Articles on this Page
- 12/08/18--20:20: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--20:55: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--21:08: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--21:19: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--21:21: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--21:37: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--21:59: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--22:00: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--22:04: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--22:33: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--23:05: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--23:29: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/08/18--23:51: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/08/18--23:58: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--00:03: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--01:57: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--06:35: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/09/18--06:39: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/09/18--06:45: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--07:14: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/08/18--20:20: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by dpy6629
- 12/08/18--20:55: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Brad Keyes
- 12/08/18--21:08: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ron Graf
- 12/08/18--21:19: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/08/18--21:21: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/08/18--21:37: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by cerescokid
- 12/08/18--21:59: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Jim D
- 12/08/18--22:00: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by angech
- 12/08/18--22:04: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by angech
- 12/08/18--22:33: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ron Graf
- 12/08/18--23:05: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Roger Knights
- 12/08/18--23:29: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Roger Knights
- 12/08/18--23:51: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by bfjcricklewood
- 12/08/18--23:58: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Brad Keyes
- 12/09/18--00:03: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Brad Keyes
- 12/09/18--01:57: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/09/18--06:39: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by Hans Erren
- 12/09/18--06:45: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by JCH
- 12/09/18--07:14: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
Yes Brad, I will grant you that many if not the majority of climate science papers can't be replicated because the data is unavailable or the methods very obscure and especially the statistical methods are "novel" to use a polite word. McIntyre has been treated shamefully by this field which behaved like a secret society. Hopefully, Lewis and Curry are establishing a new paradigm in which Nic checks the work, finds errors or bias and then the paper is corrected. But who knows, the SKS wing of climate science is still spreading incorrect information.
I'm loath to repay your generous words with an anticlimactic fact but it seems my prose was more mordant (or more rodent) than I actually intended. What I had in mind with the 'rat colony' simile was the rapid turnover in clisci papers—due to the truncated version of the scientific method they abide by—not the fecundity (or any other murine excellence) of the people writing them. I think it was Seneca who wrote that there are only two urban species: men and rats. But I prefer to believe the average clisci department is mainly peopled by people, and reserve the zoomorphisms for true hives of scum and villainy, like climate-psychology departments.
Jim, I'm well aware that different regions are affected by variability, as is the globe as a whole. But if one took a random sampling of half the global stations one would expect a good correlation with the other half. Do you think that is the case with splitting the Pages2K proxies? Is that what you are saying??
Jim, can you cite a paper from the last 10 years that has effective TCR median value at 2.0 or more? I only see IPCC modeled TCR at 2.
“These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” Josh Willis
It works by changing the rate of warming or cooing of oceans through sea surface temperature/cloud cover coupling.
Trending surface temperature over the 2 regimes in the last half of last century might give a residual warming that is anthropogenic.
Starting at 1950 is a big juicy cherry. So let's start at the start of cooling post 1944.
So AGW at about this rate - but the real world rate depends on where internal variability shifts next. I am expecting a reversion to the mean as the sun dims. More salt in a Law Dome ice core is La Nina.
But of course we have models - the ones that miss internal variability and are as good at picking climate shifts as tossing a coin. This is a 'perturbed physics ensemble' - 1000's of non-unique solutions from marginally different starting points. Each of the models in CMIP can likewise calculate 1000's of diverging solutions. The individual members of the CMIP opportunistic ensembles are just one of these. Guess how they pick the right one.
Instead I'd suggest that a continuation of the long term trend over the next few decades seems the worst case. While we sort out land use, methane, surface ozone, black carbon and sulfate emissions - along with transitioning to 21st century energy sources.
This is a perturbed physics ensemble.
Yes, I understand. But it still felt good. You do have a talent for turning a phrase. For those of us who are quasi literate, we need an outlet. And the Climategate emails revealed a lot of rat like behavior. We both got out of the rat a little rat-a tat-tat.
It didn't take me long to find this one.
Besides this one below gives a lower uncertainty. Maybe I should write a paper.
It is effectively behaving as 2.4 C per doubling plus or minus very little because the whole 60 years correlates well to CO2.
On proxies, yes, they are not as good as thermometers, but over decades they can provide information. That's what paleoclimate papers are about.
Why would they be the same?
Don’t be coy.
The past temperature of the world did not change because of more data and better methods.
It actually was the same temperature whether we looked back at 5, 10 or 20 years later.
One should be able to look at the data set as a fixed entity in the sense that known temperatures used 5, 20, or 50 years later should match.
What has happened though is your confounded constant readjustments.
Makes a complete mockery of your comments
“In some sense we knew all we needed to know back in 1896 and did nothing. We knew what we needed to know in 1988 and did nothing.”
How could people in those times know all they needed to know when you have changed the data?
The world is getting hotter you say but you have made it much colder on the past to push your idea of warming now, to fit your agenda.
I do not know the answer but a global temperature scale once set should not be allowed to have this sort of shenanigans going on.
Thanks for the reply. You have your job to do. Appreciated.
