It is fascinating, disturbing, and unfortunately not surprising to see first hand reports of exactly what the Climategate emails said the ‘cabal’ was doing, controlling journals to suppress contrary science and POV. This selection bias is also provable with respect to UTrH in AR4. And it has come back to haunt the IPCC in AR5.
But to my mind even more damaging is the flood of bad papers that got through pal review in support of the CAGW ‘consensus’. Judith kindly hosted guest posts on the WA sea level rise misrepresentation and on the Marcott hockey stick, both in the past year. Those are just the tip of a very big iceberg upon which it seems the ship of climate science has foundered. I have already deconstructed several others equally bad, or worse. This calls the entire current government sponsored research system and much of academic research into fundamental question.
A lot needs to be rethought structurally to prevent a recurrence of what is slowly becoming a CAGW scientific debacle.
Comment on Peer review: the skeptic filter by Rud Istvan
↧
↧
Comment on Quote of the week by jbenton2013
WebHubTelescope
You’re becoming tiresome. The term used was “amateur gatekeepers”. I didn’t think it worthy to consider them climate scientists, particularly Cook.
↧
Comment on Peer review: the skeptic filter by Pekka Pirilä
When a model is adequate?
The Earth system is so complex that it may take long before we have genuinely and essentially better models. I’m sure a number of competent scientists and model builders have contributed to the present models. The issues are not necessarily such that the greatest scientists could have produced an essentially better model.
The present models are surely good enough for answering many relevant questions, as other complex models are in other fields of research. Such models are of value as tools for scientists working with the models but may at the same time produce results that are highly misleading when presented to others as predictions.
In other fields related to climate issue such models are used in assessing technology development and in comparing policy alternatives. I’m sure that the climate models perform much better in predicting future temperatures than the assessment and economic models perform in their tasks. In spite of that, I do consider even the latter useful as long as they are used properly and their great limitations are understood.
↧
Comment on Peer review: the skeptic filter by Scott
What about the new Santer paper?
Sep 16 2013 PNAS doi: 10:1073/pnas.1305332110
Human and Natural influences on changing thermal structure of atmosphere.
scott
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by willard (@nevaudit)
Citation needed for your reference at Junior’s, John.
↧
↧
Comment on Quote of the week by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
Hansen made his projections back when no one really cared. That was back in 1981, while a really long stretch of fluctuating but level temperatures was in effect. Because of the log sensitivity of CO2, the strength of the forcing function was still there, yet hidden by natural variations.
For some reason people seem to care more now. I would too, but not because of climate change. There is the little problem of depleting high-grade fossil fuel supplies.
Earth scientists such as Curry seem not to worry about that compounding issue but all her colleagues, such as Muller, Hansen, Pierrehumbert, etc, take it very seriously.
The ECS is about 3C and the fossil fuel reserves are declining. Time to get in gear and join the rest of the world in transitioning off of fossil fuels. It’s a no-brainer decision.
↧
Comment on Peer review: the skeptic filter by Max_OK
Global temperatures have been rising recently, according to Roy Spenser’s site which shows monthly temperature anomalies for the past 20 months. The anomaly for the last 10 months (Nov. 2012 – Aug 2013) averages + 0.266, which is much greater than the + 0.150 average for the preceding 10 months. The first 8 months of 2013 also were warmer than the first 8 months of 2012.
Everyone knows, however, a period of as little as 10 months is too short to tell us much about what global temperature is doing. We need a period of time that’s just right. The consensus among global warming skeptics seems to be the “just right period” is one which shows a pause in warming, and any period shorter or longer than that is misleading.
↧
Comment on Consensus denialism by cwon14
web, Dr. Curry is a false flag operation. This site is where skeptics get wasted in the weeds of warmist doctrine dressed as something else. You might consider Operation Trust;
http://www.essayswriters.com/essays/History/operation-trust-and-operation-candy.html
Dr. Curry is a doctrine statist and warmer dressed as something else. She re frames skepticism into manageable chunks for the consensus. The term “the pause” is yet another example of minimization and semantics.
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by bob droege
Why yes,
Since you ask CO2 absorbs Infared radiation, but who said it doesn’t heat up when it does that?
↧
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by Joshua
tim -
Here I fond myself in agreement with you Josh
If I were a lesser man, I would take that big fat hanging curveball and hit it out of the park.
So I won’t take that cheap shot.
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by bob droege
Captain, freshwater at -2 C is ice, I find it hard to believe that adding salt to water drastically changes its density profile.
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by Ragnaar
“Quiz time: What exactly is significant about looking at land temperatures?”
That’s where the most variability is. The most sensitivity. Why look at the Arctic? That’s where much variability is supposed to be and I believe that’s true.
What if we had $1000 in our checking account and $100,000 in our retirement account? Day to day we’d watch our checking account. Long term we’d watch our retirement account. Yes the 1 to 1000 ratio is roughly the same as the Atmosphere to Oceans heat content ratio.
The correct ratio is perhaps higher. 1.0 / (1000 X (1.0 – 0.3) / 0.3).
0.3 being 30% of the Earth’s surface.
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Gail,
You read whatever stuff gets circulated over the net. I tend to work out the physics for myself.
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/ocean-heat-content-model.html
It would be nice if you could keep up.
↧
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by Tom
Oh, the humility.
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by captdallas 0.8 or less
Bob, depends on the salinity. Brine freezes at ~-18C and the relatively fresh Antarctic at ~-2C
http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2odenscalc.html
Salinity actually makes a pretty fair temperature proxy.
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by GaryM
Ragnaar,
I like your analogy. Looking at someone’s daily checking account balance tells you virtually nothing about their overall economic state. It is meaningless without knowing what is happening in the savings account, not to mention the stock portfolios and retirement accounts you may not even know about.
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by GaryM
Germany’s progressive conservatives won a big election. Not sure it’s going to make much difference. But maybe it’s like Arctic ice “recovery”. A tiny fact that could be a harbinger of some retreat from the progressive CAGW lunacy.
↧
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by Joshua
Tom -
It’s not my fault that people are motivated (in the sense of motivated reasoning) to fantasize about what I say or believe.
On the issue of humility vis a vis their fantasies – they fantasize about me because they can’t incorporate what I actually say into their system of beliefs. Therefore, they have to transform what I say into something that confirms their beliefs.
– in a sense, I have little to do with it, so I can’t attribute it to myself. It’s about them, not me.
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by GaryM
And it looks like the relatively conservative AfD got 4.9%, barely missing enough to get representation in the Bundestag.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359145/germanys-tea-party-john-fund
From the little acorn…
↧
Comment on Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ by bob droege
I wouldn’t make any decisions base on one years data.
Sleptics and lukewarmers alike refuse to define the pause, so how can we determine how long it has lasted up to the present?
Give me at least 20 year periods with warming trends less than 0.05 C per decade from a majority of the available data sets and I will call it a trend and then and only then discuss what to make if those trends continue for another year.
I would go with periods as short as 15 years but then the trends have to exclude the about 0.2 C per decade as well from a majority of the data sets.
So far by that metric we don’t even have a pause to talk about.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
