There are some realism in this paper – just a pity that this kind of realims doesn´t find its way into summary for policy makers, the oval office or the papacy.
“We note that systematic forcing errors in CMIP-5 simulations of historical climate change are not confined to the treatment of volcanic aerosols. Errors are also likely to exist in the treatment of recent changes in solar irradiance, stratospheric water vapour, stratospheric ozone and anthropogenic aerosols. Even a hypothetical ‘perfect’ climate model, with perfect representation of all the important physics operating in the real-world climate system, will fail to capture the observed evolution of climate change if key anthropogenic and natural forcings are neglected or inaccurately represented. It is not scientifically justifiable to claim that model climate sensitivity errors are the only explanation for differences between model and observed temperature trends. Understanding the causes of these differences will require more reliable quantification of the relative contributions from model forcing and sensitivity errors, internal variability, and remaining errors in the observations.”
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Science or Fiction
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by timg56
Sciguy,
I’ll place a bet that the justification for capital cost of transmission cable is either the tax credits or meeting a renewable mandate. Meaning they need the wind generation project to get the cable. It doesn’t have to meet common sense standards, just regulatory driven accounting practices.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Joseph
<blockquote> Rather than debating climate change fantasies we need to address how to jack the CO2 level to 500 PPM as soon as possible to cut crop water losses.</blockquote>
I think you are living in a fantasy world if you think we are going to purposefully try to increase CO2 emissions.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan
My, you are persistent, n. “Climate will continue warming a lot”. Please show your homework. Because the climate has not warmed at all this century, except when Karl fiddled SST and his boss hid that fact and is facing contempt of congress. And none of the other predicted warmunist stuff has come to pass either. You are shooting factual blanks. Noisy and harmless, showing only your ignorance of the facts and adherence to the warmunist ‘religion’. Ma Nature is a tough cookie. She appears not to be on your side.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan
J2, see my comment there to post # 18. Cannot argue Evans theoretical math, cause clear and ‘correct’. Can argue his parameterization values, and even moreso some of his conclusions. Simplest response to ’25 meters’ average WVEL makes all the sensitivity difference is, you have to be kidding. Something is wrong, or something is missing. 25 meters WVEL makes that much difference in a turbulent 10 km troposphere average that varies from more than 12 at the equator to less than 10 at high latitudes? The result defies common sense. More PseudoPrecision.
↧
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Curious George
What exactly makes an adjustment “legitimate”? Are adjustments a product of statistics or a wishful computing?
After a discovery that “anomalies” are computed against a sliding “base”, I tend to mistrust much of IPCC results. And models don’t even have a latent heat of water evaporation right.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by hidethedecline (@hidethedecline)
JimD, I don’t need to show you anything.
You’re the plaintiff. Prove your damage. You cannot.
You have mistaken religious fervour and end-of-days alarmism for science. Or, to put it as Prof Curry would, you have mistaken bias and advocacy and the suppression of uncertainty for solid evidence.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by timg56
Highly dangerous.
You have a higher chance of a zombie apocalypse numbnuts.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Arch Stanton
Nuance says it all.
He is not a roller. I guess.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Joseph, it actually isn’t a bad idea at least as far as the US goes. We can call it a war on cold, mandate a 500 minimum and there is no way in hell we will win.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by timg56
Joseph,
You do realize that treating Xbox computer game results as science is textbook fantasy world.
Of course you don’t.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Joseph – go check on what the Chinese intend to do. The intend to jack up the CO2 concentration A LOT.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Yep, the world-class problem solvers remind me of a Steve Martin joke: Yes, you too can be a Millionaire!! First, get a million dollars.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Mark Silbert
Don,
I’m with you:
“I bet if one looked into it in depth, one would find that if one moved to a heavily Republican zipcode one could smoke, drink, engage in promiscuous sex while eating bacon and live a long and very happy life.”
Except the older you get the more the smoke, drink and bacon out weigh the sex part (promiscuous or otherwise).
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Saw that. There are other hypothesized routes to space. I appreciate his effort, nonetheless.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Peter Davies
For determination of long term climate trend, the error bars of the present temperature series’ short term trends would be huge because of the absence of reliable population data. For this reason statistical tests and the isolation of the signal from natural variability from anthropogenic causes would highly conjectual.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Peter Davies
Sorry about the missing “r” and as there’s no clear correlation between CO2 and temperature, this is indeed prescient.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Mark Silbert
jim2 and Rud,
I have to admit I am a bit lost on the reference to Dr. Evans theory……..can you help me out?
On the other hand, I am becoming more and more disenchanted with debates over the “science”. Richard Tol’s scathing indictment of the UNFCCC/IPCC process puts it in perspective. As much as the science still fascinates me I am distressed to conclude that at the end of the day it hardly matters when juxtaposed on the political moralistic BS that is the Green Mafia. I am ready to sign up for Mosomoso’s revolution.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Mark Silbert
Unless there is a revolution it will never stop:
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Brandon Shollenberger
“You know how you get a million dollars out of the stock market? Well, first you start with ten million…”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
