We do not need a complete closed solution for useful purposes, as for example weather forcasting. The Drang nach Sgt. Scultzism here is quite amusing.
Comment on Pretense of knowledge by Eli Rabett
↧
↧
Comment on Pretense of knowledge by captdallas 0.8 or less
Eli Rabbet, “What, that we have altered the albedo of the surface by large scale farming and cutting down forests. Talk to Roger Pielke Sr. about that. Eli’s only difference with him on that point is degree. The land use forcing is not a large as he thinks.”
Radiant forcing with respect to albedo is not much but the hydrological and soil temperature impacts are more significant. That is one of the reasons that Sr. typical emphasizes specific heat capacity. There is also the carbon sink impact that is not all that well quantified.
↧
Comment on Pretense of knowledge by AK
@Eli Rabett…
Like many of the socialists here, you’re confusing the surface with TOA.
↧
Comment on Seasonal radiative response by HR
If you repeated the analysis for hemispheres would the results look the same? For example for the 4th graph (monthly OLR vs temp) would the NH result be similar to the SH result and the same as the global result?
Secondly I’m a little confused. There is no measure of forcing here. Does OLR become a surrogate for forcing because the system is assumed to be in equilibrium over these time periods. I guess I don’t really get what OLR is being used for in this analysis.
↧
Comment on Pretense of knowledge by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
““No, no, no….and oh, did I mention…NO!”
You are quibbling over the word “regulate”.
——-
In this case yes. Regulate implies a very specific physical dynamic control. TOA does not control anything, but is a metric or proxy for measuring while other things are actually doing the control. Word choice matters greatly when trying to understand or describe the physical dynamics of a system.
↧
↧
Comment on Pretense of knowledge by JH
Bart, if your statement that GHG is irrefutably established as the primary forcing mechanism is true, then why is, er, traditional climate science unable to nail down climate sensitivity to within less than ±50% (3°C, ±1.5°C)?
If what you say is true, why is there a “climate sensitivity” measure at all? If T/climate is a function of GHG, “sensitivity” should be a direct function of GHG and not in any question at all, right? The estimated error on sensitivity should be a simple function of the error in temp/[GHG]atm measurements – the instrumental error – which should be quite precise.
But you know and I know that’s not the case. The variability in T and climate is far larger than the error on the measurement of T or GHG.
I think the problem for climate science is that it says, in effect, “I see the tree. That’s enough. There is no forest.” Ultimately, climate science will fail if it doesn’t acknowledge the forest. That, my friend, you can bank on.
↧
Comment on Pretense of knowledge by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
“Don’t say “Wrong!” unless you are discussing something that really leads to wrong conclusions. We have enough of those cases as well, in this subthread alone.”
—–
Thinking that the TOA imbalance will “regulate” anything does lead to the wrong conclusions. It is just as bad as those (some scientists included) who keep saying the “extra heat from greenhouse warming is going into the oceans” which implies a physical dynamic that is against basic laws of thermodynamics. Both of these seemingly simple errors lead to seriously muddled thinking about the dynamics.
↧
Comment on Pretense of knowledge by Pekka Pirilä
R. Gates,
That’s your view of the meaning of the words or concepts. Don’t expect everyone share that view even when they agree on the actual physics.
In the most strict interpretation, I don’t think that any single factor regulates the climate. Therefore the concept must be relaxed a bit, and when that’s done different people do it differently.
It’s better to try to understand that different people have different mental models and use the words as they best fit their mental models. Arguing against that is productive only when the models are really wrong. Knowing whether the mental model of another person is strictly wrong requires first a good understanding of the whole model.
I have seen also in “real life”, how counterproductive it is to fight only because people have different mental models or use words somewhat differently. Those fights are resolved only when someone gets both to realize that they didn’t disagree on anything substantive.
Short net comments are even more prone to such misunderstandings.
↧
Comment on The science and silence conundrum by AK
As pointed out in a recent post, there are similarities between climate science and economics. As <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/25/pretense-of-knowledge/#comment-429251" rel="nofollow">I pointed out there,</a> there are also differences, that arguably make economic problems "more wicked" even than climate problems.
Anybody advocating for <b>economic policy</b> solutions is taking a stance regarding these "more wicked" economic problems: specifically, advocating <i>e.g.</i> "carbon taxes" as a "solution" to the "problem" of "CO2 warming the planet" is, in effect, claiming "expertise" in economic "science" as well as climate science.
