Articles on this Page
- 12/28/18--17:10: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--17:13: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--17:19: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--17:48: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--17:52: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--18:07: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--18:25: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/28/18--18:28: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--19:20: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--19:36: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--19:44: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--19:57: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--19:58: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--20:11: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--20:42: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--21:03: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--21:07: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--21:09: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--21:11: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--21:40: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--17:10: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--17:13: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--17:19: Comment on Week in review – science edition by binwangecology
- 12/28/18--17:48: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/28/18--17:52: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--18:07: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Geoff Sherrington
- 12/28/18--18:28: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/28/18--19:20: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Willis Eschenbach
- 12/28/18--19:36: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--19:44: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--19:57: Comment on Week in review – science edition by chaamjamal
- 12/28/18--19:58: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--20:11: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--20:42: Comment on Week in review – science edition by HAS
- 12/28/18--21:03: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/28/18--21:09: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--21:11: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--21:40: Comment on Week in review – science edition by HAS
A change in forcing causes a temporary imbalance. The response removes that.
Your skeptics are waiting for a downturn in the trend when it is still an upturn, and AGW says that continues until emission growth is slowed down.
The piece on land degradation effects on carbon sequestration is interesting to me, which is a fairly complex issue, let alone a quantitative assessment of the magnitude of degradation-induced loss of carbon sequestration capacity.
more intriguing to me is that developing a model that can really predict the capacity loss of storing carbon in soils under different scenarios of climate, economic development, and other social sectors isolatedly and in combination would be really important and helpful for policy makers.
So now we have come full circle and you are instructing me in what I have said all along? Forcing causes warming and a warming planet emits exponentially more energy - a negative feedback to forcing at at toa where it counts - until an equilibrium temperature is reached and energy in is equal to energy out. And still I don't understand?
It's what you're calling it. Does a chicken feed back when you put it in the oven to cook?
RIE writes "Was anyone planning on telling him that the link gives a 404 error?"
In recent days either WordPress or my web host have been shortening parts of my URLs so that they work fine when I test them before posting, but do not work at all afterwards. You might notice that not all of the above URL is in hyperlink blue. Probably I have missed some aged convention on file nomenclature.
But yes, it does reveal a little about the veracity of some written assertions by JimD. No problem, he can be ignored. Geoff.
Just to be perfectly clear, although it should be obvious, I assume based on Cliff's professional credentials and published peer reviewed experience no issue with his professional skill. However, the following quote (from your own blog above) clearly indicates that he is striving for much more than purely meteorological accuracy:
“According to Mass, “Global warming is an extraordinarily serious issue, and scientists have a key role to play in communicating what is known and what is not about this critical issue."
Cliff obviously is leaping feet first into risk assessment and communication. In both cases there is great doubt that he has the skill for either, as my above anecdote regarding "denialism" illustrates. There is also abundant, copious documented evidence all in his own blog that his efforts at "communication" are significantly biased against numerous "political" actors that uniformly are " Liberal" in nature. By that I mean for every 100 examples he offers of Liberal malfeasance ( anyone from Jerry Brown to "protestors in petroleum product kayaks") he mentions a Conservative example once. No, I have not run a precise statistical analysis but any glance at his blog reveals that general drift at about that proportion.
While such a strange obvious bias does not excuse some of the more hysterical accusations against him I think it does to a great extent explain them, which ultimately indicates that his stated intention of skilled communication on such a critical issue is not just suspect but generally incompetent.
I've suggested to him myself (as have others) numerous ways to "communicate" something other than a relentless naughty liberal list as a way to illuminate how all his scientific facts mean something "critical" but all to a stoney silence.
You Judith Curry, ought to know by now that "communication" does not come easily just because you hammered away at a phd for a decade or two. You also know (or ought to) that scientific fact isn't enough to challenge the politically entrenched. The fact that Cliff can't seem to comprehend this is suspect at best, damning at worse. To say that his more right wing / libertarian blog groupies are delighted with his style and substance is an understatement. They consider Cliff Mass a reliable victorious warrior for their cause, which uniformly is that AGW is no big deal. In other words, regardless of how Cliff imagines his communications on such a "critical issue", those who receive them interpret them otherwise. For an allegedly skilled communicator, Cliff appears to be deaf, dumb and blind to this unambiguous feedback.
Not a good trait for any communicator of critical issues, I am sure you will not contest!
