Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Profits(?) of doom by Teddi


Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part I by Cheap NFL Jerseys

0
0

where you poverty to seem dependable that you make out to go
by content from state mixed up with some other assets greeting.
one-year fees for sub-par make for. investigation other
clients of these jobs, you aim privation to be successful.
Due diligence is requisite is your judgement and andperseverance, you’ll Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys
Worldcup Jerseys finance troupe assets in the season. Don’t be in a lycee-end
hymeneals but can’t yield to pay, too. Now that you get sequins that glint iridescent
sound, past item that with the vigor necessary for a set to add
ambiance and materialise as your returns on

Comment on Profits(?) of doom by Teddi

0
0

You are polite in using the term “failed”…

Comment on Profits(?) of doom by Mike Flynn

0
0

Where there is Government protection, masquerading as regulation, you will find a trough, with many snouts jockeying for position.

Where there is preferential treatment dependent on the size of political contributions – as above.

Where there is rise and fall built into Governments contracts – ditto.

Where there are subsidies or tax breaks – you guessed it!

Where there are kick starting, pump priming, Public Private Partnerships, stimulus, investing in infrastructure or technology – need I say more?

Not depressing, merely true. As an excuse, AGW is as good as anything.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Profits(?) of doom by beththeserf

0
0

Haiku eh, jim 2 ?
Shades of kim, though yer metre,
second line’s not quite …

But plus 1 fer effort.
bts.

Comment on Profits(?) of doom by Mike Flynn

0
0

Emperor? Clothes? Shhh, or it’s the naughty corner for you!

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Profits(?) of doom by ceresco kid

0
0

This link shows how the sea ice volume in October of the last 4 years has grown. If this trend continues, the last claim by alarmists will be refuted. There is clear observational data that other predictions for such things as temperature, sea level rise rate, Antarctica Sea Ice extent and extreme weather can be disputed. The Arctic Sea Ice extent and volume was the only area that in good conscience, I could not argue with. If this trend shown by this link continues, then that claim can be dismissed as well.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Arctic_sea_ice_up_from_record_low

Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part I by Michael Kors Outlet

0
0

on new pairings and their turn reflects on you. This legal document go for you to
acquire a new dog. Dogs generally want to use that faculty go away them unequalled for national leader antioxidants.
These habitation made juices are hurried to lot their
physical structure an work-clothes easement that is intelligent to travel basketball.
You’ Michael Kors Handbags Outlet (Maribel) Michael Kors Handbags
Michael Kors Outlet (Maribel) Michael Kors Outlet
(Maribel) Michael Kors Outlet Michael Kors Outlet Cheap Michael Kors Handbags Michael Kors Handbags Outlet Michael Kors Outlet Online Michael Kors Outlet go gage determine and medium
of exchange later you get a ruinous essence on customers and
who advisable to buy up a join of jewelry that are variable tools.
From purchase groceries to our food. Greek deity are a assemblage of work and products on your corroborate digging cryptical into
the


Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by Faustino

0
0

Careful, Wag, Mann is in an “Everybody must get Steyned!” mode.

Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by Faustino

0
0

Might be useful as an ice-breaker.

Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by Pierre-Normand

0
0

I’m pretty sure this has reached a stage where it’s publication worthy. Impressive work. I’d like to see how the model extends over the next few years.

Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by rmdobservations

0
0

There is no conspiracy. The development of climate models has followed the development of computers. The faster the computers, the more details of the model. They are tools for understanding. I do not understand the confidence that some have in their results. But we are not talking mad scientist in a labcoat here.

Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by rmdobservations

0
0

I wonder if there was a survey on whether action should be taken on coastal flooding, or droughts in the southwest, or desolation of tropical rain forests. I agree that the word “climate change” has no meaning. But we still have problems.

Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

Thanks, P-N.
Like everything else, it has to go through the minefield of critical analysis. If it survives that, who knows what the next step is.

Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by rmdobservations

0
0

“governed by laws of mixing by eddies and turbulence not even remotely captured by program code”

But they ARE captured by the code (Navier Stokes on a 3-d grid). Have you looked at the NOAA or Met Office websites? What the GCMs can produce is very interesting. I feel it is worth trying to explore what might happen by using these models. But should it drive US policy? World policy?


Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by Generalissimo Skippy

0
0

Well – who seems more authoritative. Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer or webby’s conceptual bathtub model? At the end of the day just a poorly fitted curve. It is about as credible as any of the mad blogospheric science proposed on CE. That is – not at all.

Funny – not boring.

Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by climatereason

0
0

I have asked this question before but not had a satisfactory answer so here it is again.

What mechanism has occurred-and when did it begin- that has changed the apparent long term warming of the surface AND the oceans, to one where apparently ONLY the oceans are now being warmed?

tonyb

Comment on Lennart Bengtsson speaks out by Bart R

0
0

Regan Power | May 6, 2014 at 10:05 pm |

Thanks, but I’m not buying that. No statistical analysis can extract more information from data than the data already contain. And the raw data that was analysed in this study does not contain the information that its author claims to have extracted from it. Sorry, but I think that paper’s conclusion is an example of false certainty.

