David Appell (@davidappell) | April 8, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
curryja wrote:
sign me up
Do you really not see the great leaps forward taken by science since the era of widespread government funding since WW2??
—————-
I will echo Phil’s comment to DA. No, I don’t see the great leaps from government funding.
I’m skeptical that you have all your faculties but there it is. By all means use HadCRUT4 and build a spreadsheet.
dah – dah
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
Work it out for yourself – I am bored arguing against superficial narratives.
Ubiquitous arrows, one way streets,
highway, low way, misnomered freeway,
go right, go left, look up, look down.
And if I come to a fork in the road,
do I, like Frost, take the road
less travelled? Oh, would I dare and
could I dare … if the arrow said ‘no’?
And would we, like lemmings, take the leap
off the cliff, if the arrow said ‘go’?
And shall we, at the last great summons
that makes us wish to bear those ills we have
than fly to others that we know not of,
standing before the elevator’s dark portals,
obey the requirement to step inside,
go up
…or go down?
DocMarty advocates “[Steps 0 to 3]“
That is a fine post DocMartyn!
An outstanding exemplar of “Four-Step” biomedical research is Edward Donnall “Don” Thomas, who encountered and surmounted all of the obstacles (and more!) that Judith Curry’s original post lamented.
Lesson-Learned In every scientific generation, there’s no substitute for solid scientific insights, leavened with conviction, risk-aptitude, hard work … and always, a considerable measure of good luck too.
This path is *NOT* for the faint-hearted.
The nearest thing to an instruction manual is Richard Hamming’s (of the “Hamming Filter”) essay You and Your Research.
Hamming’s essay makes terrific reading, by younger and older folks, liberals and conservatives alike!
The article does not inspire confidence with its ridiculous claim that Dell “never even bothered to open their own production facilities.” Unless you don’t believe that assembling computers and servers is “production” this statement is pi radians off the truth. Dell famously pioneered an ultra-fast, low-lead-time, make-to-order assembly process using direct sales that in the 1990s enabled them to out-execute all their rivals in the PC industry.
The blather that commentators put out there amazes me sometimes.
Steven Mosher,
If your point is that Wikipedia is not to be trusted, I agree.
You might be able to point me at the primary literature which points to the estimate of climate sensitivity using the last 15 years of observations.
Or four and a half billion years, if you think I’m cherry picking.
Science involves the scientific method, if I am correct. If you want to call economics, sociology, climatology etc. science, we might have to agree to disagree.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
stevepostrel,
What I find interesting is the erratic nature of things.
Deeming’s TQM (memory here, correct me if I’m wrong), just in time ordering, workers owning production, what’s good for GM Is good for the country, any business not on the Internet by 2000 won’t be in business . . .
Make your own list if you like.
What has worked in the past won’t necessarily work now. And so on. People come up with new things because they can. Some are useful, some not so useful.
For all I know, some of the things I introduced in the BOM are still in use. If something provides faster, cheaper, more accurate output, it may be adopted in spite of management objections. That’s human nature.
Mankind seems to advance in fits and starts. Trying to influence the nature and direction of supposed advances seems to be fraught with difficulty. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but the road to heaven may have similar pavement. Nothing to get worked up about, in my view.
What are your views?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
philjourdan | April 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
I’m saying Ryan Maue can spin an figures he wants out of the too little data without any form of validation and it doesn’t make ‘trends’ in these figures amount to a hill of beans.
When everything prior to 1981 is dubious, and none of what happened since 1980 has been shown to produce a meaningful correlation with anything, waving around ACE and TIKE is waving around nothing. It would be like trying to talk about global temperature using only the instrumental data available between 1800 and 1834, plus some apocryphal stories from a guy who remembers it being cold when he was a lad. There’s less than 400 months of observations — and due the seasonal distribution of hurricanes, much less than 400 of usable data points.
What is the Confidence Interval for your trend statistic? What is your narrative? You got nothing.