Bruce Kay, faithful reader of the Cliff Mass Blog
Are you calling me a chicken? Actually it is what the IPCC, Isaac Held, Brian Rose and everyone else calls it. As I said in the beginning. Sloppy thinking was your explanation. I'm fixing to put a chicken on for dinner - so I'll let you know. But I'm pretty that an an equilibrium temperature can be reached. But unless you are doing ultra slow cooking the outside will be burnt long before the interior reaches that point.
The Next Climate Frontier: Predicting a Complex Domino Effect – Scientific American
The Current Climate Frontier: Understanding Why We Left The Little Ice Age
How about we learn to walk before we start talking about running?
All those people know the difference between a response and a feedback and you can tell by what they have written on the subject of defining a net positive feedback as an amplified response that you prefer to ignore even when it is in the same article. For you a net positive feedback is an impossible thing as is a no-feedback response. For them it is not, because they understand those concepts in terms of a feedback loop.
"Academics should not be activists"
I discussed this earlier, but they make exceptions when it is an emergency and give two examples - climate change and economic recession - where experts need to speak out.
The essence of the Bates review is:
"(1) Lack of rigor and balance with three deficiencies viz (3) Inconsistent with IPCC AR5 in the direction of greater alarm although evidence since AR5 shows lower alarm. (3) Tuning of climate models to achieve desired results acknowledged since AR5 not taken into account."
But no mention of the real flaws in the science. For example the TCRE proportionality contains a statistical error. When that error is corrected no proportionality is found - proof that the proportionality used to construct carbon budgets is an artifact of a statistical error in the TCRE. Pls see
There are other serious issues (for example the airborne fraction) but the tcre fallacy in itself should show that the Bates review is grossly inadequate and perhaps a farce.
Ray Bates article taken down a notch by Gavin at Realclimate.
Some of the important points (a) he conveniently ignored half of the IPCC attribution statement when criticizing the SR15 report for assuming it, (b) he used a single-study experimental ocean reanalysis that even the authors have doubts about for a mid-century warm heat contents (sea level didn't support that).
People like Ray Bates and Roy Spencer who think climate models are their biggest enemy need to take a look at the data lately.
The highly correlated 30-year-smoothed temperature and CO2 levels (but not the sun) over the last 50-60 years are their biggest problem because these indicate effective TCRs robustly in the 2.3-2.5 C per CO2 doubling range. Together with remaining imbalances in the 0.7-0.8 W/m2 range, these support an effective ECS near 3 C per doubling used in projections.
Emergency: "A serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action."
"The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet.
As we will see, our estimate of λ0=−3.3 W m−2 K−1 is essentially the same as the Planck feedback diagnosed from complex GCMs. Unlike our simple zero-dimensional model, however, most other climate models (and the real climate system) have other radiative processes, such that λ≠λ0 ." http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture03%20--%20Climate%20sensitivity%20and%20feedback.html
You are well beyond the pale #jiminy.
<b>Machine Learning for Weather and Climate Predictions</b>
Increasing machine learning in forecasting appears to be a very powerful breakthrough opportunity. It leverages Moore's law with NVIDIA already making petaflop workstations and ganging them for 660 Petaflop (AI) 660 node supercomputers much cheaper than conventional methods. (~ 1 Petaflop/node extendable)
<a href="https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/dgx-saturnv/" / rel="nofollow">NVIDIA DGX SATURNV Built for AI Moonshots</a>
<blockquote>NVIDIA DGX SATURNV with NVIDIA Volta is a GPU-powered AI supercomputer developed in-house at NVIDIA, demonstrating how NVIDIA® DGX-1 can change the landscape of businesses and scientific research.</blockquote>
Such machine learning offers a superb method of eliminating the severe partisan bias that is causing the huge TypeB errors in current models. e.g. See McKitrick & Christy 2018 <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EA000401" rel="nofollow">"A Test of the Tropical 200‐ to 300‐hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models"</a> Earth and Space Science Volume 5, Issue 9
<blockquote>all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.</blockquote>
Such TypeB errors appear to be systematically ignored in majority climate science. <a href="https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html" rel="nofollow">GUM: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement</a>
Do you disagree that experts should be more involved when there is an emergency?
You said that, but still don't have an answer to this. It's common knowledge (except you). Are they all wrong or what?
Yes, experts, not activists. But neither economic resession or climate change are emergencies in the normal sense of the word.