@not That Skeptical
The current warm period (CWP) we are enjoying is no warmer than the MWP or the Roman WP. See here http://tinyurl.com/9zcfrjh and here http://tinyurl.com/8czkg74
Comment on Coping with deep climate uncertainty by Sun Spot
↧
↧
Comment on Coping with deep climate uncertainty by PS
Hint: I’m suggesting that the IPCC is a unique construct and would not fit under very many organizations. The question ought to be how would the World Bank assess the climate change question. They wouldn’t be using an IPCC in the first place so questions on how they might run the IPCC are irrelevant.
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by andrew adams
I would also make the point that I think scientists (on all sides obviously) have more of a duty than the rest of us not to defend or disseminate unscientific claims, although we should all try to resist the temptation.
↧
Comment on Coping with deep climate uncertainty by Al Lakos
Since Gosselin draws on the classical physics of d’Alembert, do you think the MSM will pay attention to him now that the bombshell paper by Marcie Rathke of the University of Southern North Dakota has been accepted for publication in Advances in Pure Mathematics.?
Although ‘Independent, Negative, Canonically Turing Arrows of Equations and Problems in Applied Formal PDE’ may be a hard reading,
the abstract is thankfully a model of concision:
“Let ρ = A. Is it possible to extend isomorphisms? We show that D´ is stochastically orthogonal and trivially affine. [For real atmospheric systems] the main result was the construction of p-Cardano, compactly Erdős, Weyl functions. This could shed important light on a conjecture of Conway–d’Alembert.”
How many more times must the hoax be mathematically demolished before Hansen and Mann publish a retraction ?
↧
Comment on Coping with deep climate uncertainty by Wagathon
The main thing to understand is that the first step is assembling stakeholders and mapping out their concerns — where they are vulnerable, what they can tolerate, what they want to avoid, what they aspire to.
Change the context and you see the delusion–e.g., apply this reasoning to GM about to going under. The first step was to define who the ‘stakeholders’ were that turned out to be the autoworkers’ union–i.e., the cause of the problems. Taxpayers, shareholders, bondholders and all of the owners and employees of GM’s competitors were simply slapped down by the government.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Edim
“Climate scientists should be talking about natural variability, instead of pretending it is just ‘noise’ on an overwhelming AGW signal. If they had been doing this all along, we would have a better understanding of how climate science works, and journalists such as David Rose would not need to write articles that are critical of the Met Office and the climate ‘establishment’. They now seem to be ‘discovering’ this issue, after it has been the main concern of skeptics for over a decade now. This whole situation is badly broken, and David Rose is hardly the person to blame here.”
Dr. Curry, yes it’s badly broken, but you’re fixing it. Thank you very much. I think you deserve a Nobel prize. And you look good, even on that picture.
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by Latimer Alder
@steve milesworthy
If you don’t like the way the guys at the Met Office HADley Centre
and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia compile their HADCRU4 dataset take it up with them, not me. But they are supposedly the ‘Greatest and the Goodest’ of the climatology establishment, and all I’ve done (and all the Daily Mail has done) is to highlight the data they have published. If you believe it to be invalid, they are the people that you need to take it up with.
But your increasingly desperate arguments on this thread seem all to be based on the idea that if you look at something different..a trend or an average or a distribution, then things aren’t quite as bad for the warmist cause.
No deal. The HACDRUT datasets have been taken throughout climatology as pretty good representations of the actual values for years. Nobody until now has suggested that they have to be looked at through 5-year means or only through a smoked glass prism while holding a copy of IPCC AR4 and reciting the Nobel Prize citation or whatever daft incantation you have in mind. Once again you have to resort to desperate measures to try to avoid the simple but very uncomfortable truth that the planet has not warmed for 15 years.
I hope that in your private life you are a man of integrity and honesty.. and I have no reason to believe otherwise. But continuing your policy here of ever more unlikely reasoning to try to demonstrate that the data tells us something other than it does might cause me to wonder if you carry those same high ideals into your blogging efforts.
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by steven mosher
Doc.
