“How are the models amateurish?”

I’ve have looked at models at different times, here is a quick review:

http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/15/assessing-climate-model-software-quality/#comment-192966
and a review of how they do code audits in the same thread:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/15/assessing-climate-model-software-quality/#comment-192966

I’ve been programming for 20 years or so, always love talking about code, so feel free to rebut any of that — or explain in your own way why you think climate code (or ModelE if you want to be specific) is ‘high quality’.

Clouds, eg CLOUD experiment at CERN is very interesting and has potentially large implications on climate.

Oceans, warming a lot? Can you quantify that? Here is a random graph, do you mean since 2008?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/09/record-warm-sea-surface-temperatures/

Tree rings, does that technique work in the stock market too?

mwg,
You make an excellent point. The non-rational reactions of the AGW faithful are a facet of a much larger problem. It seems as if the true believers are unable to function unless they can demonize, deceive and impose their non-solutions on the world. This seems to be part of a larger breakdown- one where the multi-decade lies of Ehrlich and Schneider were toelrated (and even rewarded) and where the the fraud and deceipt of the likes of Gleick have been ignored or even rewarded, and Hansen’s failures and lucrative rent seeking have been ignored.

Space Cadet – n. ‘A person who leads people to believe they are from a different planet or dreaming of ancestry in other areas of the universe. The person does not respond when directly spoken to, performs odd food rituals and displays complete disregard for commonsense. A space cadet is not necessarily refering to a person of low intelligence or a heavy drug user, but rather a person who typically focuses on all aspects of life except the one currently at hand…

The exact origins of a space cadet are unknown but rumor has it that their home planet was destroyed due to pollution caused by poor house keeping. Following this disaster they proceeded to disperse themselves throughout the universe and litter the gene pool. Space cadets are known for their poor skills in common sense areas such as coordination, food preparation, basic cleaning and processing simultaneous coherent thoughts.’ Urban Dictionary

tt, from the Nature paper:

“From an overall sample of 488 people, a screening item asked whether participants (1) believed humans were contributing substantially to climate change, (2) believed climate change was occurring, but that humans were not contributing substantially to it, or (3) did not believe the climate was changing. Those who chose (2) (n=119) or (3) (n=57) were classified as climate change deniers (n=176; 36% of total sample) and completed the survey.”

Would you say that a person who “believe[s] climate change [is] occurring, but that humans [are] not contributing substantially to it” should be called a “denier?” Those are more than two-thirds of the subjects in study 1 who the authors classify as “deniers.” Would your answer change if the word “believe[s]” means “attaches a subjective probability greater than [some critical p] to the statement ‘humans contribute less than half of the variance of global temperate since year X’?”

bob,
They lied with the trees.
The Hockey Stick is bunk, Bob.
As Dr. McCoy says, It’s dead, Jim.”

It was a combination of things that nearly eradicated malaria in the U.S.

You have to consider all its weaknesses. Two most relevant ones off the top of my head:

1) it needs both a human host and mosquito host to complete its life cycle
2) it has difficulty surviving sub-tropical winters

If you have things that keep humans from becoming infected and/or you isolate them from mosquitos if they are infected then you break the life-cycle chain. In third world countries there’s little in the way of isolating infected people so they get bit by mosquitos allowing the parasite to reproduce. Parasite reproduces asexually in humans, sexually in the mosquito.

Getting rid of mosquito breeding grounds close to people. DDT helped a lot doing that. Limiting the number of people getting infected combined with isolating people after infection so mosquitos can’t take it back up in a blood meal is a one-two punch.

Killing carrier mosquitos arriving aboard ships from tropical countries. The parasite has a hard time surviving even sub-tropical winters and is re-introduced by tradeships arriving from tropical ports. DDT is useful for that too.

DDT was not the only factor in eradicting malaria from north America but certainly played a large role in it.

There is talk of a new holistic therapy centre opening in the Sahel. There will be the daily group therapy sessions plus as needed private sessions. The more unique concept is the communal field therapy emphasis.

In field therapy the patients will work together to save their world by using manual labor to desal water and then use human powered pumps provided by the Gates Foundation, LLC, move the desal water to garden patches in the interior of the compound, where they can grow totally organic corps for communal meals.

I total support the program to send all climate alarmists to the new Centre for the Warm and Fuzzy so they can get the help they so desperately need.

Support Help the CAGW today

Yes, I hear the therapists are former Ghaddafi mercenaries who, having tired of sacking northern Mali, now want to try their hand at re-education.

Not enough water in Atlanta? You can thank in part Jimmie “Let’s solve the energy crisis by wearing cardigans” Carter.

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/archives/4027/

“When Jimmy Carter became governor, he successfully fought the dam project at Sprewell Bluff, a very scenic spot on the Flint. As president, Carter began a process that eventually resulted in the de-authorization of the three [dam] projects on the Flint in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.”

No additional electric power. No flood control. And no reservoir to alleviate periods of drought. A perfect example of progressive green policy.

Joanne Nova on her website has a letter to Nature on the Bain letter and it is first rate putting the deniers side of “the science” exactly in my view. On the website 21st June, 2012.

