PA & Cap’n
Oops!
In the case for more complex Lambda:
TCR(observed CO2) < TCR(modeled CO2)
However, TCR does not decrease by the same fraction as does observed CO2 forcing vs modeled forcing.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by blueice2hotsea
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by David Wojick
Joseph, the aspects that are not getting funded are the various well known natural variability issues. The evidence is that if you read the annual reports — “Our Changing Planet” — of the USGCRP (which summarize the annual $2.5 billion US climate change research program) you will find virtually zero mention of natural variability. Solar variability is not there. LIA emergence is not there. Ocean circulation is not there. Chaotic oscillation is not here. It is all about CAGW. See http://www.globalchange.gov/.
This is what I call paradigm protection, where CAGW is the paradigm. They protect it by not looking beyond it.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by Joseph
The evidence is that if you read the annual reports — “Our Changing Planet” — of the USGCRP (which summarize the annual $2.5 billion US climate change research program) you will find virtually zero mention of natural variability. Solar variability is not there. LIA emergence is not there.
Are you telling me that research on natural variability (like solar) isn’t or can’t get funding? Any evidence>
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by Joseph
David, the EPA is high level summary for the public and not a reflection of all climate research.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Nelson Wayne Liston (@NWliston)
The “organic” food industry’s likely $100 billion/yr size in the US would probably come as a surprise to those who believe Monsanto is a Godzilla in the field, trampling straw hat hippie farmers into the earth. http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/US-organic-food-market-to-grow-14-from-2013-18
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by timg56
With a high probability of the other driver texting.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by timg56
I’m reminded of the local furor in Seattle when the NPR station aired a piece on a Standford study which showed zero health benefits from organic food over non-organic. The level of comments received was so great that the very next day they aired a second piece and tripped over themselves trying to roll back what they said the previous day. All to pacify a bunch of yuppie, organic food partisans (who probably represent a high corrolation to NPR funding contributors) who were upset that someone had upset the belief system rice bowl.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by JCH
I get 148,000 hits for natural climate variability on Google Scholar since 2011. The real number is going to be a lot less.
There could be 10,000,000,000 hits and, how does Mosher put it, nothing would change.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by climatereason
Joseph
Unfortunately David is broadly correct. As you know I am interested in historic natural variability and observations and have had a number of meetings at the Met office on this subject.
There is no doubt the met office is interested in this topic and several years ago removed from their website a refetence that stated the climate was broadly static until recent times.
I was told however that there was no money in any budgets to look into the type of work I was doing as the met office considered there were other things they needed to concentrate on in order to meet their govt brief of researching what future climate will be like as this ties in with the uk’s legal requirement to cut carbon emissions.
Individually there are some scientists interested in natural variability but I think the last major paper on this topic was by Phil jones In 2006 who expressed himself surprised by the extent of the natural variability he observed during the very warm 1730’s which came to a grinding halt in the extremely severe winter of 1740 .
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Stanton Brown
The tactics used against Folta are despicable. Regardless of position on issues, honesty and integrity still need support and slanders and smears need to be smacked down by all decent people.
I don’t know any skeptics who comment on any of the blogs I read who would be supportive of anyone smearing the hockey team, even though hockey team members have been involved in some pretty nasty smearing themselves.
Smears and slanders are standard operating procedure by the Left in politics today. We shouldn’t be surprised that anti-GMO activists bring their political tactics to this issue. Remember how Mann slandered Lawrence Solomon.
Far too many people today believe that any tactic that is useful in defeating their enemies is morally justified no matter how dishonest. Look at the continuing support for Obama and Clinton. As long as this kind of immoral and unethical attitude persists on a widespread basis, things will only get worse.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by chilemike
I haven’t studied GMO’s so I don’t know that much about them yet, but I agree with the logic that we will need some type of GMO industry/tehnology to feed everybody in 35 years. A problem with accomplishing that is that it seems to me that if you were against GMO science it would be much easier to propagate disinformation and scare stories for that than with CAGW. People can pretty much see for themselves that the Arctic ice isn’t gone but the ‘GMO mad scientist’ stories of ‘secret labs’ and ‘evil corporations’ can’t be as easily dispelled once the ball starts rolling. Access to unlimited information doesn’t equal scientific pragmatism in this day and age. I really didn’t think the future as depicted in ‘The Marching Morons’ or ‘Idiocracy’ was going to arrive as fast as it did.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Science or Fiction
And the next president for US National Academy of Sciences will be Marcia McNutt, famous for having written – as Editor of the Science Magazine:
“The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed.”
