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

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by beththeserf

0
0

Oh noes, natural variations in climate all over again!

‘Met Office long-range expert professor Adam Scaife said solar activity has already started to decline over the past few years.

He said: “Although the effect on global temperatures is very small, the local effect is big enough to make a difference and we need to include that in our future climate projections.”

He said if “factors come together”, severe winters like the 2009/10 chiller which crippled Britain could become more frequent.

He warned early signals point towards a period of minimum solar activity by the middle of this century.

“There is a high chance that solar activity of the sun will decrease over the next few years,” he said.’


Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by cerescokid

0
0

We are doomed. What could be worse than having 100 m of glacial material covering your house and then being forced to listen to warmists telling us how lucky we are since without AGW it would have been 200 m. The human race will never settle this debate regardless of how cold it gets. My descendants will get no rest.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by David L. Hagen

0
0

Still required to bow to AGW:

any change in global mean temperature due to a future prolonged solar minimum would do little to substantially offset or delay the warming due to projected increases in long-lived greenhouse gases.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by jim2

0
0

A Great Evil this way comes. The Universe has slipped its Cosmic Cog. We are NEAR THE END OF TIMES! We approach the EDGE of the KNOWN UNIVERSE, moving more and more rapidly over the EDGE and into the DARK DEPTHS of the UNKNOWN – SPACE SERPENTS!!! If you have the CENTS God gave a GOLDEN GOOSE, my Brothers and Sisters, you won’t be far behind as I HEAD FOR THE HILLS!!!!!
********************************************************************
Britain faces FREEZING winters as slump in solar activity threatens ‘little Ice Age’

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity
**********************************************************************

(Yes, Brothers and Sisters, I’m Sarctical.)

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by jim2

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by jim2

0
0

Them Brits better order double-ship-loads of Wood Chips.

Comment on Driving in the dark by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@micro6500: <i>But the IPCC teams are a small collection of I would presume selected scientists who most had to pass the 2,3 and 4 as “yes” test to get the gig.</i> The process is actually quite open, with the reports written by the "core writing team", namely those with expertise in the relevant areas (or would you prefer that they be written by people ignorant about those areas?) but with plenty of opportunity for comment by anyone who cared, expert or not. 3,600 individuals were nominated for the core writing team, with 830 selected from over 80 countries: 36% from developing countries, 21% female, and 63% fresh blood who had not previously contributed to earlier reports. By region, there were 8% from Africa, 16% from Asia, 6% from South America, 28% from North and Central America, 7% from the South West Pacific, and 34% from Europe. The number of people involved, including the above statistics, can be seen <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml#.UMzUkuB2MiA" rel="nofollow">here</a>. A total of 142,631 comments were received, all of which were duly recorded so that anyone who objected to some detail of the report would have their objection on record. So if you had an objection to some detail but did not raise it then you have only yourself to blame for the report being unaware of your objection. Those who did raise an objection but felt their objection was neglected can look at the other comments to see whether anyone else had the same objection. With over 140,000 comments you can imagine that competition for attention by the panel is pretty stiff! So if you were alone in raising that particular objection then it would be understandable if the panel found itself unable to spend much time on your objection --- you would then not be part of the 3% minority but rather of the 0.0007% minority raising that objection.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by kneel63

0
0

“The moon has a 28 day period. Nyquist says the sample period has to be less than 14 days to avoid aliasing for signals…”

Well, yes, BUT…
How eccentric is the orbit? This will obviously change over time in what would appear to be an uncomputable way (3 body problem). If the eccentricity varies more than 1 mm, what does this do to the accuracy of the samples and how can it be corrected?

And that’s just ONE issue – there are undoubtedly others as well, like:
component drift from temperature cycles;
calibration accuracy, precision, monotonicity and linearity;
and so on.
All these will interact to produce the final reading. I’m sure these guys know what they are doing, but 1 part per billion sounds, umm, optimistic is the most polite way to put it, I believe. I suspect the real figure is available – if nowhere else, buried in a multi-thousand page low level specification document.
Mo wants THAT number, not the feel-good, we-are-all-incredibly-smart number from the document he cited.


Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by kneel63

0
0

“I would be interested in exactly what you think i am advocating for?”

I hope the answer is good science. I believe it is (for JC at least).
If that involves questioning EVERYTHING, what’s so bad about that and isn’t that what science is SUPPOSED to be? You know “prove it!” type arguements, not “because I’m smarter than you”, or “you’re a poo-poo head” arguements.

Comment on Driving in the dark by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@sr: <i>your order of magnitude smaller seems a bit overstated. A typical warm/cool half of the oscillation will last 30 years or 3 decades and at the maximum rate of warming/cooling that will be 0.6 C. </i> A period of 60 years (two of the 30-year half cycles you're referring to) would correspond to the AMO, not the faster IPO. We can get a rough idea of the AMO's amplitude from <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:240/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720" rel="nofollow">this plot</a> showing HadCRUT4 with the 20-year IPO removed (the red curve) and with the AMO removed (the green curve). The amplitude of the AMO, as the difference between the red and green curves, can be seen to be about 0.1 °C, or 0.12 °C if you make allowance for some attenuation of the 60-year AMO by the 20-year filter creating the red curve. That's a peak-to-peak oscillation of 0.24 °C, way less than the 0.6 °C you're claiming. 0.121 °C is the amplitude claimed by <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1206/1206.5845.pdf" rel="nofollow">Loehle and Scafetta</a> for the 60-year cycle in their model, namely Case 2 of coefficient A in Table 1 on page 29. This is in excellent agreement with the above very rough analysis! (I don't agree with L&S that the "AMO" is an actual oscillation, in fact I believe it's largely died out at this point and won't come back for some time, but that's another story.)

