Somalia is a totalitarian regime, then.
A teensy-weensy bit totalitarian, but still.
Comment on Year in Review by willard (@nevaudit)
↧
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Memphis
Somalia…..mmm…are there places with significantly less government ?
↧
Comment on Year in Review by willard (@nevaudit)
> Thermometers continue showing “pause” in global warming.
Moshpit just mansplained that one:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/30/year-in-review/#comment-281822
(The stationarity bit would deserve due diligence, BTW.)
Thick as a brick.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by willard (@nevaudit)
Oh noes!
Another tree-less page!
What would Dr. Wojick make of this!
↧
Comment on Year in Review by willard (@nevaudit)
> [U]nless the rich have become rich by violating the property rights of the poor, there is no moral justification for mugging the rich (via politics or crime) to pay the poor.
Ahem.
↧
↧
Comment on Year in Review by willard (@nevaudit)
With such a relational concept of totalitarianism, memphis, Somalia has the potential to be the place where rampant totalitarism could see the most rapid increase.
Just imagine what the installation of one single traffic light could do.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by willard (@nevaudit)
Big Dave needs peer reviews of conference slides.
Contrarians should ask themselves why Easterbrook’s allowed to quietly go into such felicitous emeritus state.
Cargo cult, no doubt.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Ron Manley
In a recent exchange of emails I used the analogy of ‘pulse’ and ‘heartbeat’. I agreee that it is difficult to see how the AMO could be the ‘heartbeat’, i.e. a primary driver of climate. On the other hand I feel there is growing evidence that it is a ‘pulse’, i.e. something which responds to whatever pseudo-cycle it is that is a major factor in global temperatures.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Don Monfort
Dr. Quasi Wabbit,
I am with you on this one. Doc. We need to revisit Kyoto with a more ambitious agenda. We must stamp out farming, along with ending the burning of fossil fuels. Hunter gatherer is the way to go. We can get close to that, if we in the industrialized nations reduce our economic activities to the level of backward, poverty stricken Romania (steffy’s homeland). Then all we got left to worry about is getting scorched by the heat from seismic events at the core-mantle boundary.
↧
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Greg Goodman
http://clim.stanford.edu/CDIACKeelAgree.jpg
Which underlines my observation that _accumulated_ emissions (see the title), when scaled to fit MLO do match quite closely. You pulled 44% from somewhere, I scaled to fit.
My three exp model was a fit to _accumulated_ emissions. A simple log plot of emissions (without any fitting) clearly shows three distinct periods that are close to being straight in a log(y) plot. ie three periods of fairly constant _exponential_ growth.
This is neither surprising nor controversial.
Having seen three rates of growth I fitted straight lines to the log plot to compare the rates of growth.
In view of the title of the graph and the explicit legend for each of the lines it’s unclear why this is so hard for you to understand.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Greg Goodman
I’ve told you once, I’ve already paid you.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Greg Goodman
VP: If GG’s basis for “It doesn’t” is that his projection is better, then he’s wrong about that as I’ve just been arguing.
I’m saying actually fitting an exponential to the MLO data without placing constraints on the constant base level provides a much better fit to that data than imposing a speculative base level and only using two points from the whole MLO data set. In that respect my fitted exponential better characterises the MLO data than your AGW model. That much is clear for all to see in the first graph I presented.
http://i48.tinypic.com/snouvl.png
I’m also saying that extrapolation of _any_ exponential function that far outside the calibration period will have huge uncertainty because of nature of exponential functions. I’m sure I don’t need to explain that to you.
I am not suggesting extrapolating mine one is good idea, I simply plot the two side by side to show how seriously your poor fit deviates from a good fit in just 40y let alone 90y.
I am pointing out that your single exponential is a very poor fit to the post 1960 rise which is supposed to be causing alarming AGW, because you only use two data points from this period when there is 640 individual monthly averages available. As such it does not represent “busness as usual.
I am noting that your single exponential systematically deviates from the MLO data. It crosses in 1975 will less slope, is more concaved over the entire length and then leaves around 2010 with a notably steeper slope. As such it does not represent “busness as usual.
