oh no, definitely missing a lot of text at the end, i will try to recover it before i have to catch my plane
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by curryja
↧
↧
Comment on How not to save the planet by hro001
<blockquote>An obsession with ‘sustainability’ is similar. Everything glorious about the history of the human enterprise has been based on precisiely the opposite of sustainability.
[...]
Without unnecssary fear, there is no need for the universal obsession
for everything to be ‘sustainable’.
[...]
Sustainablilty from this perspective is a non-issue, an unnecessary worry, but <strong>a good candidate for when the current panic over CAGW runs its course.</strong> [emphasis added -hro]</blockquote>
Quite so. And indeed the "sustainable development" architects-in-chief have already drawn up the preliminary plans (including a "Call for action: Now") ready for adoption at the upcoming June Rio-fest. Pls. see:
<a href="http://hro001.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/of-hypocrites-high-level-panels-and-sherpas-and-silos/" rel="nofollow">Of hypocrites, high-level panels and … sherpas and silos</a>
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Joshua
No hurries – It was just odd that there was an entire discussion of text that seemed like it was from the post, and then billc later noted that the text in question was not part of the post??!!??
I’m wondering if it might have something to do with this thread crashing at around 10:00 AM or so. The cached version of the post I linked had comments up through right around 9:00 AM (77 comments).
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by capt. dallas
Joshua, MattStat is right. Tamino did an estimate of the minimum range to determine statistical significant trends a while back and came up with 14.7 years. If I remember correctly, 14.7 years wasn’t 95% confidence but 90%. Perhaps you can persuade him to update that post 
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by curryja
apparently what go restored was a previous draft, seems the final version is lost in the ether. I fixed a few things in the text and added some stuff, too bad since i think the original was better but this is all i have time for at the moment
↧
↧
Comment on How not to save the planet by Anteros
hro001 -
I came to a realisation this afternoon. Looking through historical examples, of course many thousands of glorious things occurred, were possible, and wouldn’t have existed had there been an obsession with sustainability.
Obvious and really important.
But at the same time, where things were happily sustainable everything was Hunky Dory too – no need to do anything new, just potter along with the same food/fuel/technology/medicine.
And then I realised what is so pernicious in the modern obsession with ‘sustainability’. It is the guilt or fear-driven need to impose it on everything – to treat it as a sort of mantra and therefore to brand anything ‘unsustainable’ as morally bad.
So using peat as a fuel was always terrible because it was unsustainable and was always going to run out? And charcoal to fuel the industrial revolution? Then coal, Gas , Oil – all awful because they are unsustainable?
It’s like leaps into the dark are not allowed because humanity might come to harm! Things might go wrong! We might get punished for using up too much stuff! Jeepers, we might get thrown out of the Garden of Eden AGAIN!!!!
There’s nothing wrong with sustainability – if it isn’t used as a proxy for expressing guilt or fear and as a means to prevent exuberant development for all.
[Glad I got that one sorted out 
]
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by capt. dallas
That was actually a pretty good one Joshua, if you are into instrumentation error and limitations
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Stephen Pruett
Falsifying AGW wouldn’t require breaking the laws of physics if there were negative feedbacks. Have negative feedbacks been decisively ruled out? If so, what is the evidence?
↧
Comment on Assessing climate data record transparency and maturity by John Carpenter
Curious, I feel your pain. However I am not a bit surprised after all this time there is no system for proper data documentation and full disclosure of collection, analysis and ‘adjustments’ methods as part of overall record keeping. We’re dealing with a global hodge podge of academics over several climate science disciplines with almost no training in quality measures. Bates recognizes this problem and, though he does not explicitly state it in the presentation, he understands the lack of good record keeping standardized methods and procedures eats away at the credibility of the science as a whole. I think Bates speaks your language.
I am not sure how he assigned the ‘maturity’ levels to the different areas of concern, but none are ‘mature’. The documentation, metadata and validation areas are all at the ‘provisional’ level of maturity. Climate science is a fledgling endeavor compared to other scientific disciplines and we, you and I and other engineering/scientist types, who operate in a world of accountability need to press those pushing agendas for the full monty. When someone within that community recognizes one of the problems we see as obvious, then we need to encourage that behavior.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by capt. dallas
No they are not ruled out and they are every where. Falsification is a problem because it is not one theory, but a blend of two with error ranges covering both. Powder puff science, ya don’t want to leave any scientist behind, they might get their feelings all hurt
↧
Comment on Tracking the line between treatment and diagnosis by Brian H
Even there, there are issues. Iatrogenic damage is far more serious and widespread than publicly acknowledged, and a premier source of death and damage is misdiagnosis. Hammer-wielders seeing nails everywhere.
