Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by curryja


Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by lolwot

0
0

The first letter appealed to authority. The second letter said OK then and bought real authority to the table.

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by leftturnandre

0
0

Hypothesis….Test hypothesis….. Science.

Hypothesis: More CO2 “traps heat” and radiates it back from the troposhere to earth.; Physics: plancks law, Stefan Boltzman requires an emitter to have higher temperatures to emit more infrared. Consequently where the troposphere is back radiating more, it should be warmer.

Prediction from the hypothesis: find warming in the medium levels of the troposphere, the more radiation, the more heat. Hence there must be a hot spot which is strongest at the equator.

Test hypothesis: Result from e-mail # 1939 Climategate2:

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1889

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.”

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by alaincoe

0
0

I agree with this vision.
The basic of Roland Benabou theory is that your invested interest in a domain prevent you to see opposing views.

this post vulgarize beanbou works in a nice way.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/124027-denial-collective-housing-delusions

if you are IPCC member, will you agree that you could be fired ?
If your house is paid with benefits from solar panel, will you admit it is a stupid energy…

you cannot have honest vision if you are a stakeholder, even unconsciously.

soon we will remember the most stupid sentence of the las 400 years:
“I have had 50 years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what’s possible and what’s not. . . . I don’t want to see any more evidence! I think it’s a bunch of junk and I don’t want to have anything further to do with it.”

all the pathology of denial is in that sentence.

in my “innovation management course” at work they say that innovators have the following characteristics :
- they are foreigners (not of the same business, science, country…)
- they have a strong network to share view with, separate from the mainstream
- they have a resilient mind, they keep their idea despite opposition

innovation cannot came from the wagon circle.

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by lolwot

0
0

“Hypothesis: More CO2 “traps heat” and radiates it back from the troposhere to earth”

Well that’s more like observed fact than hypothesis.

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by Joshua

0
0

Theo -

How are you defining metacognition. As I understand the term (and have used the term for years), it refers to one’s knowledge about their own learning processes. How do you, or Judith, have any knowledge about Dyson’s metacognitive abilities?

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by Paul S

0
0

Physics: plancks law, Stefan Boltzman requires an emitter to have higher temperatures to emit more infrared. Consequently where the troposphere is back radiating more, it should be warmer.

The atmosphere isn’t a black body, meaning it doesn’t absorb all radiation in all wavelengths. The reason “back radiation” increases with increasing CO2 is that more radiation is being prevented, or rather delayed, from escaping the Earth. The atmosphere isn’t necessarily radiating with more intensity on average, but there is more of it available to perform absorption and radiation and so more is emitted back to the surface.

The real prediction of a tropical tropospheric “hot spot” relates to the water vapour lapse rate feedback, which isn’t specific to CO2 at all.

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by Joshua

0
0

I take it that no on here so “concerned” about “appeal to authority” felt that the first WSJ editorial was worth reading because of the “expertise” of people who signed it.

Right?


Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by cui bono

0
0

I would argue that “warm” implies neither “warmest” (cooling trend) nor “warming” (warming trend).

Their view was “the warming trend has not abated. The last decade was the warmest since records began…” It doesn’t follow.

Please can we agree on that, before this becomes angels on pinheads? :-)

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by Girma

0
0

leftturnandre

In science, when the observation does not match theory, we chuck the theory.

Here is comparison of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory and observation:

IPCC AR4, 2007 => http://bit.ly/z7cOHe

This comparison shows the observed global mean temperatures (GMT) are less than model projections if human CO2 emission were held constant at the 2000 level.

In addition, there has not been any change in the climate as there has been only a single GMT pattern since record begun 160 years ago. This pattern has a unique property of a warming trend of only 0.06 deg C per decade and an oscillation of 0.5 deg C every 30 years. This pattern can be clearly observed in the data from NASA and the University of East Anglia as shown in the following graph.

http://bit.ly/Aei4Nd

This result shows, for 160 years, the GMT pattern (the climate) has not been affected by human CO2 emission, volcanoes and aerosols! These variables did not have effect because the GMT pattern before and after mid-20th century were nearly identical.

