Imagine that, black carbon from industry, forest fires both wild and controlled, change snow and ice albedo. Next thing ya know high latitude volcanic ash may contribute to ice melt, agricultural expansion, ice breaking ships, snow plows and such might play a role. Good thing ya got CO2 to blame 
,
Comment on Week in review 6/29/12 by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :)
↧
↧
Comment on Epidemic of false claims by Hank Zentgraf
Dr Curry and Dr Roger Pielkie Sr have been serious in-depth critics of the IPCC for many years. When should we expect their “reward” to be made responsible for “fixing it”?
↧
Comment on Epidemic of false claims by DocMartyn
Most scientists are highly skeptical of the papers they read for all these reasons. Most papers are poor, but good ones stand out, typically because they have positive and negative controls.
Fads come and go, the huge number of false positives that come from data mining is being recognized and the people who generally ignored the miners exploits are glad they did.
New technology, and new techniques, bring with them new ways to inform and misinform. The models used by the climate modellers will be the new N-Rays. People genuinely believe the data outputs from machines they have programed.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/29/12 by P.E.
That varies a lot with location. In North America, (and probably in Europe as well), the Highest EORI is gas, by a huge margin. That’s due to to a combination of very cheap fracking gas and rather low capital investment in gas plants. This is why grams of carbon per KWH is going to drop in these locations regardless of policy. And in NA, the process is being hurried along by a lot of coal plants being near the end of their lives right now.
Imagine. All this happening spontaneously without policy wonks. Whoodathunk, huh?
↧
Comment on Epidemic of false claims by DocMartyn
Steve, about a third of the cell lines used by people aren’t the cell lines that the researchers think they are. The ATCC has just been warning people (again) that a third of the cell lines sent to them for archiving are not what the scientists state they are.
On group has been using a uterine cell line for close on 20 years, a sample sent to someone else turned out to be melanoma.
Rat gliomas have been studied instead of human ones.
I was told of a Ph.D. student who had been using HeLa cells for a number of years and about 6 months before his submission was due found his cells had Y-Chromosomes.
You can order a couple of hundred kits, in 96-well format, order cells from the ATCC; generate data and still not know what the hell you are doing. Indeed, the creep effect of kits is quite worrying. People actually read the two page pdf, do an ‘experiment’, tabulate, test and submit.
Climate Science stands out in the size of its claims and the speed at which it has risen to be a 25 billion dollar a year business.
This meteoric rise means that there are no older hands, no institutional wisdom and definitely no slave holding the laurels whispering “Thou art mortal”.
↧
↧
Comment on Three new papers on interpreting temperature trends by Eli Rabett
There are <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/once-more-dear-prof.html" rel="nofollow">better ways</a> of doing that, which kinda shows what you don't think about is important.
↧
Comment on Epidemic of false claims by hro001
This "epidemic" appears to have adversely affected the "grand-daddy" of polar bear studies, Ian Stirling, as Dr. Susan Crockford observes in a guest post on my blog, in which she reviews Stirling's <em>Polar Bears: The Natural History of a Threatened Species</em>
Crockford concludes (emphases mine -hro):
<blockquote>If the case for progressively reduced Arctic sea ice due to “climate warming” over the last 35 years is so strong, <strong>why are these contortions of fact necessary?</strong> In my opinion, the phenomenal scientific information Stirling conveys on the life history of the polar bear and his balanced account of the history of its conservation is irrevocably marred by these examples of biased presentation of events and data. <strong>With this book, Ian Stirling has broken my trust in him as a scientist.</strong> What could have been an outstanding reference book capable of wowing readers for generations with spectacular photographs and informative anecdotes is spoiled by <strong>Stirling’s willingness to leave out critical facts to make his advocacy statement appear better supported. Stirling’s attempt to dupe naive readers is contemptible and makes this book a shameful example of what the fear of global warming has done to science.</strong></blockquote>
<a href="http://hro001.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/of-polar-bears-polemics-and-climate-warming/" rel="nofollow">Of polar bears, polemics and … “climate warming”</a>
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/29/12 by bob droege
Good thing you can rule out CO2 and blame it all on forest fires, volcanic ash, though not many volcanos depositing ash on Greenland lately, can’t spell it or pronounce it went the other way and wasn’t last year anyway, and icebreaking ships ?
WTF does icebreaking ship have to do with the albedo of greenland’s higher elevations?
Snow plows might play a role, that is just freaking stupid.
What the data indicates is that the ice on Greenland is melting at higher and higher elevations.
Is that good or a portent of rising sea levels?
