Chief,
Let me point out your slip before someone else uses it as a cudgel.
“Stagnant” is the adjective, not the noun
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by tcflood
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by lolwot
yeah it’s a bit like think of all those children jimmy saville molested.
But on the otherhand think of all the children he helped! (that makes up for it does it?)
↧
Comment on The Economist on The New Republic on the ‘pause’ by jim2
Global warming hasn’t displaced anyone. It cannot be demonstrated to be true, but here we have a Class A idiot trying to make law on it. In fact, all the law based on the idea that CO2 is bad is the height of lunacy.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by Wagathon
In 2009 the BBC took a truth pill and admitted it, that back then, “Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade.” We are at 16 years now and going on 20 with no end to the cooling in sight. The UN’s warming specialists never did anything but declare the entire time that something was warming the globe and humanity’s fingerprints were all over it; and, they predicted the warming would continue and get worse.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by lolwot
more like the BBC made a mistake…
a very common mistake…
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by lolwot
we have to base political decisions on something!
↧
Comment on The Economist on The New Republic on the ‘pause’ by Jan P Perlwitz
Chief Hydrologist,
How does the link answer my question? I didn’t aks for press releases where someone talks in general terms about natural variability patterns, like the one related to El Nino/La Nina, and that they overlay the global warming trend. That is really not news. I wanted to know what the alleged “facts of the pause” in global warming were, which you are claiming, what scientific references you have to offer for it, and what the scientific criteria are to diagnose such a “pause”. Are you saying every temporary wobble coming from natural variability against the longer-term trend was a “pause”, even if the wobble wasn’t statistically significant at all? Well, one could define “pause” in this way. It’s just quite pointless then. And I wonder what’s all the fuss about, since no one has claimed anthropogenically caused climate change was a straight line.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by Chief Hydrologist
As opposed to millions not dying from unintended consequences or callous calculation.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by phatboy
Yes, we used to base political decisions on things like chicken entrails – not much has changed then.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by phatboy
We’re getting quite close to that now with what’s happening in Singapore, thanks to the reckless headlong rush to renewable energy
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by pokerguy
Monckton’s worried we’ll get another big el nino and break the string, hence argues we should be talking about the failure of the models, rather than counting down each additional non-warming year. It won’t matter. Imagine the wild joy of the triiumphant warmists if that were to happen, indicating (in their tiny little minds) that the world might be going to hell after all…
Now that would be cause for celebration.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by Wagathon
Maybe it’s time the rest of the world just got back to the business of living since now we know: we may indeed be in a period of cooling, not warming. Back when the BBC had its come to Jesus moment, UN-IPCC member Mojib Latif’s concession to reality was that another 10-20 years of cooling was possible. Of course, nature couldn’t give two schitts about what the UN specialists believe.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by lolwot
In other words Monckton knows deep down that the warming hasn’t stopped and is already getting his excuses lined up
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by sunshinehours1
Arctic Sea Ice Extent. Closer to Maximum than Minimum.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by sunshinehours1
Briggs does make sense.
“Update Although it is true ensemble forecasting makes sense,
I do NOT claim that they do well in practice for climate models.
I also dispute the notion that we have to act before we are able to verify the models.
That’s nuts.
If that logic held, then we would have to act on any bizarre notion that took our fancy as long as we perceived it might be a big enough threat.”
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by Chief Hydrologist
Uncertainty in climate-change projections has traditionally been assessed using multi-model ensembles of the type shown in figure 9, essentially an ‘ensemble of opportunity’. The strength of this approach is that each model differs substantially in its structural assumptions and each has been extensively tested. The credibility of its projection is derived from evaluation of its simulation of the current climate against a wide range of observations. However, there are also significant limitations to this approach. The ensemble has not been designed to test the range of possible outcomes. Its size is too small (typically 10–20 members) to give robust estimates of the most likely changes and associated uncertainties and therefore it is hard to use in risk assessments…
The concept is to use a single-model framework to systematically perturb poorly constrained model parameters, related to key physical and biogeochemical (carbon cycle) processes, within expert-specified ranges. As in the multi-model approach, there is still the need to test each version of the model against the current climate before allowing it to enter the perturbed parameter ensemble. An obvious disadvantage of this approach is that it does not sample the structural uncertainty in models, such as resolution, grid structures and numerical methods because it relies on using a single-model framework.
As the ensemble sizes in the perturbed ensemble approach run to hundreds or even many thousands of members, the outcome is a probability distribution of climate change rather than an uncertainty range from a limited set of equally possible outcomes, as shown in figure 9. This means that decision-making on adaptation, for example, can now use a risk-based approach based on the probability of a particular outcome.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
Each of these models has a degree of ‘irreducible imprecision’ arising from feasible differences in data and in couplings. As the core of the models are the non-linear Navier-Stokes equations there is no guarantee that a small change in input will generate a small change in output. There are many feasible solutions. Absent a systematic exploration using a large number of model runs – something not widely possible – the range of potential solutions remains unknown. For each of the models a single solution is selected based – as James McWilliams puts it – on a posteriori solution behavior. Each of the members of an ensemble of opportunity is subjectively selected from a potential spread of solutions that is unknown.
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…
The bases for judging (model plausibility) are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
Completeness of the models in accordance with the first criteria may be questionable and the second criteria seems entirely ad hoc with no possibility of the emergence of an adequate statistics.
The alternative approach of Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer seems more promising – but are both the models and the methods up to speed.
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by John Plodinec
Has anyone considered that the climate may not recognize Bayesian statistics? We need to remember that this is a convenient tool, not necessarily an accurate one – and may be most unrepresentative of reality.
↧
↧
Comment on The coming Arctic boom by climatereason
JimD
Mosh has become too cryptic at times to work out what he is saying so I am replying to you.
I was merely referring to the incidence of soot that was found in the arctic back in 1820. There was also a recent BBC documentary on the region where the soot was very evident in the camera shots and even at the bottom of ice caverns.
Industry? Yes. Forest fires? Probably. Is it noticeably affecting arctic ice melt? I don’t know.
tonyb
↧
Comment on The Economist on The New Republic on the ‘pause’ by Chief Hydrologist
Didn’t note the question mark Joshua? I can assure you I didn’t read the comment – but all of your comments repeated endlessly and are tedious, self serving and tendentious so they are easy to describe. I don’t generally read your comments – perhaps at best 1 in 20 – it is simply a waste of my time otherwise.
Really – I need more trivial psychobabble, scientific illiteracy and idiocy? Don’t kid yourself.
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by BFJ
We’ve had Anatomy of Dissent: A Cultural Analysis of Climate Skepticism
So now what we need is Anatomy of ‘Consensus’ : A Cultural Analysis of Climate Faith
A first pass : the overwhelming majority of funding of climate science is political, ie by the state. Consequently, climate science is unavoidably – even unwittingly – skewed towards promoting the interests of the state.
↧