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort

0
0

You are babbling, willy. You used to make some sense, occasionally. Please get checked out. Could be prions.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Mike Flynn

0
0

I have a solution. Stop funding the loony pseudo scientists. The Earth will stop warming, and the weather will resume its erratic and unpredictable course. Deaths will doubtless ensue, as usual.

Sad for some, but true, I think.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

0
0

the funny thing is Don what I said was so trivially true that I’m having a blast watching the biggest brains on the thread knocking themselves out trying to gainsay it

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

0
0

“So it really isn’t “do your own damned science”, it’s “do some work”. Which could mean a little gardening. Nice transition, Steven. Pascal would be proud of you? Well, willy would.”

Discovery is the nice word pascal used. Its work. its science.

Gainsaying? thats a stupid pet trick.

sit fido

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by nickels

0
0

Yes, nice post RiH. I had no idea the link between critical theory and the libs would be so easy or direct.
I now understand who has stolen the Democratic party (and radical feminism). Its all in Rules. Stir up distress whenever you can.


Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

0
0

I dont want to to be convinced “my way”
I dont want you to be convinced

I am noting:

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Mike Flynn

0
0

Stephen Mosher,

I did my own damn science!

I could not find a single reproducible experiment that supported the Global Warming nonsense.

I waited, prepared to be persuaded. I am still waiting. I find facts very persuasive. I have been persuaded that stomach ulcers are caused by helicobacter pylori, rather than spicy food or stress. Persuaded by science, properly done.

The Warmist tactic of threatening the gullible with vague and undefinable threats of future harm to them and their families, unless cash is forthcoming on a regular basis, is thuggery. This is threat, rather than persuasion.

It is remarkably effective. It is akin to a police officer saying “Comply with my instruction, or I may use deadly force!” Saves a lot of unnecessary talk. And so it is with the Warmists. Luckily, they are running out of threats.

Rising temperatures? Weird weather? Extreme weather? Colder winters? Venusian tipping points? Mass starvation? The Second Coming? As a Warmist would say, hah! Just hah!

The science is that more CO2 is beneficial to humanity. Burning coal to produce electricity is good. Using technology based on fossil fuel use to provide ample supplies of potable water is the basis of civilisation, from where I sit.

Any questions based on fact, rather than supposition? I thought not!

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

0
0

In “X did not cause Y”, Irdvic, replace X by guns or racism. You should see the relevance. The Psychology Today was referring to a proximal causation thing.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by richardswarthout

0
0

Mosher

You stated that “This is why skeptics will not be convinced until they do their own damn science.”. I believed that was your point. My comment to you was:

(I) could be convinced if scientists could read the (IPCC) reports and make assessments on some of the details.

In that comment I was only saying that this skeptic could, yes, be convinced if the IPCC reports contained information as to how it reached its conclusions. I did read AR5 Chapter 10 and did read Hegerl et al (1996); according to SoD (who is a scientist). the Hegerl paper is central to the IPCC attribution chapters, AR3 -AR5.

SoD tells us that after reading AR 5 Ch 10, the pertinent references, and references within references, he could not determine how it was concluded how the attribution group concluded it very likely that >50% of global warming is attributed to AGW?

As I recall a major stumbling block was a recognition of by the attribution group of huge uncertainIty related to internal variability, but no discussion on the subject. SoD, at one point, talked to one of the attribution experts and was told to look at chapter 9, the modeling chapter. I looked at the chapter and found no discussion on internal variability, only a figure with a title similar to “pseudo model of internal variability”. The model was essentially a flat zero across the horizontal axis (probably representing time, but don’t know for sure).

I will conclude:

1. Your prediction “You wont ever even try to do the simplest thing in climate science.”. Has already proved false. Perhaps there is a problem with your model.

2. Your indiscriminate reliance on Pascal’s statement and your conclusion that “skeptics will not be convinced until they do their own damn science.”. Is not, in my case, true. Somebody show me that scientists have significant certainty regarding internal variability, and I’ll be on the path toward being convinced.

Regards,

Richard

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

0
0

“Mosher: Note: I did not argue that the ONLY way was the one I suggested.
did I?

No you did not! It was a bald assertion with no supporting argument of any kind.”

The argument is that it is implied by what pascal said.

“People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.” – Blaise Pascal”

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons THEY HAVE DISCOVERED.

This, i assert, explains why Skeptics will not be convinced until they do their own science.. their own discovery or their own work.. pick a synonym you like.

They wont be convinced by reading other peoples discoveries.
They wont be convinced by threats or name calling
Doing their own science isnt the ONLY way, because I dont know all the ways of convincing, but i do assert that they will not be convinced unless they do their science. That very well may be the only way, but again, I dont claim to know all the ways of convincing.

Its not that hard. be persuaded.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images