Look at page 346
Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by popesclimatetheory
↧
↧
Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by popesclimatetheory
Page 347
And I think you can see that,
3 for this particular system, there is
4 a lot of concern because none of the
5 models were able to come within the
6 range of observations there.
7 And the general rule is, if you
8 have a good, confident understanding
9 of a system, you ought to be able to
10 at least replicate what it does and
11 then predict what it does.
12 And I think can you see here
13 that really none of the models were
14 able to do that. And most, a great
15 majority of them did not do it
16 closely at all.
17 DR. KOONIN:
↧
Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Bob Ludwick
@ Michael
So the difference in the TOE between ignoring ACO2 and controlling ACO2 will be indistinguishable for 50 years, then the TOE will ramp up rapidly over the next 50 years, to a maximum rise amortized over 100 years of 4 deg relative to today. If we control ACO2, the temperature will cease rising in 50 years and remain stable at 1-1.5 C above today, indefinitely. It will not fall below the current temperature at any time after ten years. Controlling for ACO2 will change the TOE in 100 years by .5-2.5 C compared to ignoring ACO2, according to your figures.
And the ounce of prevention we are talking about is reducing ACO2 by how many percent? What are the tradeoffs in the world living standards given cheap, plentiful energy and uncontrolled ACO2 compared to the restricted supply of expensive energy required to reduce ACO2 enough to make a difference (postulating for the moment that reducing ACO2 will in fact make a detectable difference in the TOE)? Are you willing to give up fossil fuels so that, based on the prediction of ‘Climate Scientists’, your great grandchildren will be spared the horror of living on a planet 2.5 C, worst case, warmer than it would have been if you had used fossil fuels as needed? I’m not, but I am not going to be given a choice. And exactly what are those horrors that we are sacrificing modern civilization to avoid? A navigable Northwest Passage and DC as warm as Raleigh, NC? Maybe?
You state as an axiom that the TOE is directly proportional to CO2 and, by implication, that we can control the TOE by controlling atmospheric CO2. What paleoclimate records do we have that show that the TOE is strongly correlated with CO2 and that the CO2-TOE time history shows that the changes in CO2 preceded the changes in TOE, as would be required if CO2 were the driver of the TOE? In recent years, since we have been measuring TOE (a subject for another thread) and CO2, the plot of CO2 shows that the slope of the trend line for CO2, except for seasonal variations, has been monotonically upward, while the TOE has fluctuated wildly, with the slope of the trend line strongly dependent on the choice of end points. This would appear to me to indicate that if CO2 had an effect on the TOE it was negligible relative to other causes of TOE variations and that as a corollary, controlling the anthropogenic subset of CO2 would have an even more negligible effect. Jim Cripwell and others maintain, convincingly to me at least, that there is no signature in the time history of the TOE that can be unambiguously assigned to ACO2, since during the time that we have been monitoring ACO2 and the TOE, the TOE has not behaved in any way out of the historical norm.
↧
Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by omanuel
Climategate emails, Al Gore, and official responses by leaders of the scientific community, deserve credit for exposing sixty-eight years of flawed “settled science” (2014 – 1946 = 68 yrs).
1. Experts have now changed their opinion about stellar energy and diplomatically claimed they already knew the truth 40 years ago.
http://www.nature.com/news/bizarre-star-could-host-a-neutron-star-in-its-core-1.14478
2. Chapter 3 of my autobiography will show that life and breath were designed into the universe by having the
a.) Short-range force of neutron repulsion opposed by
b.) The long-range, weak force of gravitational attraction
“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.”
↧
Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Joshua
tim -
I should remind you that attacking the source (as opposed to arguing against the information presented) is something that “skeptics” often disparage of.
↧
↧
Comment on John Kerry’s remarks on climate change by Joshua
The hits keep on coming:
From Bishop Hill:
[Roy calling people N@zis] is an interesting step, coming so soon after the UK Green Party’s call for a purge of dissenters from government ranks.
On a somewhat related matter, I asked journalist Mehdi Hasan yesterday for some justification of his calling Owen Paterson a denier,…
So on the one side calling people N@zis is “interesting,” and on the other side calling people a “denier” needs justification.
