Joshua
I could try to estimate your IQ from your text, but to measure it you would have to do a test.
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Alexej Buergin
↧
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by David Wojick
They are conclusive evidence of uncertainty, which additional references will not reduce.
But I am curious as to why we are interested in a surface temperature field given that AGW is about atmospheric energy not boundary layer temperature? The greenhouse effect is not a surface phenomenon.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by David Wojick
Repeating unfounded speculation is not science. This too bears repeating, endlessly it seems.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by captdallas 0.8 or less
Pekka, How strong? Earth has been around about 4.5 billion years so something likely has a fairly strong influence on its being here. The first thing that pops into mind is gravity. We have an atmosphere because gravity and energy found that required balance where energy in equals energy out over some reasonable time scale. Too much energy and the atmosphere will lose mass to space if it can’t lose the energy while keeping the mass. That is a pretty simple limit now ain’t it?
I believe the best colloquial example is a 5 pound bag can only hold so much $hit.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by bob droege
Timg56,
Pretty much, the lower the trend, the longer the time that is needed for statistical significance, and the higher the trend, the shorter the time.
↧
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by sunshinehours1
Nick, those are base 1951-1980.
Isn’t that an amazingly huge area 6C COLDER than 1951-1980.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Max_OK
timg56,
i hear what you are saying. However, the second ten years would be riskier, because as you age you would be hooking up with more older partners, who because they are older, probably have been exposed to more STD’s, and thus have more.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Max_OK
No, not getting older scares me.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by PMHinSC
Just seeing this today so forgive the late posting.
Beth is right:
The science of AGW is used as a proxy for an otherwise failing political agenda and now that the proxy is being exposed the arm-chair political activists are flailing. Although Dr. Curry is one of the few among us who can understand the scientific subtitles, you don’t need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing.
Max_OK (April 17, 2013 at 11:24 pm) says “sad day when you lose the freedom to pollute”. The impression left is that carbon dioxide (a plant food) is a pollutant; it isn’t. In the 1960 it was estimated that all oil would be depleted in 40 years, and now fifty years later I read that we still have 100 years of oil; yes we are depleting oil and the sun is depleting hydrogen? Although I usually cite sources in this case the point is valid even if someone want to change the subject and start quibbling over who has the best source or numbers.
Joshua (April 17, 2013 at 11:39 pm) says “Surely, you must realize that on a scale of years, or decades ….. we are on the road away from serfdom not towards it?”. Then he says “…perhaps on the scale of millennium, or at least tens of thousands of years, we may be further along the road towards serfdom… “. And then later he says “there is no significant uncertainty: we are on the road away from serfdom”. I’m sorry, are you disagreeing with Beth before you are agreeing with her before you are disagreeing with her? If you recognize social development trends why cannot you also recognize the trend of natural warming from the end of Little Ice Age or on the scale of millenniums, the naturally warming from the end of last Ice Age. Isn’t it time to give up the meme that “Anthropogenic” causes are the only acceptable explanation? You are going to have to sooner or later why not now?
Jim D (April 18, 2013 at 1:13 am) says “Indeed, taxing the rich is the opposite of what happened in serfdoms…” The avowed objective of the AGW proponents is to increase the cost of energy. In a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Obama told the editors that his policies would make energy prices “skyrocket”. He is achieving this by mandating expensive “green” energy, restricting exploration and development of coal and oil, and using taxes to subsidize his chosen energy sources. It may be “taxing the rich” to increase the price of energy but expensive (read unavailable) energy kills the poor. The moral implications of taxing the rich of their money and the poor of their lives should be a primary concern in setting energy policy.
And Max_Ok (April 18, 2013 at 1:52 am) again says “…my taxes are fair.” He better be concerned about more than his taxes and he better be concerned about what his taxes are used for.
And although Myrrh (April 18, 2013 at 7:34 am) may be right that “…this will make not an iota of difference to journalism in the MSM…”, we are all either part of the solution or part of the problem.
Beth’s position is supported by the following general statements:
If you support AGW based on the “precautionary principle”, you are conceding that the AGW science is not robust and you may be supporting AGW as a political proxy.
If you defend the validity of AGW models despite the fact that they all consistently over forecast temperatures, you may be supporting AGW as a political proxy.
If you defend the validity of AGW models despite the fact that the largest “greenhouse” gas (water vapor) is poorly understood and modeled, you may be supporting AGW as a political proxy.
If you support the green energy initiatives as an AGW mitigator despite the International Energy Agency reporting that after spending several trillion dollars the average carbon emissions per unit of energy hasn’t changed in twenty years, you may be supporting AGW as a political proxy.
If you support the US EPA AGW initiative despite the EPA’s own projection that implementation of their proposed restrictions on carbon dioxide at a cost of $78B per year will reduce global temperatures in 2100 by 0.01 degrees F, you are supporting AGW as a political proxy.
