Nice blog right here! Additionally youyr site a lot upp fast!
What web hosat aare you using? Can I gett your affiliate hyperlink oon your host?
I desire my sitte loasded up as fast as yous lol
Comment on Mail on BEST by controlandopeso.Tumblr.com
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Peter Lang
bacpierre,
I agree with you 100%. Excellent comment, and thank you. Please keep posting because views from outside the English-first-language world are much needed.
↧
Comment on Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity by personal injury attorney
I tend not to comment, but I looked at a great deal of remarks here
Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity | Climate Etc..
I actually do have 2 questions for you if it’s allright.
Could it be simply me or do a few of these responses look like
they are coming from brain dead folks? :-P And, if you are writing at additional online sites,
I’d like to follow anything new you have to post.
Could you list of all of your public sites like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?
↧
Comment on Open thread by Peter Lang
Manacker,
Very well said. Thank you.
↧
Comment on Open thread by angech
For R Gates with love [new moderation policy] in his hottest year in Australia theme [or meme] news headlines.
5/12/2013 It’s snowing today. In Australia. In Summer It’s snowing today. In Australia. …HEAVY snow is falling across the high country of south eastern Australia on the fifth day of summer.
↧
↧
Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH
I am not sure that the small differences you are talking about matter given that there are only a limited set of integer values that can be chosen for Vaughan’s F3 (or Greg’s one for that matter). All this talk about fractional differences seems to miss that step.
Can you come up with an integer series of monthly values that is better than 8, 10, 12 for a 12 month low pass filter that Vaughan provided?
What values would you also suggest for 48 months, 192 months and 768 months (as integer values)?
These correspond to a 1, 4, 16 and 64 year low pass filter bank (double octave).
↧
Comment on Open thread by Peter Lang
David L. Hagen,
Excellent comment. Thank you.
“method matters.” . . . Apollo was a PROGRAM – not a policy, technology, or assemblage of individual projects. It was a large-scale, public-private collaboration based on precisely defined goals and objectives, meticulous planning, and a program management system. Apollo was spearheaded by NASA—a “command organization” created by a president
↧
Comment on Open thread by Peter Lang
pokerguy
I keep wondering where the young, enterprising investigative journalists are.
They are busy killing stories that don’t sell.
↧
Comment on Blogospheric New Year’s resolution by cheap motorcycle jackets
“What time is it?” I shaped the words with my mouth, not speaking aloud but breathing in the lightest of whispers. James could make out what I was saying.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by manacker
Jim D
As they say, we “agree to disagree”.
You prefer the top-down regulatory approach of forcing people to reduce fossil fuel consumption whether they like it or not by installing tough global enforcing systems and punishing those who do not comply.
I prefer the free market approach, which is already resulting in the development of economically viable new non fossil fuel technologies as these become scarcer, more difficult to recover and, hence, costlier.
This appears to be more of a philosophical difference in how we both see the optimum development of the world energy scene over the next several decades.
Your approach is more fear-based (with a fixation on CO2 emissions as the “root of all evil” and the belief in global government as the necessary enforcer), while mine is more optimistic, based on the belief in human ingenuity plus free market forces (with continuous economic pressures to be more competitive).
So be it.
We’ll see which path the voting public in the developed, democratic societies of today will eventually choose.
Max
↧
Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Greg
John S. “the empirical fact that there is usually little spectral content found near the negative side-bands (e.g., ~9 month oscillations) militates against their use ”
A totally spurious comment.
There is no need for a regular ” ~9 month oscillation” . Any change on that time-scale even it only happens once will be inverted. So it is not only a poor filter with a lot of leakage, it is corrupting the signal within the band that it is intended to remove.
That you bring its use in decimation in climatology is curious since I do not recall ONE instance of seeing correct anti-aliasing being applied in a climatology paper let alone specifically choosing a RM to do it (and I doubt this is simply a sampling error).
I think anyone with enough understanding to correctly re-sample data would not chose such a crap filter to do it.
The problem is that most decimation in climatology seems to be done by simple monthly averaging. This skilfully combines all the problems of frequency and phase distortion of RM with those of re-sampling data without an anti-alias filter.