WHT

You are adding to your display of ignorance about risk. You’d think, if you were a researcher, you’d check before writing more nonsense. They admit your error, something I’ve noticed you never seem to manage to do.

You said:

Peter Lang has a problem because the concept that he talks about can not be quantified. Probability is a quantity, but something multiplying that turns it into an effectiveness, which is at best a relative measure.

This shows you haven’t a clue about risk assessment, analysis or about other component of risk management.

Probability as you correctly state is quantifiable.

You clearly do not understand what “Consequence” means. Consequence is a quantity. It can be cost, fatalities, work days lost, or just other quantifiable consequence of an event or a condition. Here is a simple explanation or risk; in this case it is the fatalities per TWh of electricity supplied (see figures 1 and 2 and the accompanying text) http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/ .
If you see any errors please point them out.

WHT’s credibility is further reduced. I wonder if he has the integrity to admit he is talking through his ass, hasn’t a clue about this matter, and admit it.

“AGW is science, CAGW is social science.”

I would agree that CAGW is closer to social science.

So you claiming the issue we focusing on is AGW.
Now, UHI is part of AGW, yes?
And all that involved with human action is part of
AGW.
What about someone who think UHI and land changes
is perhaps more significant than rising CO2 levels?
Is that part of the science?
Suppose someone considered that farming and other land develop such as urban centers, and natural variability was bigger effect on global temperature than CO2?
Or if they put all human activity [except CO2 emission] in one group, and human CO2 emission in another group. They consider everything other than CO2 emission is having a larger effect

A question for this science of AGW.
What is the feedback of 1 C of global warming- meaning
with some element of forcing increases temperature by 1 C.

This complicated question so, I will simplify it. What if oceans were quickly warmed up by 1 C. [zillions of nuclear reactors doing this warming- and thereafter constantly making the temperature exactly 1 C warmer than they are right now.] So in terms of average global temperature what is the result of such warming?

And is CO2 forcing different?
If the zillions nuclear reactor warmed the oceans by 1 C. Would there need more energy output from the reactors to equal the warming which is to result from increasing the CO2 levels which causes 1 C increase in global temperature?
In other words, after warmed ocean to 1 C.
This takes a certain amount of thermal heat from the nuclear reactors. Now we want to mimic what CO2 does. Is more energy required, and how how much and long before it reach equilibrium that equal how CO2 would do?

“Overall, the findings suggest that if there was closer attention to the social consequences of policies, rather than continuing with seemingly intractable debates on the reality of AGW, then we might get to a point where there could be agreement on some action.”
==

How about that! How convenient Dr. Bain to move from the science to some supposedly responsible action affecting the social realm. Science contrary to your assertion does not support AGW, that is, observation science not post modern science made from computer simulations geared to show only one scenario. In fact science has yet to establish that we live through an unprecedented period on the climatic scale. The Gergis at al. 2012 affair is yet another demonstration that the same tricks are used every time to produce the desired result. Yet every time, these are exposed and debunked. The recent post at WUWT showing the Danish maps of Arctic Sea Ice showed clearly (uncertainties accounted for) that Arctic sea ice shrinking is not a proxy of Global Warming. We could also insist on the mode of atmospheric circulation as described by Marcel Leroux demonstrating the fallacy of the Global warming argument through the understanding of meteorological data. Finally, if anything Climategates have exposed nefarious behaviors that would have no reasons of exist had the science been clean and obvious.

Since science is still debated, in a climate of intimidation, monopoly despite having been told a long time ago that it was settled, force is to admit that the entire pyramidal scheme that was supposedly backed up by AGW science has no foundation. It is only propped up by the billions of vested interests in all derivatives of the CO2 scheme and now that post modern science has been unmasked for what it is -a pretext-, the true face of political activism, the social sciences in which you pulled your “denier” term, is showing up, eagerly expecting that after years of brainwashing, fear mongering, propaganda spewed on the masses through main stream media -often linked to vested green interests Thomson Reuters for instance-, that “action” will come thanks to uneducated zealots, incapable of understanding the science, eagerly parroting arguments of authority and willing to serve their new masters. Science is either right or wrong but morals can be conveniently argued. Anyone having read the Red Wheel by Solzhenitsyn would instantly recognize the signature of a manufactured revolution and the role of the media in conditioning the populace.
My dear Dr. Bain, your article participates of this shameful submission to the green powers and nothing in your letter here can excuse your complicity in helping establish this increasingly totalitarian society. You want action regardless of science being debated: the mere idea of science, the approximation of science is now enough and despite waving excuses hiding behind soft social and political sciences, you wish to enable the program. Granted, you try to divide in order to conquer, between the good skeptics, portrayed as a reasonable person ready to collaborate if they can be convinced there is something for them and the bad deniers… The very same techniques were used during the Occupation 1940-1944, Doctor to turn people in, to recruit people… After reading your prose, it looks as if the question is not “if” but “when” are we going to see coercive measures to “convince” skeptics should they resist the first wave of enticement?