Congrats, you found a single study out of the seven highest of the last 10 years that just edged over the 2.0 line. Notice that all the dashed line distribution curves were from very old studies. I notice also that the only overlap between our two sets is the Otto studies. This is known as cherry picking. And speaking of that climate science has a real problem in this area. The IPCC models amount to an Olympic competition to create the highest plausible TCR/ECS without stepping outside the bounds of plausible physics. There is plenty of wiggle room, which they call parameterization. When faced with any of the dozens of choices for creating arbitrary coefficients everybody wants to be "responsible" and "conservative" which means following the precautionary principle, which means stretch to the worst value. With the contribution of each expert's precautionary choice the outcome is the team's model submission. This is why the IPCC predicted 0.3C per decade warming in their first report in 1992, and why we only got less than half that. That prediction likely pre-dated even the dotted line ghosted out TCR studies visible on your figure. As time has passed the plausible TCR is continually coming down as "responsibility" runs into reality.
On proxies, they are not only not thermometers they are unlimited in number, which means they need to be selected according to which are the best substitute thermometers. Do you know how they do that?
Also, you neglected my question of whether you think that if one split the Pages2K's entire set of proxies in two at random whether their would be correlation between the two sets.
"Roger: Better how? And for whom?"
I assume the arctic would become more vegetated if warmer, which would make for a richer ecology.
Brad, a couple of days ago I posted a long-ish reply here, but Wordpress told me my comment couldn't be accepted. I assume this was because I hadn't refreshed the page. (I thought only Typed had this annoying behavior.) It didn't even allow me to capture my text and try again. So now I'll respond in a less well-supported fashion—especially since I've forgotten some of my argument.
Google says that only 22% of American Jews are Orthodox, but that 22% retains its title regardless of its minority status. Of course, in science such nomenclature would change. Contrarians would lose that designation.
I made a mistake in chiding the Author for using "denial," forgeting that his context was "Between conflation [i.e., alarmism] and denial." Those are a matched pair of extremisms.
I should have limited my comment to saying that journalists and other commenters should not use a loaded term like "denial" (which prejudges which side is right) when referriong to those who dispute the mainstream consensus. "Contrarian" is the best neutral antonym for "mainstream" or "consensus." It is better than what the AP recommends, "doubter," which is too whishy-washy.
Only if an antonym for the substance of the consensus view (warmism) is called for would "contrarian" be inappropriate.
Tyndall wasn't in an era of ever growing government. Didn't hide data etc etc.
Roger, *sincere* neutrality in epithets is great, but *phony* balance isn't. The thing about "deniers" is that hate speech is not only morally acceptable but obligatory if you hate someone, and far, far preferable to hypocrisy.
For a laugh, check out this Conversation article, '<a href="https://phys.org/news/2018-12-people-climate-deniers.html" rel="nofollow">Why we should stop labelling people climate change deniers</a>,' in which the author twice calls deniers deniers despite denying calling deniers deniers.
<a href="https://climatenuremberg.com/tag/thought-for-the-day/" rel="nofollow">This kind of prose</a> shows disingenuous neutrality taken to its logical conclusion.
These are complex tasks being undertaken for the first time in human history. How much freakin' precision do you need?
It is about 0.6K in the last 40 years - about half intrinsic.
I guess I'm not the only person who sees the "CAGW" straw man for what it is, nor was I the first to point out the game contrarians play when they mention it:
<i>"28 - The consequences of climate change (in our lifetimes)"</i>, from 13:41 to 15:42 :
<i>"Indeed, <b>if you ask them to name the level of certainty they need or the type of evidence that would win them over, they’ll never do it.</b> Although their argument is premised on the idea that more science could justify climate action, they can’t actually define a world where that’s true. Instead, they tend to oppose climate policy for ideological reasons—including an ideological commitment to exploiting fossil fuels—but they choose to fight policy in bad faith on scientific grounds.
Similarly, many anti-climate action groups have evolved from outright climate denial to acknowledging that climate change is real and a problem but say they’re against “climate alarmism” and don’t believe in “catastrophic global warming.” But what do these terms mean? Again, they never say. If I think business as usual means the Earth is going to warm 4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, am I an alarmist? How about 10 degrees?
<b>Their actual operating definition is that “catastrophic global warming” is the precise amount needed to justify policy action, and, by definition, we will always fall short of it.</b> An alarmist, meanwhile, is anyone who says we need to act on climate change."</i>
Jim D, peer pressure and "publish or perish" stimulates bias. A climate critical paper takes forever to struggle through peer review. An "unprecedented" paper sails through in a week.
<i>But I pointed out that the IPCC had this hypothesis all along, and using those same metrics predicted that we would average 0.3 C per decade warming from 1992 to 2025 (see my last comment for linked and quoted FAR). That being 3-1/3 decades, the math is really simple: 3.3*.3 = 1.0C rise from 1992-2025. But that didn’t happen. We might get 1.0C from 1950-2025 (0.134C/dec), but then again, we seem to going into a “cooling period.”</i> - Ron Graf
Think about this:
And, we are not entering a cooling period.
The One-sided Worldview of Eco-Pessimists
"...past catastrophic weather was once blamed on everything from religious insubordination to the deployment of the lightning rod, wireless telegraphy, First World War ordnance, atomic tests, and supersonic flights." And Witches.
The pessimists keep recycling their arguments across time. It's an old shtick. Doom. That is not us.
Writers: Joanna Szurmak and Pierre Desrochers