The comment about roll-off is valid (as is VP’s comment about attenuation of all frequencies in the pass band) , which is why I added the Lanczos filter to the suggested alternatives.
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by manacker
lolwot
You state that Loehle & Scafetta were “off by 0.06C” in their estimate of warming (over three years) and “that’s a lot”.
IPCC was “off by 0.24C” in its estimate of warming (over a much more significant 10+ years) so that’s “4 times a lot”.
IPCC could improve its forecasts significantly if it simply used estimates by L&S, rather than placing all their faith in those unreliable models.
Max
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt
@cd: So you you really need to understand the range. cause and timing of internal variability before you can tease out the CO2 signal.
Roger that, capn. The mere fact that I switched from the 10-15 year range to 30 years should tell you that I’m open to changing my mind.
For decades the thought that anyone would come to believe in me instead of themselves has embarrassed me. It makes me feel obligated to return the favour by believing in them instead of myself.
The freedom to believe in myself is endangered by those who believe in me instead of themselves.
↧
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt
@cd: So what all are you exactly assuming away with this demand for gnat’s butt tight fits?
One philosophy that seems reasonable to me is that every residual should be explainable, leaving a smaller residual.
Eventually you run out of explanations, leaving the next generation in a great position to apply for funding to study the latest unexplained residual.
Since that system has been in effect for several millennia, it would be startling if it suddenly came to a halt right about now. Ray Kurzweil might attribute it to the singularity.
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt
An explanation that I imagine Max would prefer is that he’s right. After carefully rereading this thread I realized that on Dec. 2 at 1:32 am Max did indeed allow 10% as the rate of per capita emissions over the past four decades. 18 hours later I was still falsely claiming he was ignoring the possibility that they could increase at all.
Relative to the actual increase however, 10% over four decades is pretty close to no increase at all. I would apply for a moral victory if I thought that was worth anything on CE, but I have to be realistic.
↧
Comment on Has science lost its way? by Beth Cooper
me serf Underground 9th edition relate this post and
includes a quote from RiHo08.
http://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/9th-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/
↧
Comment on Has science lost its way? by Beth Cooper
Edit: ‘relates ter this post. ‘ Sorry (
↧
↧
Comment on US Climate Variability and Predictability Program Science Plan by Dr. Strangelove
“Your thoughts on the best way to convey our understanding to policy makers about climate change in context of periodic assessment reports?”
Honesty is the best policy. Our climate models are useless. They should be totally ignored by policy makers. We don’t know enough to make a 30-year climate forecast, much less a 100-year forecast. We can only extrapolate from past data and infer that certain observed cycles will repeat in the near future. This is basically guesswork. Don’t bet billions of dollars on our educated guesses. We could be wrong. Bet at your own risk.
We don’t know how much CO2 will warm the planet. Based on historical and geological records, catastrophic warming is very unlikely. The climate is always changing. Natural causes are obvious. Less certain is how much man has influenced recent climate change. Trying to control the climate is doubtful. It may or may not work. Adaptation is more prudent given all the uncertainties in climate science.
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt
@cd: <i>Right, and if you take the log of a slight exponential you get a straight line. The difference between their “fat” straight line and a very precise ln is nothing to write home about.</i>
cd, forget mathematical models of CO2 like exponentials and just look at actual CO2 data. When you do, you get the blue curve in <a href="http://clim.stanford.edu/AGWvsLS.jpg" rel="nofollow">this plot</a>.
What L&S have done is to give a nonphysical model of this physically based curve by fitting two straight lines to it connected at 1942. They call the line on the left "natural warming" and the one on the right natural plus anthropogenic warming, with no physics justification of either other than that the CO2 is supposed growing exponentially.
In a couple of centuries CO2 might be growing at an exponential rate, in which case the log will straighten out. In the meantime it's going to be some other sort of curve. Furthermore when CO2 has the form 1+x where x is much less than 1 but is growing exponentially, log(1+x) will be linear in x and hence be growing as an exponential function of time.
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt
@max: No, I did not “misunderstand” what you wrote.
It simply makes no sense.
Fair enough: you did not misunderstand what I wrote about biomass, you merely did not understand it. I can understand that.
It’s taken decades to sort whether or not plants are carbon neutral. Hence there’s no reason to assume you would have been born with that understanding.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
