Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by omanuel


Comment on Climate closure (?) by Science or Fiction

0
0

Honestly Shaun, you are a professor – but did not refrain yourself from name calling. To me, name calling is something I do not expect to see in opinion pieces by professors.
“Name calling is abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group, a verbal abuse. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse and school systems, in an attempt to negatively impact their opponent.” Ref. Wikipedia.

And I really wonder – did your complete courses on scientific theory?
“Instead of struggling to prove humans are to blame, let’s prove denialist fantasies wrong”
Your miss the point of science entirely:
Ideas, hypotheses and theories are merited by the severity of tests they have been exposed to and survived.

If you want to strengthen your pet theory, you should expose your pet theory to severe testing. Only then will you be able to utter a scientific statement, a statement having the form:
These are my ideas, hypothesis and theory. These are necessary deduced consequences thereof. If my idea is correct, I deduct that the following will have to be observed, in nature, or as the output of a a test.
Then – I would list, and refer to in traceable ways, the tests which has been conducted – the observations which has been made. I would also state the uncertainty level of the dependent variable – the output of my theory – and the uncertainty level of the observed quantities – the results of my tests.
I would also know that a theory is more valuable the more it excludes from happening, A theory which allows everything explains nothing.

These are the first lines of the Logic of scientific discovery by Karl Popper:
“A scientist, whether theorist or experimenter, puts forward statements, or systems of statements, and tests them step by step. In the field of the empirical sciences, more particularly, he constructs hypotheses, or systems of theories, and tests them against experience by observation and experiment.”
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf

Please note that Karl Popper did not say:
In addition to struggle to prove that he is right, a scientist should try to prove that his opponents fantasies are wrong.
This seems to be your approach.

However, what you have provided, is only another line of justification for your pet theory, justification based on inductive reasoning. Reasoning which has been properly debunked in this post, its comments and replies.

I hope, for the future of your students, that you are not the one who holds the courses on scientific theory.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Berényi Péter

0
0
Eh, <a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/p12/12/1880-2015.csv" rel="nofollow">NOAA NODC Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies</a>

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Bartemis

0
0
AK | October 25, 2015 at 3:25 pm | <i>"It could involve a general re-organization to ENSO as a result of higher CO2, one that primarily affects the NH."</i> Yeah, well, it could also be general migration of unicorns to the SH due to increased industrialization. "If it ain't <i>global</i>, it ain't AGW."

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

0
0
<blockquote>I don’t see any progress toward making fuel.</blockquote>Splitting water to make H2 is well-known technology, although a version(s) suitable for scaling and appropriate learning curve/economies of scale is/are still in prototype stage(s). There's a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction" rel="nofollow">well-known process</a> for combining CO2 with H2 to create fuels. IIRC in its simplest, nickel-catalyzed form, it produces a mixture of methane and short-chain hydrocarbons suitable (AFAIK) for immediate distillation and sale as gas and liquid fuels. The navy (IIRC) spent some effort trying to "tune" the process to reduce methane production, while similar "tuning" would probably be necessary to restrict the output to methane. (But Wiki, link above, doesn't mention that.) But why bother? Just use it in its natural form, and separate the products and sell them separately.

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

0
0

WTI is back around $45 after visiting around $50 last week.

WTI Prices:
10/23/15
OIL 44.60
BRENT 47.99
NAT GAS 2.286
RBOB GAS 1.3036

Images from http://marketrealist.com

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by timg56

0
0

The Berkeley Stanford and the study on hurrican related damages are excellent.

Excellent as in they offer excellent evidence that economics is as full of made up crap as climate science.

Anyone note that the entire premise of the hurricane paper is a line from the IPCC report saying it is a certainty that the intensity and frequency of huricanes are increasing due to climate change? Forget the actual numbers. Just go with an assumption and pretend it is a fact.

Imagine what would happen if accountants adopted the same methods?

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder


Comment on Climate closure (?) by verdeviewer

0
0

I just compared trends from the NCDC Feb 2015 Land/Ocean temperature dataset to today’s Land/Ocean dataset.

In the February dataset, the trend from 1880 through 1998 was 0.5°/C per century. The trend from 1998 through 2014 was 0.6°C per century.

Today, the trend from 1880 through 1998 is still 0.5°/C per century. But the trend from 1998 through 2014 has increased to 1.0°C per century.

In just 8 months, the upward temperature trend during the previous 17-year-interval has increased 67%. Pretty scary.

The moment of closure has passed again. Climatic deterioration is a done deal. Dissenting data will be denied.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by catweazle666

0
0

WebHubTelescope: “Lovejoy is right.”

Well, that settles it.