Also, of course, in the various fields necessary to predict the effect of reduced human emission of fossil carbon (even assuming that's what results) on ecosystems that have been adapting to it for decades.
Everybody advocating on the subject is doing so from a position of profound, ignorant, non-expertise. Anybody claiming otherwise is being dishonest, either with themselves, their audience, or both.
(P.S. Sorry for all the "scare quotes".)
↧
↧
Comment on The science and silence conundrum by willard (@nevaudit)
> Do you see a difference between advocating for policy making positions such as mitigating CO2 and advocating for good scientific behavior?
Yes, I do. The first advocates for a public policy related to climate science research findings. and the second advocates for INTEGRITY ™. The problem is to find good reasons to exclude the first while doing the second.
Besides, advocating for INTEGRITY ™ does not cover up advocacy for matters such as resource allocation within climate research community. So once you find good reasons to feel OK with INTEGRITY ™ advocacy, you might need to find other good reasons.
One does not simply promote libertarian social networks (e.g.) and pretend to merely advocate for INTEGRITY ™.
***
Speaking of advocating for INTEGRITY ™:
If you choose to advocate, here is a reminder of guidelines for responsible advocacy from the AAAS: [...]
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/22/rethinking-climate-advocacy/
Does the “if you choose [...] here is a reminder” signal a factual claim?
↧
Comment on The science and silence conundrum by Bad Andrew
Claim Made By Scientist That’s Not A Scientific Position:
“Global warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening.” -James Hansen
Made a Scientific Position:
“The interpretation of temperature data I’ve collected and adjusted is being presented to you with the intent of convincing you that “Global Warming” is not a statistical abstraction, but is “real.” In the interest of full disclosure, I can only provide you with representations of “Global Warming”, because it’s just an idea.”
Andrew
↧
Comment on The science and silence conundrum by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
Chief does not like it because it is too simple a formulation. Too bad because nature doesn’t care if it simple or complex.
It will be a lot of fun to see how this pans out.
↧
Comment on The science and silence conundrum by Max_OK
Chief, I’m sorry you aren’t comfortable with your age. As consolation, I’ve moved you up one notch (from #6 to #5) on my list of the weirdest Australian mammals. Here are my new top five:
1. Duckbill Platypus
2. Leadbeaters Possum
3. Spotted Cuscus
4. Thylacine (extinct)
5. Chief Hydrologist (might as well be extinct)
↧
↧
Comment on The science and silence conundrum by kim
I don’t know any skeptical climate scientists, but I can feel them in the theatre.
=========
↧
Comment on The science and silence conundrum by Kilroy
↧
Comment on The science and silence conundrum by Mi Cro
Max_OK, of course not.
Jim D, did you hear the whistle over your head? That was you missing the point.
To save time, the point is if you want to spend trillions on your science of how the Earth’s climate works you better show up with more evidence Co2 is the cause than lab spectrums. As I believe Judith said, All things being equal, maybe, but they are not equal.
↧
Comment on The science and silence conundrum by kim
Well, Kilroy, the solution is simple; get rid of all but the top 7 & 1/2 % of hospitals. There is an analogy here with climate and energy policy.
===========
↧
↧
Comment on Pretense of knowledge by kim
It’s easy to see the CO2 global warming signal. All it takes is a little practice. Why, I can see seven CO2 global warming signals before breakfast.
==================
↧
Comment on The science and silence conundrum by Max_OK
I believe Hansen underestimates renewables. While wind, solar, and hydro may never provide all the power the world needs, these renewables are a growing source, and don’t pose the risks associated with nuclear power.
Unless AGW starts causing big problems very soon, which doesn’t seem likely, natural gas power will continue to deter interest in investment in additional nuclear plants. Natural gas is less expensive than nuclear and coal, and it causes far less CO2 a than coal.
↧
Comment on The science and silence conundrum by willard (@nevaudit)
> i recall reading somewhere that hotwhopper regarded my activities as advocacy against mitigation
I recall this tweet:
@theresphysics Hotwhopper's interpretation of pretty much anything I say is IMO ludicrous—
Judith Curry (@curryja) December 27, 2013
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