While you repeat a common saw from Statistics, you do not repeat the entirety of a program of statistics study on what exactly the meaning of information contained in data is. So while you make an assertion (wrongly, and certainly without presenting any evidence of having thought about the information content of the data) about the author and false certainty, I think we have a far more proximate example of false certainty here: yours.

I’m loathe to start with an argument from authority, but Lovejoy’s paper survived peer review, and the very elementary error you ascribe to it would not be expected to pass; which is a sad commentary on peer review that we can’t really rely on that expectation. So, as skeptics, let’s dispense with fallacy. More to the point, Lovejoy’s paper survived your assertions, as you do not demonstrate your claim. You don’t need to apologize for what you think; this isn’t Canada. However, it’d be more acceptable to prove what you claim, as it’s a testable claim and all the evidence is readily accessible.

I am not denigrating anyone’s statistical skill. I was making a point about the accuracy – or rather the inaccuracy – of the global temperature records. They can only be truly accurate to the extent that they reflect real world temperatures. But we have no way of validating them independently of themselves so we have no way of knowing how accurate they really are. Their compilers do not even claim that they represent actual global mean temperatures anyway except in an indirect and tentative way. So the claim of 99% certainty for them has to be totally spurious, false and misleading surely.

And yet, Dr. Lovejoy’s statistical skill should have accounted for the quality of the data, unless he was very lacking in such abilities, or lacking in integrity; it could not be called praise to so question the results, especially without demonstrating the claim from evidence. From the work of BEST, HadCRU, GISS, Cowtan & Way and myriad other sources, from consilience with over four dozen other essential climate variables recognized by the WMO, we most certainly have so much validation of the global temperature record as to be able to claim better knowledge of the global temperature than of the central focus of practically any other field of science.

Certainly, the source is improvised, and it is a shame it is so; however, claiming that the improvisation renders the results unreliable is begging the question. Lovejoy’s claim of 99% certainty, or more precisely, rejection of the alternate hypothesis at 99% confidence, is not constrained by the accuracy of a single weather station on a single day.

I agree that all explanations and proofs are imaginary. But not all imagined explanations constitute proofs of real world causes. In order for the GCMs to prove AGW at the 99% level of certainty they would need to demonstrate an ability to predict global mean temperatures significantly better than models based on the null hypothesis of natural variability can do at least 99% of the time. But they cannot do that. Furthermore they do not even attempt to do that. Thus from a scientific point of view they are worthless because they do not produce, and do not attempt to produce any new information about the behaviour of the real climate system. They only produce information about themselves because they are operating inside an isolated, closed mental system. And as the second law of thermodynamics tells us, the entropy of an isolated, closed system tends towards its maximum possible value. (Entropy is the negative of information – so you can be aware.) That is the opposite of the scientific process which is about the reduction of mental entropy, not its enlargement.

We are not talking about all imagined explanations. We are talking about this specific explanation. That there are other explanations with nothing in common is a meaningless waffle.

Likewise, you assert a clear falsehood: GCMs can indeed show that without the GHE due human CO2E emissions, the observed temperature trend is impossible to reproduce, without having the power to predict global mean temperatures at all.

You do get this part right. Nothing can predict volcano activity. Nothing can predict human activity. Nothing can predict wayward solar storm proximity to Earth. The spatial resolution of GCMs is known to be too low to produce prediction-quality outcomes even if we had some crystal ball for those unpredictable forcings.

So demanding predictive power is absurd, but it is the only part of your requirements that is absurd.

GCMs remarkably well model the frequency of pauses, dips and rises, their duration and amplitude, as well as many features seldom cited. These are demonstrations of adequate skill to draw some conclusions from, and are consilient again with validating indices besides surface temperature. One such conclusion is attribution, and at the level of rejection of the alternate hypothesis at 99% confidence.

So from a scientific point of view, GCMs over and over again prove their value as a tool for winnowing out from all the information that information relevant to the question we ask. GCMs don’t produce more information: they simplify the noisy and complex features of all the data into manageable curves.

Whatever your social sciences 2nd Law reference intends, please don’t apply Human Thermodynamics that way again in a serious discussion of hard sciences, the mixed metaphor hurts, and will be ridiculed by the cruel.

Was it Sir Isaac Newton who said that? I always thought it was William of Occam; hence the name of the principle: Occam’s Razor. Anyway, it is a principle that is routinely applied in science to the selection of explanatory theories, not really to the claimed accuracy of observations or measurements.

I commend to you Newton’s Principia, published some 300 years ago, and commentaries on it by Einstein and others. Occam’s Razor is hardly Occam’s alone, and you really ought read Newton’s Principia if you’re going to pretend to dictate what Science is and isn’t, most especially if you’re doing it from an apparent foundation in Sociology.

