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

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by cohenite

0
0

Lewandowsky doesn’t have thought patterns; he has achieved that rarefied mental condition that all senior AGW spruikers have and which is best summed up by one of Australia’s leading ALP political representitives, Graham Richardson as “Whatever it Takes”.


Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by kim

0
0

I’ve long defended Andy Revkin’s curiosity and intellectual integrity. I trust he’ll get it someday. Now, do I really have to go watch to see the red flag? My tummy ain’t just right today.
============

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Peter Davies

0
0

This comment could also be interpreted to be garbage as well Mark. Any assertion without any analysis to back it up carries no weight at all.

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Peter Davies

0
0

Good work Suyts and well worth the visit to your website. Mark certainly would find it interesting reading and if he finds anything remiss with your paper he would no doubt offer constructive comments showing how and why he disagrees.

Comment on New perspectives on climate sensitivity by Generalissimo Skippy

0
0

I suspect that he means from first principles rather than first order physics. Either way it is simply not true that there is a viable mechanical statistics of climate. It is simply not the case anyone has come close – and confabulated curve fitting isn’t on the same planet.

A statisitics of turbulent flow might solve 2 problems of climate models. The problem of processes occuring at scales far less than the grids on which solutions are calculated and the problem of nonlinear divergence of the Navier-Stokes equations over time.

How close might we then be to replicating the physics of the system at a far flung point in the future – when if ever the method is perfected – is a matter for future contemplation.

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by stevepostrel

0
0

The point of this kind of work is to reduce the cost of testing and playing with models so as to greatly increase the cycle of testing and improvement. If you can make 1000 runs in the time it used to take to do one, you can derive the consequences of your assumptions 1000 times faster. And many more people can play the game. It’s just a better tool that can be used for good or ill. Think of the pre- and post-computer spreadsheet days in business. Or the pre- and post-computer days in gerrymandering election districts.

Thus an advance like this could just lead to faster data mining and overfitting if the underlying models have too many free parameters relative to the data. But it could also be an aid to falsification if you can quickly say “nope, that idea of yours (or mine) won’t fit the data either.” It just enables a more thorough exploration of parameter space and a quicker testing of actual causal theories by speeding up the “derive the observable consequences” step of the scientific process (guess–>derive observable consequences of guess–>test consequences–>draw conclusion and ask new questions and make new guesses).

The first step in developing this type of approximation method is NOT to test it against messy real-world data but against exact simulated data for which you know for sure what the right answer should be. Then if it deviates you can see it and can figure out why so you can improve the approximation.

There’s a difference between skepticism and policy conservatism on the one hand and intellectual Phillistinism on the other.

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by kim

0
0

OK, urp, he’s gettin’ it. Notice his aside to himself about two decade old Anthropocenic speculation. Other guy, the flag flashed while he was wrasslin’ alligators. Nick sick so, too.
==============

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Peter Davies


Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by kim

0
0

It’s a long, long train a windin’
Some days it’s worth the trip;
Two decades of a voyagin’,
Today, hooray, pip, pip!
============

Comment on New perspectives on climate sensitivity by WebHubTelescope

0
0

Of course we can get close to the current climate by invoking nothing other than statistical mechanics. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is simply the statistical mechanics of black-body radiation. To first-order, we get to close to the current average temperature by applying S-B. Other first-order perturbations to the black-body distribution make up most of the remaining 10% difference.

Unfortunately, I have come to realize that the Chief Proctologist can’t follow this kind of reasoning, likely stemming from his constant struggle to understand something as simple as dimensional analysis.

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by kim

0
0

Well, blow me beamward, the Ottoway Carnival is comin’ to town.
=============

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by kim

0
0

The Fat Lady of the local firmament, cheshire shushing her grinspots away.
========

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by kim

0
0

A decent point, but the current problems seems to be at the ‘derive observable consequence of guess->test consequences’ step. Balking there makes ‘Faster, Jasper’ look tarentellic, or perhaps epileptic.
==================

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by blueice2hotsea

0
0

DS drives nails with a sledgehammer while willard taps with his shoe.

C’mon willard! Sophistry is a poor substitute for sophiology

Comment on New perspectives on climate sensitivity by WebHubTelescope

0
0

“Jim Cripwell | March 10, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
I claimed that climate sensitivity has never been measured. No-one has responded”

I was applying the CRIPWELL CRITERIA. Nothing can be proven according to Cripwell, because any observations or measurements made by man may be just a trick of our imagination. We can’t prove that we are not living in a dream state according to the CRIPWELL CRITERIA. Somehow prove that this is not a dream state, and only then can we further reason according to the criteria.

Note that this interlude is meant to convey how ridiculous Jim Cripwell sounds, and the reason why he is locked in that trick-box of his.

We could reach 10,000 PPM of CO2 and live in a hothouse, and still Cripwell will be laying down the law that we have not proven anything. The difference between a 400 PPM environment and a 10000 PPM environment is meaningless according to Cripwell, because direct measurements are not possible.

I really don’t understand why Cripwell has not applied his criteria to my model of how excess CO2 evolves due to industrial carbon emissions. This model is described further up in the thread:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/10/new-perspectives-on-climate-sensitivity/#comment-301637
Why hasn’t Cripwell responded to this model of sensitivity of CO2 to man-made carbon emissions? Is he scared? Are the rest of you scared too?


Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by kim

0
0

Arrhythmic, and the humming is flat. Here I sit.
=======

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Wagathon

0
0

See–e.g., How Western Global Warming Pseudo-Science Is More Like Numerology and the Ancient Science of Astrology…

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Matthew R Marler

0
0

Brandon Shollenberger, many thanks. I think we should also thank the authors of the paper for putting the entire data file that they used for analysis on line. The sparsity of the most recent data escaped me on first readings of the paper (a paper that I like, overall), and I think it is a severe problem undercutting their hockey stick “blade”.

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by timg56

0
0

fan,

How is an assumption that sea level rise will accelerate any different than one that assumes it’s rate will remain steady?

And if your point is that it will accelerate, why can’t you

a) clearly state that

and

b) provide evidence to support your case? Your link doesn’t do that.

As for the future mattering past 2100 – ignoring that this is another example of how you respond tangentally – the follow-on is “Matters to whom?” It certaintly will not matter to you or I. We’ll be dead. It’s unlikely to matter to our children for the same reason. If one is to worry about the future, there are a lot of things which are far more immediate to be concerned with.

Rather than trying to scare the children with your stories of diasterous increases in sea level, how about doing something for the couple of billion people alive today who do not have reliable access to inexpensive energy (and as a result, access to clean water, sanitary living conditions, reliable food supply, basic education opportunities and a host of other things we have).

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by lurker, passing through laughing

0
0

tt,
What is objectionable is that it is deceptive reporting. But deception is apparently an integral part of AGW radicalism.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images