonlinear responses. ”

This illustrates a common misunderstanding about nonlinear dynamics: They are far more likely to be exceptionally stable than other systems. In fact, the stabilities in dynamic nonlinear systems are best described as “attractors” — the system moves toward the stable attractors, even when perturbed away temporarily. If one thinks of a old-fashioned nut-dish, with two concave areas (one for cashews, one for peanuts) and then in imagination rolls a marble into the nut-dish system, the marble will end up in one of two attracting bowl bottoms. A salad bowl is a system with one attractor — the bottom of the bowl — a marble let roll down anywhere on the inside at any angle will be attracted to the bottom.

In geologic history, he Earth climate system appears to be a two-attractor system: Ice Ages and Inter-glacials. Inter-glacials themselves seem to have be a multi-attractor system with warm periods and little ice ages, or perhaps, as Wyatt and Curry (2013) posits, a period-8 cyclical multi-attractor system, the Stadium Wave.

The worry about a “tipping point” is that we might shift from our current Inter-glacial into the other attractor — an Ice Age. And that would be bad bad bad.

(No, I’m not a fan of Global Cooling either — but if the climate is a two-attractor system, the “other one” is an Ice Age.)

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by ordvic

June 20, 2015, 5:54 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by GaryM

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Kip Hansen

$

0

0

Ahh, I was thinking scientist. Thanks.

---

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by GaryM

June 20, 2015, 6:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kcom1

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by ordvic

$

0

0

I read the encyclical (calmly), and am a conservative Catholic to boot. The Pope’s writing is terrible, and often contradictory. Elsewhere I have called is latest effort is “Theory of Everything” because he wanders over so many topics, basically laying out his personal political and economic philosophy dressed up as theology.

The Pope is frankly an economic illiterate. He has zero understanding of how the western free market he so despises has raised the living standards of billions of people around the world, even in the centrally planned economies he so favors. China didn’t raise the living standards of 250 million of its people to western standards by coming up with better 5 year plans. They did it by marginally raising the statist boot off the neck of parts of their economy. (Marginally – which is why the remaining billion are still mired in the economic dark ages.)

The funniest thing to me is his disdain for bland box architecture, and his belief that this is a product of the free market. The worst atrocities in ‘art’ in the west have virtually all been commissioned by progressive politicians. I get to walk past the black metal Picasso cubist monstrosity set in the Daley Center Plaza every time I go to state court in Chicago.

The Pope should have taken a tour of east European residential apartment complexes and office buildings after the Berlin Wall fell if he wanted to see soulless mediocrity at its apogee.

But no, he is too worried about improved air conditioning.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kcom1

June 20, 2015, 6:04 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by GaryM

$

0

0

Jim D,
So to summarize, you are discounting the man’s primary area of expertise (even denigrating it, albeit very politely) to listen to him as an expert outside that area. And not in any way that challenges your beliefs but rather reinforces them. That sounds like a textbook definition of cherry picking.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

June 20, 2015, 6:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kcom1

$

0

0

RichardS, Surely you must be joking: <blockquote> Certainly a small group of attribution experts, with no accountability to the public, no explanation of its conclusions and ratings, no explanation of its lines of evidence, should be suspected of hiding something; not an objective something, but most likely a subjective something, with all players agreeing. </blockquote> No explanation of its conclusions and ratings? I just quoted the box! No explanation of its lines of evidence? You yourself claim having read the AR5! <em>Certainly</em> hiding something? <em>Most likely</em> a subjective something? With all due respect, RichardS, if you are trying to find the truth which conspires to be out there, you might need to raise your concerns in a way that is a tiny bit less preposterous.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2

June 20, 2015, 6:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by richardswarthout

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

$

0

0

OMG – rationality?

