Your thoughts are so beautifully general and devoid of any particulars.
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Curious George
↧
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Mark Silbert
I am starting to understand.
Maybe the best hope we have.
↧
Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by Peter Lang
I’ve already dealt with your anti-correlation argument. You still need near full back up. Clearly you have no understanding of how to do the analyses. It’s hard to believe you don’t understand any of this yet you are doing a PhD into energy storage for electricity systems. It makes me wonder, what has academia come to.
I asked you: “If you want to debate options analyses and the comparative costs, then start with sourcing authoritative analyses showing the system costs of the options at 50% to 80% penetration of intermittent renewable energy.”
You haven’t answeted
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by PA
Well, that isn’t exactly true.
However the global warmunists do have some challenges:
1. Show how 22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 translates into strong warming.
The best case from a warmunist perspective that can be made is that the ECS is 2°C and a fair estimate is closer to 1°C.
2. Show a scenario that can reasonably get them over 500 PPM with fossil fuel production peaking around 2040
3. Demonstrate that the roughly 1/3 of warming (55% increase over real warming) since 2008 for the 1910-2000 period, due to CGAGW or “virtual warming”, has the same effect as “real warming”.
4. Show that some level of warming, say 2°C or 3°C or 4°C or 5°C or 6°C or 7°C or 8°C or 9°C or 10°C or 11°C will cause harm with “high confidence” that will exceed the CO2/Warming benefits.
A law requiring “benefit” studies receive dollar for dollar funding with “harm” studies, is needed, since someone is evidently more interested in the harm than in the benefit of warmth and more CO2. When the “benefit” studies have had a few billion thrown at them to match the “harm” funding and we have a dollar value for the global warming benefits, this issue will be ripe for consideration.
And finally, given the answers to 1,2,3, show that a temperature level with a “high confidence” of net harm is likely.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Curious George
mwgrant “Models are IMPROVED not “proved” or “disproved”. I wish it were so. I found an incorrect physics in UCAR’s CAM 5.1 model. I pointed it out to UCAR. I did not get any thanks for helping. Nothing happened in two years; I don’t check any more.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/
↧
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Barnes
Based on the number of adjustments required to support their preordained conclusions, neither can the warmunistas.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by carbonicus
Thirded. Sen. Markey should be ashamed of himself for the way he disrespected you, Dr. Curry. As Steyn wrote, decorum has to be set aside when a US Senator behaves in the fashion he did.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Barnes
Mw – yes, I would shelve the current models used to inform policy given their complete inadequacy to produce results resembling observed reality. Also, given the spatial inadequacies, the use of min-max readings as the basis for determining global temps, among other things. The simple reality is that we know far less about what makes the climate system tick than what warmunistas claim. On the other hand, we have clear, demonstrable, observed evidence that use of fossil fuels have improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people – people, at least in the west, now live longer, healthier, more productive, and better lives overall, and there is a direct linkage between use of fossil fuels and human benefit. The climatsriate want to stop the progress fossil fuels have enabled based on failed models. That’s all they have, and it is woefully.inadequate.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by mwgrant
Hi curious,
Looking at the link provided I suspect you found approximation error associated with semi-empirical submodel(s) [looking at p.136 in the CAM 5.0 Userguide.] Looking at the context in which the community model is provided and the spirit of experimentation it purports to foster, I see nothing alarming in your finding to the point it was developed and reported. However, the existence of approximation error arising from documented structural simplifications is no reason to view a model as disproved–particularly when we at talking about semi-empirical versus ab initio models. That is the very nature of the former.
I also noted this particular discussion in one reply:
The latent heat of vaporization is a quantity that is identical in all components of the model (ice, land, ocean, sea ice) and it is a major task to change this since it is used to ensure energy conservation within the whole model system. As CESM is a community model I would encourage you to try and quantify the error with the current approximation and if significant try and correct it across the model. We will discuss this potential problem in our next model development meeting next week and discuss it’s potential priority
If you think about it, at the time you were most familiar with your specific issue and the responder was asking from more input to help them evaluate the situation, i.e., priorities. Frankly since we a talking about a structural component (and fundamental assumptions in model formulation) things very likely would not change (speculation). Indeed those closest to the formulation of the conceptual model(s) might even have out-of-hand reasons to drop the matter, e.g., conservation of energy, with which the responder was not familiar. So the ball really was in your court.
