Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Steven Mosher

0
0

JIm.

I say estimated because nothing is measured. all measurement is estimation based on theory.

Do you know how much the moon weighs?

did you weigh it?


Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Wagathon

0
0

Good, then you won’t crap your pants if the Earth actually does return to the conditions that existed during the LIA.

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Steven Mosher

0
0

“And you cannot estimate total climate sensitivity without estimating the feedbacks.”

wrong. read a few papers on estimating ( measuring with uncertainty) the climate sensitivity from the relaxation response after negative forcing from a volcanic eruption. You dont need to estimate feedbacks. The total forcing is all you need to estimate and feedbacks fall out.

If you have every tried to characterize a system dynamics by only having inputs and outputs you would know this. For example, deducing the control system inside a system when you only have external data. hard to do, but it’s doable. hmm. see system identification. I think even wikipedia knows more than you.

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Steven Mosher

0
0

The forcing for a doubling of C02 is 3.7Watts. Theoretically estimated ( like the weight of the moon) and confirmed and validated by measurements. The theory is used to build radars, your cell phone, stealth aircraft.. many things that work.

So we know ( like an engineer knows) that doubling c02 will increase forcing by 3.7watts. pretty simple. Lindzen even knows this. as do spencer and christy. In fact, spencer USES this theory to compute his UHA temperatures. Yup. the temperatures calculated for UHA REQUIRE the use of physics models ( shudder) .. and those models predict a forcing of 3.7W for a doubling of C02. are those models correct? yup. measured, validated, and used by skeptics every day

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Jim Cripwell

0
0

Viscount, you write “The TAR and other assessments have concluded that RF is a useful tool for estimating, to a first order, the relative global climate impacts of differing climate change mechanisms (Ramaswamy et al., 2001; Jacob et al., 2005). ”

Thank you. Now I can go and do my homework. I have been asking this question for some time, and you are the first person who has answered it. So again, tahnk you.

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Bad Andrew

0
0

‘Denier’ is a Tribal Chant. It goes along with the other Tribal Chants: ‘Evolution’, ‘Pro-Choice’, ‘Sustainability’, etc…

I’m sure Dr. Curry has chanted all of them at one point or another.

Andrew

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Jim Cripwell

0
0

Thank you, Viscount, for the references, and I have started my hime work. I came across
https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4beef

I am not sure who wrote this, but apparently I am not alone in my suspicions. I quote from what I found, though I am unclear who the author is.

“The ‘simple formulae’ in Ramaswamy et al (the TAR) can be seen in Table 6.2 of the TAR, in section 6.3.5. This table has three different formulae, that give different answers for the RF due to doubling of CO2. The simplest one is RF = 5.35 ln (C/C0), and it is probably this one that is used in AR4, but this is not made clear. This is a further example of the astonishingly sloppy and careless work of the IPCC on this crucial issue. ”

Also, from the paper I find
“Note that Ramaswamy et al. (2001) is not a scientific paper – it is the previous IPCC report (the TAR)! Astonishingly, all the IPCC can come up with to justify the key step in its argument is the blunt statement that its previous formulas are valid”

Maybe my idea that the derivation for climate sensitivity is based on sloppy scienc e is a lot closer to the mark than I thought.

Comment on 5 logical fallacies that make you more wrong than you think by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

Steve, you said

“The whole figure would be false in all circumstances because it was a schematic (unjustifiably smooth, no error bars etc.) It *was* a cartoon. ”

Sure, in that sense, tape measures are false too. That’s a perhaps innocent misdirection from you..
Jones’ presentation was in a style that mimicked proper reconstructions.
Further, it falsely claimed to be actually taken from the literature cited.

Steve, you said
“That said, yes, the scientific “belief” that the divergence was an anomaly could be ignored is a belief.” Gotcha. The belief is a belief. Your point ?

You then said
“Aside from the “cartoon” the fact it is ignored is in essence traceable from the cited literature. If people have a problem with it being ignored they should scientifically justify why it should not be ignored.”

Which has nothing to do with our conversation as far as I can tell. However, you offer something interesting with your false premise – the divergence, it’s a ludicrous claim, that it is ignored.

“I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: inventing a Team… FUD”

teeheee. you dont know who coined the term ?


Comment on Between tribalism and trust by The Viscount Aardvark Q. Trebuchet-Oxymoron, the 5rd

0
0

Jim:

Since I was “completely out of my depth” earlier today, I will accept your “thank you” under advisement and with a small grain of ironic satisfaction.

But wait:

Maybe my idea that the derivation for climate sensitivity is based on sloppy scienc e is a lot closer to the mark than I thought.

I see that it has taken you all of 15 minutes (!) to study the AR4, to read Ramaswamy and Jacob, and go on to derive satisfactory confirmation of your suspicions of scientific substandardness by finding an anonymous web-site with some AR4 “beefs”.

I applaud you, sir. Standing ovation.

Simply. Amazing.

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

So here we go again.

For 15 minutes Jim was pretending willingness to learn something.