If you support “skyrocketing” energy prices by taxing the rich of their money and the poor of their lives, you may be supporting AGW as a political proxy.
Although it will be a very long time before the climate is understood, AGW theory is not supported by current data. And although there are many well intentioned people who support AGW, it is by-in-large used as a political proxy by people not so well intentioned.
Yes! Beth is right.
↧
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Rud Istvan
Late to the party due to press of business, but wow! What an interesting paper quantifying the uncertainty in ECS as expressed by the gain feedback model.
Thanks, Maksimovich
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by David Young
Fred, You are back! Your contributions I always find interesting.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Chief Hydrologist
‘…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
The space cadets argue that this doesn’t mean what it says or even that Swanson and Tsonis are laughing stocks in the climate community. What it means for sensitivity is that even the sign of temperature prospects is uncertain when greenhouse gases interact with natural – and abrupt – variability. It requires a recognition of how far theoretically short these back of the envelope calculations – and I include GCM in this – fall in characterising the future evolution of climate.
This newer – it has been around for a while – theory suggests warming is unlikely for a decade to three more since 2002. Following the latest climate shift in 1998/2001. All the auguries are in place. The PDO is negative and La Niña intensifies – cloud cover shifted abruptly at the turn of the millennium.
The newer theory of climate requires a new mathematical theory of climate sensitivity – all else seems such utter nonsense.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Rud Istvan
Again sorry for coming to the party late due to press of business. Joshua and Max OK, whoever you are, you are not very widely read.. I have published two ebooks on among other things the coming peaks in fossil fuel energy production on an annual basis, as well as several guest posts here in the past 18 months courtesy of Dr. Curry because of the close coupling to IPCC scenarios, and therefore prognostications.
To say I am a fossil fuel apologist is an ignorant insult. And, like most of the rest of what you expound, just dead wrong on the facts including my previous guest postings here.
Please raise your game or exit the playing field.
↧
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by bob droege
Jeez, I was just asking for clarification of which models were crap and now you say you think the CMIP5 models are crappy, OK, at least I can see where you are coming from.
Yet if you compare your graph from Spenser with this wood for trees graph, showing GISS and HadCrut4, you can see that when compared to those two temperature series, the models are not doing so bad after all.
Now going back to Roy’s graph, do you know which CMIP5 model runs Roy used in that graph, cause I sure don’t. How many CMIP5 model runs are there?
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by phatboy
Max_OK, look on the bright side – that won’t scare you for long
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Rud Istvan
Fred, your point about fast (OK, decadish) versus slow ( OK, multi decadish), versus very slow (OK, centuries to millennia, like ocean atmosphere CO2 Henry’s law equilibrium, or polar ice libido) equilibria is well taken.
Your problem is that none of the longish ones can have any instrumental validations. And all the recent paleo climate efforts are less than Knutti’s 2008? survey. I examined many in last years book chapter.
So the whole thing is again inside the uncertainty monster, and every time we chip away at it the answer is a lower sensitivity and less concern. That has become a certain trend relative to AR3 hockey stick ‘certainty’.
Shakespeare wrote a play, Much Ado About Nothing. Would the Bard were alive here to post opposite Kim, and others of like ilk.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by pokerguy
If climate science were a play, it would have been shut down long ago.
↧
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by bob droege
First you take each non-linear vector and represent it with one linear vector and then you add all the vectors together like any civil engineer (those who design and build bridges for example) knows how to do.
then you only have one vector as that particle is at any one moment moving in only one direction with only one velocity. The next instant may have it moving in a different direction with a different velocity.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by captdallas 0.8 or less
BartR, “And we see here the inevitable outcome of fingoism, the ever deepening death spiral of new fingoism to explain every exception to the prior needlessly convoluted, unparsimonious, too complex exceptionalistic fingoized hypotheses.”
Yeah right, you have fossils of giant camels found in northern Canada dated to about 3.5 million years ago that could only survive there because of the magic of CO2 since you equate an “ESTIMATE” of the Canadian Arctic being “APPROXIMATELY” 15 C warmer as being inconsistent with the “GLOBE” being ~ 3 to 4 C cooler. .
Those camels must have been sucking up a lot of CO2 to cause the tropical Eastern Pacific temperatures to start that 4 million year 4 C decline in temperatures. Since stone age man probably wiped out the Carbon Dioxide eating Camelops, perhaps we should enact a retroactive Camelops tax?
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Max_OK
BillC said on April 19, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Who disagrees with the following statements?
-past (paleo) climate sensitivity has been estimated
-current temperatures, etc. are being measured
-future (or current, semantically) climate sensitivity has been estimated
______
While those are OK, I would prefer to the one for the future to say it has been projected, forecast, or predicted.Then an explanation of exactly what is meant.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
