@DS: Wow. They grow longer stems to space leaves further apart to facilitate airflow between them when hot. When colder they pull it all in closer together much as a person curls up into a ball when cold. Who knew?
Indeed. And when Warren Buffett’s investments go south he seeks out the nearest soup kitchen to avoid starvation. What’s your point?
You got it, Steven. The Captain would be turning over in his grave. But Willis is in too deep to admit it. I almost feel sorry for him.
Peter Davies, I understand your desire to avoid focusing on individuals, but you were wrong to say Don Monfort was engaging in ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem refers to a specific logical fallacy. It has nothing to do with societal niceties. You may not like Don Monfort’s comments due to their focus on an individual, but his comments did not contain ad hominems.
Peter, sometimes the arguments are about the character of individuals. Brandon accurately explained what ad hom is. But you do your own thing. Stay away from new tricks. Too hard on the psyche.
Vaughan Pratt:
You’ve singled out an important point about my poster
I’m glad to hear that. I had hoped to examine your model in some detail, but I’ve been unable to since I lack a copy of Excel. I tried to contribute as much as I could given that limitation, and it’s good to hear I hit upon an important point: A ~25% difference in climate sensitivity is huge.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t expect that large an impact. I had thought the issue I discussed would increase uncertainty by ~10-15%.
hello
Thanks Brandon, I appreciate your thoughts on the subject of posts that focus on the person rather than on any argument or POV that has been put forward and I think that your interpretation of ad hom seems to be generally accepted by everyone.
In my original post I labelled the post in question as an ad hom because the poster’s original intention was to denigrate Willis’ views on courage and honour by attacking his character.
The other readers of CE should be able to judge for themselves if my original post was using the term incorrectly, however, regardless of whether I was correct or not, my subsequent posts elaborated on what I was talking about in no uncertain terms.
In any case, personal attacks are not cool and shouldn’t normally be perpetrated, but as Judith has suggested, there are ways of doing this that adds humour and style to the discourse and this is surely is partly what we all look forward to on our visits to her eSalon?
Don
I hadn’t run away, but merely obeyed the convention that when its night time I sleep.
I have a lot of time for both you and Peter (also for Mosh but don’t tell him that)
Personally I prefer civil discourse (which can be heated), partly in the hope that a serious and civil debate will encourage lurking scientists/researchers to participate in debating the issues raised. There are times when discussions here are dominated by the same few people and we need new and expert blood.
If an atmosphere is created that makes expert (or lay) onlookers decide to stay away that is to the detriment of everyone.
That is not to say that debate will not descend sometimes into acrimony or that things drift and people then bicker and often say highly amusing things.
Personally I have stopped reading the items from Willis so dont know the full context to your comments, but he obviously has his fans.
I can’t tell other people what to do, but at times I feel the mark is overstepped and your comments on Willis come into that category and I feel I must say something.
I’ve got the popcorn ready and the percolator on, as presumably your comments have found their way back to Willis and he will respond. Where do I buy tickets?
All the best
Tonyb
The problem with all these plots is that they have shifted the historical base from 1995 to 2000 or after?
1) Does this mean that they have trained their models with some additional data up to 2000? If they are new models then they should’ve been run from the same base as the old ones (1995) and trained on the same data set (pre-1995).
2) Given that these models have non-deterministic components, is this not the same as changing the experiment: one would expect such a model to diverge from observation but the rate of divergence tells you how good they are. If you shift the projection date (as here) then the divergence wont seem as marked as before even if the rate is the same (post 1995).
3) The grey region does not start to fan out til after 2000 which would suggest that they have done some retrospective fitting of older code or used new models trained on additional data – see point 1 again.
4) You cannot validate model outputs, with non-deterministic components, using, even in-part, retrospective fitting.
Peter Davies:
The other readers of CE should be able to judge for themselves if my original post was using the term incorrectly, however, regardless of whether I was correct or not, my subsequent posts elaborated on what I was talking about in no uncertain terms.
I have no problem with what you say here. It’s just a pet peeve of mine. I’ve always been a fan of linguistics and semantics. I find the topics interesting for themselves, not just for how they affect conversations.
In any case, personal attacks are not cool and shouldn’t normally be perpetrated
I can see why people might disagree on this point. Personally, I’ve seen too many people “get away” with unacceptable behavior to agree with what you say. Part of me will always think personal attacks are not only appropriate, but necessary.
