Comment on American Physical Society by Girma
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Bart R
Girma | March 28, 2013 at 9:45 pm |
Clearly you do not believe your eyes, else you would have believed what your eyes told you about the end of the correlation of solar activity with global terrestrial temperatures after approximately 1950.
The method of isolates is clearer, but your own method extended to include the data you purposely deleted for no other apparent reason than that it contradicted your claim should suffice.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Chief Hydrologist
If the spin of one quantum entangled particle is changed then the spin of the other instantaneously changes also – so spooky action at a distance survives. Although I suppose one might argue that predeterminism implies that the decision to reverse the spin was also predetermined. Indeed – the space/time continuum implies in some sense that the past continues to exist and that the future is likewise in some way already formed. We are 3 dimensional beings in a four dimensional universe.
‘Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent “now” objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.’ Albert Einstein
Rather than having a deep philosophical underpinning on wave/particle duality – the Copenhagen Interpretation is more likely that the PDF and the wave function are convenient math which doesn’t reveal much about the fundamental nature of the duality at all.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by tempterrain
Dave Springer,
Depending on how the question is asked between 40% and 80% of Danes describe themselves as either atheist or agnostic.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf
Denmark is rated second to Sweden in the world’s list of irreligious nations. If 95% of Danes are Lutheran Evangelicals, as you claim, would most of them be Lutheran Atheistic/Agnostic Evangelicals?
Danish and Swedish young people should be sent out across the world to spread doubt about the existence of God. In true Lutheran fashion they’d nail notices on the doors of Catholic churches saying its about time they changed their ways and came to terms with the non-existence of God.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Wagathon
Denying the correlation between climate change and the Sun certainly is not science. Even pig farmers have an understanding of that!
From the March 25, 2013 Die Welt–>
It does not involve only a variation of the warming rays of the Sun [irradiance], which many believe would be insufficient to explain all climate change over the past few centuries. Very influential on the long-term development of terrestrial temperature changes are he solar emissions of ionizing radiation–the so-called solar wind. These fluctuations are associated with the ups and downs of the number of sunspots as has been observed over many years by some of the most intelligent people humanity has ever thrown up on this mortal coil.
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Bart R
John Carpenter | March 28, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
I can just imagine how Max Plank would have thrown away investigating an explanation to black body radiation (a known unknown, a controversial phenomenon to classical physics that threw uncertainty into then current world views) had he been of a similar opinion as you
Let’s examine this statement:
David Wojick promotes “teaching the controversy”, a theme that fits well with emphasis on controversial phenomena.. but not in particular with the emphasis on new Physics; indeed David’s approach regressively seeks to lock in the beliefs and methods, systems and points of view of a world before the time of Planck as regards understanding of climate.
Have you reviewed lately Planck’s work on Kirchhoff’s 35-year old formulation of intensity, frequency and temperature in cavity radiators? Some stirring controversy, that, hot off the presses for only a mere 35 years. Of Planck’s 5-year quest to force the observations to fit conventional uncontroversial thinking of the period, which had never in four decaded advanced understanding?
Of how Planck advanced thinking and moved forward?
How does this in the least match the concept of “teaching the controversy”?
Planck wasn’t working on something well-understood with a solid hypothesis explaining the majority of observations. And he didn’t fret over the uncertainties, to quash them. He ended up accepting the uncertainty as the IPCC has accepted the complex and chaotic aspects of climate.
The knowledge frontier of 1894 was not Kirchhoff’s cavity radiator problem: in 1895 that frontier was identified as getting more decimal points of accuracy in readings of temperature, frequency and intensity. What a waste had Planck kept chasing that frontier.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by tempterrain
Chief,
You may think that but that’s because you don’t understand. Marx filled page after page with his his analysis of capitalism but had virtually nothing to say about would replace it.
A BBC poll awarded Marx the title of “the millennium’s greatest thinker”. Einstein, Newton and Darwin followed, but Stalin didn’t rate a mention. The voters in the poll would have appreciated the difference.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Bart R
Wagathon | March 28, 2013 at 10:36 pm |
It’s easy to understand why people believe as you say they believe, in particular if they rely on their grandparent’s books for guidance.
For 160 years, or more, the Sun did indeed correlate extremely well with temperature.
But that correlation 160 years ended in the 1950s, and hasn’t come back since.
Heck, there are people who still think Plato was a great source of knowledge — even when they read that Plato recorded that ants have four legs, and the substance that issues from noses is excess brain. But just because Plato wrote it in ancient times doesn’t make it true.
How do we know? We count the legs on ants.
