Emotive and loaded keywords “greenhouse gas”, “climate change”, “substantial”, “reduction”, “emissions”, all in the same paragraph ?.
The emotion you read into other people’s words is usually your own.
Write that down.
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview on EconTalk by kim
Out, Out, Damned Progress.
=======
↧
Comment on JC interview on EconTalk by Mark Anderson
This is my first visit to this website, but I have been listening to Econtalk for many years. Among the many benefits of listening, it’s just fun to listen to intelligent people talk. Judith has a strong voice and a careful, thoughtful tone. She was a pleasure to listen to, and she and Russ worked very well together.
Russ Roberts will survey listeners later, asking for listener’s favorites for the year. This will easily place in the top five.
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by David Springer
Jim Cripwell | December 23, 2013 at 9:15 am |
“Second it IS simply wrong that anthropogenic CO2 emission has any detectable “climate change” effect at all.”
Your certainty is neither warranted nor a positive reflection on your mental acuity.
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by Pekka Pirilä
Willard,
Jewson made it very clear that many others disagree with him. Thus there’s not much to complain in his texts.
I do, however, wonder why so little emphasis is the point that the dependence on coordinate system is not removed by the objective Bayesian approach with Jeffreys’ priors, but only shifted from coordinate system of parameters to the coordinate system (or measure) of observations.
In the spirit of Annan’s response the issue is relatively easy to handle for one parameter, but the issue becomes much more difficult when the joint likelihood distribution of several parameters links the parameter values to each other, as it does in case of ECS and aerosol forcing as well as ECS and deep ocean diffusivity. The tighter we constrain the other parameters by priors the more sharply peak we get for the likelihood function of ECS. Similarly the more our prior weighs some unlikely values for the other parameters the more distorted may be the likelihood function for ECS.
This issue was discussed by both Forest et al and by Nic Lewis, but was it discussed sufficiently, I don’t know. This is to me the main problem as the role of prior in the variable of most interest is easier to understand and handle.
↧
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by David Springer
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | December 23, 2013 at 8:01 pm |
“I am pretty sure I saw a couple of them hanging out down at the truck stop– standing next to their rusted out Ford F100.”
Oh ye of little faith. Science and engineering will win the day.
↧
Comment on JC interview on EconTalk by David L. Hagen
Judith
After reading the transcript, my compliments on an excellent summary over the wide range of issues discussed. Thanks especially for raising the emptiness of climate taxonomy models in contrast to the importance but little appreciated work to discover fundamental new understandings with real value.
NW Maybe I should clarify that Russ was quoting others’ incoherent arguments. Few realize how bad the advocated “mitigation” policies really are, or how severely they harm the 3 billion very poor.
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by Joe Born
“The problem of outspoken scientists making failed predictions based upon little evidence and wild imaginations has been around for many decades.”
Many decades indeed. It was evident enough in Mark Twain’s time for him to say, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
And my guess is that the expansion of higher education has made things worse. The resultant preponderance of mediocrity among scientists seems to have so conspired with need to publish as to make discerning laymen who have had the misfortune to wade critically through many scientific papers adopt a default position of skepticism for the conclusions those papers draw.
↧
Comment on Open thread by lolwot
Christmas Monckton. There’s a kind of jolly madness about him. He really should be a character in a book.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Vaughan Pratt
@tonyb: <i>which is why a data set such as CET that goes back a further 220 years is useful. </i>
Tony, if regional data for a mere 0.1% of the planet is useless, how much more useless (less useful?) is your regional data for 0.01% of the planet?
↧
Comment on JC interview on EconTalk by David Wojick
In nonlinear dynamics a 1% change in input need have no effect whatever and may well have an effect that is opposite that expected. You are thinking linearly about a nonlinear feedback system. This is the basic fallacy of AGW.
↧
Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Let’s look more closely at all the statistical misdirection perpetrated by NW.
Easy enough to put in time and time^2 power-law terms into the CSALT model. I find it makes no difference. The CSALT model discriminates the ln(CO2) term as a much stronger factor than either time or time^2.
Treating the ln(CO2) term by itself, the c factor
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
c 3.081e+00 1.572e-02 195.923 < 2e-16 ***
In the following z is the time^2 term and n is the linear time term
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
c 2.882e+00 9.909e-02 29.086 < 2e-16 ***
z 1.057e-08 1.578e-08 0.670 0.503143
n 3.422e-05 1.221e-05 2.803 0.005126 **
So the z and n terms may modify the ln(CO2) term slightly but this is inconsequential BECAUSE YOU STILL NEED A MECHANISM FOR POWER-LAW FORCING. The CO2 control knob is as close as we have to a forcing that follows the secular trend.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Tonyb
Vaughan
There are numerous scientists from Hubert lamb to Phil jones and organisations frm de bilt to the met office who see a good correlation. It is because of our geographical position with all the attendant weather influences that as an island we receive.
I saw scientists from the met office a few weeks ago and they are providing tacit support for my writing of an article to be submitted for peer review along the lines of ” is cet indicatve of historic northern hemisphere temperatures?”
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview on EconTalk by Peter Lang
My recollection was Judith said 2-3 C per century and later said 0.2 C – 0.3 C per decade. But that is from memory, I haven’t checked..
↧
Comment on JC interview on EconTalk by Vaughan Pratt
<i>stupid, wrong and symptomatic of everything alarmist trolls have come to represent in preventing civilized discussion.</i>
Your civilized discussion is greatly appreciated here.
↧
Comment on JC interview on EconTalk by Peter Lang
Mark,
Thanks for that feedback. Very interesting and good to hear.
↧
Comment on Open thread by captdallas 0.8 or less
Vaughan Pratt, “Tony, if regional data for a mere 0.1% of the planet is useless, how much more useless (less useful?) is your regional data for 0.01% of the planet?”
What is “useless” appears to be subject to confirmation bias. Best and CET both indicate that there is much more going on that CO2. Plus prior to the 1950s data is increasing biased toward the “civilized” northern hemisphere and “old world” scientific revolution. You end up with an instrumental Ambrosia, the ultimate fruit salad, trying to create a “Global” record when the utility of “global” anomaly is not all that impressive. Climate science is like starting off on the wrong path and then going down hill from there.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/12/impact-of-asymmetry-on-forcing.html
There is a lot more interesting stuff going on that the GHE is poorly equipped to explain.
↧
↧
Comment on Ringing out 2013 by Vaughan Pratt
@Gail: <i>It wasn’t whether or not CO2 is managing to impose a warming effect,</i>
Your clarification much appreciated, thank you.
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by Vaughan Pratt
@Faustino: So I demanded Gavin bet $100K on SLR. If the sea level rises LESS than 100 mm in 10 years (i.e. less than one meter per century, which is at the very low end of alarmists’ predictions, but still just moderately above the IPCC upper end), then Gavin would have to pay $100K to charity. But, if the sea levels rise 100mm or more in the next 10 years, meaning “catastrophe”, then I would have to pay the $100K to charity.
Evidently you’ve never been to the races, Michael. I can just see you walking up to a bookie and demanding that he agree to your odds.
↧
Comment on Open thread by michael hart
Joseph, bad news for you. The sun is not sustainable either.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
