Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Climate culture by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

Making things up for the cause is.


Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Mike Flynn

0
0

Vaughan Pratt,

If thirty climate models give different answers, at least twenty nine are wrong. If you believe one is correct, which one?

You’ve got no more clue than the fools who believe that averaging a number of demonstrably wrong answers leads to truth. Fat headed nonsense, perpetrated to keep the mentally disturbed quiet and comatose.

Dimwitted climatologists wasting other people’s money on models they know to be wrong are positive geniuses compared with the providers of funding. These people are just living in a fantasy world.

I’m not being too critical, am I?

Cheers.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by ulriclyons

0
0

Short term solar effects on the AO/NAO, I predicted both.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by ulriclyons

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Michael Aarrh

0
0

Heh. Steve Koonin may write an article on this, and he outranks everyone he left behind in that committee. I imagine lots of physicists are going to think so too.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Science or Fiction

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Science or Fiction

0
0

I was looking for H2O, water vapor and clouds under natural forcing in Assessment Report 5, but could not find it. The only factors under natural forcing was solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols. And a conclusion; “There is very high confidence that industrial era natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing except for brief periods following large volcanic eruptions.”
(The IPCC report is voluminous but it is searchable).

Roy Spencer has a take on clouds in his book The great warming blunder:
“The insistence of the IPCC and the scientific “consensus” that clouds cannot cause climate variations continues to astound me. All atmospheric scientists know that clouds are controlled by a multitude of factors; my position is that causation between clouds and temperature flows in bot directions. In contrast, the IPCC´s position is that clouds can only change in response to temperature change (temperature cause clouds). But neglecting causation in the opposite direction (clouds cause temperature) can lead to large errors in our understanding of how and why the climate system changes, as well as in our diagnosis of how sensitive the climate system is to human influences.”

Judging from the following paper there is no doubt that Roy Spencer is right about his claim about IPCC´s position.

The following demonstrate that the cloud feedback parameter is set by choice:
Climate forcings in Goddard Institute for Space Studies SI2000 simulations J. Hansen et all

I find the following section immensely telling:
Therefore we include the possibility of altering the model’s climate sensitivity. We do this by adjusting an arbitrary cloud feedback as defined in the appendix of Hansen et al. [1997a]. Specifically, the cloud cover is multiplied by the factor 1 + c􏰃T , where 􏰃T, computed every time step, is the deviation of the global mean surface air temperature from the long-term mean in the model control run at the same point in the seasonal cycle and c is an empirical constant. For the SI2000 second-order model we take c = 0.04 and 􏰀0.01 to obtain climate sensitivities of 2°C and 4°C for 2 􏰂 CO2.”

This speaks for it self.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by mwgrant

0
0

JCH – very well practiced at cutting off my own nose. :O)

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Science or Fiction

0
0

“But if you look at 65-year climate since 1868 plotted against rising CO2 forcing, making the appropriate allowance for variations in heat from the Sun during that period”

Which quantity at which standard uncertainty do you use for heating from the sun in 1868?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by hidethedecline (@hidethedecline)

0
0

The Tamsin Edwards ‘Antarctica – chance of instability contributing to sea level rise by 2100’ link goes to a Guardian article that she wrote. It’s amazing – in a bad way.

Here’s the “science”:
“We predict there is a 1 in 20 chance it will be more than 30 cm by the end of the century, a 1 in 6 chance it will exceed 21 cm, a 50:50 chance of exceeding 12 cm, and so on.”
and
“…wild card, pessimistic outcome … We find even half a metre is outside the bounds of physical plausibility in our model,…”
and
“1 in 20 chance Antarctic instability will contribute less than 5 cm by 2100.”

What is “predicting a chance”? It’s just a fancy way of saying “providing odds”. Like a book maker at a racetrack.

Bookies know if there’s a meet on, which racetrack it’s at, what horses are running, how they’ve run before, the weight of the jockeys, whether it rained 4 days or 3 days before the race etc etc. Known knowns. That’s how bookies develop odds.

They might know if horse A had an injury on the way to the track if they maybe hear some gossip from the strappers, and they might know if a trainer is juicing up horse B if they hear some gossip from the vets, and they might know if jockey C is hungover from social media. But they’ll never know if one of, by way of example, one of Emily Pankhurst’s suffragettes is at the meet and ready to run out onto the track and disturb the race. Or whether the horse is sad. etc etc. Unknown unknowns.

That’s why people call it gambling when you place a bet with a bookie.

Tamsin doesn’t know everything there is to know about Antarctica. There’s so much missing from her here-to-2100 bookmaking. Heaps more than a bookie would miss about a horse race.

How Tamsin can walk around passing this stuff off as science when it’s nothing but too-expensive wild speculation unbefitting of a bookmaker is beyond me.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joseph

0
0

About half the world has falling emissions already, and given demographics, the other half will soon follow.

