A fan … wrote, “LOL … prediction time has arrived, Willis Eschenbach (and other skeptics/denialists)!”
Ewwww. This is gonna hurt. Take it away, w.
Comment on American Physical Society by Speed
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Bart R
Jim Cripwell | March 27, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
This is a good candidate for discussion; I’d contemplated starting with it, however — it clearly discusses AGW, not CAGW, and the rest of AR4 makes clear CAGW is a small, small fraction of AGW in terms of costs to me. It’s all about my pocketbook, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Can we agree to discuss the merits of WG1 Chapter 9 at such point in the course of evaluating the CAGW Hypothesis of IPCC AR4 WG3 Chapter 2.2 that validating AGW with regards to WG1 Chapter 9 are of direct consequence?
Which is sure to happen, because even if CAGW were falsified (a lofty ambition to be sure) on this basis, there’d still be all those other nagging hits to my pocketbook from increased AGW risks and vulnerabilities.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Bart R
Chief Hydrologist | March 27, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
Possibly a bit too obscure just yet at this point in the process, but inevitable we’ll have to cross this bridge when we come to it; you see farther than most.
Why don’t we put this off until the discussion formulates a more accessible statement of exactly what the IPCC CAGW Hypothesis of AR4 is (as opposed to what it ought be)?
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Bart R
I spoke to a travel agent about visiting the knowledge frontier, and seeing it all in person.
“By jet airplane, the trip is 10,000 km,” I was assured.
“By propeller charter, the knowledge frontier is 12,000 km long,” she added.
“Helicopter would be a trip of 13,200 km,” she continued.
“Rail, 14,520 km..”
“Car, 15,972 km, according to Google maps..”
“Bicycle, 17,569.2 km..”
..
“Walking the knowledge frontier would take forever,” she concluded, “longer with a small child”.
Fractal geometry teaches us to distrust rough linear approximations.
What the heck is the knowledge frontier?
Do you mean rather the ignorance frontier?
The information frontier?
The communication frontier?
The teaching frontier?
The learning frontier?
The acceptance frontier?
I suspect no two people mean quite the same thing when they use this ambiguous term.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Chief Hydrologist
‘Fortunately, climate science is rapidly developing the tools to meet this challenge, as in the near future it will be possible to attribute cause and effect in decadal-scale climate variability within the context of a seamless climate forecast system [Palmer et al., 2008]. Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’ S&T09
Although we have yet to develop the tools. Anyone have a spare $5billion?
The value of Tsonis is that he applies a numerical methos to modern climate shifts.
‘We construct a network of observed climate indices in the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective behavior. The results indicate that this network synchronized several times in this period. We find that in
those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system.’ Tsonis et al 2007 – A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts.
Fanny of course remains utterly oblivious. This is something known for some time. ‘In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’ TAR s14.2
This is a wholly different idea of how climate works – but is perhaps something of a threshold concept and there may be some doorways to knowledge forever closed to some.
In the meantime – we have a planet that is not warming for decades hence and a mathematical certainty that there are further surprises in store.
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Chief Hydrologist
Here? Bye.
‘The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.’
I have quoted this from the executive summary of the Hartwell 2010 paper before. You are talking but I don’t think it is to me.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Bart R
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57576699-83/did-the-spam-cyber-fight-really-slow-down-the-internet/
Almost certainly not the work of a national government; though the alleged participation of Russian mobsters makes it manifestly equivalent to national government status from a certain point of view, if true.
Hackers now often are professional, large businesses run at the scale of any national government program and often intermixed with them to a degree it is impossible to fully separate the players; only two nations are bigger than the largest criminal enterprise of this sort as regards online footprint and capability; neither of them is China, North Korea, or Russia.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Bart R
The idea you’re exploring is:
Res ipsa loquitur.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Wagathon
Headline today; Could we face gas rationing? British gas reserves could run dry in 36 HOURS after freezing householders turn the heating up
–Daily Mail
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Wagathon
The data is adjusted. And, the adjustments are adjusted, without any explanation or footnote to anything reasoned explanation that was relied upon to the adjustments. Then, the original data is ‘lost.’ That’s how it works. It’s not longer CRUgate; it has become GREENHOUSEgate.
