[…] Sept (CLIMATE ETC) – I’m not sure what the IPCC expected when they leaked their report to ‘friendly’ […]
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by Leaked IPCC report discussed in the Main-Stream Media | OMSJ
↧
↧
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by Matthew R Marler
A fan of *MORE* discourse: Keep Smoking `Cuz science will cure cancer some day!
Use Fluorocarbons `Cuz sun-screens will steadily improve!
Those are irrelevant to Mosher’s case. You illustrate (and instantiate) the magical though processes of alarmists. You might as meaningfully write about resistance to legalizing aspartame, alar, and acrilonitrile.
↧
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by captdallas 0.8 or less
man that is warm water in the warm pool. Perhaps the Chinese and Indians should pump out more of those cooling aerosols?
↧
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by Richard Drake
<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/leaked-ipcc-report-discussed-in-the-msm/#comment-380572" rel="nofollow">Mosh</a>:
<blockquote>Heat Waves are a local problem. The best people to decide what to do, are local officials. THEY ARE DOING IT TODAY. Gratefully they did not wait for you or others to implement global treaties.</blockquote>
Brilliant post, thanks. Only came on CE cos wanted an old thread to mention to <a href="https://twitter.com/rdrake98/status/379649360268513280" rel="nofollow">Peter Gleick</a> on Twitter. As you were :)
↧
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by J Martin
Lolwat. There has been a cooling trend for the last 8 years.
↧
↧
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by curryja
Apparently the word ‘leaked’ is a spam magnet. So much spam I can’t go through it to check for legit comments. Apologies, hopefully the spam will settle down soon.
↧
Comment on Nic Lewis on the UK Met Office on the pause by willard (@nevaudit)
Cap’n,
You ask:
> Do you believe, yes believe, that there is any validity to a 95% confidence level that CO2 caused “most” of the warming from any point in time?
No, as I am agnostic:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/1105313146
I see no point entertaining any belief regarding specific issues in science.
Here are some beliefs I entertain.
1. I believe that science proceeds by way of the best explanation:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/BestExplanation
2. At least to remain in character, I have to say I believe that holism wins:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/HolismWins
This means that the Met report might very well be warranted to claim that:
> Each method has its own assumptions, and so it is not possible to say that one method is superior to the others.
3. I don’t believe Nic Lewis’ allegation of undetermined misrepresentations were meant to have the Met report issue a corrigendum for some nits he found on figures or tables.
4. And speaking of passive aggressive behaviour, I don’t believe Denizens (go team!) have anything to counter this, and just like Steve Fitzpatrick succeeded in ignoring my comments so far, will indulge in another concert of crickets.
↧
Comment on Nic Lewis on the UK Met Office on the pause by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
Don,
Fred is not a “go along to get along” establishment beltway villager.
↧
Comment on Inter-decadal Variation in Northern Hemisphere sea ice by Beth Cooper
Hey, kim, yer’ve omitted citing confidence levels.
A serf worried about the crop.
↧
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by william
If by control knob you mean to describe the process that CO2 increases hundreds of years after the warming has occurred as reflected in the Ice cores? Can we turn the control knob to 11? My preference is that my great grandchildren 100 times removed not have to try and live in a Chicago buried under 5000 feet of ice.
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by philjourdan
Jim2, I do not think you have to worry. Dr. Curry’s blog is about science. Not scare tactics.
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by philjourdan
Peter Lang – Good list. I would note that the first 3 items on your list deal with science, and the last one deals with politics.
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by miker613
David, I don’t think your response addressed my suggestion. I wasn’t suggesting that they need more computational resources, or that the mesh size isn’t small enough. I was suggesting that there is no good way of validating current models. They are all tested against “the last century of global surface temperatures”, near as I can tell. That data source isn’t flowing very fast, and it isn’t that much data. We don’t even really know if it’s possible to model global surface temperatures over such a time period, or if the chaos that affects weather affects that as well.
Some modellers have claimed that they can indeed model it and have already – look, we can back-cast for a century! That claim is now known to be wrong, given the big difference in skill between that back-casting and the forecasting of the same models.
Therefore, I’m suggesting that the claim that they can make that prediction be dropped until it is tested. Instead, they should be making predictions and testing them on a lot more data, on a much smaller time scale. The models should be trusted only to predict that which they have shown that they can predict accurately. [Others correct me if I'm wrong; my understanding is that there isn't any model today that can predict such regional variables accurately. They should continue to work on it.]