You will note on the first of my graphs (linear scale), that actually fitting an exponential to MLO gives a lower initial value about 275ppm. This should not be taken as an estimate of pre-industrial since post 1960 growth is far higher and cannot be taken as being representative of earlier emissions. The point is, that if an exponential model is to be assumed, this is the fit that you get for post 1960 growth ie “business as usual “. This plot shows how poorly an attempt to fit a single exponential to the whole of 1750-2010 period represents the recent data.
http://i48.tinypic.com/snouvl.png
An exponential that already has an exaggerated slope by 2010 is going to be far worse by 2100.
You said you were “more than happy” to retract your extrapolation to 2100 and the claim that this represented business as usual “for the purposes of this discussion.
I asked you to clarify whether that was just an attempt avoid addressing the issue here or whether you were prepared to truly retract this “future = SAW+AGW” claim.
So far you have avoided replying to that simple question three times now. It is odd how reluctant you are to clearly state your position on key issues. Let’s try again. FOURTH time of asking:
VP: All I claim is that my model is an excellent fit to HadCRUT3. This is demonstrated with the obtained R2.
No, that is not “all you claim”. That is another false statement.
PAST AND FUTURE
TRENDS
The curves below show
past CO2 and business-as-
usual future CO2 on a log
time scale. Future is
simply the extrapolation of
SAW and AGW.
VP: Hence for the purposes of this thread I am more than happy to retract both the panel at lower left plotting CO2 from 4 MYA to 2100 and the whole of the right column.
So what’s with conditional retraction? Either you retract or you don’t. I can understand that you now want to walk away from that untenable projection to focus on something else, so let’s have a clear statement on this.
Do you retract your claim that the raised exponential you call AGW can be EXTRAPOLATED out to 2100 with 1000 ppmv, greater than 4 deg,C anthropogenic warming and the claim that this represents “business as usual” ?
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by willard (@nevaudit)
> No, that is not “all you claim”. That is another false statement.
I believe that Vaughan here means that this is his main claim.
If you disagree with that, that means you can show us a claim in that blog post that goes beyond this.
A claim is a substantiated assertion pertaining to the subject matter.
Not some kind of speculative remark.
Something we could call a thesis, i.e. the conclusion of the overall construction of the post.
***
So please back up this assertion by providing a quote.
A quote containing a claim.
Many thanks!
↧
↧
Comment on Year in Review by BBD
gbaikie
Britannica’s ‘reasonable explanation’ is at odds with the current view in paleoclimate which is that the ocean gateway hypothesis cannot explain a cooling trend spanning 50Ma. It seems unlikely that *discontinuous* gateway events could be responsible for such a long-term phenomenon. See Barron et al. (1981); Kennett (1977); Maier-Reimer et al. (1990); Mikolajewicz et al. (1993).
For some reason you elected not to quote this from the Britannica article you linked:
Recent evidence suggests that decreasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide during this period may have initiated a steady and irreversible cooling trend over the next few million years.
Now consider the argument in HS12 that the 50Ma cooling trend from the Eocene Optimum to the present is the result of a slow decrease in CO2 concentrations because no other forcing decreased so much over the 50Ma since the Eocene Optimum.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Don Monfort
Jim D,
Jimmy, any deficiencies in Rossander’s cursory effort, don’t add any credibility to Pratt’s methods and results. It don’t work that way, Jimmy.
Pekka has strong warmist sympathies, but he ain’t that impressed with this one:
Pekka Pirilä | December 15, 2012 at 5:47 am
Vaughn
While I disagree on much of the recent critique on your work, I’m still not convinced that it allows for particularly useful conclusions at any level of detail. Many different factors have contributed and it’s difficult to imagine that many of them would not be independent and add up roughly independently to the total. Some factors (volcanic and solar) that contribute to the rise of period 1910-40 are known at some quantitative level. Taking them off based on some estimated coefficients would probably leave a residue that’s similar in overall shape but with a less pronounced SAW. Some alternative parameterization could certainly change the earliest and latest decades significantly. It’s certainly nice to have as few free parameters as possible but that’s by no means a proof that the model is more correct than an alternative that needs one or two more parameters.
Your model summarizes nicely the main low frequency features of the data but is there more to it. I’m not convinced except that I’m convinced that creating anything as plausible without a major AGW contribution is probably impossible. (The presentation of AGW might differ significantly from your delayed Hoffman in its details and its strength could also differ.)
