Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by Theo Goodwin

$
0
0

Tamino writes:

‘Her first mistake — quite an embarrassing one really — was to assume that this [POGA C] was the influence of ENSO on global temperature history. This quite misses the point, that one of the strengths of the new approach is that it allows climate forcing and ENSO to interact in a nonlinear manner. The actual estimate of the influence of ENSO, according to the new research, is shown in the graph labelled “POGA-H minus HIST.” ‘

Excuse me, but who is making the assumption? Tamino is assuming that natural regularities such as ENSO cannot be investigated empirically and independently of the standard assumptions of the “radiation-only” crowd. If Mr. Tamino thinks that I am wrong then I am sure that he will explain how empirical investigation of ENSO Could Not reveal a role for ENSO that is greater than what he estimates and that is independent of an “radiation-only” account.


Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by Beth Cooper

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by David Springer

$
0
0

JC writes:

“There is growing evidence to support the hypothesis that the pause cause is tied to a change in tropical Pacific Ocean circulations.”

Scafetta & Loehe 2011 I think does the best job of showing just two oscillations, 20 and 60 year (Pacific and Atlantic respectively) in 3:1 phase synchronicity, and how well they track observations with two linear residuals. An underlying 0.1C per century linear trend since 1840 which coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age and subsequent natural warming associated with it. A second linear trend of 0.1C per decade beginning in 1950 makes the fit perfect so far.

Notably the data used in S&L 2011 ends in 2010. The data since 2010, which has been a comparatively rapid drop in global average temperature, fits their prediction perfectly. I know of no mainstream climate models that have done this well. Every one of them missed the pause but not S&L 2011. And every one of them that missed the pause from 2000-2010 really missed the period from 2010-2013 by more.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-on-climate-change-attribution/

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by Howard

$
0
0

Take note Steven: Dr Curry thinks like a man and a geologist. That’s why the “Team” and their minions get all hysterical over her blog. You need to take your aircraft simulation experience and remember that the climate instrument record compares with a few micro-seconds of flying time on a $100 hamburger run.

The recent spate of interesting papers primarily reveals that we know much less about climate and human influences. In regards to sensitivity, hopefully you might begin to understand that it is not measurable, rather it is weak signal trapped and constrained by a cacophony of strong noise.

Geologists know that noise is just a cop-out. Noise is signal you don’t understand.

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by David Springer

$
0
0

The real knee slapper (the usual suspects won’t see the humor) is that Loehe and Scafetta have the Pacific and Atlantic oscillations aligned with orbital parameters of sun, earth, and gas giants. I won’t be so quick to diss astrology in the future. LOL

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by Jaime Jessop

$
0
0

Can’t believe that Tamino criticizes Judith Curry for not assigning PDO/ENSO as NEGATIVE warming! He seems to be blissfully unaware that these natural oceanic cycles have positive and negative phases and that, if one arrives quantitatively at an estimate for PDO/ENSO’s effect upon climatic cooling, it is probably logical to conclude that, when PDO/ENSO are in opposite relative phase, they will contribute a very similar amount of warming.

But I suppose that is symptomatic of the obsessive one-sidedness apparent in the thought processes of so many people who argue for an overriding man-made influence upon our climate and – to be fair – in some of those who argue the complete opposite, though I would say that it is probably far less prevalent in the latter group of individuals.

It is absolutely imperative that reliable estimates for the magnitudes of anthropogenic and natural forcings upon our climate are arrived at soon and agreed upon by both parties, otherwise climate wars will just rumble on ad infinitum or until such time as the real world provides conclusive evidence which shows that either side’s arguments are untenable – which may in fact happen within the next year or so, or it may take decades.

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by AK

$
0
0
<blockquote>If they dont cancel then you have an internal unforced variation that either creates or destroys energy. not a good thing.</blockquote>Huge amounts of energy are entering and leaving the system, with no <b>direct</b> causal relationships between the size of the flows. "[I]<i>nternal unforced variation</i>" doesn't need to create or destroy energy, just retain a (very) slightly smaller or larger amount of what's flowing.

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

‘Just because the Holocene has been warming naturally for 20,000 years doesn’t mean energy is being created. It just means the cycles are really, really long.”

Yes, really long unicorns.

Here is the task.

Given: Ghgs cause warming, how much you dont know.
Given: Humans add a tiny amount of waste heat, how much you can
calculate
Given: there are unforced “cycles” of varying amplitude and period that
recharge and restore.

Solve for the contribution of each.

Positing long “cycles” of unicorn length does not solve the problem it merely gives a name to your ignorance


Comment on What is Scientific Mediation? by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

M. Hastings confesses to a foggy memory “I can’t recollect anytime in my previous +60 years when science was so entrenched in politics.”

There is good news M. Hastings! Your memory can be refreshed by the on-line free-as-in-freedom archives of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that begin with the year 1945.

Conclusion  The great conservative science-respecting US President Ronald Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol (restricting harmful fluorocarbon emissions) and the START accords (restricting harmful nuclear weapons).

Good on `yah, Ronald Reagan!

Nowadays similarly foresighted science-respecting conservatives are increasingly advocating wise restrictions upon carbon emissions.

`Cuz that’s what “the best available climate-change science” plainly calls for, ain’t that right M. Hastings?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on What is Scientific Mediation? by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Judith,

You will find that any suggestion you offer for improving the situation will be rejected.

