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

Comment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by blueice2hotsea

0
0
M. carey | <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/10/disinformation-vs-fraud-in-the-climate-debate/#comment-137036" rel="nofollow">November 11, 2011 at 5:29 pm</a> <i>"...it looks like you have already forgot that’s not Mann’s graph."</i> Acutally, in the video, Dr. Muller <b>is</b> discussing Mann's graph - and in addition, Jones' and Briffas'. That way we are treated to the 'scientific consensus' - a trifecta of hide-the-decline. Steve McIntyre covers this in more detail in numerous posts, but <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/" rel="nofollow">here</a> is a good one.

Comment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by Alex Heyworth

0
0

523 comments so far, (524 after this one) most of which have been the pots calling the kettles black and vice versa … thereby proving Dr Curry’s thesis.

Comment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by oxonmoron

0
0

I appreciate this blog and its host Dr Curry and have learned a lot but regrettably have little to contribute of a scientific nature, indeed being long retired, I even find difficulty with my own scientific work at this remove.
Unlike Bart R, the main reason I’m a regular visitor WUWT and similar sites is that they give rise to a degree of optimism about the future and are amusing. Why is it that that the doomsayers, hair shirt and sandals brigade are so miserable all the time? I find that in casual conversation one can’t even use the slightest trace of humour or irony without being immediately admonished for daring to be so frivolous. Why is that?

Comment on Ludecke et al. respond by dallas

0
0

Web,
“That amount of energy is only impressive if it happened over a short period of time, which is the current situation.”

The change in surface temperature from the 1998 El nino to the 2000 recovery was about 0.26 degrees or ~2.5×10-22 Joules per year if you consider 1999 as the transition year. That was the excursion I mentioned after you estimated +/- 0.2 degrees

Comment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by Girma

0
0

At least we sceptics have the evidence of climategate for the unscientific methods of those that represent the scientific establishment, which demonstrates AGW is not a settled science:

What we sceptics say is what the AGW side themselves say in private:


We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact
that we can not account for what is happening in the
climate system makes any consideration of
geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be
able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty

Comment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by dallas

0
0

Web, P.E. and Joe,

I made this a blog post to keep track of it,

http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2011/11/greenhouses-and-greenhouse-effect.html

I brought up how conduction was not properly considered in the Global warming debate. This is something I have mentioned for quite a while, with quite a bit chuckles in response. It is really a very simple concept though.

To maximize the performance of a greenhouse, you want to maximize retention of radiant energy, maximize surface energy influx and minimize thermal loss to the environment. In other words, you want to let in and retain the most heat while allowing in the most sunlight for plant growth.

In climate, two dimensional reasoning seems to dominate. Thermals or convection due to surface warming is well considered. In weather conditions were surface winds are held constant, the climate two dimensional view of the Greenhouse Effect holds true. That is not one of the things that remains constant thought. Surface winds change quite regularly. With more heat retain at the surface, these winds easily transport more heat from the surface. There is nothing linear about surface heat transfer in three dimensions.

If CO2 caused a linear shift in the thermal reservoirs that corresponded with the increase in retained energy due to CO2 increase, the theory of Greenhouse Forcing would be on solid ground. The Tropopause with its near constant thermal sink and the Antarctic region, also with a near constant thermal sink, require the atmospheric greenhouse theory to be reconsidered. An increase in surface temperature with little change in the historic thermal sink capacities means more rapid loss of stored energy with changes in surface wind velocities. The Earth can
have larger temperature drops than normal because it has more energy it can release more efficiently. That in a nutshell is what is not properly considered about the conductive flux impact on climate.

Comment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by Edim

0
0

Isn’t wind convection? Why conductive flux?

Comment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by geronimo

0
0

Of course they do! In fact I almost there as a warmist/alarmist I just have niggling doubts about the models forecasting all the disasters, just little ones you understand as described by the increasingly oddly behaved Dr. Trenberth in his nature blog in June 2007:

“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”

Just a little more work needed then.


Comment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by JCH

0
0

You don’t have a clue what he meant.

Comment on Week in review: 9/17/11 by купон безлимитные тарифы

0
0

Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I in finding It truly useful & it helped me out a lot. I am hoping to give something again and aid others like you helped me.

Comment on Peer review is f***ed up by Don Monfort

0
0

How do you determine the validity and quality of anonymous pal reviews, that you never have an opportunity to see? Extended peer review is open for all to see. Weigh the arguments against the counter-arguments and make a judgment. Or take a poll and go with the crowd.

Comment on Peer review is f***ed up by Ken Coffman

Comment on Peer review is f***ed up by P.E.

0
0

Or to put it another way, the system needs to be better than Amazon.com, where there have been documented cases of people writing reviews of books that hadn’t been published yet. Having things “open” on the internet is just begging for organized and unorganized mischief.

Comment on Peer review is f***ed up by tempterrain

0
0

Judith,

I suspect that this post as at least partly influenced by a recent failure, by you and your husband, to get a paper past the peer review process.

Furthermore, whatever its deficiencies might have been, I’m sure you can point to examples of pro-consensus papers which were no better, and yet somehow managed to get through. I’m sure it is harder for non -consensus papers to be accepted.

But its often been pointed out the consensus has sometimes been wrong and those who have challenged it have been unfairly treated. Yes they have. That’s why they often get a Nobel prize by way of an apology when they are finally shown to be correct.

