Aw, c’mon Waggy, they will care! Just as much as Putin cares about Obama’s sanctions… oh, wait. Never mind.
Comment on AAAS: What we know by k scott denison
↧
↧
Comment on AAAS: What we know by k scott denison
See Ray, and even the warmists think Un has no credibility. But had the vote been 97%…
↧
Comment on UK-US Workshop Part V: Broadening the portfolio of climate information by jim2
Speaking of helping the downtrodden, Akon is implementing solar in rural areas in Africa.
From the article:
About
Akon, in partnership with Give1Project and ADS Global Corporation SA, has initiated the project “Akon Lighting Africa Project” tour which aims to bring electricity to one (1) million households in Africa by the end of 2014.
The lack of electricity is currently a major problem in Africa. A significant number of households in rural areas and even urban cities do not have access to electricity. This is a real obstacle to Africa’s Sustainable Development.
In that perspective and within the framework of a Public-Private partnership, an alliance was signed between the private entities: Akon Corp, SOLEKTRA International – BYD Solar, Azuri Technologies UK, NARI (Member of China Grid Group), CJI, the Non-Governmental Organization Give1Project and the governments of different African nations to support the initiative. Read more
↧
Comment on UK-US Workshop Part V: Broadening the portfolio of climate information by GaryM
pokerguy,
Thanks for the kind words.
“But could anyone be more dangerously blind and deaf than our current President when it comes to his climate change fanaticism?”
I don’t buy the blind and deaf routine Obama acts out all the time. Terrorist attack in Benghazi? What terrorist attack in Benghazi? The IRS did what to the tea party organizations just before my re-election?
Obama is not some evil genius. He is, from what I read of his work before he went on the national stage, a mediocre intellect at best.
What he is though, is a hard core leftist. I often refer to many of the commenters around here as default progressives. They believe what they believe because it is all they really heard for the first 21+ years of their lives.
Obama is that to the extreme. He was surrounded during his formative years by unrepentant marxists. He idealized his absent, communist father.
He is not being led astray by anyone. His staff and supporters are doing exactly what they were hired to do – give him excuses to “radically transform America.”
Dinesh D’Souza is currently facing a long prison term for making a documentary on Obama’s history (about which you have likely heard next to nothing), called “2016: Obama’s America.” (Ostensibly the charges have to do with a $20,000 campaign contribution.) If you are curious about how the most powerful (though inept) man in the world thinks, I recommend it highly.
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by Danley Wolfe
The climate community has hurt themselves by allowing the policy push the science into making claims that are beyond the strength of the actual science. They could admit that it is mostly like economic science a) you cannot perform controlled experiments but have to draw conclusions by looking at historical data or what if scenario models. They overstep by making claim to the independent driving variable i.e., ECS which is not a variable at all but an assumption on warming with a doubling of CO2. That driven by the W/m2 flux assumption and that is really what we are talking. When we look at economic risk of project assumptions we look at scenarios with + / – % delta off of GDP growth. That assumption is based on expert judgment informed by history but we don’t know worth a cats ass whether the future will be like the past. The system is overspecified to make that assumption. The climate is also overspecified to make the analogous climate assumption.
↧
↧
Comment on Simplicity amidst complexity (?) by Danley Wolfe
And whoever came up with the idea of talking about any equilibrium climate sensitivity is just wacko. There is no equilibrium anything in the climate.
↧
Comment on UK-US Workshop Part V: Broadening the portfolio of climate information by David L. Hagen
The EPA's effort to shut down US coal power will <a href="http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/02/06/blackouts-coming-under-obama-epa-regulations-senator-warns/" / rel="nofollow">likely result in severe shortages of baseload power </a>and consequent substantially increased probability of blackouts.
This is driving the US to follow Germany. See: <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9d6ba56a-a633-11e3-8a2a-00144feab7de.html#axzz2ssfFzLAN" rel="nofollow">Germany’s energy policy is expensive, harmful and short-sighted</a>.
Germany is pushing to renewables and shutting down nuclear. Consequently it is increasing construction of coal fired power to provide baseload power to back solar/wind and avoid serious risk of blackouts. See also <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-04/merkel-facing-power-dilemma-as-coal-plants-open-energy-markets.html" rel="nofollow">Merkel facing power dilemma.</a>
↧
Comment on UK-US Workshop Part V: Broadening the portfolio of climate information by David L. Hagen
<b>Stochastics vs Climate Models</b>
<a href="https://itia.ntua.gr/dk/" / rel="nofollow">Demetris Koutsoyiannis </a>and his team emphasis <a href="https://itia.ntua.gr/en/documents/?authors=koutsoyiannis&tags=climate" rel="nofollow">stochastic climate models.</a> e.g., see: <a href="https://itia.ntua.gr/en/documents/?authors=koutsoyiannis&tags=deterministic_vs_stochastic" rel="nofollow">Deterministic vs. stochastic representation of hydrological processes</a>. They have worked on identifying <a href="https://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1297/" / rel="nofollow">scaling of stochastic models with time using Hurst Kolmogorov dynamics </a>over nine orders of magnitude.
↧
Comment on Nate Silvers’ 538: inconvenient statistics by Michael
You posted the link – tell us what you think the relevence is to what I wrote?
↧
↧
Comment on AAAS: What we know by Phronesis
This whole rodeo raises a lot of issues for me. It might be old hat for many of you. I’ve never dug into the consensus before. I’m a social scientist — I’ve simply assumed that there was a consensus, and that it was strong. I remember not liking the fact that so few scientists responded to the surveys, but I’ve never had any reason to believe there was selection bias, that lukewarmers or whatever would be systematically less prone to respond (I still don’t have any reason to suppose that).
