Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148372 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on RICO! by Brian G Valentine

$
0
0

“Interesting that the IPCC FAR (1990) didn’t find any evidence of human caused warming”

That’s because the IPCC hadn’t yet been hijacked by the climate kooks. The world representation (including many from lesser developed countries) found no empirical evidence in the literature review that there was anything to the AGW concept.

Then the LDC were promised $$$ in exchange for going along with what the UN bureaucracy wanted. They didn’t get their money as they were promised, and they are kind of sore about it.

I would be too


Comment on RICO! by jim2

$
0
0

RICO shouldn’t have been applied to any organization other than the mob.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by aaron

$
0
0

Converted it to rtf and sent it to my kindle. Not perfect, but a million times better than dealing with a pdf.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by aaron

$
0
0

Thanks. That’s much more informative. I’ll keep that in mind when I read the chapter and maybe it will give me clue of my own critical thinking limits.

Comment on RICO! by AK

$
0
0

Actually, there’s a lot more to the tobacco story. But anyway, after all that expensive litigation, all that happened is that they were required to stop saying stuff contrary to the “consensus science”.

Think what a circus it would be if somebody tries to do the same thing with climate. Especially with the new research suggesting that Willy Soon’s research was actually ahead of its time.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by jim2

$
0
0

Looks like Dr. Evans is ready to take a second run at a climate model.

New Science 1: Pushing the edge of climate research. Back to the new-old way of doing science

1. Introducing a Series of Blog Posts on Climate Science
Dr David Evans, 22 September 2015. Project home page.

Breaking the Intellectual Standoff

There is an intellectual standoff in climate change. Skeptics point to empirical evidence that disagrees with the climate models. Yet the climate scientists insist that their calculations showing a high sensitivity to carbon dioxide are correct — because they use well established physics, such as spectroscopy, radiation physics, and adiabatic lapse rates.

How can well-accepted physics produce the wrong answer? We mapped out the architecture of their climate models and discovered that while the physics appears to be correct, the climate scientists applied it wrongly. Most of the projected warming comes from two specific mistakes.

Given all the empirical evidence against the carbon dioxide theory, there had to be problems in the basic sensitivity calculation. Now we’ve found them.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-1-pushing-the-edge-of-climate-research-back-to-the-new-old-way-of-doing-science/

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by jim2

$
0
0

Obama seems to like religious people if they happen to be Communists. Funny, that.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by matthewrmarler

$
0
0

Steven Mosher: There are SMART arguments about sampling: Pielke Sr. MAKES THEM
There are smart arguments about UHI and micro site: Ross (on methods)
(anthony on data)
There are smart arguments on adjustments: Brandon and carrick make them.

In case Alan Longhurst wants to update and upgrade this chapter in the future, he would do well to master the BEST treatment and master what Mosh here calls the “SMART arguments”. I don’t join Mosh in claiming that all of Lonhurst’s chapter is pitiful, but the treatment of BEST is “clearly inadequate”. In the end, the temperature trend reconstructions based on extant surface thermometers are not accurate enough to address the energy flow problems entailed in the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming. Hence my claim (2) above, even should Mosh’s advice be taken. Has the flow of energy into the deep oceans increased, thus creating the observed “pause”? What accounts for the greening of the Sahel over the last 40 years? Were the changes in ENSO caused by an increase in downwelling LWIR? Can the surface temperature records elucidate how much global natural variation independent of CO2 there has been? Why has the energy dissipation in hurricanes an typhoons remained as stable as it has?

Recommendations for improvement are a dime a dozen. If it were easy, IPCC wouldn’t take as long as they do.

The sea surface temperature record is even less informative than the land surface temperature record.


Comment on RICO! by AK

$
0
0

They are also not lobbyists because they keep secret who pay them, and they claim to be independently presenting scientific findings.

Here’s a clip from a screen print of their front page, a few minutes ago. Note how climate dominates their subject matters.

/sarc.

Comment on RICO! by Red Xiv

$
0
0

Global warming deniers are not “skeptics”. And fraudulent “studies” bought by the fossil fuel industries to dispute the reality of the temperature record are not science.

Comment on RICO! by Michael Cote (@climatecote)

$
0
0

Would have been a good post if Curry actually knew what RICO was, understood its application, made clear that a case – however piecemeal – could muster standing, and recognize Senator Whitehouse’s experiences with RICO – especially given Rhode Island’s RICO scandal.

