Comments for Climate Etc.

Shame on you, steven. Poor yimmy. We were just about to start taking him seriously and you destroy the little fella.

You’re in the perfect position to forgive your spell checker :)

Interesting article on the fine art of opinion. https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Did you see the sheila who fell over while interviewing Al Gore. She was blissfully tanked, but nobody’s supposed to say it. Stewed to the gills – and good luck to her.

so steve’s list is a list of three…
has lindzen refused mosh’s requests?
fred singer?

What do you think Lindzen has done that would interest SM?

Tonyb,

“when very thin data is being overstretched”

That’s the tag line for much climate science research these days. If software can run the calculation to 4 or 5 significant digits, then the results are facts.

isn’t “the research funded by the National Science Foundation”, in reality, research funded by the US government? – government funds NSF which in turn hands out grants. Should the government be funding this kind of research, that does nothing to further scientific knowledge?

Richard

““As the NYTimes articles says, it is very true that the denialists hold opposing theories to less rigor than the consensus theories that they don’t want to believe. This, indeed, distinguishes denialists from skeptics.””

For those interested (Mosher?)

The Big Ten Championship Game is soon to start. Go Michigan State University!

Richard

Since the MSU era, temperature trends are lower than Hansen C.
Would you like to hold Hansen to account here?

The AR4 promised 0.2C per decade for all scenarios.
Would you like to hold them to account now?

Some claim ‘global warming is accelerating’ when you know it’s decelerating. Would you like to apply rigor to this erroneous claim?

What a high standard these people have! And their lofty ideals! And all the deep secret knowledge. A must-read, indeed.

“Decisions based on economic models of long-term climate impacts” should rather be “decisions based on economic models of impacts of long-term climate models results.” Models squared.

“no way we can control any of the other parameters such as…water vapor.”

Clear blue sky this morning, except for jet contrails that have since multiplied and coalesced into a solid layer of cirrus cloud.

<i>Clear blue sky this morning, except for jet contrails that have since multiplied and coalesced into a solid layer of cirrus cloud.</i> You must live <a href="http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/displaySat.php?region=US&itype=wv&size=large&endDate=20130930&endTime=-1&duration=12" rel="nofollow">in the SouthEast US, where I noticed those contrails in the water vapor satellite imagery just now</a>.

Yeah, Don, I guess I was thinking of the poor in countries that have centralized electricity. Should have been more clear.

Politico (actually Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute) on why Paris is meaningless:

…the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take.

Read the paper by Tol.

Why the sudden choice to go for a piecewise discontinuous linear model for damages? Why would climate impacts be discontinuous? A parabolic model makes more sense. I detect confirmation bias to obtain the same conclusion as Tol (2009).

Anyway, the results of Nordhaus, Tol and Weitzman all seem to suggest that climate change reduces global GDP by approximately 0.2%*(deltaT)^2, where deltaT is the temperature minus pre-industrial temperatures in celcius.

Also found 2 typos:
Page 7: ‘but not in hot ones’ should read ‘but not in rich ones’
Page 8: ‘these assumptions is realistic’ should read ‘these assumptions are realistic’

In a situation where uncertainty rules, there is no reason to go for parablic approximations. Keep it simple, -1.

Latest Images