Karl Popper – the master mind behind the modern scientific method; Poppers empirical method; is famous for many quotes – among these:
“The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.”
When we see all the falsifying experiences related to the global warming theory, Marcia McNutt seems to be much more an activist than a scientist.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by David Wojick
Joseph, when you say EPA do you mean OCP, which is what I am referring to? Digging deeper the USGCRP includes a huge interagency program on the carbon cycle, but no solar cycle program. NASA tried to launch a sun-climate research program several years ago but got shot down. The Danish are doing most of the work in this field.
There is a big program on aerosols and clouds but almost nothing on ocean circulation and climate. The LIA is not even mentioned, in any agency funding request that I can find, but there is a big effort to predict economic damages 300 years from now from today’s CO2 emissions (the so-called social cost of carbon). There is nothing on the economic benefits of increasing CO2 levels, even though CO2 is the global food supply. I can go on.
The USGCRP is completely dominated by the CAGW paradigm. It is a classic Kuhnian situation.
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Curious George
Right you are. There is not a lot of data there.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/20/myth-busting-are-synthetic-pesticides-used-with-some-gmos-more-dangerous-than-natural-ones/
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by Stanton Brown
Add the Amgen and Bayer efforts to replicate. Science has no quality control. Scientists make bold representations to the public about “findings” they read in the abstract of a paper as if all published papers are true when the reality is that most are wrong. This is fraud in the real world (specifically negligent or reckess misrepresentation), but the poor scientists have no clue.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by scotts4sf
Stanton
I enjoy your comments, especially the legal explanations. But one only has to look at comments about Lincoln by his opponents to see the smears and slanders have always been part of the political process. The recent change is the spillover into science controversy, especially climate and as shown GMO. Not likely to improve till humans change. Still, one responds like Dr Curry has done at this blog and through her activism, so improvements come slow as the eyes of the public open. El Nino this year and then maybe a little ice age 2 will demonstrate natural variability and defuse “the billions for fantasy climate control schemes” in Paris.
Scott
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Curious George
Same with anything genetic. I imagine that young Stalin was a sweet little baby.
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by David Wojick
JCH, you are not doing your GS search correctly. Searching Google Scholar on the exact phrase “natural climate variability” gives just 10,900 hits, and just 4,000 or so journal articles since 2011. Search on “climate change” gives about 1,700,000 hits, with almost 400,000 hits since 2011. https://scholar.google.com/
These outlandish ratios are a good indicator of the pro-CAGW bias in climate research. (GS hit numbers are pretty accurate.) They are similar to the semantic ratios I am finding in the research program descriptions. Natural variability is a distant outlier.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Wagathon
So, who is funding headlines like this: Latest forecast suggests Godzilla El Niño may be coming to California
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Here is the latest on sea level change:
The Annals of Applied Statistics
2015, Vol. 9, No. 2, 547–571
DOI: 10.1214/15-AOAS824
© Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2015
MODELING SEA-LEVEL CHANGE USING ERRORS-IN-VARIABLES
INTEGRATED GAUSSIAN PROCESSES1
BY NIAMH CAHILL∗, ANDREW C. KEMP†, BENJAMIN P. HORTON‡,§
AND ANDREW C. PARNELL∗
University College Dublin∗, Tufts University†, Rutgers University‡
and Nanyang Technological University§
We perform Bayesian inference on historical and late Holocene (last
2000 years) rates of sea-level change. The input data to our model are tidegauge measurements and proxy reconstructions from cores of coastal sediment. These data are complicated by multiple sources of uncertainty, some of which arise as part of the data collection exercise. Notably, the proxy reconstructions include temporal uncertainty from dating of the sediment core using techniques such as radiocarbon. The model we propose places a Gaussian process prior on the rate of sea-level change, which is then integrated and set in an errors-in-variables framework to take account of age uncertainty. The resulting model captures the continuous and dynamic evolution of sea-level change with full consideration of all sources of uncertainty. We demonstrate the performance of our model using two real (and previously published) example data sets. The global tide-gauge data set indicates that sea-level rise increased from a rate with a posterior mean of 1.13 mm/yr in 1880 AD (0.89 to 1.28 mm/yr 95% credible interval for the posterior mean) to a posterior mean rate of 1.92 mm/yr in 2009 AD (1.84 to 2.03 mm/yr 95% credible interval for the posterior mean). The proxy reconstruction from North Carolina (USA) after correction for land-level change shows the 2000 AD rate of rise to have a posterior mean of 2.44 mm/yr (1.91 to 3.01 mm/yr 95% credible interval). This is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