Pekka Pirilä | December 16, 2012 at 4:45 am | Reply
Vaughan,
I have spent some time to figure out some minor technical details of the workings of your worksheet but wrote my recent comments rather rapidly as responses to Jim D’ s comments.
I have still the basic skepticism concerning the significance of being able to fit the data at the mK level. It seems too likely that there are several factors that influence the results at that level even after filtering and that must be essentially independent. Approaching the problem from that end I have the feeling that the perfectness of your fit over the period 1860-1950 cannot have any fundamental significance but must be due to the freedom that you had in choosing the model.
The Rossander model shows a clear signature of overfitting as it creates a spurious residual oscillation with a period of the 6th harmonic. Such a 6th harmonic means that it comes from overfitted 2nd and 3rd harmonics. Such overfitting was needed to produce the rapid temperature increase of recent decades that’s more naturally reproduced by AGW.
Your model does not show any similar signatures of overfitting and that’s certainly a great virtue – but as I wrote above I do still think that this just cannot be as significant as it appears.
But lets go back to what the model might indicate, when taken seriously. Your model has the SAW as a periodic function with period of 151 years. Can we think that 160 years of data (including the problematic ends) can provide significant evidence for such periodicity. I don’t think so. What we can see is that there’s oscillatory variability of peak-to-peak amplitude 0.3C in that part of the data where the approach is best applicable.
There’s less variability at both ends, but does your fit show that this is a true property of the Earth system?
I don’t think so, because the approach cannot really resolve what happens closer to the ends of the period. The lesser variability is your input to the process, not an outcome. The Rossander experiment tells that it’s almost possible to fit the whole rise with the harmonics only, fitting a fair share of it would probably be much easier. Just looking at your SAW tells that it would not be unnatural to think that the variability component would be at a level 0.1-0.2 C above your SAW around year 2000.
On the other hand I have not changed my mind on the observation that making a plausible fit without a major role for AGW does not appear possible. In this connection what’s called AGW may contain some natural longer term trend in addition of the anthropogenic contribution. Such overall AGW could well be 0.7 C rather than your 0.9 C, but hardly less than 0.6 C. Curve fitting is inefficient in separating different contributions to the long term trend from each other. Only the recent decades (last 50 years or so) have a clearly anthropogenic signature.
Pekka Pirilä | December 15, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
Jim,
You are on right track. Extrapolating the Rossander parameterization beyond the fitted period tells that the temperature was year 1800 as high as in 2010 and that there will be a sharp drop to the minimum of 1840 (little lower than 1850) by 2050.
I didn’t want to say that the Rossander fit is plausible but only that the success of this alternative fit tells about the significance that the quality of Vaughan’s fit has. The strong smoothing applied seems to make it relatively easy to find functions that fit the data well. There’s a clear
difference between the qualities of the fits over the period 1870-1950, where Vaughan’s fit is really accurate to about 1 mK while Rossander’s parameters lead to the oscillation with 10 mK full amplitude. Even so his observation adds to my reservations, which were based on the implausibility of the idea that Vaughan’s fit would really tell about some causal explanation for the variability (other than that given by smoothing).
↧
Comment on Is fat good? by Tom
That was all figured out in the forties; see how far science has come today? You Depend, on us till today…
↧
Comment on New Year’s resolution for scientists by Memphis
The fundamental problem is that state-funded science will inherently have a statist bias whenever there are political implications.
And since the Democratic party is more statist/totalitarian then the Republicans, state science will tend to serve the agenda of the Democrats.
↧
↧
Comment on Is fat good? by Peter Davies
If your child is overweight its your fault! Other suggested rules to add to Kim’s:
Eat only at mealtimes and eat at the table not in front of the TV
Piece of fruit is OK if hungry between meals
Check for plenty of fibre eg root vegetables
Git rid of eating as a form of escapism
Cheers
↧
Comment on New Year’s resolution for scientists by Memphis
Doc
The belief that there is no god, is just as groundless as the belief that there is one. Just a lot more conceited.
↧
Comment on Is fat good? by Peter Davies
Oh! and definitely limit potatoes to more more than twice-weekly
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