The idea of a greenhouse is an analogy. And, it’s false. So to any real scientist, belief in global warming must be seen as myth, delusion, superstition, ignorance or it can only be explained as something that con artists found to be useful to run a sting on the people. Academia is stabbing the people in the back.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Myrrh
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/27/opinion-life-as-a-target/#comment-1258783
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
March 27, 2013 at 4:26 pm
Dear Lord Monckton
Six years ago I sent you the equations regarding CO2 and the reasons why what was being said was impossible regarding the increase in the absorption spectrum to a 0.012% increase (against the entire atmosphere) of a trace IR absorbing gas. These equations, originating in the Quantum Mechanical relationships of the absorption and emission of radiation, by the CO2 molecule, were developed by the U.S. military and scientific organizations in the 1940′s-50′s as a result of their studies of the upper atmosphere in the development of heat seeking missiles. These physical studies could easily be repeated today and compared with the data gathered in that earlier era. This comparison will settle the question one way or another, once and for all.
On a hiding to nothing, Monckton adamant that the science is authoritative… When I requested empirical proof for the CO2 claims I got a vitriolic response, this in a post of his where he was waxing eloquent on his advice to students that they shouldn’t agree with their tutor if he can be shown to be wrong, because ‘science is the pursuit of truth’ and arguments from authority meaningless. He then wanted me confined to a ghetto on the forum and not allowed to post in his discussions…
The “Greenhouse Effect” is an illusion deliberately created to promote AGW by manipulating real physics, taking out whole processes, giving the properties of one thing to another and so on, and it’s kept alive by the same science frauds which created it.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Chief Hydrologist
Flattery will get you nowhere.
‘An abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to transition to a new state at a rate that is determined by the climate system itself, and which is more rapid than the rate of change of the external forcing.’ wikipedia referencing the 2002 NAS report – Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises
‘Originated by the French mathematician Rene Thom in the 1960s, catastrophe theory is a special branch of dynamical systems theory. It studies and classifies phenomena characterized by sudden shifts in behavior arising from small changes in circumstances.
Catastrophes are bifurcations between different equilibria, or fixed point attractors. Due to their restricted nature, catastrophes can be classified based on how many control parameters are being simulataneously varied. For example, if there are two controls, then one finds the most common type, called a “cusp” catastrophe. If, however, there are move than five controls, there is no classification.
Catastrophe theory has been applied to a number of different phenomena, such as the stability of ships at sea and their capsizing, bridge collapse, and, with some less convincing success, the fight-or-flight behavior of animals and prison riots.’
Abrupt climate change is a catastrophe in the sense of Rene Thom – and is likely to surprise us all.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Myrrh
The authoritative IPCC’s consensus of scientists..
…are they having problems recruiting scientists?
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Chief Hydrologist
‘Chaos in partial differential equations (PDE) has long been an open
area. During the last decade, a standard program was established for
proving the existence of chaos in near integrable PDE [25]. Around
transversal homoclinics, existence of chaos can be proved by hand [20]
[21] [22], while around non-transversal homoclinics, existence of chaos
can be proved by hand up to nasty generic conditions.’ http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.4026
There is certainly turbulence in the outer shell of the Sun – but does it have enough of the feedbacks that plaque the Earth system – snow, ice, cloud, biology, atmosphere and oceans?
Is the Sun isothermal? Oh for God’s sake – the childish standard of this discourse is unbelievable. I suggest it is proof of nasty generic conditions.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Wagathon
The IPCC will never pass the ‘smell test.’ I can smell the sulfur from here.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Joshua
Has your hatred of libertarian values corrupted your brain?
You live in a fantasy world. You dream up ideas in your head, without evidence, and then become fully convinced they are real. What is your evidence that I “hate” “libertarian values?” You have none.
. I said that opposition to apartheid was always universal.
And I provided evidence that was not true – from “the right.” There is plenty more. Google Jessie Helms if you want to get a start on your research (or read the article about Reagan I already linked). Do you have any such evidence from “the left?” Of course not. Obviously, there were those on “the right” who apposed apartheid – but the apartheid opposition was clearly and unarguably dominated by “the left” – just as support for apartheid was dominated by “the right.”
