But aren’t you the one who has been saying that it is indistinguishable from zero?
Which would mean you have measured it.
But pardon me if I have misremembered what you have posted, or if I have confused you with someone else.
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by bob droege
↧
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Max_OK
Waggy, sounds like you think investors are leaches.
I’m sorry to hear that. I thought we were doing some good.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Bad Andrew
“Exactly speaking, how long is a day?”
It’s exactly 1 rotation (of the earth) on it’s axis.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Matthew R Marler
Joshua: <i>Could you speculate about an example of a “estimate” that would, categorically, not be a “measurement?” </i>
I hope my response is not interesting enough to hijack the thread. I can rarely resist a well-formulated question directed to me.
<i>Maybe</i> we'd include the correlation between two variables when the causal mechanism is complex or obscure, like the correlation since 1850 between atmospheric CO2 and global mean surface temperature, diverse correlations of solar output and global mean surface temperature, or the classic father height and son height.
Also when something is modeled by regressing it on a large set of basis functions, like the JPEG standard for images. The stored coefficients produce an estimate of the original image, but this production <i> might </i> not be called a measurement of it.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Wagathon
It is a major plank in the in the Democrat party platform to sell America short.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by willard (@nevaudit)
Bart R,
I agree, and would gladly accept this as a valid conclusion of my neverending audit.
My point was not to dredge Lomborg’s past, but about this of remark:
> hehe.. learned a lot from that.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/13/open-thread-weekend-13/#comment-312761
I don’t think that comment shows much learning, except perhaps how to better exploit contributions like Vassily’s to the public discourse.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by manacker
Bart R
I’d agree with you that the concept of a definable 2xCO2 ECS is “meaningless” (in the scientific sense), as there is no way to measure it empirically.
But it has been designed for use in the political sense, i.e. in order to ram through a political goal of the UN through the use of fear.
And this has had a moderate amount of success until the world began to realize what was happening after the Climategate leaks, the exposed IPCC falsehoods and, most important of all, the decade or more of “lack of warming”, despite IPCC forecasts of significant warming and
unabated human GHG emissions plus CO2 concentrations reaching record levels.
And now, to make matters even worse, out come all these (at least partly) observation-based estimates of 2xCO2 ECS averaging around 1.6C, or half of the previous model-derived estimates cited by IPCC.
Without a high 2xCO2 ECS the CAGW premise as outlined in AR4 is a dead duck and IPCC’s fear factor is gone – “poof!”
That’s the dilemma for IPCC today, Bart.
Max
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Max_OK
I don’t sell short, but short selling has it’s place.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by phatboy
I might have known it would be wasted.
And no, it wasn’t me
↧
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Wagathon
We have not experienced this degree of cognitive dissonance since Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, showed us the enviro-whackpots’ crazy beliefs have taken humanity up the Amazon without a paddle.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by willard (@nevaudit)
The consensus about what a day is might be overblown:
> The Earth rotates once in about 24 hours from the point of view of the sun and once every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds from the point of view of the stars (see below). Earth’s rotation is slowing slightly with time; thus, a day was shorter in the past. This is due to the tidal effects the Moon has on Earth’s rotation. Atomic clocks show that a modern day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago,[2] slowly increasing the rate at which UTC is adjusted by leap seconds.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by willard (@nevaudit)
Life is full of leaches.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by BBD
manacker
<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/17/meta-uncertainty-in-the-determination-of-climate-sensitivity/#comment-313155" rel="nofollow">On this very thread!</a>
;-)
↧
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Wagathon
WE THE PEOPLE of Global Warming, in order to form a more perfect Utopia ask everyone to join us in living the life of a leech perched on the back of the productive…
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Joshua
Bad -
t’s exactly 1 rotation (of the earth) on it’s axis.
Exactly speaking, how long is that – and how do you measure it? What increments of measurement do you use?
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Joshua
Matthew – @ 4:27
Oy. I’ll need to chew on that for a while. But I suspect that in the end, you’ll have to dumb it down for me or I’ll just have to take your word for it.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Chief Hydrologist
The MIS 11 might be an analogue for temperature and sea level but you should not expect a one to one correspondence. This just argues that much of the heat and much of the C02 in the atmosphere is quite natural.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/mis11_zpsaaf329db.jpg.html
http://www.moraymo.us/Raymo+Mitrovica_2012.pdf
We are already at or near the level of NH insolation where this is possible. Many things come together to cause a climate transition.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/images/data2-dome-fuji-lg.gif
An anthropogenic release of 300 Gton C (as we have already done) has a relatively small impact on future climate evolution, postponing the next glacial termination 140 kyr from now by one precession cycle.
The next glacial termination 140,000 years from now? Delayed by 26,000 years? From a modelling study? I am going to hold my breath.
↧
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by David Springer
Yes there certainly is IR absorption by CO2. Millions and millions of CO2 sensors that control ventilation systems in high occupancy buildings work by shining IR light through a hermetically sealed sample of known CO2 concentration and a sample of ambient air with unknown CO2 level. The light filtered by the two samples are compared for total energy and the difference from the reference sample tells you how much CO2 is in the test sample. The CO2 in both samples absorbs some of the IR and ref-emits it back at the source. The more CO2 the less light emerges from the output end of the sample container.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D
manacker, so explain the Ice Ages and recoveries without positive feedbacks being large.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by Chief Hydrologist
‘Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.’ Herbert Marcuse
Is not the response of Joshua and Michael simply demonstration of the proposition?
‘Mr Finkelstein told the inquiry, led by Labor senator Doug Cameron, that examinations of media regulation “could get terribly distracted if the object of the exercise was to look for press failings.”
He said he had found in his report that the common ground with newspaper proprietors was “they wield enormous power and it struck me as being very odd that any group in society that wields enormous power should not be wholly or substantially regulated.”
“There are no powerful groups in society that can come along to governments or anybody and say ‘we can do what we like when we like and there’s nothing you should do about it’.”
He described this attitude as “a very surprising approach.”
No substantial press failings – we just don’t like the reporting on global warming and other things form the right wing press. This was an attempt to silence debate in the press and online – on the principle of liberating intolerance.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