As observations do not match AGW theory, chuck the AGW theory!

Comment on Week in Review 2/3/12 by Kip Hansen

0
0

Hey all you detail people: Didn’t the Met UK office issue something similar recently? Counting the new Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report, how many major new summaries over the last six months have come to the same conclusion…can we get a lisiting with URLs?

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by David Wojick

0
0

It depends on what the quoted words mean.

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by manacker

0
0

Judith

The “love your enemies” support, which Anthony Watts is giving Michael Mann is sort of like that of a one-legged milking stool with termites (potentially treacherous in a manure-filled barn)..

Will there be an open debate between MM and (say) Roy Spencer (or Richard Lindzen) on the “broader issues”?

Or will there be a more specialized (yawn) debate between MM and other paleo-climatologists on the validity of bristlecone pine reconstructions?

Or how about one between MM and Steve McIntyre on statistical methodologies (snore)?

Or (biggest draw of all) between MM and Lord Christopher Monckton on climate-related policy issues?

(I’m not counting on it.)

Max

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by cui bono

0
0

Joshua -

Heavens, with lolwot here I thought you could take the day off. :-)

The first op-ed was interesting mainly because of it’s rarity value.

The second was interesting for showing the usual hubris – all we need to do to answer the first is to say ‘We’re Team Climate” and then add some cut-n-paste cliches about settled science.

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by Joshua

0
0

It depends on what the quoted words mean.

Which is why I asked for clarification. Apparently Judith’s intended meaning is non-standard. Even so, with a non-standard definition – it’s still an “appeal to authority.” Judith is suggesting that we accept Dyson’s “authority,” merely because of his reputation, and not even on a subject that he’s studied in detail.

Even with a non-standard definition – would you mind quantifying for me Dyson’s “metacognitive” abilities relative to, say, those of Gavin? How about Hawking?

The hypocrisy of Judith’s argument here is stunning.


Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by Joshua

0
0

cui bon -

The first op-ed was interesting mainly because of it’s rarity value.

That is a completely subjective determination.

I found it interesting because I was stunned to find a group of very smart and knowledgeable people sign their name on an editorial that analogizes climate scientists to Lysenko.

Unfortunately, such specious logic is not terribly rare.

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by cui bono

0
0

“That is a completely subjective determination.”

It’s true, I haven’t been counting, but how many MSM editorials have you seen opposing AGW? In the UK, I can’t think of one.

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by Joshua

0
0
cui bono - It’s true, I haven’t been counting, but how many MSM editorials have you seen opposing AGW?</blockquote> How many MSM editorials have you seen comparing scientists to Lysenko? I haven't been counting, but in the U.S., I can't think of any.

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin

Science informs – it is just that numbnut is too dumb to listen. Here is a graph (Swanson et al 2009 16120–16130 _ PNAS _ September 22, 2009 _ vol. 106 _ no. 38) showing natural internal variability from oceans against a monotonic residual warming signal.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=MONOTONIC.gif

There are 3 implications in this.

1. The residual trend is nowhere near 0.17 degrees C/decade.
2. If you look beyond 2000 – we are in a 20 to 40 year cool phase.
3. There is no possibility that 20th century variability is the limit of natural variability.

This hit me like a tonne of bricks in 2003 – and I have been called a denier by know nothing little dipsh… with their appeals to groupthink ever since.

There is a difference between an appeal to authority – interpreting science narrowly in a (pissant progressive) political context – and an honest, wide ranging and sceptical (in the true sense) love of natural philoshpy.

Disband the IPCC – it is a massive failure – and let theories compete in the ideas marketplace.

Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by manacker

0
0

Joshua

Are you referring to the first WSJ op-ed (1/27) “No Need to Panic…”, (signed by 16 scientists) or the follow-up op-ed (2/1) by Kevin Trenberth “Check With Climate Scientists …”, (signed by 38 scientists)?

Or both?

Please specify and clarify your thoughts (they seem a bit muddled to me).

Thanks.

Max

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images