That said, I definitely agree personal attacks can detract from conversations, and they are more effective when done with humor and style. A certain degree of panache helps everything.
Oh! I forgot to include something in my last comment: You’re welcome! It’d be kind of rude for me not to say that in response to an offering of gratitude.
Vaughan, as they say, none are so blind as those who will not see. Of course there are minor differences (amplitude, phase…) between the various multidecadal oscillations (global, global SST, AMO, global land, NH, SH…), but they’re all VERY similar and that’s remarkable. There’s a Global Multidecadal Oscillation (GMO).
I’ll leave quantifying to those who have time and are paid to do it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1850/detrend:1.06/plot/best/from:1850/trend/detrend:1.06/plot/esrl-amo/plot/esrl-amo/trend
Nor do the models have athe Water Cycle, nor do they have rain in their Carbon Cycle, nor do they have any atmosphere at all (they have replaced the the heavy real gas volume subject to gravity with empty space popululated by ideal gas with no mass, volume, weight, attraction), nor do they have direct heat from the Sun (one way or the other, either by claiming a magic barrier stopping longwave direct from the Sun reaching the surface, or, even more idiotically, if that’s possible, claiming that the Sun produces insignificant radiant heat, longwave infrared), with po faces they claim that visible light from the Sun is the major heat source land and ocean, how more stupid can their fisics get after that?
All because, as Scrodinger’s Cat reminds us, they are so incompetant as scientists they couldn’t think of anything else it could be causing the warming except carbon dioixide, regardless of the irrationality in scale that CO2 is a trace gas and anyway always showing itself lagging temperature changes by hundreds of years so physically not even in the running as cause.
These are not scientists, they’re completely oblivious to the real physical properties and processes of the world around us – which real physics does understand.
They are priests of a religious belief system grounded in their own irrational imaginings which get more ludicrous every day as they try to maintain their credibility among the faithful when reality fails to conform to their predictions, and, they lie and cheat and advocate violence against unbelievers. At best they are despicable. At worst, they are ruining real physical understanding of the the world around us, hard won by real scientists in our recent past, by their infiltration of the general education system.
A certain blogger is fond of saying the AMO is temperature. So when you “detrend” the temperature of a significant part of the globe, you get, well, the AMO.
If he’s correct, the AMO doesn’t drive anything. It is driven.
Again no Water Cycle – the temp would be 67°C without water but with the rest of the real gas atmosphere in place, which is mainly the heavy voluminous fluid real gas ocean of nitrogen and oxygen under gravity – the real greenhouse gas thermal blanket around the Earth. Not the idiotic idea that a trace gas which is mainly holes in the atmosphere could be a thermal blanket..
And just how stupid is the idea that clouds prevent “sunlight” from heating land and oceans by reflecting it away? So it can’t heat clouds which are water and particles of matter, but it is aborbed by land and ocean at the surface heating with such intensisty at the equator that it gives us our huge winds and weather systems??
Put back the Water Cycle, and get a sense of scale, the “33°C warming by AGW greenhouse gases” disappears, because it’s an illusion.
If you claim it isn’t, then damn well show how ir imbibing water vapour and trace gases which AGWScienceFiction calls “greenhouse gases” can physically raise the whole temperature of the Earth by 33°C from minus 18°C.
You claim to be a scientist, you show how.
Do not post a link irrelevant to my question.
[...] sempre su questo argomento, Judith Curry ha recentemente pubblicato un post in cui raccoglie quel poco che sin qui è stato fatto in termini di comparazioni tra [...]
The ethos of Climate Etc:
There is no there there.
The Onion masquerading as a science blog.
Girma might as well make the assertion that the moon is made of cheese, and then post an image of a golf ball painted yellow to prove his point.
yes Don the captain would be turning over in his grave.
I don’t see why willis doesnt tell it from that perspective. he had to make a decision that ran counter to everything he grew up worshipping.
I mean doesnt that sound much more dramatic. ” ‘I’ve always been taught to tell the truth, but here I found myself faking a suicide to get out of something. I guess in extreme cases truth is not the most important thing”
That’s more powerful in my book.. but then similarities with Gleick and lying for the cause come right up in your face… ouch. Then you’d be pressed to give others some slack…
