Death toll already in hundreds.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron
Tony, I happened to wake early this morning a commented on another thread. I’ll paraphrase again, when is first see the immigrant waves I figure there are some potential threats and we need to monitor. There will be terrorists, but other dynamics are at play too. For every terrorist there will potentially be more assets, informational and actionable. Attacks are inevitable, but power dynamics may be less obvious.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
Please link to three facts.
↧
Comment on Call for an ethical framework for climate services by Geoff Sherrington
Steven M,
You have the wrong sequence.
A group of people ‘alarmists’ claim the Earth is facing climate dangers.
Others ‘sceptics’ disagree.
It is not up to these sceptics to take the data behind the alarmist model, rework it, maybe arrive at different outcomes.
These sceptics have a different main task. It is to provide data and interpretations that question the science being promoted.
The main task of the alarmists is to back their alarm with scientifically tight data and interpretations, including responses to sceptics.
In this, the alarmists have failed – they have not even passed Step One, to establish a quantitative relation between GHGs and atmospheric temperatures in the real world as opposed to the modelled world.
There is not even agreement about which of these two, GHGs and temperature, is the dependent variable.
There can be no significant progress until a method is evolved to clearly distinguish between natural change (that should have been studied first) and man-made change, if it registers.
Geoff.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
I was referring to the many links in the week in review that will have skeptics dismayed. Greenland, Antarctic, Pacific, …
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by justinwonder
The west needs to wake up from the fantasy of cultural relativism.
http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying-ebook/dp/B000FCKPEO
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher
It’s better to just detect breaks empirically.
↧
Comment on Call for an ethical framework for climate services by Science or Fiction
“Interestingly the article seems to go out its way to address the problems raised in this thread re- ‘certainty’, and ‘ settled science’, and goes out of its way to underline in the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ that the following summary terms are used to describe the available evidence:
limited, medium, or robust; and the degree of agreement as: low, medium, or high; whereas level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence.”
If IPCC had any humility, then someone in IPCC would have used Google and found:
“Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement.”
https://www.oiml.org/en/files/pdf_g/g001-100-e08.pdf
United Nations – IPCC failed to recognize this international guideline. They made up their own in a hasty way. The guideline by IPCC is a largely a joke called: “Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties”.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf
IPCC makes 2 gross mistakes in this guideline:
– 1´st mistake by IPCC is the failure to recognize, and comply with, the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty … ”
The 1´st mistake leaves IPCC´s quantification of uncertainty more or less useless. (Except for the fact that this mistake falsifies the idea that IPCC express uncertainty in accordance with an internationally accepted guideline.)
– 2´nd mistake by IPCC , is to try to standardize the expression of subjective probabilities e.g. summary terms or level of confidence.
This 2´nd mistake is a huge scientific mistake.
See Karl Popper for a proper take on that: “The logic of scientific discovery”; Section 8; Scientific objectivity and subjective conviction
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
—-
Quote from Karl Popper: “a subjective experience, or a feeling of conviction, can never justify a scientific statement, … within science it can play no part except that of an object of an empirical (a psychological) inquiry. No matter how intense a feeling of conviction it may be, it can never justify a statement. Thus I may be utterly convinced of the truth of a statement; certain of the evidence of my perceptions; overwhelmed by the intensity of my experience: every doubt may seem to me absurd. But does this afford the slightest reason for science to accept my statement? Can any statement be justified by the fact that Karl Popper is utterly convinced of its truth? The answer is, ‘No’; and any other answer would be incompatible with the idea of scientific objectivity.”
—-
So to your hypothesis:
“could it be that at least a minimal degree of rapprochement is taking place between IPCC and its critics” ?
I can´t speak for any other critics than myself, we are not a group. The only thing I can say for sure is that the degree of rapprochement between IPCC and me is zap, zilch, zero.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
All that varnish research flushed down the hole.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
Mosher’s field stuff is statistical nonsense. There is no temperature field.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Simon Filiatrault
Let me rephrase this:
1) Does my source and my understanding of +/- 0.2°C is close to the error/uncertainty for this RSS-TLT dataset ?
2) If 1) is true or close to it, does it make sense to say what I said: No statistically significant warming since we started measuring LT?
Thanks!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Jim D: I was referring to the many links in the week in review that will have skeptics dismayed. Greenland, Antarctic, Pacific, …
I read of bunch of minor contributions to climate science, what Thomas Kuhn labelled “Normal Science”. Which of those reports is supposed to have me in dismay? Greenland, the Arctic, the Antarctic, the Pacific become more complicated year by year, but warnings or allegations of approaching disaster remain unfounded.
Jim D: The Cold Sun Rising article is a bit of comic relief designed to cheer up the skeptics in the face of all the facts around them.
It’s the point of view of a solar scientist, somewhat simplified. It’s written in the tone and depth of zillions of warnings about CO2-induced warming. The solar theories and the CO2 theories are full of holes, but their contrasting predictions are being made and recorded, and it should not take long to find out which are the least accurate.
And in other news, not cited here, warming records and cooling records continue to be set all over the Earth, wherever weather records are kept. Pick your favorites to test, or at least examine, for global climate change attribution.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Jim D: <i> This one really looks like an outlier based on shaky data too,</i>
In your judgment, which of the Antarctic data are non-shaky?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
<i> NASA found a way to track ocean currents from space. What they saw is troubling </i>
For me, that is behind a paywall. Is there another link to the report?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
This is a case where the skeptics have chosen to unquestionably believe a study based on the bottom line, but not on the methods used being superior in any way, which they are far from.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
17 days to COP21 in Paris, and six terrorist attacks overnight killing 120+ people. Paris in lockdown, 1500 troops called in, state of emergency etc. Might this cause a rethink on the meeting?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Since you are the audience this article was intended for, did the violinmaking prediction help to make you feel better about the future?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Chaam Jamal
re: NASA found a way to track ocean currents from space. What they saw is troubling
“the current study does not claim to have detected a long-term, downward trend in the strength of the AMOC. The point was more to prove that the technique works. And now that it does, the researchers say they are preparing to do more long-term analyses.”
there is nothing “troubling” about the results
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Chaam Jamal
re: Is the Antarctic losing or gaining ice?
GRACE mass balance data show a small but steady decline 2002-2014
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2684427
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
<i>Jim D | November 13, 2015 at 8:40 pm |
I was referring to the many links in the week in review that will have skeptics dismayed. Greenland, Antarctic, Pacific, …</i>
That's funny. Using Real Climate to refute a scientific study is about as useful as linking to "The Onion".
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