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by manacker

0
0

Jim Cripwell

As it was with Pekka, the Viscount is unable to come up with a scientific study, based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation, to validate the (2xCO2) RF estimate used by IPCC.

This piece of scientific evidence remains as elusive as the will-o’-the-wisp.

Yet the civilized world is being asked to drastically curtail its standard of living based on this imaginary figure.

Truly amazing!

Max

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by climatereason

0
0

very tall guy

According to the IPCC and the Met office the only places that are cooling are southern greenland and a few places in the tropics. It is not mainstream to say that many places are cooling.
Where is your evidence to substantiate tihs comment bearing in mind that both the bodies quoted are preeminent>

‘Maybe, but in what way is this interesting or different to mainstream thinking?’

tonyb

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by manacker

0
0

Aw, c’mon, Pekka – Jim (Cripwell) is “willing to learn”.

It’s just that you’re “unable to teach”.

Max

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by The Viscount Aardvark Q. Trebuchet-Oxymoron, the 6nd

0
0

Max:

As it was with Pekka, the Viscount is unable to come up with a scientific study, based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation, to validate the (2xCO2) RF estimate used by IPCC.

Sigh. Confession: I never have been very good at spoon-feeding hungry denialists. Mea cupla.

And since two whole blog-commenters have failed to convince two whole other blog commenters on this matter – it must be the case that climate sensitivity is “imaginary” and therefore that all of climate science is a hoax. Blog-science saves us from fascism-communism again. Yay!

Note to self: Get a bigger bowl for popcorn.

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Steve Milesworthy

0
0

I missed the last bit of your comment because it was in italics so I thought it was my comment cut and pasted.

I think your characterisation of WG2 as being all about catastrophe is incorrect (that’s not to say that WG2 structures may make it a recipe for people adding in their shopping list of risks in relation to which country they are from).

I think you are correct in saying many scientists will point to the much stronger WG1 and say “stop disputing the evidence” but don’t have the skills to give the best answer.

That said, I don’t think you can point to an economic model and claim that their modelling indicates that it isn’t doom and gloom because economic modelling is always working out of scope of where it was tested (vastly more so than climate science).

Could he be any clearer? Did you read the links I gave?

Well I think a sentence that includes jargon with a highly technical definition could not be described as being clear. As far as I can see, he is saying that while climate-related disasters will happen, they won’t completely derail the world economy, and while there is a chance of very high climate sensitivity it is incorrect to say we can put a figure on what this is. But:

it seems dubious that we can at present estimate the shape of the tails of the TSC [temperature sensitivity coefficient] distribution function.

which harks back to my comment that the climate sensitivity is still important to know – though maybe for slightly different reasons.


Comment on Between tribalism and trust by manacker

0
0
Very Tall Guy To my knowledge, the scientific <em>"evidence"</em> supporting the premise that human GHGs were the principal cause for the warming of the second half of the 20th century "does not exist". The "uncertainty" regarding other factors is simply too great to draw any definite conclusions, as our host here has stated. By <em>"evidence"</em> I refer to the the definition according to the scientific method, i.e. <em>"empirical data based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation".</em> Such empirical <em>"evidence"</em> apparently exists to show a) that CO2 is a GHG, b) which absorbs and re-radiates IR radiation under laboratory conditions. However the empirical <em>"evidence"</em> appears to be lacking, which would show that c) this effect would also occur in our atmosphere and d) that it would result in some perceptible and measurable net warming of our planet, e) which is not compensated by some a natural effect, the cause of which is as yet unknown.. I have not seen such <em>"evidence"</em> in any case. Have you? Max

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by manacker

0
0

Viscount

You humor is witty.

Your logic is fuzzy, however,

“Spoon-feeding” requires that you have some “food” to “spoon feed”.

You don’t.

Just “hot air”

Max

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by The Viscount Aardvark Q. Trebuchet-Oxymoron, the 7rd

0
0


Such empirical “evidence” apparently exists to show a) that CO2 is a GHG, b) which absorbs and re-radiates IR radiation under laboratory conditions.
I have not seen such “evidence” in any case. Have you?

I just love the way that you put quotes around “evidence”.

Reminds me of the non-commital way that Dr Curry puts (?) after everything.

What more “evidence” could anyone need that the “evidence” cannot possibly exist?

Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

Max,

Do you really believe that Jim was willing to learn?

Should I believe that you are willing to learn?

By now there’s a lot of evidence on both these questions and all that evidence points to the same direction.

It just cannot be so difficult to get some – even remote – understanding on what scientific knowledge is and how scientific publications should be used for learning. Both you and Jim keep on claiming that no relevant publications exist and when such publication are listed an absolute denial mode is applied to dismiss those papers.

The most likely explanation is a purposeful attempt to mislead those supposed readers of this site who might still be influenced by that. I don’t know whether my suspicion is correct but that’s most certainly how it seems to be.

Comment on Just the facts, please by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

he’s probably a very nice person
his worst sin was reincarnating
thinking he could do some good
after reaching buddhahood

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images