No wonder why some “skeptics” have so much respect for Roy and for Montford.
Their stand on principle and their logical reasoning is just so exemplary!!!
↧
Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Paul Vaughan
New --- updated with most recent ~2 years-worth of solar data:
<a href="http://imageshack.com/a/img801/549/4xq.gif" rel="nofollow"><b>SST = 82% Sun</b></a>
Background:
☼ <a href="http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20140203%20Multidecadal%20Sun-Climate-Change%20101,%20Solar-Terrestrial%20Spatiotemporal%20Aggregation%20Primer%20on%20Trivial%20Extension%20of%20Milankovitch.PDF" rel="nofollow">Multidecadal Sun-Climate-Change 101: Solar-Terrestrial Spatiotemporal Aggregation Primer on Trivial Extension of Milankovitch</a> ☼
Standard Fourier methods BY DESIGN CANNOT detect what I've illustrated (nor can methods used by respectable investigators like the Talkshop blog's co-host Tim Channon, which although impressive, rely on assumptions which patently do NOT hold in this context).
I leave it as an exercise for competent parties to derive the SCD curve from sunspot numbers and use it to reconstruct the semi-annual LOD pattern illustrated by Jean Dickey (NASA JPL 1997). (Competent parties can rediscover a painfully simple solar-terrestrial geometric proof by doing so.)
Sober Academics:
Consider this an assignment -- or an exam -- with lots of generous hints given.
The answer key is NOT given.
Rather, it's used TO JUDGE.
This communication and others like it are not aimed at regular climate discussion agents. (And they never have been.)
Sincerely
↧
Comment on Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM by Simmo1986
The range of suitable speakers to a home the stage arrangement is not an effortless duty. A life-size advantage of the cheapest kits is that we only want to plug it in, and we are certain that all the components will robust as one not only stylistically. However, they have low down authority, apposite only meant for tiny places. The middle group of students will agree to linking supplementary Box, Videocassette recorder before tuner. Sound quality will perk up. They frequently have a digital inputs and outputs, but, it is most of the times held in reserve intended for the top sill. Mostly, they are assembled beginning separate modules which allows for straightforward growth before replacement of individual machinery. Here is the list of things to which you should reimburse thought to. Receiver - from the assumption, it is the central part of the set. Most normally it is an amplifier, broadcasting tuner and a DVD player otherwise recorder. During enhanced kits these elements are in divide casings which tend to live related with a larger numeral of inputs and outputs as glowing as facilitate the exchange of such player to the DVD recorder, otherwise only a improved replica. Maximum power amount produced of the receiver - it is the cumulative ability of all the columns supported by the receiver and has a through connection to the sound superiority in the bigger accommodation. An vital division of a home the stage arrangement is the player itself. Like in the case of the receiver, the bigger numeral of supported values, the improved noise class. It is worth noting whether the select representation played principles such as MP3 and WMA. Similarly, in the case of typical DivX and Xvid, not every players have the ability to handle these formats. During the case of Blu-ray and HD DVD, portrait is about four period improved than DVD, and audio is recorded in Dolby Digital Plus and DTS HD. Thanks to Pro Logic, we are talented to separate the two-channel (stereo) on each and every one columns associated to the receiver.
<a href="http://www.muzeek-world.com/" / rel="nofollow">speaker rentals</a>
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
Floating poly-styrene beads can be spread in water tanks
to form a floating layer, 1- 2 cm thick, to prevent mosquito
breeding. The beads last for years and are non-toxic.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by timg56
RG,
“By then of course we will likely be seeing regular ice-free Arctic summers”
I’ll ask the $64 question – Why should that worry us?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Robert I Ellison
‘It is evident from this paper that even the largest models running on amongst the largest computers
in the world are presently not performing much better
than models that can be run on a desktop computer.
There seems to be no reason why using even faster
computers will do any better than the present day supercomputers unless a fundamental breakthrough is made in understanding the processes that trigger the ENSO events (Eisenman et al., 2005; Kondrashov et al., 2005; Perez et al., 2005; Saynisch et al., 2006; Vecchi et al., 2006). Such an understanding would allow more targeted data collection to drive the models and would focus modifications to dynamical model codes to those processes that matter most. Also, in order to solve the problem of sensitivity to initial conditions, higher quality input data is likely required before significant improvement in the
dynamical model performance can be expected.’