CO2-suppression (“decarbonization”) is the hammer climate scientists want to use on every problem, and find every deviation from made-for-purpose “trend lines” to be a definitive diagnostic symptom of a climate disruption nail.
Meanwhile, every nail so far identified has turned out on closer examination to be a twig or finger or toe. They are a rampant menace to all, in need of being disarmed and confined.
↧
Comment on How not to save the planet by stefanthedenier
Sam NC | January 31, 2012 at 4:20 am | Reply
The Earth continues changing climate cold periods and warm periods. Only idiots think they can do something to change these periods.
Sam NC, you should not mention in front of those commenter that the climate is always changing and always will, or similar things. It will be too big shock for them. They will start calling you a crackpot – you will get in a crossfire, from both camps. Same as 3 year olds throw a tantrum when discover that Santa is not for real, then start relying on Rudolf. Because Warmist and fake Skeptics are ”Climate from Changing Stoppers”’… Don’t call a shrink, they will grow up….? Well, most of them
↧
Comment on Tracking the line between treatment and diagnosis by Brian H
As the world has grown more “crowded” and developed, climate change has proved to be (relatively) less and less of a problem (per capita). That boogy-man doesn’t roar. Furthermore, as I have pointed out to you on your home turf, the best UN prediction tools (though not the ones it cites) say that population will peak and recede within slightly more than one generation, and is already beginning to plateau.
Your assumptions and analyses are dysfunctional and contrafactual from the get-go. Neither hyping nor tweaking will improve, resuscitate, or rehabilitate them.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Bob Fernley-Jones
I see that according to the “Recent Comments” list that Mosh’ and Max have contributed <b>somewhere</b> in the 443 comments above at this moment. I deeply respect both these guys, but why should I have to go searching for their nested comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
↧
Comment on Tracking the line between treatment and diagnosis by Edim
Jim D, you think that no focings are responsible for the positive multidecadal ENSO trend?
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/imei.png
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by manacker
MattStat
As the Chief wisely suggests, the end of WWII is a good starting point as far as human CO2 emissions are concerned.
That is when human CO2 emissions really began to rise. [According to CDIAC the cumulated CO2 emissions over the three decades after 1945 were over two and a half times those for the three decades prior to 1945.]
As far as global warming is concerned, there is a problem, however.
The 30 years prior to 1945 showed warming, which is statistically indistinguishable from the most recent 30-year warming cycle starting in 1975 (the IPCC AR4 poster period).
Yet the following 30 years starting in 1945 showed slight cooling with two and a half times as much CO2 emitted.
There are rationalizations for all this out there, but these sound pretty hollow.
The fact of the matter is that there is no real correlation between human CO2 emissions and global temperature.
Max
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by manacker
bill c and Anteros
The first decade of the 21st century was supposed to warm by 0.2 degC according to IPCC.
It didn’t warm at all (maybe even cooled slightly).
By the same IPCC model forecasts that missed the first decade, the entire 21st century is supposed to warm on average by 1.8 to 4 degC, with a peak value of 6 degC.
Based on these actual observations, I have a real hard time seeing even 2 degC within a “likely range”.
But 4 deg C (or even 6 degC) are definitely well outside that range.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by climatereason
Bob
For heavens sake, where’s your spirit of adventure
Seriously, that sounds a doddle compared to ploughing through the 500 articles I have aquired for my next piece on the Arctic, some 350 of them scientific papers. All very worthy no doubt, but many are as dry as dust and set out in a very tedious manner.
Do scientific papers need to be boring? Discuss.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Tracking the line between treatment and diagnosis by manacker
Girma
You can’t argue with Trenberth – he’s convinced that “the science is settled”.
Don’t confuse him with facts.
Max
↧
Comment on Tracking the line between treatment and diagnosis by Coldish
Thanks, Cui Bono. I haven’t been able to locate Trenberth’s article, but I find it hard to believe that he wrote some of the phrases you have quoted. He sounds desperate.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