You see the planet is at stake and the current approaches are working just fine. Look at the traction at realClimate! look at the success at Copenhagen. Look at the awards that the 10:10 video won. Al Gore’s approach is working great, why he has cut his staff from 300 in 2009
to 30 today! Thats how well it is working.
The old methods are working just fine. Just ask willard the conservative.

Comment on What is Scientific Mediation? by Beth Cooper

$
0
0

Well Michael hereqwith:

*Serious debate about serious EVIDENCE of forcings

*Explanations for lack of correlation between rising CO2
and global temperature

*Debating why the present pause in warming while CO2
continues to rise.

*Explaining the mid-20th century cooling period (when Erllch
and Hansen were predicting a coming ice age and famine.)

* Debating cloud albido effects as in ENZO

*Value of tree rings as weather proxies and justification for
a highly selective data process fer same to achieve a
‘Hockey Stick’ graph.

*Debating how missing heat got to be stored in the ocean
depths and how it will come back with undisipated energy
like a blast from the past.

*Debating why we should proceed with high regrets policies,
given the stats re trivial emissions reduction ratio to enormous
costs (in trillions of $ to the western economy) of inefficient
renewable energy and poverty consequences of the same.

Here are a few serious problems they should, if they could,
debate but won’t.

bts ( Serfs know about livin’ on the littoral, it ain’t good.)

.

Comment on What is Scientific Mediation? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$
0
0

willard, mediation is a way to avoid litigation.

Climategate 2.0 email: ‘What if climate change turns out to be a natural fluctuation? They will kill us all.’

Comment on What is Scientific Mediation? by Jim Cripwell

$
0
0

Michael, you write “This doesn’t appear to be the ‘science mediation’ that Judith was suggesting.”

So what? You remarked that “The ‘skeptics’ bring farce.” What I am asking is whether you really believe that Nigel Lawson’s team of very highly respected people will bring “farce” to the discussions. Because if that is what you are suggesting, then I am at a complete loss to think that you can possibly be serious. So why would the Royal Society not be interested is having a serious scientific discussion?

Comment on What is Scientific Mediation? by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Micheal,

Micheal: “The other obvious problem is the assumption that there are just 2 view points on a single problem:”
Moshpit: “the procedure is used when there are two points of view.”
Micheal ‘When aren’t there 2 points of view”
Moshpit: only two points of view’

###############

Its pretty simple.

Your objection was the the procedure assumed there are JUST two points of view.
As I explained the procedure, as defined, is used when there are only two points of view and is silent on what you would do if there were 3 or 4 or 50. You assumed that they assumed that every situation involved only two points of view.

Now be a good little bitch and go back to the error bar.

Comment on What is Scientific Mediation? by A fan of *MORE* discourse


Comment on What is Scientific Mediation? by jeffn

$
0
0

Classic. The Senator who invited them and is seen in transcript frequently replying “I agree with everything you’re saying…” is John Tunney, who lost his seat two years after this testimony.
The LA Times did a “where are they now” kind of thing on him in July of this year. This bit was classic given that Tunney believed whole-heartedly in 1974 that oil was gone, gone, gone:

“Tunney said he and his wife, Kathinka, who also maintain homes in Los Angeles and New York, enjoy traveling abroad; their latest international journey was a trip to South Africa earlier this year.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/23/local/la-me-pc-john-tunney-20130723

Comment on What is Scientific Mediation? by WebHubTelescope (@whut)

$
0
0

Cappy, you are the exemplar for arguing science the wrong way. You would last a day or two within a real research environment. But continue on with your fantasy of pursuing “redneck physics”.

Comment on What is Scientific Mediation? by Michael

$
0
0

Steven’s ego is out the door and has caught the bus, before his brain has got its’ pants on.

“As I explained the procedure, as defined, is used when there are only two points of view and is silent on what you would do if there were 3 or 4 or 50.” – Steven.

Which is why I said,
“but I’ve no doubt that it’s possible to come up with a number of examples that could fit”
ie. it’s of very limited use.

“You assumed that they assumed that every situation involved only two points of view.
Now be a good little bitch and go back to the error bar.” – steven

Oops!

If only you were half as clever as you think you are.

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by Dr Norman Page

$
0
0

Ms Curry the notion of unforced variations is a nonsense on which most of the IPCC modelling is based.Noise is simply a signal that we don’t understand.What the modellers didn’t bother to investigate or understand -principally the effects of solar variations on climate- they simply ignored.They were asked by the IPCC not to investigate climate but to investigate anthropogenic effects on global warming.To keep the grants and jobs coming that is what they did – and built their models which lo and behold
regurgitated the assumptions of high climate sensitivity to CO2 which they had built in.
Furthermore the modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. There is no way of knowing whether the outputs after the parameterisation of the multiple inputs merely hide compensating errors in the system as a whole. The IPCC AR4 WG1 science section actually acknowledges this fact. Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway.
This quoted statement was necessarily ignored by the editors (censors) who produced the AR4 Summary for Policymakers. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. Almost all the worlds politicians, media and eco-activist organisations uncritically accepted and used these predictions as infallible guides to the futrure and acted on these delusions of certainty which are now, six years later ,seen to be just that -delusions.
In summary the projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them really have no useful place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.

Comment on What is Scientific Mediation? by Michael

$
0
0

Steven, and others, lack (or ignore) historical perspective on the policy response to scientific discoveries.

I did try to point this out to Judith just the other day, but I don’t think she got it.

When did we figure out smoking was oh-so-bad? How long did it take to implement effective policies to reduce the public health burden of smoking related disease?

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images