No Dr. Bain you insult our intelligence by thinking our opposition is a matter of vocabulary. You try to make a career at it, gain some brownie points in the publication index while putting your name on the proper side of the equation for the future. It is the low key servility message of your paper that is disgusting, hiding behind policies that governments want to introduce as if these were a “fait accompli”–when in fact it was the very IPCC goal to help governments formulate these policies, quite a vicious circle-. If “non climate” policies are now the mediated goal you’d like to see emerge, you basically expose your friends backpedalling: no more catastrophic global warming, no more climatic goals, just societal change, the catalyst being at will Earth climate, Biodiversity, Water etc… switching them as the plan is implemented or exposed.

I’ll finish by quoting Giuseppe Tomasi in Principe de Lampedusa: “If we want everything to remain the same, let’s work at changing everything”. Indeed, forcing a well crafted change upon others is the best way to control them, hardly a surprise when one considers the quality, names and ranks of those who are mobilizing to “save the planet”.

Journal of UnScience? Surely this whole paper is not based on a name-calling assumption, a confusion about an illusory sub-species, homo sapiens denier? How does Nature define this group? They imply that deniers deny science, but can the researchers, editors or reviewers name any peer reviewed paper with empirical evidence that the deniers deny? We shall see…
Nature — and that problem of defining homo-sapiens-denier. Is it English or Newspeak?
Posted By Joanne Nova On June 21, 2012 @ 12:15 am In Big-Government,Global Warming | 32 Comments
This week Nature Climate Change published the Bain et al letter. Could Nature now be the
I have written to ask the lead researcher Dr Phil Bain:

Dear Dr Phil Bain,
Right now, it’s almost my life’s work to communicate the empirical evidence on anthropogenic climate change.
I can help you with your research on deniers. I have studied the mental condition of denial most carefully. There is a simple key to converting the convictions of people in this debate, and I have seen it work hundreds of times. Indeed, my own convictions that lasted 17 years were turned around in a few days. I can help you. It would be much simpler than you think.
Firstly, to save time and money we must analyze the leaders of the denial movement. I have emailed or spoken to virtually all of them.
They are happy to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, that humans produce CO2, that CO2 levels are rising, and that the earth has warmed in the last century. According to Hansen et al 19841, Bony et al 20062, and the IPCC AR4 report3, the direct effect of doubling the level of CO2 amounts to 1.2°C (i.e. before feedbacks).
All they need is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models. Key leaders in the denial movement have been asking for this data for years. Unfortunately the IPCC assessment reports do not contain any direct observations of the amplification, either by water vapor (the key positive feedback4) or the totality of feedbacks. The IPCC only quotes results from climate simulations.
Since science is based on observations and measurements of the real world, it follows that a denier of science (rather than a denier of propaganda) must be denying real world data. I’d be most grateful if you could explain what “deniers” deny. Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence, yet must be failing badly at communicating that this is the crucial point because none of the esteemed lead authors of IPCC working Group I seem to have realized that this paltry point is all that is needed. All this mess could be cleared up with an email.
The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, so the observations they deny must be written up many times in the peer review literature, right? After five years of study I am still not sure which instrument has made these key observations. Do deniers deny weather balloon results, or satellite data, or ice cores?
When you find this paper and the measurements, it will convince many of the key denier leaders. (But being the exacting personality type that they are, deniers will also expect to see the raw data. So you’ll need to also make sure that the authors of said paper have made all the records and methods available, but of course, all good scientists do that already don’t they?)
As a diligent researcher, I’m sure you would not have described a group with such a unequivocally strong label unless you were certain it applied. It would be disastrous for an esteemed publication like Nature to mistakenly insult Nobel prize winning physicists, NASA astronauts, and thousands of scientists who have asked for empirical evidence, only to find that the Nature authors themselves were unable to name papers (or instruments) with empirical evidence that their subject group called “deniers” denied.
If those papers (God forbid) do not exist, then the true deniers would turn out to be the researchers who denied that empirical evidence is key to scientific confidence in a theory. The true deniers would not be the skeptics who asked for evidence, but the name-calling researchers who did not test their own assumptions.
The fate of the planet rests on your shoulders. If you can find the observations that the IPCC can’t, you could change the path of international action. Should you find the evidence, I will be delighted to redouble my efforts to communicate the empirical evidence related to climate change.
Awaiting your reply keenly,
Joanne Nova
—————–
REFERENCES
1 Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163 [Abstract]
2 Bony, S., et al., 2006: How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Clim., 19, 3445–3482.
3 IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8.6.2.3. p630 [PDF].
4 IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14, p631 [PDF] see also Page 632.
——————

A fan of *MORE* discourse | June 20, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Reply

“What is your next scientific/mathematical question, PE?”

Thanks for asking. It’s a nature/nurture question. Were you born with a penchant for prevarication or was it an acquired taste?

Not quite. Past performance is not even a good predictor of future performance in the stock market anymore than are sunspots. the highest correlation you can get about the future is what it is today. That’s as good as it gets. Other than that monkeys throwing darts do as well.

@Paul Bain

I won’t object to being called a denier if you don’t object to being called a phuckstick. Deal?