In addition noting the purpose of the CAM release–a community model–and the fact that a series of versions with improvements followed the initial release the code series seems to support Mosh’s view of improvement…and improvements involved an active segment of the user community.
Regards,
mw
↧
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by aneipris
“That’s 97.1% of 32.6%, not 97% of 100%. Tsk, mister Cook.”
Brilliant Beth. And you did it in one simple sentence, not counting the tsk.
Tsk indeed. I was going to ask how these guys sleep at night, but then I remembered they were saving the planet.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by mwgrant
Barnes,
I too would give very strong consideration to shelving the present models. Urgency–real or perceived–can not be to over-ride quality concerns. I also agree in tone with most of the rest of your comment. However, I do part ways with respect your default continuance of use of fossil fuels. I think that good policy has come from a formal ‘rational decision process’. It really is a question of maintaining proper governance–a matter of no small concern in the climate debacle.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Climatism
Reblogged this on <a href="https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma/" rel="nofollow">Climatism</a> and commented:
Well done Judith Curry. Your willingness to question the climate orthodoxy, at the potential expense of your career, reputation and by default, exclude yourself from funding, is beyond commendable. However what you are doing is simply the essence of science - to question hypothesis (and authority), that we may discover and understand more about the complex climate system. Bravo, thank you and do not stop doing what you are doing. It is *so* important for the future of science and the scientific method.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by rogerknights
Aletho says, “And AGW is not an economic system question.”
No, but CAGW is. The cost of mitigating the production of CO2 is enormous–it’s what’s holding up the agreement in Paris right now. As Monckton says, anything affordable is inadequate; anything adequate is unaffordable. Actually, there is one affordable and adequate option–some form of nuclear power.
Those are very relevant counters to the warmist claims that a non-nuclear, renewable-powered world IS affordable. We are not going outside the bounds and into ideology in making those points against their claim.
I agree however that there is too much unnecessary, or at least strategically unwise, political commentary by our side, especially on WUWT. I said so long ago both in a comment or two there and in my guest thread there, “Notes from Skull Island.” (I said there that if Big Oil were behind contrarian blogs, it would pay moderators to snip such commentary, which alienates much of the public.) But it’s asking too much of a mass of people for them all to restrain themselves–only tight moderation could do that. Which WUWT can’t afford; its moderation is all voluntary.
↧
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by rogerknights
“It is sad that it took Steyn, doing what I would call a very Canadian attempt at civility and refusal to stand by while another was villified by a powerful person, to demand you have the ability to respond.”
Hmm, that made me think of another title for the hearing: “Dogma or Decorum?”
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by rogerknights
Neat!
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by omanuel
The Senate Hearing demonstrated how effectively false propaganda is communicated to the public even when challenged by very talented scientific opponents.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by rogerknights
PS–I meant to say, “It’s moderation is all voluntary and over-worked.”
↧
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by erikemagnuson
“Nothing can prove or disprove a model.”
The terminology I hear most in regards to models is “validation” not “prove”. A major part of validation is characterizing where the model generates valid results and knowing why the modeled results are valid or invalid. An example is SPICE, where development took place at the southwest corner of Hearst Ave and Gayley Rd – for the right kind of circuits (linear or smoothly non-linear) where the circuit was properly modeled, the results can be very accurate. Get a few rather nastily non-linear circuit elements and SPICE will blow up. Modeling circuits is a LOT easier than modeling the earth’s climate.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by beththeserf
Pokerguy, one doesn’t hafta’ be a meteorologist
ter know which way the wind bloweth regardin’
tricksy climatologists, qualified ‘expert,’ or
in Cook’s case, not.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by pottereaton
The exchange between Judith Curry, Mark Steyn, and Senator Markey will likely be remembered as one of those compelling moments in which the alarmists and their extremist environmental accomplices lost control of the debate. In terms of theater, nothing is more dramatic than witnessing a respected scientist (backed by a talented polemicist) force an ideological windbag to confront the shallowness of his beliefs.
Markey, to his credit, did not flee the room. But he probably should have.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