Show me the correlation of solar activity with global temperature up to 1955. Show me that it’s the same since 1955. Show me all the ants’ legs.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Chief Hydrologist
‘In a recent paper (Lockwood & Fröhlich 2007—hereafter ‘paper 1’), we analysed the trends in both global air surface temperature anomaly data and observations of the various solar outputs, which have been proposed as contributors to global climate change over recent decades. It was shown that the changes in the Sun since 1987 have been in the wrong direction to contribute to the observed increase in the mean surface air temperature.’ http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.full
If we then assume a 15 year ocean lag – hmmm. Funny people.
try this one – http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Bart R
There you go. McIntyre & Istvan aren’t the only ones with the same hockey stick problem.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Bart R
Perhaps better said here. Proof McIntyre and Istvan aren’t the only ones with the same hockey stick problem.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by WebHubTelescope
Wojick’s teaching of controversy is more of that negative logic that these guys seem to enjoy (or get paid to do).
The gormlessness, too:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/19/playing-hockey-blowing-the-whistle/#comment-306193
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Chief Hydrologist
‘When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.’
The Marxist agenda was to nationalise the means of production and to centrally plan entire economies. Dangerous and unworkable nonsense as it proved quickly to be.
Marx is turgid and unreadable for all but true believers. That some BBC online poll suggests otherwise cast doubt on the poll.
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Eli Rabett
Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think Doc has been indulging in some mighty fine libations over there. Others might contend he simply enjoys ranting to himself in the bathroom. Finally a few could point out that the work which <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/01/there-are-times-that-try-bunnys-brains.html" rel="nofollow">Eli pointed to</a> is a new take on non equilibrium thermodynamics. Prigogine and rice to you sir. RTFR
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Chief Hydrologist
‘Despite some advances in the understanding of the physical processes that control the cloud response to climate change and in the evaluation of some components of cloud feedbacks in current models, it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable. However, progress has been made in the identification of the cloud types, the dynamical regimes and the regions of the globe responsible for the large spread of cloud feedback estimates among current models. This is likely to foster more specific observational analyses and model evaluations that will improve future assessments of climate change cloud feedbacks.’ AR4
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ AR4 3.4.4.1
Sure – if real low frequency climate variability was the cause of all recent warming.
Clouds are of course the significant known unknown in climate and the secular changes in cloud seem quite unknown many. In fact a great deal is known from data – MODIS especially – but this doesn’t seem to be the right data.
While we can devise a mathematical proof that deterministic chaos creates irreducible imprecision in models – we have yet to actually estimate the imprecision .
‘In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
Droughts and floods are well within historic limits. And really – if all warming was natural everything is moot.
But be prepared for bigger droughts and bigger storms because they populate the proxy record.
Some actual science from bart and webby would be nice – but we can’t expect miracles.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Wagathon
If it wasn’t what we actually do know from the past we wouldn’t know anything about the climate. MBH98/99/08 (aka, the ‘hockey stick} is a scientific fraud and the IPCC refuses to even look at peer reviewed articles after 2005 that are inconvenient and incompatible with their mono-causal message. Everyone knows that the surface data is corrupted by the UHI effect and nothing has been done to eliminate the bias — which is always a positive bias. Saying that the record of a changing climate does not correlate with the only independent variable — the Sun — is an admission that the record is bogus.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Ammonite
Climate sensitivity will prove an empirical issue with future generations able to quantify its value with progressive degrees of accuracy simply by noting what happens. In the meantime we are left with inference – numerous attempts to tease out the relationship from the multiplicity of factors that affect climate. For “impossible” read “difficult”. For the current understanding of Y +/- Z reference knutti and hegerl.
↧
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by captdallas 0.8 or less
Joshua, ” I sometimes lay brick, but I don’t refer to myself as a mason, and would not expect someone making reference to me to call refer to me as such. Etc.” If you laid peer reviewed bricks, you’ld get stuck with the title.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Jim D
These articles tiptoe around the three relevant other pieces of information, (i) land temperatures have risen 0.3 C per decade for three decades, no pause there, (ii) the Arctic sea ice volume has decreased more rapidly than anyone expected, and the minimum volume is on an extrapolated path to be gone within this decade, and (iii) the ocean heat content rise shows a magnitude consistent with the expected forcing indicating the warming effect is as strong as expected even if the surface warming is delayed.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Joshua
Steven -
Oy – keep getting stuck in moderation. Let me try editing even more:
What criteria do you use to distinguish who is or isn’t a “climate scientist?” Independent?
Another description of Nic…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