Pro-AGW will not be able to accept this suggestion, as it would mean admitting that we have absolutely no idea what temperatures will look like in fifty years.
↧
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by stan
I think David Appell’s love affair with the climate model has reached the point where intervention is required. Else it will likely end like that bit of a row with the Capulets a few centuries back.
David, the models suck. Just like that fettuccine alfredo I had in that restaurant. I don’t know why the alfredo was so bad, but I know not to eat it again. Same for the climate models. I don’t care if they get ‘fixed’ or not.
As Phillip Tetlock has shown, prediction of the future by experts is still beyond the ken of humans. If climate scientists have decided that they have figured out how to predict the future, I’m really not interested until they prove it. Bring me some proof, we can talk. Till then, get in line with the economists, the financial gurus, and the guy who says he’s got a lock on the Vegas line this week for the big game on Sunday.
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by willard (@nevaudit)
Ask yourself why subsidize fossil fuel:
The International Energy Agency (IEA) made headlines recently by concluding that fossil fuels received far more global subisides than renewable energy in 2010. However, it appears that the IEA survey only included data from the countries with the largest fossil fuel subsidies, which are mainly developing countries whose economies largely depend on fossil fuel production. National Geographic’s The Great Energy Challenge also includes fossil fuel subsidy data from developed countries (Figure 1), bringing the total global value close to $500 billion for 2010.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/carbon-the-huge-overlooked-fossil-fuel-subsidy.html
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by bob droege
Excellent suggestions Steven,
But how do you predict volcanoes such than you can put them in a predictive model?
Metrics are great, I would like to hear what metrics should be used to judge the predictive performance of the models.
I would look forward to Judith’s paper on natural variability so we can get a handle on how much that can affect the performance of models. How much is natural variability? Plus or minus 0.2 C or 0.3 C. Do we include natural things that we can measure like volcanoes and solar effects?
To me there is a problem distinguishing which problem we are using models to address and which of them is more important because the models can’t do both at the same time.
A single model run can express natural variability, but have one that accurately matches the natural variables, ENSO, AMO and the rest, is an initial conditions problem, and due to the number of parameters involved, is just unlikely.
Run as a boundary value problem, using an ensemble of models to average out natural variability leads us to the non-quandary we seem to be in. Over short periods ensembles of models and nature will not match and the current “pause” is merely due to extended La Nina conditions, which an ensemble of models is not going to predict.
Back to the metrics, I would like to see numerical expressions of model reality mismatch that would be acceptable to judge models good enough to use for the policy decisions that we would make.
I would like more constructive criticism of models performance than models have failed, models are crap, models are wrong, models can’t do this, can’t do that ect.
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by Herman A (Alex) Pope
The only way to fix the models is to admit they are not working right and let people from diverse fields help fix whatever is wrong. Way too much CO2 feedback junk and not near enough Albedo influence. When oceans are warm and wet it snows more. They reduce Albedo as Earth Warms.That works to some point and then the increasing snowfall turns that around. This happens in every warm period and a cold period always follows. The Albedo did not reduce because earth got warmer. Earth got warmer because Albedo was decreasing after the high point of Albedo in the Little Ice Age. That is over or nearly over again as always happens in a warm period.
Fix the Theory and then fix the Models.
↧
↧
Comment on Inter-decadal Variation in Northern Hemisphere sea ice by Ron C.
It is interesting to consider the annual loss of ice extent from March Max to September Min. Using the NIC data, the average difference Max-Min over the last seven years is 10.69 M Sq. Km.
But this mean hides a dumbell distribution. There are 3 high years (2007, 2008, 2012), all over 11 M averaging 11.40 M extent loss. The other 4 (including 2013) are all more than 1M lower in extent loss, averaging 10.15 M for the yearly Max-Min.
It seems normal in recent years for the Arctic to fluctuate more than 1M in ice extent up and down.
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by Bill
Water vapor is the dominant GHG, Web. I’m pretty sure you know that though. So why are you obfuscating here? When someone mentions CO2, you come back with the suggestion that they don’t understand that GHG warm the planet. When all they suggested was the exact same thing that most of the modelers themselves are admitting: that the effects of CO2 were exaggerated in the GCMs. And so David Appell, you are correct, the models need to be fixed. I suggest it is a strawman to say that everyone who thinks CO2 effects are exaggerated says that we should throw out all models. I think most feel we should fix the models and be very careful about making predictions in the future until we are sure that the models actually work well.
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by Bill
By some, it is regarded as heresy!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