No I don’t think it necessarily follows from your graphic that the other half will soon follow. Still just speculation on your part..

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joseph

0
0

Tim, I not asking about research related to climate science. And if was so self evident someone else would have written a paper on it and drawn the same conclusion.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by hidethedecline (@hidethedecline)

0
0

+1 for the sentiment and it isn’t even that there’s a market for this worthless what if-ery. This kind of climate science is no better than social science.

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by Don Monfort

0
0

Little yimmy yammers:”timg56, I answered your comment when you were concerned Danes would stop buying Teslas.”

You are being somewhat harsh with the little fella, tim. I understand yimmy’s rationale. Just because the gubmint in Denmark is going to take away their electric car tax credits doesn’t mean the Danes won’t buy those pretty Tesla cars in the U.S. (where state and federal gubmint tax credits are very generous) and pay just a few thousand dollars extra to ship them home. Hey, some enterprising Dane could buy a whole boatload of cars and set up a bootleg Tesla dealership back home. It’s going to be really hard to stop the Danes from getting their Teslas. Did I leave anything out, yimmy?


Comment on Week in review – science edition by blouis79

0
0

Sounds like it’s time to crowd fund a proper GHG thermodynamics experiment. The only ones I can find are on CO2 lasers from the 1970s which talk of the phenomenon of kinetic cooling (which I’m reading as cooling which counteracts the absorption and haven’t managed to find a net warming of cooling figure).

The only question is which form of experiment would be obvious enough to convince the GHG warming believers they are wrong, based on whatever they think their theory of GHG warming is.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Science or Fiction

0
0

“Climate science is a highly technical subject developed by superior intellects based on higher mathematics, advanced technology, truly staggering quantities of data, and a vast literature of peer-reviewed articles.”
There is so many logical fallacies in that section alone, that it will take me more time to point them out than it took you to write that section.

One example: IPCC used circular reasoning to exclude natural variability. IPCC relied on climate models (CMIP5), the hypotheses under test if you will, to exclude natural variability:
“Observed Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies … lie well outside the range of Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies in CMIP5 simulations with natural forcing only, but are consistent with the ensemble of CMIP5 simulations including both anthropogenic and natural forcing …”
(Ref.: Working Group I contribution to fifth assessment report by IPCC. TS.4.2.)

Circular reasoning passed all reviews of: Papers, IPCC assessment report and governments review of the report.
Your idea that there is superior intellect behind that seems dubious.

Comment on Climate culture by tumbleweedstumbling

0
0

You’re forgetting the fact that anyone who does not accept the consensus is prevented from publishing in peer reviewed journals by the current culture so you can’t use #1 as an argument of validity. There is wide disagreement among researchers if researchers like Dr. Curry or those who study the sun or polar bear populations in Canada are included. “Within the field” has the same unfortunate problem as the peer review case. If you are not publishing what the culture wants you are not “in the field” and can therefore be discounted. Your list of the characteristics of the researcher do not take into account two confounding factors. Since culture requires conformity or loss of publications, grants and position only those scientists who have nothing to lose, i.e. those over 50 and retired or those not “in the field” can risk nonconformity. Since science of the 50+ crowd was largely male and white simply due to the dominance of the field by white males at the time they began their careers, stating that white males are themselves the problem is specious. It is however a very effective tool for discrediting them culturally as is labeling them the dreaded evil conservative. So you have nicely invoked 14 “Dissenters will be demonized, and possibly persecuted if the culture has gained enough moral penetration.”

Comment on Climate culture by AK

0
0
IMO there's a lot more to the "impending calamity" feeling. I'd guess the potential goes back to before language, at least in its present form. And I'd also guess that the feeling usually comes from some unconscious prediction, but then gets attached to whatever rationalization catches the victims' attention. The example I like best involves the apocalyptic strands of early Christianity. IMO many Jews and "God-fearers" saw impending calamity in the evolution of the early (Augustan) Imperium, but rationalized it as impending divine destruction. The calamity they foresaw actually occurred (the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War" rel="nofollow">Judean War</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors" rel="nofollow">"Year of the Four Emperors"</a>), although the prophecies were at best distant metaphors of what actually happened. If my speculation is correct, most of the CAGW alarmists are actually foreseeing some sort of calamity probably unrelated to climate, which is just a rationalization. Given the heavily leftist correlation with apocalyptic CAGW, my guess is what they're really reacting (proacting?) to is some sort of final triumph of capitalism. Something that ultimately renders their socialist ideology finally obsolete. Given how close technology, as produced by (somewhat) free-market capitalism, is to rendering all their fossil carbon issues into non-problems, I suspect what they really fear is final proof that humanity actually can support its full numbers in a comfortable Western-type lifestyle without ruining the planet.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

TLDW: Usually that’s Watch, PA, but perhaps you meant Write? Not sure which makes more sense.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images