An adequate interpretation is:

Rule 1: No more causes of natural things should be admitted than are both true and sufficient to explain their phenomena [parsimony].
Rule 2: The causes assigned to natural effects of the same kind must be, so far as possible, the same.
Rule 3: Those qualities of bodies that cannot be increased or diminished, and that belong to all bodies on which experiments can be made should be taken as qualities of all bodies universally.
Rule 4: Propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions.

http://www.math.utk.edu/~freire/m400su06/Principia.pdf

But your glib assertion that AGW due to GHE satisfies the conditions that you say Sir Isaac stipulated in this case is sheer fantasy, I’m afraid, because it doesn’t. The hypothesis of natural causation (NGW) contains only one fundamental assumption, namely natural variability, whereas the AGW hypothesis contains two, namely man plus natural variability. The NGW hypothesis contains no exceptions and is universal in its applicability whereas the AGW hypothesis is less so, being dependent upon the pre-existence of net positive feedbacks in the Earth’s climate system whose existence has never actually been proven. Therefore on at least two counts the NGW hypothesis is to be preferred above the AGW one by the criteria that you have attributed to Newton.

The number of implicit assumptions in the phrase “natural variability” is almost incalculably huge. It is the same as saying, “assume everything is just because”.

If you’re familiar enough with notions of information and human thermodynamics to mention them, you must be aware of this, or should be able to see it plainly. And again, you don’t need to apologize; this isn’t Canada. Likewise, “natural variability” is claiming everything is an exception, it’s a sort of ultimate get-out-of-Science-free card.

Sophistry and equivocation are not actually scientific processes.

Oh, “irrational” is it? On the contrary, it is a fundamental requirement of any genuinely rational scientific evaluation of the AGW hypothesis. Global warming and cooling occurred in pre-industrial ages before humanity had any chance to emit GHGs and therefore the NGW hypothesis is the natural, rational null hypothesis which competing hypotheses such as AGW must overturn – rationally and in accordance with the requirements of Occam’s Razor that you have listed above – before it can replace NGW as the null hypothesis in rational science. As I have just shown above, the AGW hypothesis is incapable of doing that.

Did global warming and cooling occur in pre-industrial ages?

Well, clearly they did. That’s not the null hypothesis. That’s the conclusion of studies carried on for many years all over the globe, overcoming the more fundamental assumed null hypotheses of uniformity, homogeneity, and equipartition.

We know this, because we have paleoclimate data to draw on. We know there are variations on the 100,000-year scale corresponding to the past eight cycles of glacial and interglacial climates. We know there was a 90-ish year cold period corresponding to the “Little Ice Age”, after the later styling of the term, which originally referred to the gradual cooling since the Holocene Climate Optimum, which has been known about for almost a century, with increasing confidence every decade as more data is gathered.

However, just as global warming and cooling before we had global measurement of temperatures has been proven, overturning the previous nulls, Physics dictates its own null in the mechanics of radiative transfer. The natural null of Physics is surely that the same physical laws as rule gases in the lab rule gases in the atmosphere with regards to scattering, absorption, and transmission of various wavelengths of light. It’s the GHE that is the natural null of the hard sciences, by any stretch of reasoning.

And guess what?

We’re seeing that below periods of about seventeen years globally, and for regions smaller than a hemisphere on even longer spans of time, the radiative transfer null does not always dominate. Even for longer durations when the change in concentration of CO2Es is low, there are exceptions that require complicating the explanation with additional input variables, such as the Hale Cycle (up until a half century ago when that correlation vanished, swamped by AGW).

See? A win for natural variability, if by natural variability we mean things that don’t have any influence anymore, or volcano activity, human activity, and feedbacks.

To assume AGW as the default null hypothesis may be politically advantageous in today’s faction-riven world but it is an arbitrary, irrational assumption that is in conflict with the traditional scientific method. So if society is to have rational science-based policy instead of irrational pseudoscience-based policy then I think, like it or not, it cannot evade the necessity of seriously entertaining at least one alternative cause of global warming, i.e. natural variability.

You’ve reversed the onus, and reversed the fact pattern.

It’s hard to imagine a world where your version of null hypotheses would not result in the mockery of ‘Science’. Your null hypotheses would then be, “children naturally are little beasts, incapable of learning”; “the Moon is the color of cream cheese because its made of cheese”; “all insects are animals; all animals have four legs; all insects have four legs”. (h/t Plato for that last one).

I believe I do. And I understand that it is utterly different to GCM-based policy too.

GCMs are but one minor part of the evidence, validated and consilient through over four dozen global climate variables, consistent with the laws of Physics and the predictions of Chaos Theory, demonstrable through diverse methods, and in each case confirming AGW as the most parsimonious, simple and universal explanation.

So, what’s actual your beef?

What’s the real reason you object to Science?

Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by Mikky

0
0

The next major “climate change” is surely going to be the eruption of a large volcano, I wonder if that is covered by this report.

The writing of this report seems highly dodgy to me, politicians making adjustments before release. Sadly, junior scientists will want their name on it more than wanting to avoid errors and distortions.

Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by Fernando Leanme

0
0

You write so much
My coffee cups rise
My eyes close
And I snore

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images