And yes, you demonstrate zero apprehension of law in what you write here. I don’t pretend to any grand special knowledge of law, but it doesn’t take a great actor to spot a lousy one.
Either demonstrate you know how to interpret Maue’s mess, or admit you can’t.
The US apparently has a good supply of academia and publishing.
One result of all this progress is that the US has achieved an incredible scientific breakthrough.
The new theory is that rather than doing anything yourself, you just borrow money and pay somebody else to do it. Ensure that you claim intellectual property rights where possible. In this event, you can sue the person that came up with the innovation, and pay back the borrowed money.
The US has demonstrated its commitment to this breakthrough by paying the Russians for their space technology, and purchasing Russian rocket engines, rather than going to the trouble of developing their own.
Likewise, the NSA has been created to obtain information without paying the providers. This experiment is ongoing, but evidence to date indicates reasonable success.
Unfortunately, the amount of borrowed money seems to be increasing. As AFOMD would say, without pause or obvious limit. This might be a small defect in the theory, but as scientists might say, the exception proves the rule.
Warmists would no doubt agree that the trend indicates that the debt will become infinite. At this point, the lenders will realise that the borrower cannot repay the debt, and burst into tears, to the derisory sniggers of the US scientific community.
This is evidence based proof that the new theory of continuous borrowing is working, and includes both past and future history to support it. Just like Global Warming.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
The first two frames of MODTRAN results clearly show that the CO2 absorption band does NOT deepen as the concentration is doubled from 300ppm; the only change is on the “wings” of that band. This is entirely consistent with near-saturation and “line broadening.” While the computed loss of signal transmission for the ASSUMED clear-sky “standard atmosphere” is 2.68W/m^2, no detectable change of opacity has been found in the REAL atmosphere during the last 60 years (see: http://climateclash.com/ferenc-miskolczi-the-stable-stationary-value-of-the-earths-ir-optical-thickness/).
In any event, it is a mistake to treat increased atmospheric opacity as a
“forcing” in a system that has coupled NON-radiative mechanisms available
for transferring heat from surface to atmosphere. Unlike the genuine
forcing of insolation, which produces thermal energy, increased opacity
merely impedes direct radiative transfer. The resulting imbalance drives
moist convection, which produces clouds that invariably REDUCE the local
surface insolation, often by hundreds of W/m^2. The near-constancy of TSI
at TOA is not the relevant factor in climatic temperature variations.
What disciples of AGW dogma cannot explain is the Holocene optimum, when CO2 was consistently below 300ppm, and scores of surface temperature swings of ~1K on multidecadal and longer time-scales evident throughout the Holocene in the best proxy records. And simple fitting of cubic splines readily shows that the recent upswing in the last quarter of the 20th century displays a greatly different “trend” (even in biased indices) than “Keeling’s curve.” Imputing a direct causal connection between the two is beyond naive.
“The seas keep rising, without pause or obvious limit.
—
Yes to the rising without pause, yes to there being an obvious limit. All the land based glacial ice melts. Welcome Miocene II.
[…] Our parallel interviews on NPR […]
[…] time (hah!) we each need 30-40 minutes for a presentation, and then we should be questioned by Russ Roberts of […]
“Trenberth was asked if he regarded me as a ‘denier’. He hemmed and hawed, and asked me if I regarded myself as a denier. I said I was a scientist, and regarded myself as included in the so-called 97%, whatever that means.”
Cowardly on Trenberth’s part as he knows damn well you’re not “denying” anything. It kills me how shameless these people are.
Your answer was great, Judith, though it would have been interesting if you’d held his feet to the fire on this question..
Ah heck I wish I’d known about this. I’d have driven down from Ft Collins.
Truth will out ’tis said,
even maybe in Boulder
later,Trenberth’s young followers
perhaps when they are older
will come to see truth’s
hidden in a deep well
and not in missing heat
at the bottom of the sea.
Dr. Curry, your open paragraph needs some editing.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/beauty-and-the-beast-3/
Here’s one of the audience members.
![\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}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\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}")
