Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

Jim,

Every climate scientist has had the change of presenting a correct analysis. When the paper was shown to be wrong, the immediate reaction of the original authors should have been, and probably was, to find out whether they can make the analysis correctly. The motivation of presenting a correct analysis has been high also for other scientists. My interpretation of the current state of matter is that nobody has succeeded in getting results that are interesting enough for publishing based on some correct method.

You should not expect that I can present such an analysis. If i could, i would surely publish it.


Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by DayHay

$
0
0

Oregon’s power company PGE (not pg&e) has been legislated to be more green by some percent in some period of time. This necessitated a purchase of crappy Oregon windfarms originally paid for by subsidies. You need to look more carefully, the signs are everywhere. You can look up Oregon C02 legislation and the effects on energy industries here, and transportation. Our governor agrees with the EPA that C02 is a poison.

Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by Robert I Ellison

$
0
0

‘Of these anomalies, one of the most recent to be discovered takes place in the Indo-Pacific warm pool. This body of water, which spans the western waters of the equatorial Pacific to the eastern Indian Ocean, holds the warmest seawaters in the world. Scientists found that, over a period of roughly two decades, the warm pool’s average annual temperatures and dimensions increase and then decrease like a slowly pulsating beacon.

The effects and origins of these oscillating waters, however, remain something of a mystery. For the past three years researchers based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, led by atmospheric scientist Vikram Mehta, have been trying to unravel some of the questions surrounding the warm pool. They have been poring over atmospheric and sea surface temperature data from the western Pacific to the eastern United States looking for answers as to why the warm pool oscillates and what effects this oscillation may have on the world’s climate. What they found is that the warm pool’s vacillations may be felt as far away as Arkansas and may be powerful enough to broaden the extent of El Niño.’
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WarmPool/

It is doubtful that even recent warming (1976 to 1998) can be distinguished against natural variability. The attempts to do so rely not merely on not knowing what the global energy dynamic at top of atmosphere is but of actively discounting – when it is not convenient – the available satellite data. Convenient is the brightness models of Harries and others – inconvenient is the ERBS edition 3.

Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by Jim D

$
0
0

Pekka, what I am asking should not be difficult. I would think every US state climatologist, and probably national centers too, have a baseline climatology of monthly and seasonal temperatures and variances. These are usually based on 30 years of data, and are updated every so often. They can go back to past baselines, and compare them with current baselines to get the kind of statistics I was referring to. Maybe they also already have a definition of an extreme event in terms of their baselines, perhaps phrased in terms of return periods, or probability curves. None of this is new. It is just presenting the relevant statistics for the effects of climate change on extremes.

Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by Wagathon

$
0
0

It is getting easier to see what Western academia’s global warming alarmists are up to –e.g.,

 
Chicago Just Had Its Coldest Winter In History. Here’s Proof… of global warming!

Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

Jim,
The straightforward approach determines separately both the average and the standard deviation for every separate measurement station, and compares how those change over time. Determining the standard deviation is much less accurate than determining the average. It’s very likely that combining all those separate analyses would lead to highly inconclusive results.

Trying to combine the data in other ways to improve statistical power introduces errors of similar nature as those of that paper. Perhaps not as serious, but serious enough to make the results suspect.

This is just one of the very many examples of how difficult it is to extract more detailed information from the data than GMST and other simplest aggregates.

Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by beththeserf

$
0
0

Evidence for positive feedbacks missing.
Top of atmosphere data giving warmists
no satisfaction.
Could it be, me friends, the answer is hiding
in the oscillating heat of the equatorial ocean?

… Oh, the sea, the sea! Three quarters of
our planet, it covers yet.

Comment on Evidence of absence versus absence of evidence by A fan of *MORE* discourse


Comment on Open thread by Jeffn

$
0
0

Thats’s funny. I link to a report on a detailed study of the attitudes of the young conducted by one the largest polling firms in the country- Pew.
Fan calls it bizarre “baseless denialism” and rebuts by linking to a speech by an intern.
SOP for the warm I suppose. I’m sure it’s an appealing line of argument to freshmen, at least the political activists among them. What’s next? Forget Freeman Dyson, the warm have the backing of misinformed grade schoolers!