But I didn’t expect to find what I found. These are horrible studies. I don’t understand what is happening. No one has any business claiming a 97% consensus, because there is not a single credible study out there that actually polls a representative sample and gets that kind of result. And the only studies that would be useful would ask detailed questions. Why is no one asking **specific questions**? It’s trivially easy. It’s 2014 and these studies are asking whether humans impact the climate? That’s the state of the art? I’m confused.
In the world, there are standards. People have standards. JD Power would do better studies than this. Gallup. And any serious social scientist. We can’t just do whatever we want. We can’t infer answers from silence, or have coders rate whether papers “implicitly” endorse AGW. There are solid ways to find stuff out, stuff like this. It’s not very hard, as science goes. We need a whole new set of studies — apparently we know very little about what climate scientists think.
The most recent study I found that actually polled scientists instead of divining the ideology of abstracts is here: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/
41% see extreme danger in AGW, 44% moderate danger, 13% little danger. There’s also an interesting PNAS study from 2010, which showed 97% consensus, but it wasn’t cited by AAAS and it didn’t ask any specific questions.
↧
Comment on Nate Silvers’ 538: inconvenient statistics by philjourdan
Perhaps the greatest damage to this country by this administration is not legislation passed, but what has been done to science by Obama and Holdren.
↧
Comment on Nate Silvers’ 538: inconvenient statistics by Jim D
Pielke’s way of looking at disasters only through the lens of their cost diminishes the impact of events like Haiyan or typhoons in the Bay of Bengal, because they don’t cost much in global GDP terms. To proclaim that climate change isn’t the reason for increasing costs of disasters is neglecting the real human-life cost by underweighting that factor. Maybe he is only interested in US costs rather than global lives, but he comes across as saying climate change has not impacted us yet (by this measure). Depends what you mean by “us”.
↧
Comment on Nate Silvers’ 538: inconvenient statistics by curryja
A good post from William Connolley on the Pielke 538 topic:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/03/20/3601/
↧
↧
Comment on Nate Silvers’ 538: inconvenient statistics by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
“But when will more academics start doing what they should be doing in the best interests of humanity, instead of their own careers?”
Peter, The day after never. THere are always a few heroic types like Judith, but only a a very few. Human beings can for the most part be counted on to take care of themselves first, the rest if the world later.
Moreover, the human mind being what it is (that is an efficient rationalization machine), most people manage to take care of number one with a clear conscience.
↧
Comment on Nate Silvers’ 538: inconvenient statistics by DocMartyn
The opening line of your article states:-
“In 2012, Nate Silver faced a conservative and media-led backlash for bringing rigor to election forecasting”
That was not the problem, ‘conservatives’ didn’t think the polls were going to reflect the vote; essentially many of us didn’t think Obama was going to get the turnout and that the polls were +3-5% biased towards the Democrats.
Polls are typically biased to Democrats.
↧
Comment on Nate Silvers’ 538: inconvenient statistics by Peter Lang
I’d include Roger Pielke Jr. and Richard Tol with Judith.
↧
Comment on Nate Silvers’ 538: inconvenient statistics by Robert I Ellison
‘There is no data that even remotely suggests that 2010 rainfall was outside the limits of natural variability.’
↧
↧
Comment on AAAS: What we know by Bart R
RichardLH | March 20, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
You’re applying made up random filters and taking the shapes they manufacture as anything other than coincidence, absent any hypothesis or explanation of why you claim the result is interesting.
Given enough data and unlimited freedom to manipulate filters, I can generate almost any shape.
I even generated Judith Curry’s signature out of one set of temperature data, once, by careful selection of filters. Are you suggesting Judith Curry signed her name to the global climate, starting before she was even born?
The point is, any test of the robustness of your results fails to find something worth talking about in your octave-and-a-bit. We can find ample evidence from careful analyses to remove for volcano, ENSO, ocean decadal overturnings, and far, far more to remove for GHE. When these are removed, your octaves mutate out of all semblence of regularity.
Once upon a time, the Hale Cycle actually was worth looking at. There were something like a dozen detectable cycles in the data on BEST, but that correlation on the filters ended in the 1960′s, as some other effect (GHE) so overwhelmed the signal of solar changes as to erase the impact of the sun itself on the atmosphere.
Your claims are defunct, and your analyses superficial and insignificant. What’s more, they’ve been done to death, and dismantled, time after time online.
↧
Comment on Nate Silvers’ 538: inconvenient statistics by Ronald DeWitt
I think commenters here have overlooked Pielke’s lese majeste in gainsaying a claim made by The Won in the article being discussed. That alone could account for the vehement reaction to it.
↧
Comment on Nate Silvers’ 538: inconvenient statistics by KevinK
JC wrote;
“Well as recently as 5 years ago, I never thought I’d live to see the day when I am very grateful that I have tenure at a university”
All very well and good for you, Dr. Curry (I have the utmost respect for your scientific integrity BTW).
But what of all the rest of us that have to provide a useful service/product that people will agree to part with some of their hard earned wealth to obtain ?
After 30 some years in engineering with lots of useful products and patents I am still just one “poor scientific opinion” from being cast aside.
Perhaps you science folks should start out producing something valued by the “common folks” before you proceed on towards telling the rest of us “what we need to do” ???
Tenure is great, but do not be too comfortable, when the money runs out (as it always does) you may have tenure, but no salary.
Cheers, Kevin.
PS: OK, that was a tad bit harsh, but you climate scientist folks (others are much worse that yourself) have been “preaching” for so long about all the evil things everybody else is doing (OH, look at that rouge over there, he’s actually drilling for oil so I can fill my gas tank, the scoundrel….) that everybody’s eyes glazed over about 10 years ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