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1519/pdf
No one has shown better than random skill in predicting ENSO beyond three to six months. Certainly not webby and not today.
The multi-decadal shifts are of another magnitude of difficulty.
e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1
Repeating the same silly claims in the same silly words constitutes proof of one thing alone. The utter superficiality of his approach and the proclivity for nonsensical blogospheric braggodocia.
It makes no difference to the point of the my comment – any valid prediction would include a decade to three more of intense La Nina. His response is merely more obfuscation of the point of the bolded statement in the quote from Vance et al 2012 – these multi-decadal variabilities show up over 1000 years at least and are a robust feature of the climate system.
JC SNIP
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
Some corrections.
There were two papers.
1. Our UHI paper.
2. Our station quality paper.
The one that upset Anthony was the station quality paper.
Anthony Visited Muller before I ever did. Muller explained the approach and Anthony gave him the station list. According to Anthony Muller promised not to release it as Anthony had a paper in review, essentially accepted. Anthony agree to accept Mullers results as he trusted the method. With good reason the head statistician was in contact with one of the leading climate skeptic stats guys.
After we published the paper Anthony was critical of a few things, mullers testimony and the fact that we looked at 1950 to present ( well we also looked at 1979 to present but thats a detail) He also criticized the fact that we did a sensitivity test where we compared class123 to class 45. He wanted us to compare class 1,2 to class 345.. Well, we did both. The comparison of CRN1,2,3 to CRN 45 actually supported anthonys position better. go figure.
Note in new unpublished WUWT 2012, for the “new classification” scheme of stations—
They move CRN 3, 4 and some 5s into the class 1,2. It took a while to reverse engineer the station maps they gave in the draft to actual stations but I was able to do about 95% of it.
basically they dropped 30% of the stations ratings ( mostly bad stations ) and moved some from CRN12 to 345, and some 345 to CRN12.. basically repeating a sensitivity test the criticized us for ( move 3 to CRN12). but they did some picking and choosing about which stations to reclassify. On the whole stations that were bad were declared good under the new scheme.
Then of course those 300 stations that had their ratings dropped will be an Briffa moment for Skeptics. Some very interesting tid bits in that pile.
I’ll keep my powder dry.. more fun that way.
↧
Comment on Week in review by manacker
JCH
Guess I answered your question:
Exactly on what is it that you think there is not a 97% consensus?
to your satisfaction, since you have not responded.
Glad I could be of help.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist
“I’ll ask the $64 question – Why should that worry us?”
——
Why should anything worry us? We’re in the Anthropocene. This is our time, right?
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
Yes, Alexander Biggs. Historian March Bloch refers to the
fetishism of the single cause which can so easily assume
the charactor of mythology. As in history possibly so in
climate science.
http://ahistoricality.blogspot.com.au/2004/12/quotations-029.html
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn
Herman Alexander Pope,
You are correct. Anything such as CO2, water vapour, and so on, result in cooling, not warming.
Certainly any university physics lab should have far better equipment to demonstrate this than I had at my disposal years ago. I’m not sure why the reluctance to carry out the experiment, and then accept the results.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Week in review by phatboy
That is indeed what the “uncertainty monster” might like. By then of course we will likely be seeing regular ice-free Arctic summers.
Certainly…
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
A number of people have been adjectived; Cassandra, Quisling and Boycott.
Why not just describe the people who torture language, logic and data, so to promote the possibility of ‘Thermogeddon’ as ‘Jushua’s’. To Josh is already a coinage that means to make fun of so to ‘Joshua’ means to jumble and corrupt as a means to an end.
↧
Comment on Week in review by manacker
Webby
Wow!
You can predict ENSO with your handy-dandy model.
This info would be worth millions to the residents of California, who are suffering from a drought believed to be partially a result of ENSO shifts.
Get on the phone to Jerry Brown, Webby – CA needs you.
Max
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
If you coated them with titanium oxide you could oxidize the NOx/SOx in the air too.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