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by richardswarthout

June 20, 2015, 6:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2

$

0

0

Willard

Here is the citation you asked for:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/15/hegerl-et-al-react-to-the-uncertainty-monster-paper/#more-5973

Also, as stated above the output from a small group of experts cannot be trusted unless the process is completely open. I suspect, due to the nature of group dynamics and the possibility that all the experts were selected by a lead expert, conclusions from the group will have no defectors.

Finally, the guidance note is mere lip service to what has to be done.

I am not a scientist and know nothing about statistics, but have a rather good bs detector; it made me a very good project manager.

Richard

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

June 20, 2015, 6:20 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by richardswarthout

$

0

0

> It is also my expert opinion that the IPCC knows as much about the future as I do […]

We’ve been there already not so long ago, MikeF:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/10/driving-in-the-dark/#comment-711516

If you insist, this time will be less socratic.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

June 20, 2015, 6:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

$

0

0

RichardS,

Thank you for the link where Judy uses stolen emails to get back at colleagues. This was a great moment in the annals of the INTEGRITY ™ branding. I confer you to Andrew Adams’ comments on that thread.

Except for the zeroth draft, the process has enjoyed an openness that no private company would ever be able to tolerate. Ask Richard Betts about that one.

The number of defectors you suspect should congregate and spell out their alternative theory of climate. Meanwhile, the IPCC’s report is
the deck to beat.

Speaking of paying lip service, I await your concession that the first box of the second page of the Summary contains the information you portray as being hidden from the public’s view.

I duly acknowledge that you could very well be a very good project manager. Please rest assured that I as a ninja, I could not care less about such appeal to any authority.

W

---

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK

June 20, 2015, 6:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kcom1

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

$

0

0

In geologic history, he Earth climate system appears to be a two-attractor system: Ice Ages and Inter-glacials. Inter-glacials themselves seem to have be a multi-attractor system with warm periods and little ice ages, or perhaps, as Wyatt and Curry (2013) posits, a period-8 cyclical multi-attractor system, the Stadium Wave.

AFAIK this is a very simplistic picture for a system that is constantly being forced by overwhelming solar changes (seasons). Not to mention that, unless Salby is correct, the CO2 level is higher than it’s been for 6MY or so, since before the Himalayas/Tibetan Plateau reached its present configuration and the Isthmus of Panama closed. So we’re in totally new territory.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kcom1

June 20, 2015, 6:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by David Young

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK

$

0

0

In what sense are you using “back”?

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by David Young

June 20, 2015, 6:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by David Young

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kcom1

$

0

0

Yes, TE, it does appear that even the IPCC is giving a likely range for 2030 below the model range.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by David Young

June 20, 2015, 6:42 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by David Young

$

0

0

I’m not so sure Kip. There may indeed be bifurcations around in climate, probably more associated with cold climates than with warm ones. The question is how does the risk compare to all the other risks mankind confronts.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Mike Flynn

June 20, 2015, 6:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Driving in the dark by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by David Young

$

0

0

Willard,

Many thanks. I clicked on the link you provided, and it gave the following –

“A person beholding the name Flynn or has it within his/her string of names is considered sexy, incredible, ninja-tastic, amazing and mysterious. Not only are they amazing in bed, but outside of the bed as well. If ever get a chance to kiss one of these Flynns never cease to act upon it! Their kisses make you melt the second your lips touch with theirs. Adventurous and easy going, Flynns can give you the thrill of your life and make you addicted to them. You’ll want them more and not just because you have to survive, but because you really do WANT them. Hold on to these Flynns, once you find one. You’ll never get one back if you lose him/her.”

I didn’t realise you harboured such a deep attachment. I’m not sure why you wish to be melted by touching my lips. Maybe you are just looking for the thrill of your life, but I’m not sure whether I can (or would even want to), accommodate you.

As to the rest of it, yes, it’s all true, even if I do say so myself (with all due humility).

I can see why you stand in awe of my wonderfullness! For me it comes naturally. If you apply yourself diligently, you may eventually one day achieve Flynnness, as you so obviously desire.