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

Comment on Laframboise on the IPCC by manacker

0
0

John Whitman

As a non-involved observer, it appears to me that your proposal to create a “Climate Consortium Academica” to replace IPCC makes very good sense.

Even before the Laframboise book was published, the IPCC had become largely irrelevant, although many of those involved have not quite realized this yet.

An AR5 report would, by definition, also be irrelevant and should not be published, as you suggest.

If one looks for the principal causes for the IPCC’s failure, it is clear that one of the most important causes was the agenda-driven “consensus process”, which forcibly led to the introduction of bias in the “science”.

Any new group that fills the vacuum left by the IPCC must guard against the creation of such a process by openly accepting and including all scientifically legitimate studies and data, even if they are in direct conflict with the “mainstream” view.

The objective and brief of this new group should not be to find evidence to support the premise of potentially alarming human-induced climate change, as it was for IPCC, but to find out what makes our planet’s climate behave the way that it does. There should be no myopic fixation on anthropogenic causes for climate change at the exclusion of natural climate changes.

The group should obviously not be set up under the UN, but should rather be funded separately by the governments of the leading nations; a possibility would be the OECD nations plus Brazil, China, India and Russia.

It should not be seen as a principal task of this group to provide pertinent climate information to policy makers, but rather to provide such information to the general public. The group should not be involved in making policy suggestions, but simply in reporting the facts.

I would agree with your point that there “should be no leadership or senior positions in this group filled by former IPCC personnel”, and would add that those climate scientists, which have shown themselves to be advocates of a cause rather than objective scientists, should also not be involved in the new group.

There should obviously be no ties to either the fossil fuel industry or to environmental lobby groups, such as WWF, Greenpeace, Alliance for Climate Protection, etc.

Organizations, such as the RS or the NAS, whose political leaderships have already expressed open support for the IPCC position, should also be excluded from direct involvement.

I would add that this group should ensure that all publicly funded climate science be completely open to scrutiny and that the group itself should be audited by a group of independent auditors, whose job it would be to ensure that the problems that happened with the IPCC do not recur.

The devil will be in the detail, but your concept could be a good framework IMO.

Let’s see if any other posters here have some good ideas.

Max


Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by pokerguy

0
0

tempt. writes: “It looks like you science rejectionists are now denying you’d ever questioned the temperature record in the first place. You’d never raised the issue of the “urban heat island effect”. You’d never argued that the recent warming was due to various natural cycles and wasn’t at all unusual.”

There’s a lot wrong with the above. Your first few sentences are simply not true. Who is denying those things? And your last sentence would lead one to believe that this project in some ways demonstrates causation. Show me where it does that so I can go ahead and eat my hat (my favorite Key West baseball cap in fact).

Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by denialist crank

0
0

“I’ve always felt that from a strategic POV”

And that’s what’s important, that our strategies to defeat belief in CAGW be successful. Facts and science is not important, validating our prior held position is.

Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by Green Sand

0
0

Don,

“Everything I have read about SST gives me much less confidence that we know anything about temperatures in and over the oceans even now, and hardly at all for the 20th century.”
—————————————————————
From BEST FAQ site:-
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php

“What is next for Berkeley Earth?”

“As a next step, Berkeley Earth plans to address the total warming of the oceans, with a view to obtaining a more accurate figure for the total amount of global warming observable.”

Last I heard from JC was that funding was not yet in place for “next”. Maybe that has changed?

Comment on Laframboise on the IPCC by M. carey

0
0

Here’s my claim of honesty:

I’m honest.

Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by Nebuchadnezzar

0
0

David,

As long as the paper is submitted by mid-Nov and made available to the authors of the appropriate chapter then its eligible to go in, far as I know. You don’t need to make it public in any way.

I’m intrigued by the statement that they wanted to avoid being scooped. Scooped by whom?

Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by tonyb

0
0

Judith

I found the other papers and read this;

“We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a rural subset of 16,132 sites chosen to be distant from all MODISidentified urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend, both distributions show significant warming.”
AND
” A histogram of the station trends is shown in Error! Reference source not found.a, categorized by station record length. The distribution is broad with a width substantially larger than the mean; 67% of the slopes are positive, i.e. there are about twice as many warming stations as cooling stations.”

There seem to be several places with the message
‘Error reference source not found’

Consequently I’m not sure if the histogram showing the cooling stations is actually present in the paper. Do you know?

Poor piece of research claiming London is the first example of Urban heating. It was Rome, as various articles attest, with Nero being perfectly aware of the effect and the causes.

tonyb

Comment on Laframboise on the IPCC by hunter

0
0

M. carey,
We have and you failed.


Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by Nebuchadnezzar

0
0

It gives the authors a greater chance to avoid committing a flawed paper to the permanent record, perhaps. It gets more eyes on the analysis at an earlier stage. Some papers get mired in peer review and don’t see the light of day for months, or years. I, for one, am pretty glad the papers are out there now rather than a year from now. I’ll be interested to see what, if any, changes get made if, or when, the papers get published.

Comment on Laframboise on the IPCC by M. carey

0
0

So you make no claim to honesty?

Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by AK

0
0

Clearly a tribal alarmist.

Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by P.E.

0
0

That caught my eye, too. I wasn’t aware that this was the newspaper business.

Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by tonyb

Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by AK

0
0

I expect we should stay tuned…

Comment on Laframboise on the IPCC by M. carey

0
0

My opinion is $5 is too much to pay for a book that’s probably mostly BS.


Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by omnologos

0
0

Buzz – you’ve missed the whole paper.

Comment on Laframboise on the IPCC by John Whitman

0
0

M. carey,

I do not know.

If IPCC critics were/are or not political is irrelevent to my suggestions. Politics, per se, has less effects if the new climate assessment vehicle was not a political body like the UN’s IPCC. Private unversities seems like the most reasonable venue wrt to mitigation against overt politics, therefor I suggest them.

John

Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by omnologos

0
0

How about comparing the URBAN stations to the NOT-URBAN ones? And are you really unable to see how many questions are left open because of the way a station is classified as “urban”?

Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by Tilo Reber

0
0

“Thats twice GISS.”

Uuuuuhhhh. And that’s important why?

Steven: “WRT polar stations, you best understand kridging before you spout off.”

Why do I need to understand kriging? It is a mathematical method. How is a mathematical method going to deal with going from water warmed shore stations to ice bound areas away from shore. They still have no thermometers across the ice. And in order for the method to work they would still have to consider transitions from melted shore stations to ice covered arctic. I doubt that they can do that, since the ice line information isn’t even available before the satellite era. But the question remains, are the “kriging” across the arctic. Maybe we should get the answer to that question that I asked before you spout off.

“To show that there is a problem with the pole you have to show that. not merely assert it.”

Wrong again Mosher. If they are going to use a statistical form of extrapolation then it is their job to show that it works in every place where they use it – not just assert it.

“at less than 2% of the total surface area you wont find much effect from treating it differently”

Wrong again Mosher. Hansen did a HadCrut mask of the GISS data and showed that there was no divergence when the poles were left out. Whereas there was significant divergence when they were included.

Mosher: “You are welcome to download any data and prove that. not assert, prove. with your code and data made available”

There you go blathering on again about code and data. Just because you found a new love that you think makes you a magician you now want to impose that on the rest of us. But it is the methods that matter, and they can be described in simple English. And if the methods are inadequate, then the code and data are also going to be inadequate. It’s the old GIGO rule that every programmer knows.

Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by AK

0
0

Well, you see, because of reporting problem with too many of the stations, they don’t know the locations of many stations that closely. Urban areas comprise only about half a per cent of the Earth’s land surface. Sure, if there was good data, they could do anything they wanted with it. The challenge here is to extract useful knowledge from really noisy data.

Point is, when it comes to the Urban Heat Island effect, if they have a known non-urban population to compare with, they can eliminate the effect, or at least put a good rough size to it.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images