So by all means challenge the consensus if you are sure you are correct. Fame and fortune await if you are shown to be correct. On the other hand, if you aren’t, well … er maybe we shouldn’t go there!

PS I’m not an expert in climate science, but if you’ll allow me to give you a little tip: if you do decide to resubmit your “uncertainty monster” paper, you might want to think about putting in some data, graphs, equations, mathematical models etc. I’ve noticed that most papers tend to include these.

Comment on Peer review is f***ed up by Libreman

0
0

A crowd-sourced long-term reputation system? ;)

Check out http://hypothes.is for possible solution to the problem you highlighted. It IS being worked on and it’d work for all content, not only scientific papers …


Comment on Peer review is f***ed up by sharper00

0
0

“How do you determine the validity and quality of anonymous pal reviews, that you never have an opportunity to see?”

I don’t, the editor does.

“Extended peer review is open for all to see.”

Open for all to see but with only a few qualified to judge.

“Make it open” sounds nice and everything, I mean who isn’t against things being open? The argument is really not between “open” versus “not open” but rather between “selection” and “no selection”. In the no selection scenario all voices are equal, regardless of quality and accuracy. In the selection scenario someone has to do the selecting.

Pointing out flaws in the current selection process is all well and good but before anyone can agree no selection is better the problems of not selecting need to be addressed: Namely how to extract quality arguments from non-quality ones.

Comment on Two new papers vs. BEST by Berényi Péter

0
0
<i><b>The mean reduces to 0.52 °C if stations with less than 1000 population only are included, which documents the UHI. Further evidence of the UHI is given in Figure 2.</b></i> This kind of analysis of UHI effects on mean temperature <i>trends</i> does not make sense at all. To acquire any reliable information on the subject, you should plot temperature trends against log population density <i>trends</i>. If it is done, why not do it properly?

Comment on Peer review is f***ed up by sharper00

0
0

“A crowd-sourced long-term reputation system? “

Once you construct a system of rules the system will be subverted and gamed. See any internet ranking system ever devised for examples.

“Check out http://hypothes.is for possible solution to the problem you highlighted. It IS being worked on and it’d work for all content, not only scientific papers …”

This looks a prime example of a system just waiting for the aforementioned subversion.

Do you think the future of science should be thinkprogress and WUWT directing people to vote up their favourite papers? Talkorigins and creation wiki voting down the credibility of each other’s positions?

Until software is able to independently judge the quality of work it will simply act as a tool to publish the criticisms of others. The wider the net you cast for those criticisms the lower their average quality will be.

Computers can allow hundreds of millions of people to share their views on the latest blockbuster movie. It can’t tell you which of those views are any good, which of them are relevant or which of them will appeal to you.

Comment on Ludecke et al. respond by HAS

0
0

Fred Moolten November 12, 2011 at 10:51 am

That was rather a throwaway comment to make the point that over time the heat content of the ocean and SST are likely to move together.

One of course do need to be careful when taking about “concurrent warming” because of the differing detail masked by global average stocks in timescales (e.g. daily, seasonal), and spatial variations (North Atlantic vs the rest), not to mention combinations of the two (ENSO as you mention). One of the results of stochastic modeling of the climate is that it may help to understand the way in which short-term white noise can translate into longer-term red noise, and hence how some of this detail can be incorporated in longer timescale models in a systemic and orderly way.

I had however thought your argument was that the increase in the ocean heat content was so large it could only come from CO2.

The point I was making is that this is a dynamic open systems. It is the fluxes that are important (time series analysis reinforces this). So if you are worrying about the amount of heat appearing in one point or another in the system just saying that there is a lot of energy over here that wasn’t there before isn’t conclusive proof that it came from a particular source within a particular subsystem. Seeing me climb to the top of a hill doesn’t tell you what I had for lunch.

In the context of this thread doing time series analysis on temperature ignores where it all might come from. It just gives probabilities that the time series is drawn from the output of a process with certain characteristics. Periodicy (is there a word?) or apparent linear relationships in the signal may arise from anywhere.

But just to repeat this is a dynamic open system, it needs to be analysed in those terms.

Comment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by GaryM

0
0

Oil companies raise their prices all the time. If enough companies do so, the price stays up. If enough don’t, either the price falls or the company that raised its prices loses market share and profits. Supply and demand is a major factor, but far from the only one.

That is why a simplistic claim that a carbon tax of X amount will reduce consumption by Y amount is so naive. Marginal increases in the price of fuel have short term effects on demand. Large increases in price have a longer term effect, but in a wealthy economy, there are other adjustments that eventually result in demand resuming its inevitable increase.

For example, Europe has long had taxes on gasoline triple or more of US taxes. The average retail price of a gallon of gas in the US right now is around $3.50. The average retail price in Europe is about $7,55 per gallon. And their progressives are still arguing for additional carbon taxes and actually implemented a form of cap and trade.

So pie in the sky, revenue neutral carbon taxes calculated to harmlessly decrease oil, coal and gas consumption and save the poor polar bears are misinformation.

Oh, and OPEC does not raise its prices in part to maintain demand. But just as important is the need for certain members of the cartel to be able to continue to count on the US 1) keeping some of them in power, and 2) ensuring the free flow of oil in world commerce.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images