Wow Web, I am impressed, you can model the effects of<i> some</i> volcanic eruptions on temperature by post-hoc shifting of the date of the eruption, the half-life of the plume and the amplitude of the event.
Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by DocMartyn
↧
↧
Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by stevepostrel
I think the decision makers mostly get the kind of science advice that they want. During the Cold War Eisenhower had an urgent need for accurate information about the feasibility of ballistic missiles, technologies for surveillance of the USSR, and so on. He was willing to go to considerable lengths to get this information, including creating the kind of institutional structure that led to his later warning about the growth of the scientific-military-industrial complex. These were not public propaganda exercises but secret assessments intended for internal use in a deadly serious competition/armageddon-avoidance exercise. President Obama has been looking for public advocacy and a particular take from his science advisers, which is why from his point of view Holdren is a good fit.
There are exceptions to this rule, of course, where the science advice contradicts where the policymakers want to go. That usually doesn’t go well for the advisers. Nixon’s EPA administrator overrode his advisers’ findings about DDT, Carter’s administration trashed Chris Knudsen’s MOPPS study saying we had 10,000 years of natural gas, Reagan was less than enthused about skeptics of his SDI program, Ed Krug’s comprehensive acid rain study was rejected by all the political bodies and destroyed his career, etc.
But most of the time it seems to me that the policy people are able to select or incentivize their advisers to get the kind of output they want.
↧
Comment on Positioning skeptics by Claudius Denk
Mark, thanks for posting this video. Lindzen is not the most exciting talker. But the details he provides tells an amazing story of the history of the political manipulation of science.
↧
Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Michael
Well Max, there was another tiny hint there for you;
“for example, exploiting scientific uncertainty to justify inaction on climate change”
Now perhaps you really think that Michael Mann ansd Jim Hansen are doing this, but I very much doubt it.
So let me spell it out for you, since you are having such terrible trouble.
I don’t think Gluckmann was referring to Judith, but I’m saying that the exmaple he gives makes me very much think of Judith.
If the shoe fits…..
↧
Comment on Positioning skeptics by Claudius Denk
To the Reverend Jebediah:
Thank you for some amazing comments:
“Everyone (who isn’t part of the conspiracy) knows that all the modern-day Galileos hang out on blogs, and they are much too smart too be fooled by the entire academic world with their ‘knowledge’, ‘expertise’, ‘studies’ and ‘evidence’.”
I am a modern day Galileo. And you comments just earned you a copy of my book, Vortex Phase. It won’t be available until June. But I want you to know that you are free. Thank you for some excellent comments.
Jim McGinn
Author of Vortex Phase.
↧
↧
Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by DocMartyn
Shanghai based Chaori Solar Energy defaulted on a payment on a 1bn yuan (£118m) bond last week; the first such default in China. Many other Chinese ‘green energy’ companies look like they are going to follow them. As long as wind and solar energy were going to take over the energy market, these firms could borrow more money, to expand, even though they were selling at a loss.
No more.
↧
Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Peter S
Steven Mosher says: “I’ll put it this way. Suppose a monk said it was dry and a tree said it was wet.”
It is a really interesting question, and not as simple as it looks.
Late summer 4 years ago in New Zealand I was working in a place where we normally had breaks outside during the day, if the weather was suitable.
For one month in particular we had a lot of cloudy days where it was too cold to sit outside to eat, and everyone commented what a cold month it had been.
You can imagine my surprise then, as I was driving to work listening to the radio, when they announced that the month had broken records for being much warmer than average.
The report came with a footnote that the reason it had been so warm was that it was worked out on night time temperatures.
Where I live, at that time of year you normally get very hot days with cloudless skies and little wind with fairly cool nights.
So the question is, who was right- was it colder or hotter than normal?
The nights certainly were warmer, but most people would not consider that the relevant measure, the part they would be interested in is the temperatures that they were experiencing during the day, which were well below average.
The answer of course depends on your perspective and what you are (or think you are) measuring.
In the case of the rainfall there are cases where both measures might miss the mark- e.g. if there was above average rainfall, but it happened mainly at night and the days tended to be fine, then the monk would probably be more aware of the good weather than the rain. Conversely, if it was a year of hot dry weather mixed with some heavy downpours (again above average rainfall) which ran straight off the hard baked ground, then the tree would probably show signs of drought not excess water, but the monk would probably report the rainfall rather than the good weather.
↧
Comment on Positioning skeptics by Global Warming...Fact or Fiction? - Page 205
[…] excellent Judith Curry offers her thoughts Positioning skeptics Posted on March 9, 2014 | 265 Comments by Judith Curry What use is […]
↧
Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Robert I Ellison
The change in cloud is related to the PDO especially – quite natural.