If you believe that, it’s sure to be a load of old donkey droppings.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan

0
0

The Stanford/Berkeley climate/economics paper is seriously flawed. i am surprised it passed Nature review. Take 30 years of data on temperature and economic development for 166 countries to tease out an ‘optimum’ tempe for labor and agricultural productivity development. Come up with ~55F annual average— surprise, the temperate mean annual temperature for the US, Europe, and China. Common sense red flag 1: the US CONUS regional mean temps alone vary nearly as much as the whole sample of 166 countries. I personally compare South Florida to Chicago and Wisconsin many times a year. Miami annual mean 77F, Chicago 50F. Shows how statistically junky such cross sectional analysis is.
Common sense red flag 2: Most developing countries with poor economic productivity growth are in ‘tropical’ Latin America (e.g. Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela…), Africa (Nigeria, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Congo…) or Southeast Asia (Myanmar, Thailand,…). It is self evident that in all of those places, socialism, corruption, and military juntas are much bigger productivity hindrances than climate.
Worse, the paper takes this absurdly confounded cross sectional result and then applies it as if it were an economic time series to estimate the ‘productivity damage function for the world’ for modeled 2100 warming. A big scary number just in time for Paris. Scary because it projects the consequences of Ortega, Chavez, Goodluck, Mugabe, and a brutally regressive Burmese military junta onto global warming.
Shame on Berkeley and Stanford for producing such econometric garbage. And on Bloomberg BW for amplifying it.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder

0
0

NOAA will have access to the best obstructionist advisors that taxpayers can buy, the aforementioned agencies of this most transparent administration evah! Unprecedented transparency! Why, we can see right through them!

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Willis Eschenbach

0
0
Steven Mosher | October 24, 2015 at 10:52 pm | <blockquote>“do not suffer from station closings and openings, station moves, lack of coverage, change in thermometers, or UHI” Well each of these has an analog ...</blockquote> Thanks, Mosh. As you point out, all known methods have problems. But my claim still remains that the satellites give us the best, most internally consistent temperature records. Looking at only one metric, the satellite records have orders of magnitude better coverage than the surface records. And while the satellites have an analog of "station moves", and an analog of "changing thermometers", what they don't have are<em> undocumented</em> station moves and <em>undocumented</em> thermometer changes, which are the bane of the surface records. Finally, you claim that "Uhi… Nope but Uhi is small. Look at MAT" ... I've looked at the MAT (marine air temperature), and it is quite different from the land station results, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've also <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/28/buoy-temperatures-first-cut/" rel="nofollow"><b>noted</a></b> that the Berkeley Earth averaging method adjusts the marine (buoy) temperature records, which seems quite strange to me, and cuts against your argument about MAT vs land temps. Finally, I don't see how you could draw any general conclusions about UHI (urban heat islands) from the MAT in any case. We have good documentation of things like up to a 6°C winter UHI in Barrow, Alaska ... and since that is the only station for hundreds and hundreds of miles, your claim that the effect of that is "small" seems quite doubtful. Heck, GISS is extrapolating temperatures 1200 km. from Barrow using those UHI-corrupted temperatures ... and you think they don't make a difference? How does that work? In any case, if you have evidence that "UHI is small", perhaps you could provide a link. I haven't seen it, but that means little with as much information as is out there. Thanks as always for your comments, they're sometimes cryptic but always interesting, w.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by AK

0
0

For over 100 years, SH and NH are in lockstep.

What’s in lockstep? Do you even know?

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Tucci78

0
0
<blockquote>...my claim still remains that the satellites give us the best, most internally consistent temperature records. Looking at only one metric, the satellite records have orders of magnitude better coverage than the surface records. And while the satellites have an analog of “station moves”, and an analog of “changing thermometers”, what they don’t have are <i>undocumented</i> station moves and <i>undocumented</i> thermometer changes, which are the bane of the surface records.</blockquote> Valid. Would it be better to say, however, that the satellite systems give us the more <b><i>methodologically</i></b> consistent temperature records relative to the artifact-raddled surface surface stations' thermometry?

Comment on Climate closure (?) by wert

0
0

Lovejoy:

Hence a 1°C fluctuation is about five standard deviations, or a 1 in 3,000,000 chance

Omg. What’s that in acre feet? :-)

This gives a probability of at most 1 in 1000

This is a bit like finding a 1000-sided die at side 999 top, and then telling this is a one to thousand chance – when your point is that it is not a chance. Well, maybe not!

There are plenty of things to explain still, beginning from when adjusting past changes to predicting future correctly? And why satellites series diverge from surface?

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Joseph

0
0

Were they kept out of the IPCC report? And what makes you think it was a “valid scientific view?” I wouldn’t want garbage in the IPCC report either. Would you?

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

0
0

Yep. I posted an article that predicted a new surge in immigration into the US due to the storm. Hope that one is now wrong.

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

0
0

The junkyard of “science.”

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

0
0

I wasn’t that the paper was wrong, just that is was produced by the wrong tribe.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images