Comment on Hiatus revisionism by docgee

$
0
0

“In sum, I see no correlation at all until the late 1970’ s. And then, from ca. 1998 to the present the earlier correlation again breaks down. So from 1880 through 2014, we see only ca. 23 years where warming is correlated with CO2 emissions – out of a total of 134 years. Looks to me like the long term trend is not correlation but its opposite.”

Vortex, Polar (2015-06-01). The Unsettled Science of Climate Change: A Primer for Critical Thinkers (Kindle Locations 493-495). . Kindle Edition.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Willard

$
0
0
Page 193: <blockquote> A formal criticism, offering an improved method of using the same algorithm, was subsequently published but only after what the authors described as an ‘abusive peer "review’ that ran to a file of 88 pages. </blockquote> No citation for that indirect quote. *** Alan's claim that <blockquote> For this task, I have only very occasionally consulted the many Internet sites that contribute to the debate, <strong>and have clearly identified my handful of references to such material.</strong> </blockquote> is misleading at best.

Comment on RICO! by the professors are speaking out …| pindanpost

$
0
0

[…] Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on RICO! RICO and signing the death warrant for climate science […]

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)

$
0
0

Are those supposed to be quotes from Steven Mosher or something else? I thought the italics meant they were quotes, but I don’t see him (or anyone else) saying them anywhere on this page.


Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

$
0
0
<blockquote>The book is well written, technical but without equations – it is easily accessible to anyone with a technical education or who follows the technical climate blogs.</blockquote> None of these claims pass the straight-face test. The text is poorly written in the classical sky dragon style of run-on sentence structures with convoluted and backward logic flow. It's not technical at all, it just uses technical jargon in a random pattern. There is at least one equation, so that's not true. It is not easily accessible to anyone with real technical skill because of the poor sentence structure, logic flow and lack of coherent content. This tome leans heavily on solar and barycentric drivers to discount the influence of CO2 on increasing temperature. At the same time, it attempts to make a case that the temperature data is too sparse and overly manipulated to trust. Calling this wordy disorganized melange of half-baked pipe dreams a <i>Tour de Force</i> is jumping the shark. It is disappointing to admit that ATTP, Eli, et al are right about Climate etc..

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Don Monfort

$
0
0

I think matt made those quotes up, brandoon. You better call the quote police. Better yet, get a freaking life.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by angech2014

$
0
0

Mosher shooting himself in both feet, good and bad.

“B.) The sampling is FINE if anything its over sampled. That is
why you can for example pick 110 PRISTINE sites in the US
(CRN) and predict the rest of the country: Including
100s of other pristine sites ( RCRN) and 1000’s of “bad” sites.
What’s it tell you when you can start with 60 samples and get
one time series… then add 300 and get the same,,, then add
3000 and get the same…. then add 30000 and get the same?
whats that tell you about sampling?
Whats it tell you when you can pick 5000 and then predict any
other 5000 or 10000?”

What it tells anyone with common sense is that all the sites have been linked to each other by an algorithm and are no longer individual raw or individual site modified data but data that has been homogenized to fit in with every adjacent site.
This is not something to be proud of.
This is scientifically very, very wrong.
Any true set of recordings makes allowance for the fact that temperatures very from minute to minute from site to site and that due to known weather variations sites do not have to match each other in step.
What Mosher alludes to is pure chicanery.
Any set of sample sites that agrees this perfectly means they are not real temperature recordings anyway in any form.
It is the Cowtan and Way Kriging experience over again.
You must be able to pick sites that do not agree with each other in any sample.
That is what weather temperature, measurement is all about.
When you link everything to each other so they all move in step whatever sample you take you do not have real measurements.

Try it on the raw data Steven. See if they all move the same way whether you use 2 or 50,000.
I will guarantee they don’t.
Take your modified data and prove they all link perfectly.
I guarantee they do as well. I have your word for it.
And what do you call your data?
Well not data anymore.

“E) Accuracy is a vague term.”
No it is a very accurate term
“for example pick 110 PRISTINE sites in the US
(CRN) and predict the rest of the country
you can for example 1000’s of “bad” sites.”

So in your system bad sites are just as accurate as pristine sites.
That alone makes none of them pristine any longer and all of them bad.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by matthewrmarler

$
0
0

Brandon S?: Are those supposed to be quotes from Steven Mosher

Yep. I copied and pasted them directly. Doing a search on the string “SMART arguments”, I do not find them anywhere except in that post of mine.

?

Comment on RICO! by beththeserf

Viewing all 148372 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images