It has since turned around somewhat – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=95
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by manacker
DocMartyn
You posted your reasoning for a pause lasting to 2040.
Webby has commented here with his model, which would predict warming of 0.6C from today to 2040.
Based strictly on historical trends and cycles, I’d say your projection makes more sense than Webby’s, which is based on an exaggerated 2xCO2 TCS and underestimates the impact of natural factors.
But we’ll have to wait and see who is closer to the mark.
Max
↧
Comment on Week in review by pottereaton
I think the quote of the week should be one written in this post by JC re Professor Torcello: “The author better hope that such misinformation is NOT criminally negligent, since his article contains plenty of it.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bart R
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2136.html
Counting all observations:
1. Who makes fewer assumptions, Lewis or Shindell?
2. Who leaves fewer exceptions unexplained, Lewis or Shindell?
3. Who has the more universally applicable explanation?
Go ahead, count up the numbers. Lewis comes out far behind, therefore Shindell’s is the more accurate or nearly true explanation.
Thanks for playing.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Curious George
Playing: I make only one assumption about Bart R. It may be unprintable, but then it must be accurate or nearly true.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by manacker
Looks like Keith Kloor has it right about environmental groups being on the path of extinction.
And this appears to be happening even though most schools are trying to keep children “aware” of environmental concerns.
To our topic: The grossly exaggerated doomsday predictions of consensus climate science, coupled with the revelations of Climategate, Himalayagate, etc., have undoubtedly helped this movement self-destruct, and IPCC is arguably the main cause for the problem.
The pause in global warming has been another factor; early denial that such a pause even existed, followed by rather desperate rationalizations of why the pause does not mean warming has stopped, have both resulted in more skepticism.
Whether or not IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri could have done anything to avoid this path to self-destruction is an open question, but his actions certainly did not help.
Gone are the glory days of Oscars and Nobel (Peace) Prizes.
Political posturing, like Kerry’s silly remarks or the recent US Senate “climate change blabathon” only make the CAGW supporters look more desperate and out of touch with the rest of the world.
Sic transit gloria.
Max
↧
Comment on Week in review by maksimovich
<i> Here I analyse results from recent climate modelling intercomparison projects to demonstrate that transient climate sensitivity to historical aerosols and ozone is substantially greater than the transient climate sensitivity to CO2</i>
there is NO proxy for historical stratospheric O3,you do understand that?
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
If you do graphology, with a 60-year cycle, you get something like 1.7+/-0.4 degrees for 2xCO2.
The exact amplitude of the cycle is the big guess, we don’t have enough data of past cycles.
This is the HADCRU4 global temperature with 1976 moved to 1911; you can see that 1976-2014 is really, really similar in lineshape to 1911 to 1949.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/HADCRU41976in1911_zpse8c7011a.png
↧
Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by beththeserf
Max here in a land of sheep, whether proposed action by
the Abbott guvuhmint is implemented, Labor’s Carbon Tax
repealed, illegal people smuggling stopped and public
spending reduced, should separate the sheep from the
wolves and identify any good shepherds of the flock.
bts.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bob Ludwick
@ Peter Yates
Don’t forget, when calculating the ‘temperature rise’ of the last century or so the raw data (according to what I have read here, but with no personal knowledge) has been adjusted repeatedly, always in the direction that makes older data appear colder.
Also, I have seen NASA press releases citing the ‘Annual Temperature of the Earth (TOE)’ with millidegree resolution and in the same release, declaring that the TOE for the year referred to (I can’t remember the specific year) was the hottest year ever–by a few hundredths of a degree.
Does anyone actually believe that the ‘Annual Temperature of the Earth’ is a meaningful parameter and that we have an instrumentation system in place that can measure it with millidegree–or hundredths degree–precision? Or that the TOE measurements made today can be compared meaningfully with hundredths of a degree significance to TOE measurements calculated from data collected by the data acquisition system in place a hundred years ago?
Whatever you or I believe, Climate Science publishes such data regularly and cites it as proof not only of global warming, but as proof of global warming attributable to Anthropogenic CO2, and does so with such certainty that there are growing calls from the Climate Science community and its supporters (like the one linked by Dr. Curry above) to make public expression of doubt a criminal offense.
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Most of the recent heat has been in the Northern Hemisphere and suspect that much has been driven by the AMO. The AMO is going to go down and should bottom out about 2030-2035.
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
Kinda ‘sick transit gloria ter ignomenia?’
A-serf-translation.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
