The relevance to the weirdo skepticism of climate science should be apparent.
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Joel Williams
In traditional “peer-reviews”, you provide a list of potential reviewers. You can even suggest those you do not want to be a reviewer. Bit of buddy-buddy in this. The editors were then relieved of having to find reviewers. Not sure how much editors deviated. But that is the initial process for submitting a paper now.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Ragnaar
Jim D:
So if the Antarctic sea ice was contracting, the ice sheets would slow down I suppose if we follow Hansen’s logic. How does this same thing work during a glacial period? I’d say the ice sheet expands vertically and slows horizontally and sea ice expands in both directions and traps warmth in the ocean. Reversing all terms above for an interglacial, the ice sheet shrinks vertically and speeds up horizontally and sea ice contracts in both directions and releases warmth from the ocean. I like consistency across timescales. So what is most logical sea ice area for the Southern Ocean for both glacial and interglacial periods? Still it’s possible sea ice has different behaviors in different temperature ranges. That sometimes cold means growth and sometime it means loss, a Z or S curve behavior.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Willard
> It is called “The Essential Tension”.
Good. You can also find the article online. What’s its name again?
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by genghiscunn
Judith, you wrote that “Synthesis, integration and assessment require different skills than frontier research” and that “We need more maverick climate scientists that devote time to looking at the big picture in an integrative way.” These skills were part of my strength as an economic policy adviser, given that I had a very broad concern with drivers of economic growth rather than a narrow speciality, and were applied to a diverse range of issues, including CAGW. Being policy-specific skills, you are probably more likely to find them in that field than amongst those with a narrower purview in a particular science. Although not a modeller, I used and directed a lot of modelling and at times was the sole non-specialist invited to modelling fora. So you would need to look beyond “maverick climate scientists” for these skills. [Not at me, though, I’m very de-skilled now, and my relevant capacity is very low.]
CAGW/climate change are only important to the world at large if they genuinely require a major policy response which conflicts with other significant goals. If that is the case, the integrative and policy approach cannot be left to climate scientists, but must involve those outside the field with appropriate analytical and integrative skills.
Faustino
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Jim D
Ragnaar, check into meltwater pulses (MWPs). These happen during warming periods as glaciers melt and can lead to sea-level rise rates of 4 m per century. If it has happened before, it can happen again. The freshwater layer increases sea ice albedo and offsets or reverses the temperature change, but the sea level rises faster. These pulses only last a few centuries before normal warming resumes with a reduced glacier mass. This looks like the kind of thing Hansen is thinking will happen soon.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Steven Mosher
MatthMatthew
What would the divestiture of the economy from fossil fuels look like if the opponents had been “major” players? I suggested some possibilities. Do you want to take a crack at answering, or let us all work to provide more answers for you?
$#$$$
It would be more directed at ng and nuclear.
U suggested nothing.
I don’t trust you to do the work. You can’t even tell
When a quote is good.
I see you dropped the kuhn bits. Wise choice.
Next up. Don’t argue with questions.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by PA
<i>Jim D | July 30, 2015 at 12:33 am |
Ragnaar, check into meltwater pulses (MWPs). These happen during warming periods as glaciers melt and can lead to sea-level rise rates of 4 m per century. </i>
It would be useful to cite these meltwater pulses. Please cite several that occurred in comparable conditions.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Steven Mosher
I read through all the quotes.
The only one that comes close to being questionable is the polar bear one.
Don’t ask questions. You don’t do it very well
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Jim D
Hansen refers to them in this way “They identified eight episodes of large iceberg flux, with the largest flux occurring ∼ 14 600 years ago, providing evidence of an Antarctic contribution to Meltwater Pulse 1A, when sea level rose an average of 3–5 m century−1 for a few centuries (Fairbanks, 1989).”
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Steven Mosher
Did they misquote, or misrepresent your mentor?
The page is devoted to CLIMATE misinformers.
So yes they did misrepresent.
Next question.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by matthewrmarler
Steven Mosher: Don’t argue with questions.
I did not argue with questions, I question with questions. When I want to argue, I state propositions, mostly.
For example, you (or anyone) can learn more by reading Pais than by reading Kuhn. Or, the present stagnation in the march to divest from fossil fuels looks like the “minor” players (or so it was alleged of them, unnamed) have defeated the “major” players (whoever they may be) in the policy aspect of the climate debate. I put in a few particulars that have not been disputed (e.g. places where coal production and fossil fuel consumption are up.)
When anyone evades questions, readers draw diverse conclusions. Asking questions may not “in general” be a good way to make a case, but it does “often” draw attention to areas of ignorance, shared or one-sided. That is especially so when a well-formulated (in someone’s judgment) question goes unanswered.
Consider the question: Accounting for all the energy transport processes, how much faster will energy be transported from the surface of the Earth if the surface warms on average 1C? This is the kind of climate science question that you have called a “side issue”, though the answer is integral to answering one of your favorite questions: Granting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, how much warming can result from and increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration? Perhaps you are unconcerned with the surface, and want to know an average integrated through the depths of the atmosphere and ocean? But a lot of other people (including Al Gore who did not follow your admonition to do his own science, yet earned a Nobel Peace Prize), draw attention to changes at the surface.
That’s 3 questions in 1 paragraph. Do you want to evade them all? It is your right. But whatever your answer, could you include some solid (or at least published) climate science in its support? In case you lost count, that’s 2 more questions. Is there anybody who is interested in your insights and information on these matters? Do you want to let them down?
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by matthewrmarler
Willard: <i>Why is this supposed to matter for the IPCC’s attribution statement is far from being clear. </i>
Cute. You insert a question into your objection to questions.
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Tranquilli, poi vi spiego…| Climatemonitor
[…] ex ante. Se vi interessa, hanno già fatto lo stesso molti altri, tra cui naturalmente anche Judith Curry e Antony […]
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Tranquilli, poi vi spiego… : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )
[…] ex ante. Se vi interessa, hanno già fatto lo stesso molti altri, tra cui naturalmente anche Judith Curry e Antony […]
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by mwgrant
So you would need to look beyond “maverick climate scientists” for these skills.
Indeed. You need to look beyond scientists–period. The fundamental currently relevant questions are ones of policy and not science…policy necessarily made with incomplete scientific understanding and uncertain time sensitivity.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Steven Mosher
The red team can’t be fielded. Narrow bench
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Steven Mosher
There once was a red team that did a temperature series.
An engineer and a statistician.
Both skeptics.
Skeptics ignored the work.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by mwgrant
Steven Mosher
“Unless the skeptics form a theory, they’ll remain minor players in the debates”
More of a fact than an argument
Minor players in the debates but maybe not in the outcome. Dragging things out plays into the agenda of not a few for whom policy is all that matters.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by genghiscunn
Roger, some of us have learned to skip longish threads in which the name “Willard” appears regularly.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