Comment on Open thread by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Tony,

Dont forget to look at the Joseon Dynasty Annuals. daily information.
Interestingly King Sejong worked to get the first rain gauge created
(circa 1400s)

My Korean isnt good enough to help, but if you get an extra 10 million I’ll be glad to help

Comment on Open thread by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“I think I have at least some idea of how trees are used as a proxy. And even with that knowledge, I find it difficult to believe that they are anything other than MAYBE a possible clue to what temperatures they were exposed to.”

You finding it difficult to believe is not data. it is not method. it is not reason.
It is not important what you find easy to believe versus difficult to believe.

You lay out the theory.
You lay out the assumptions
You do the calculations.
And you get what you get.
“Belief” has nothing to do with it. It is merely an operation.

You can then argue about the assumptions.
You can try to test the assumptions.
you can try different assumptions.
you cannot avoid assumptions. EVER.

Comment on Open thread by Tonyb

$
0
0

Mosh

I saved the Korean link that you supplied me a few weeks ago.

I was planning to put one of my large teams of researchers Onto the translation which would make 300 people I have out there in the field, over half of my resources . Us sceptics get so much funding it’s difficult to know what to do with it all.

. 10 million is nothing. You are selling yourself much too cheap, please show a bit more ambition if you want a job in my global organisation…

Tonyb

Comment on Open thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Tony claims [wrongly] “You will remember the Bible saying that ‘there is  nothing  something new under the sun.’ We have seen it all before fan.

Error by Tonyb, correction by FOMD!

Scientific/Biblical/Historical Fact  Present-day CO2 levels are unprecedented in Biblical history.

Heck, the *LAST* time CO2 levels were this high, ordinary citizens can see for *THEMSELVES* that Florida/Carolina/Washington DC/Gulf States were submerged megalodon shark breeding-grounds.

Ain’t that plain ordinary citizen-science common-sense, TonyB?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Open thread by Tonyb

Comment on Open thread by Jim D

$
0
0

manacker, but the question asked was when, at what date, the temperature was going to exceed the MWP. The MWP is represented by -0.2 on that scale, and the temperature now is +0.4 on the scale. We are exceeding it already on this date. This was the question. I know a lot of skeptics say, well, there could have been a hidden spike in Marcott. That wasn’t the question. The MWP isn’t a spike, it is a Warm Period with a characteristic temperature that is 0.6 C colder than it is now. Question answered.


Comment on Open thread by Bad Andrew

$
0
0

“You lay out the theory.
You lay out the assumptions
You do the calculations.
And you get what you get.”

…and then you make post facto adjustments, to get the answer you want.

Andfrew

Comment on Open thread by Tonyb

Comment on Open thread by JGMachen

Comment on Open thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

The error is the Bible’s statement “there is nothing new under the sun”, not yours TonyB!

`Cuz present planetary CO2 levels are entirely unique in both Biblical history and human history, ain’t that absolutely scientifically right?

And so are the moral and economic problems that these CO2 levels present!

That’s the common-sense moral reason why this guy regards climate-change science very seriously, eh?

As should we *ALL*!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Open thread by Peter Shaw

$
0
0

This is probably a silly question. However:
How fast does greenhouse-gaslight travel through our atmosphere?

A photon of light in an infrared band (say the 667/cm CO2 band) progresses from surface to space in a series of steps (strictly, its energy does).
There will be a delay between absorption and (re-)emission. Simplistic physics (such as mine) suggests this may be short ( 1 day) to equilibrate.
The direct experiment for this would be to transmit pulses of appropriate monochromatic IR light up through clear air, and time their arrival at a satellite or high balloon.
As yet, I’ve found no information that this has been done (or proved impossible).

The significance is that if the velocity is low, assumptions such as adiabaticity hold; but if high, an air column is radiatively-coupled, and the rules change.

Can anyone suggest good search terms or links?
tia

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images