Its pretty simple. ENSO ( which has no physically meaningful units )
is a description of how energy is distributed and redistributed over space and time. As a mode of natural variation over time its integral is constant. It doesnt explain warming, it is HOW natural warming manifests itself. ENSO doesnt create additional warming. It can’t. Thats because ENSO doesnt exist. It is a description of things that do exist.
The first thing you can do is a simple dimensional analysis.. opps ENSO is dimensionless. To put it more bluntly
Somebody looks at temperature over space and time and constructs various indices.. from temperature.. those metrics cannot be used to EXPLAIN the thing from which it was derived.
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Al Lakos
More than Bernoulli is at issue because Gosselin draws on the classical physics of d’Alembert, do you think the MSM will pay attention to him now that the bombshell paper by Marcie Rathke of the University of Southern North Dakota has been accepted for publication in Advances in Pure Mathematics.?
Although ‘Independent, Negative, Canonically Turing Arrows of Equations and Problems in Applied Formal PDE’ may be a hard reading,
the abstract is thankfully a model of concision:
“Let ρ = A. Is it possible to extend isomorphisms? We show that D´ is stochastically orthogonal and trivially affine. [For real atmospheric systems] the main result was the construction of p-Cardano, compactly Erdős, Weyl functions. This could shed important light on a conjecture of Conway–d’Alembert.”
How many more times must the Turing insufficieny modeling hoax be mathematically demolished before Hansen, Mann , and the rest of the pro-modeling crowd publish a retraction ?
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by timg56
I agree completely on this being an outstanding post.
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by curryja
I’m intrigued but this is floating over my head. A guest post would be most welcome
↧
Comment on Coping with deep climate uncertainty by Wagathon
The equation of AGW True Believers to capture the Earth’s complexity is a model of simplicity–i.e.,
–> f(CO2) = global warming!
↧
Comment on Coping with deep climate uncertainty by qbeamus
Your petition for redress has numerous problems, which become evident when one stops to consider how your claim would fare if you actually tried to assert it in court. In order to prevail on a tort claim, one must show the following:
(1) You were harmed;
(2) Defedant’s actions caused that harm;
(3) Defendant’s actions were negligent (unreasonably dangerous); and
(4) Defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of that harm.
(I use the formulation that leaves out “duty.”) If you were to try to press your suit, the only one you’d have a chance of proving would be negligence, and that one only if we assume that ever skeptical argument in the universe is objectively “unreasonable.”
The harm you’re worried about hasn’t even happened yet. Ok, so let’s pretend we wait 20 years and the you file. Of course, now we’re forced to argue about what the world looks like in 20 years. And that argument immediately reveals why the law insists that the harm has already occurred before it contemplates compensating you. Until it has happened, we can only speculate. In short, you cannot prove that the actions you complained of caused your harm.
Of course, we all understand this instinctively. If burning carbon fuels could be shown to cause harm by a standand that would satisfy our existing laws, we wouldn’t need a legion of new laws to head off that harm with prospective regulation. The very reason we have such intense political debate in this area is because global warming alarmists are working to shift the centuries-old burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by willard (@nevaudit)
Judy,
You have yet to acknowledge that NevenA had a point. Among other points, cf.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/16/pause-discussion-thread-part-ii/#comment-255533
There is also Andrew Adams’, who never seems to attract much attention.
But I’d settle for this one for now, which I’ll repeat. Rose and the GWPF might be communicating in the most opportunistic way. They really do seem to run with talking points. I don’t think you can disagree with this, or at the very least, that Rose’s main claim does not smell right.
Saying “if the MET did not &c” rests on a counterfactual that is void of any empirical content: how can you verify something the MET should have not done (in your opinion) exactly? The same argument applies to “had the establishment not spin 1998, I would not be here &c”. Do you have access to a world where they did not do it?
These are just excuses, Judy. Nobody makes you do it. As I’ve learn by looking at the Fantastic Four:
> You always have a choice.
***
And since you’re talking about your Italian Red Flag, here’s something I don’t understand. A three-valued logic is a logic, i.e. it’s something used to evaluate truths. But your flag is only a way to divide a credibility (for lack of a better word for now) continuum in three bins. This evaluates credibility or fiability or whatnot.
