“Judith Curry’s Version of Denialism”
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/11/judith-currys-version-of-denialism.html
Comment on Week in review by David Appell
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
I am unsure of the economics of brines, but I met a chap in Michigan who bought land, just to pump out the brine, salt out the minerals with NaCl, and sell of the mineral salt.
Do you know what sort of brines they have in the shale oil/gas areas?
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Listen lard-ass, no one here is more disagreeable than me.
I don’t even like your cat, and I love cats.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Since most oil formed from ocean sediment, typically any water produced with oil is a brine. So, it is typically like concentrated sea water.
Here is a good article on it:
http://www.oiltracers.com/services/development-geochemistry/water-geochemistry.aspx
↧
Comment on Week in review by Brian H
Chuck, it’s Elizabethan: “hoist with his own petard” = blown up by his own sapper charge.
It’s already past tense; “hoisted” is incorrect.
;)
↧
↧
Comment on 20 tips for interpreting scientific claims by Wagathon
You would make a good point there but for the fact that we live on a water world.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Brian H
Yes, it’s rather amusing: warmer weather could explain the reduction of severe storms due to the flattening of the equator-pole temperature gradient. Yet Warmists are hell-bent on finding MORE tornadoes etc. and mis-attributing them to warmth, rather than incursions of cold air stirring things up.
In reality, current calm weather supports their case, but they don’t know it. The coming cooling will generate worse storms, but they will think it’s because of warming. There’s no plumbing the depth of Warmist error and ignorance.
Hi, Jim D!
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
Three people I often disagree with, but here I agree with all three at the same time. What are the chances?
↧
Comment on Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption? by willard (@nevaudit)
> The higher up the chain a government is, the more money and power can accumulate there, the more corrupt people will pile on to steal, in one way or another, other peoples money.
Where in the Goldman Sachs chain can we find the government, jim2?
↧
↧
Comment on Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption? by Herman Alexander Pope
Mother Earth is a better model.
We just need to use Actual Real Earth Data.
↧
Comment on Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption? by jim2
The Oval Office.
↧
Comment on Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption? by Jim D
Ragnaar, I somewhat agree with that article. A low carbon tax like $10 per tonne is not painful when you work out the impact on fuel and energy prices, and raises a lot of revenue that can help develop low-carbon technologies. I think it can also help with adaptation costs. This level of tax is not much of a deterrent to carbon use, but helps with costs.
↧
Comment on Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption? by Jim D
This was an example, but if it hasn’t started increasing yet, we could start from now.
↧
↧
Comment on Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption? by jim2
Like good Communists, the UN would love to do away with private property, as would many in the US and other developed countries. For these people, freedom sucks.
↧
Comment on Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption? by jim2
@willard (@nevaudit) | November 24, 2013 at 10:57 pm |
I’m not feeling the guilt, Willard. Try harder.
↧
Comment on Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption? by jim2
Hey Willard. Should I give up my money to buy a liver for a drunk living on the street?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Yates
Actually, most coastal erosion is impacted by *mankind when structures and buildings etc. are built within reach of storm waves, especially on sandy beaches. Often seawalls have to be constructed to protect the structures and buildings. Seawalls cause storm waves to rebound, eventually stripping the beach of its sand. Turbulent seawater doesn’t allow the waves to deposit their load of sand. …. A natural sandy beach (with summer foredunes and gradual sloping backdunes, .. and without structures etc.) very slowly migrates inland, while retaining its average summer/winter profile. In some cases, petrified trees can eventually appear on the foreshore, due to the migration over very long periods.
↧
↧
Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Vaughan Pratt
@NiV: <i>Life’s too short for plagiarism disputes.</i>
I take it you don't edit Wikipedia articles. ;)
@NiV: <i>Someone might have tried a variant with different widths cascaded together. It seems like an obvious thing for anyone to try, but I don’t know of any specific examples.</i>
That was how I felt last December. In the meantime I've seen exactly zero evidence to suggest that anyone has had my idea of pushing down on the first side lobe at two points, which is the technique Goodman is calling "triple running mean" (apparently without first checking whether the term is already in use, which it is but not with that meaning).
If this were a well-known technique in audio processing as Goodman claims, then the optimal values for the ratios would be known by now, since it's an obvious question to ask. My AGU poster did the best it could with the limited resolution available (21, 17, and 13 were the three periods I used to filter out the Hale cycle which is as close to optimal as possible for integer widths, which is what one is constrained with moving average filters). Goodman asked it himself but got a wildly suboptimal answer, much worse than in my poster, inspiring little confidence in his grasp of the underlying principles of the method described in my poster (more on this below).
Your R program is the right idea. Very minor point: what does your sinc function deliver at 0? It should be 1 but you're dividing by zero there. If it were 1 then max_fn would always be 10*log10(1) = 0 so I'm not sure what role you thought max_fn would play..
More importantly, why are you adding sinc's together instead of multiplying them? I have no idea what adding them would mean but that's not how frequency responses are computed.
Thirdly why are you computing sinc(a*x)? Shouldn't that be sinc(x/a)?
Fourth, why 1931 when one would expect 1900? 1931 picks up some of the initial rolloff before hitting the zero at sinc(1), whereas 1900 stops exactly at the end of the first side lobe on the negative side.
Try it again and see what you get with Goodman's suggestion of c(1,1.3371,1.7878). Then compare with c(1,1.2067,1.5478). Should be about a factor of about three better (smaller) in amplitude, so 9 in power, so a tad less than 10 dB improvement.
You can get a more visual idea of just how far from optimal Goodman's choice of ratios is from <a href="http://clim.stanford.edu/F3filters.jpg" rel="nofollow">this graph</a> plotting the amplitude of the first side lobe in each case.
Apparently Goodman never looked at the filter section on the first page of <a href="http://clim.stanford.edu/hadcrut3.xls" rel="nofollow">my spreadsheet from last December</a> or he'd have noticed that I was getting a nice flat response at cell Y279, never going over 0.4%. Goodman's ratios give his version a leakage of 0.9% in that area of the frequency response, about 10 dB worse than mine in your way of looking at it (physicists tend to use amplitudes). I get the impression he doesn't have strong intuitions about how my F3 filter is supposed to work, his post here about it notwithstanding.
↧
Comment on Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption? by Herman Alexander Pope
Except, there is no actual real data that proves coal fired power plants caused ANY Global Warming.
The Earth was on schedule to warm anyway, just like it did after every cold period in the past ten thousand years.
There is huge amounts of DATA that shows the good it did. There is no data that proves it caused any of the warming that was going to happen anyway and did happen anyway.
↧
Comment on Warsaw Loss and Damage Mechanism: A climate for corruption? by Pete Bonk
Re: Old carbon (dioxide, let’s not get sloppy) vs New CO2: All CO2 is equal, But some CO2 is more equal that others. Hmmm, where have I heard this before???
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