↧
Comment on Epidemic of false claims by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Hro001, in a normal year, Canada’s Beaufort Sea is still frozen — and this early-summer ice provides prime seal-hunting ground for a mother polar bear and her cubs.
But as anyone can verify that in this high-melt year the sea ice of Canada’s Beaufort Sea is presently 170 nm off-shore, along a 500-nm stretch of Canadian coast.
Ma bear is in for hard times. And her cubs will not gain sufficient body mass to survive the coming winter.
Bottom line Ian Stirling is right, and hro001 is wrong.
↧
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Girma
<I>The lone professor with his slide rule is left to scrounge around the edges of where the principal research action is. He is left to performing statistical analyses on bits of climate data. The results of his analyses will at best achieve limited science information value, and are thus predestined to be of limited interest and have minimum impact as cutting edge material in climate science.</I>
If that is not a good example of post-modern science, what is?
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Brandon Shollenberger
Jim D:
<blockquote>It looks like what Lacis means by ‘natural variability’ is the unforced type...</blockquote>
In other words, what Andrew Lacis means by "natural variability" isn't actually natural variability, but something different. And when he talks about the uncertainty caused by "natural variability," he isn't actually talking about the uncertainty caused by natural variability, but something different. And when a person reads his post, they have no way of knowing what he actually means by "natural variability" because he uses a term with one meaning as though it means something else. And he doesn't actually discuss natural variability, leaving a huge gap in his commentary which is hidden by him using "natural variability" to mean something other than what it actually means. In other words, Lacis's commentary on natural variability is confusing and misleading because he plays games with definitions.
Moreover, I presume this was done on purpose as he has previously said things <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/26/gleicks-testimony-on-threats-to-the-integrity-of-science/#comment-177569" rel="nofollow">like</a>:
<blockquote>After all, deception, ethics, and morality are all relative, depending on one’s culture, circumstances, and purpose at hand.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Diag
“and continue educating the public as to why all this is necessary in order to best protect our current way of life”
~You must change your way of life to protect our way of life.~
In reality, the global climate is far too complex, the available measurements are much too limited and incomplete, and the time scale that is accessible is way too short for this approach to yield anything other than at best a very limited semi-qualitative understanding of what is actually happening with global climate.
~No uncertainty to see here; move along. Trust us, our models are perfect; this is a political problem not a scientific one.~
“uncertainty does not in any way prevent us from understanding how the climate system works”
~We know how it works.~
Does Garth get a turn now? I’d love to see JC’s reaction too.
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Jim D
No, it is quite simply that ‘natural variability’ is what is left when you take away the forcing changes. I don’t think it is confusing, or maybe you think nothing is left when you take these away(?).
↧
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Streetcred
This is how the EPA deals with particulates … appalling.
http://junkscience.com/2012/07/02/unc-to-investigate-ghastly-epa-human-experiments/
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Oliver K. Manuel
You are right, Girma. Gatekeepers in journals and government research agencies played a major role in promoting false models of energy (E) stored as mass (m) in the cores of atoms and stars after the Second World War ended [1-3].
The United Nations was established on 24 Oct 1945 out of fear of the “nuclear fires” that consumed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 Aug 1945 and 9 Aug 1945 , respectively,
Then anonymous peer-reviews [4] were used to direct research funds to studies that would confirm government-approved models of Reality, rather than to make unbiased observations of Reality.
For more details: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/
References:
1. Hideki Yukawa, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (1946); Introduction to the Theory of Elementary Particles (1948)
http://www.nndb.com/people/759/000099462
2. Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-59 (1946)
3. Fred Hoyle, “The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 343-83 (1946)
4. J. Marvin Herndon, “Science suppression” (1 Aug 2011)
http://nuclearplanet.com/Science_Suppression.html
↧
Comment on Epidemic of false claims by hro001
Bart R | July 2, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
<blockquote>hro001 | July 2, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
I don’t mean to address Dr. Crockford’s criticisms at all here. I was addressing your criticisms, by pointing out the hypocrisy of your denigrating some as know-nothings for criticising Crockford, [...]</blockquote>
Really?! If so, your comment of July 2, 2012 at 8:48 pm - to which I was responding at 9:46 p.m. - certainly had me fooled! Whatever you <em>thought</em> you might have been "addressing", your words definitely indicated otherwise.
If you consider it "denigrating" and "hypocritical" to defer a decision on the choice one must make between trusting the words of "[...] someone who hides behind a nym and provides no citation for his/her claims? Or that of a <em>real</em> scientist who does?", I strongly suspect this may be <em>your</em> problem, not mine.