But to say that such line of evidence L is True makes no sense to me. And to say that L2 is False is even worse, since we should fill this up with all the stuff that are void of any line of evidence whatsoever.
So I’m not sure in what way your model can have a semantics at all. I’m not saying that it’s impossible to do, but that does not look like a panacea to me. If you want a logic, you might think of hiring a professional logician.
Besides, your criterias for your three bins do seem a bit ad hoc, no? On what epistemic grounds does this tripartition rests exactly? How can this lead to improvement on IPCC’s model?
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by willard (@nevaudit)
manacker,
Thank you for this quote. We might be going somewhere.
Let me repeat that quote:
> One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
A THEORY, manacker.
Not a premise.
Not an hypothesis.
A theory.
Let me repeat this answer I already gave you:
> Falsification is an ideal condition for scientific theories.
CAGW is not a scientific theory .
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/#comment-256878
Don’t you get it, now? I agree with you, manacker. CAGW is not a theory.
I never said otherwise. It never was. You’re not beating a dead horse. You’re beating an imaginary horse.
That’s why I say that “falsifying CAGW” makes no sense whatsoever.
That’s why you keep switching from premise to hypothesis, and from hypothesis to theory. I tell you it’s not a theory and then you say that you don’t care to call it anything else.
You’re invoking Popper’s ghost with no good reasons, manacker. If you continue, he’ll wake up and chase you down with a fire poke.
***
From this imaginary horse, you are then telling us that CAGW is not a scientific theory. I agree with you. CAGW is not a scientific theory. CAGW is not even a theory.
Let me remind you why I believe talking about Kuhnian paradigms is beside the point:
> Since CAGW is not scientific [...]
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/#comment-256446
CAGW is not a theory, nor is it a premise, nor is it an hypothesis, nor is it a paradigm.
***
Incidentally, AGW might not even be a theory:
> Hypotheses, organizing principles, of this sort emerge from the fabric of a science as a consequence of a search for unifying principles. The organizing principles of climatology come from various threads, but I’d mention the oceanographic syntheses of Sverdrup and Stommel, the atmospheric syntheses of Charney and Lorenz, paleoclimatological studies from ice and mud core field work, and computational work starting with no less than John von Neumann. The expectation of AGW does not organize this work. It emerges from this work. It’s not a theory, it’s a consequence of the theory.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/8960561626
We could say that CAGW are impacts of these consequences.
These impacts are estimated with projections.
These projections have no predictive power.
Only the theory does. And that theory is based on physics. Good luck with that one.
***
If you ever have a better explanation of all this, please go submit it to
Many thanks!
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Tom
Joshua, which came first, you or Jack Benny?
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Jim Cripwell
BBD you write “If you wish to challenge the scientific consensus you can only do so through the scientific process: research, peer review, publication.”
Here is the problem. What you state has merit. However, the problem is the expression “scientific consensus”. There is no such thing as a scientiifc consensus. I suppose that is my opinion, but it is what I have always understood that physics is all about.
You are right. This discussion is going nowhere. You cannot produce any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global warming, and you won’t admit that there is no such empirical evidence. I will never accept that CAGW is anything more than an unproven hypothesis until the empirical evidence is produced.
It is a sort of Mexican standoff. Neither of us will change our opinion, and one of us is wrong. In the end the emipirical data will prove which of us is wrong.
↧
↧
Comment on Coping with deep climate uncertainty by lolwot
Surely the bar is whether it goes below 2007. If as you claim the new record this year was only because of a storm (it wasn’t)
↧
Comment on Coping with deep climate uncertainty by lolwot
The paper title is “Lethally Hot Temperatures During the Early Triassic Greenhouse”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6105/366
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by manacker
Willard
With your last post you have truly earned your name of “willard the waffler”.
The truth of the matter is that IPCC’s CAGW premise as stated in AR4, which is based on a climate sensitivity of 3.2C, is not supported by empirical scientific evidence (Feynman)
In addition, you have not been able to state how it could be falsified (Popper)
IOW it is based on “pseudo-science”, rather than “science”, and can be ignored.
Thanks for confirming this by your inability to refute it.
*GAME OVER*
Max
↧