The legacy of the left however is complicity in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz
Only if one grants you your self-serving definitions of “right” and “left.” And even if your definitions weren’t self-serving, the relevance to today’s world is merely a projection of your political extremism. I know many on “the left,” and none of them carry the legacy of Stalin, Mao, etc. Of course, if I were inclined to weak arguments such as you, I might argue something as absurd as that “the right” is complicit in slavery or in the abuses of South Africa’s apartheid. But why resort to weak argumentation? Your guilt by association tactics are the weak rhetoric of the banal.
And for those of us who were on the front lines of the civil movement – it remains defining moments. Although in deep retrospect – I am less sure the motivation was not more sticking it to the man and impressing girls than moral conviction.
Despite your self-impressed self-designation, you are in no position to lecture to me about being on “the front lines.” Big deal, you were “on the front lines.” Practically everyone I associated with was “on the front lines.” They didn’t think it particularly notable – why would you?
And your admission of superficial motivations is probably even more exploitative of the sacrifices of activists than was your revisionist history that diminished the role of “the left” in the anti-apartheid movement.
we have deep distrust of a resurgent green neo-socialist left driving governments wallowing in debt globally, burying business in ever less effective green tape, attempting to restrict press freedoms here and elsewhere and threatening to suspend democracy in a green emergency.
Despite your laughable alarmism, “we” live in a world where “socialist” countries have paved the road towards higher standards of living and greater economic and political freedom than has ever existed in the history of the planet. But indeed, keep dreaming of Shanrgi-La along with your miniscule tribe of elitists, who define themselves as the only people who advocate for “human freedom.” Although in an abstract sense such dreaming does injustice to the real civil rights activists, who put their lives on the line in their battles, despite your grandiose illusions, your comments on a blog mean nothing in the real world – so no harm done.
The left is seeking to engineer a moment of crisis in order to fundamentally reorganise economies and societies in a utopian fantasy.
Amusing indeed, that you would focus your ire for utopian idealism on someone else. What are my utopian fantasies, Chief. Go ahead, name one. You can’t – because you are stuck in a world where your ideology colors your vision and your logic.It causes you to see things, repeatedly, although your errors have been explained to you, that aren’t there. It seems that somehow you can a strength of self by erroneously defining others. Why is that, Chief?
As I have said before – you are the implacable enemy who speaks with lies and obfuscation – or perhaps just plain ignorance
I’m not your enemy, Chief – despite your self-deluded belief that you are some kind of warrior in a pitched battle to save “human freedom.” In reality you are someone who wastes inordinate amounts of time writing blog comments. You and me, Chief – just a couple of blokes. Get over yourself.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Eli Rabett
You could add that, of course you would have to have a model of how the albedo changed. You also have to say something about the heat capacity of the surface, land and ocean. Enjoy.
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by DocMartyn
Does the droppings eater know what constitutes an experiment?
Aristotelian philosophy failed. Thinking really, really hard about something until you come up with an answer isn’t science.
You have to formulate a testable hypothesis and attempt to test it to destruction.
You do not, and I really mean this, you do not call people who disagree with a hypothesis ‘deniers’ ‘big oil shrills’ or ‘conspiracy theorists’.
If you don’t know the answer, say so.
Do not pretend that the atmosphere or the oceans are in any form of thermal equilibrium.
Grow up FFS, you are supposed to be a professional physicist. Covering up for disgraceful behavior for other scientists because they happen to be on your side, politically, is like watching the Nazi’s kick out the Jewish academics because you want a chair.
So brain-dead bunny. Don’t post yet more models and say they are experiments.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Jim Cripwell
John, you write “No. It has been measured using the only methods available to us today. ”
A sincere “Thank you”, for your answer. Let us agree to disagree. I would rephrase what you have written as “No. It has been ESTIMATed using the only methods available to us today.” I do not believe climate sensitivity has been, or can be measured.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Eli,
“You also have to say something about the heat capacity of the surface, land and ocean.”
Of course, then you would have the basic blackbody portion of the problem estimated. You would also have to consider the radiant “shell” portion, the upper atmosphere with its lower heat capacity that would not be influenced by albedo response, that is about -90C or 67 Wm-2 and you would have a range of ~94 C degrees, pretty much what Manabe concluded.
There are some smart folks over there at the GFDL.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