But thanks for proving the concluding point in my earlier comment that:
<blockquote>one can count on you to not let the facts get in the way of your marching in step with the pseudonymous trolls whose mission in virtual life seems to be firing blanks at the messengers they don’t like!</blockquote>
P.S. Bart, It really wasn't very nice of you to call the fan and the wotbot "know-nothings".
They <em>may</em>, in fact, know something(s)l but - for reasons perhaps best known only to themselves - at least on this blog, they have a history of keeping such knowledge <em>very</em> well-hidden ... perhaps behind the blanks they prefer to fire - and which <em>you</em> appear to sometimes echo and sometimes admire!
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Peter Lang
One very specific example is the pressing need to obtain more definitive polarimetric measurements of aerosol radiative properties, a pressing need that is still going unfulfilled.
Why does the author rate this as the highest priority but makes no mention of the damage function (damage costs per degree of warming). This item has the highest uncertainty for policy, yet it has had little attention. Why? Is it bias? If we get more information might it become apparant that warming is not such a big issue after all?
↧
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Brandon Shollenberger
Jim D, neither of your sentences make sense to me. First, you say:
No, it is quite simply that ‘natural variability’ is what is left when you take away the forcing changes.
With this sentence, you promote the definition Andrew Lacis used. You claim all forcings must necessarily be non-natural, a silly claim as that means things like orbital changes would be considered non-natural. You then go on to say:
I don’t think it is confusing, or maybe you think nothing is left when you take these away(?).
Of course I don’t think that. I’ve made it clear there is unforced natural variability. However, the fact there is unforced natural variability in no way suggests there is no forced natural variability.
It’s a simple matter. Is a change in solar forcing natural? If so, it’s a source of forced, natural variability. If it isn’t, as Lacis and you say, what is it? And what definition of “natural” do you use that doesn’t include things like volcanoes?
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by gbaikie
“It makes me itch to answer with a comment twice as long as the original post, but I will satisfy myself with one random example.
“The available ice core data provide a very precise and detailed record of changes in principal atmospheric radiative forcing gases CO2 and CH4, including a detailed record of changes in oxygen isotope ratios from which to deduce changes in global temperature.”
The record is neither precise nor detailed. This is because the ice does not form quickly with bubbles intact. It falls as snow, and until it is packed by the pressure of more snowfall over time. That time is neither consistent between locations nor well-understood. The mixing of gas within the compacted, pre-ice snow is likewise uncertain. So while any gross changes of gas mix over a long time is recorded in the ice cores rapid changes (like those we see today) cannot be resolved, and if the change was a variation about a consistent mean with a period of a few centuries it would not even register. Mixing would remove all trace of variation.”
I am pretty certain Lacis would agree.
And the ice cores have not been studied enough.
Ice cores are valuable record.
But not definitive in terms
telling us about past climate.
Even if the they accurately depicted the arctic region they would be of limited value as far as global climate.
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Peter Lang
This is a well argued reply to Garth Partridge. But, wow, doesn’t the author’s ideological bias show through in his comments. How can scientists be considered objective when they make comments like this that are so clearly driven by their own ideological biases? Examples revealing the bias and lack of objectivity follow:
This sentence (quoted below) by the author, Andy Lacis, is a give away as to who is being influenced by their political and/or ideological beliefs (I’d suggest it is the Lacis):
Perhaps there has been a change in his political outlook that explains his thinking. Wanting to believe that the Climategate emails were leaked, instead of having been hacked,
Has it been proved that the Climategate emails were hacked rather than leaked?
If not, this statement demonstrates that Lacis’s judgement is influenced by his ideological beliefs. Therefore, his views cannot be considered to be objective.
And this:
There are those who feel compelled to deliberately distort, misrepresent, and lie about climate science in order to confuse and bamboozle the public on behalf of fossil fuel interests (notably at the Heartland, Cato, and George C Marshall Institutes).
Why does Lacis make these statements without making equivalent criticisms of Hansen, Mann, Jones and many of the IPCC coordinating and lead authors? These highly paid government scientists on the public teat are just as conflicted by the money and career prospects as those Lacis directs his comments at. The climate scientist activists, like Hansen, Mann, Jones, etc., have been exaggerating, lying, and misleading the public for decades. Hansen, for example, was trying to scare people that the oceans would evaporate if evil humans don’t mend their ways. And Lacis has the hide to accuse the sceptics of climate catastrophist of distortion, misrepresentation and lying. What hypocrisy.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
