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

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by RiHo08

0
0

A false negative yields the greatest risk.

Although the consensus appears to harp on the Type I error, missing a really really important message in the cacophony of nature and in particular as it applies to public policy, the harm that comes to most of us is being oblivious to a certain danger.

We have been warned by the consensus that ours and our future generations will whither, wilt in the heat of our own making. Ah, we’re not really making heat, that’s the job of our sun. Only, we are causing, see how neatly I have inserted THAT word, the melting and precipitation pelting of mankind by spewing CO2 hither and yon.

Now, if I understand the rudimentary basics right, if we, and by we I mean through our duly elected officials, if we don’t put our economy into a tailspin by sacrificing the poor and huddled masses on the alter of climate disruption, then we who have the means to escape all the horrors, have caused our future born great calamity.

Now I wouldn’t really say that this is science, or statistics, or all the hoopla that passes for both, but I would say we need more Missourians in the peanut gallery, those who say: “show me.”

Glomping upon a consensus idea when all observations say “no way”; saying something is true when it is really false; saying that CO2 is the climate control knob, well, that’s kinda dumb.


Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by gbaikie

0
0

–rmdobservations | June 2, 2014 at 4:01 am |

gbaikie Competition might lower prices but I feel that quality suffers if one is only interested in lower prices.–

You very fortunate that you live in a world, which enough people disagree with you. And you are in fact a free rider to these more discerning people.
These people can be very rich or very poor or anywhere between.. But if you were less narcissistic, you might realize that price of things, particularly electrical power is more important to some people trying to make a living within boundaries of the numerous rules governments have capriciously invented.

–It’s the reason I spent a lot of money on Legos instead of the cheap copies (just a quick search,www.chinafreechristmas.info/2007/08/legos-are-not-made-in-china_27.html). But I was lucky I had a job to pay for the better quality. I can leave these toys to my grandchildren. Less trash in the landfill (an externality that is not included in the original prices). Cost is not the only metric.–

Cost is the only metric when there are billions of people in this world who living on couple bucks a day.

Price includes many factors. For instance, since we talking about electrical power, 5 cent a kw hour, may seem like low price, but if you only get it randomly 1/2 the time, it would have lower value to most people. Though if you are particular idiot that happen to enjoy being surprised and feeling especially grateful when the electrical power is available this might be something you greatly value.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by John Carpenter

0
0

“They agree that ACO2 causes warming, but think that increasing ACO2 coincides with an “stop in global warming,”

Joshua,

Do you say xerox or copy?
Do you say Kleenex or tissue?
Do you say coke or cola?

When AGW was branded, was it branded as increasing surface temperatures or OHC/energy imbalance? Which one did people identify with? Which one was easy to brand?

So when skeptics point out a pause in surface temperatures… A pause in global warming, do you really think they mean a pause in the energy imbalance?

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by xanonymousblog

0
0

Correlation is inextricably linked to the scientific method of experimentation, observation, repetition, and deduction. With experiments conducted in the natural world, perfect correlation is inherently impossible due to unwanted variables contaminating the data. Therefore, experimental design is of the utmost importance since a good experiment seeks to minimise the influence of outside variables. Repetition is the next vital ingredient in a good experiment, since repeating a procedure over and over again will ensure the results obtained from experimentation are not due to chance.

For example, if Newton observed an archer shooting arrows at a target, with the archer trying her best to repeat the procedure exactly the same each time, the end result would be a spread or cluster of arrows around the bulls’ eye. The more arrows that hit the target, the greater the cluster, and the greater Newton can be confident that in the real world his linear equations can be used to describe physical phenomena, even though there is some variation in the data.

In climate, such experiments are impossible. The best you can do is have a long time series of events which have some sort of physical meaning.

For example, can you be confident that the trend in global temperatures is due to human emissions? How does that level of confidence compare with the bow and arrow example above? Is it possible that the correlation between trends is simply due to chance? There is only one Earth, so maybe we could extend the time series back to the medieval warm period? Does that make any difference?

At the end of the day, Newton can make a very accurate prediction with regards to the bow and arrow. It’s true, sometimes the archer will miss the target completely. But it’s extremely unlikely she will miss 17 times consecutively.

Laughably, some climate scientists actually stated that a few models predicted the pause. Wow! Thats impressive! So out of 100 arrows only 20 or 30 hit the target? mmmmm, talk about poor experimental design!
But just because their “science” is so terrible doesn’t mean there isn’t a simple solution to this terrible problem. Correlation does not equal causation.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by Joshua

0
0

John -

I just wrote a slew of posts in the thread downstairs that addresses that point. I always enjoy exchanging views with you, but I just can’t see rehashing the issue. If you’re interested in my views on the topic, search for “Joshua |” (with the vertical bar symbol) – and that way you can skip over all the times that Don and mosher explain what a petty, spiteful, dishonest, obnoxious, ankle-biting, quibbling, obtuse. doltish, creepy, smarmy, shameless, troll of a dolt I am, who is intent merely on “derailing” Judith.

Oh, and don’t forget dishonest.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by Joshua

0
0

And don’t forget dishonest.

tim gets very upset if anyone forgets dishonest.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by GaryM

0
0

Jim D,

You’re a funny guy.

The consensus climate advocates claimed since 1988 that the correlation between what they called “global average temperature,” but was really surface air and sea surface temperatures, was proof that ACO2 was going to result in catastrophic damage that justified decarbonizing the global economy.

The “pause” in their own reported temperatures just undermined their own claim of correlation = causation.

Pointing out that the lack of correlation has ceased and therefore undermines the claim that it proves causation, cannot in any intelligible way be said to be an argument that correlation = causation.

You have just done to logic what Mann did to the Tijlander proxies.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by curryja

0
0

Out of 1000 arrows, 20 or 30 hit the target, and apparently only one simulation has a pause as long as 25 yrs


Comment on AGU: Enforcing the consensus by Michael

0
0

Is AGU allowed a radar?

Maybe only Judith has radar?

Or must all radar’s conform to Judith?

Does AGU not ‘toe the line’ re: radar?

Just questions.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by Pierre-Normand

0
0

“Place as much insulation as you like on a corpse. Wrap it in layers of clothing – pile on the blankets. Stand back and watch it warm – or not, as the case may be.”

Myke Flynn, your climber/glove analogy was a good one but you seemingly realized that doesn’t yield the conclusion you want. So you are moving away from it and wish to talk about recently deceased people or warm pizzas instead. But those aren’t analogous to the Earth/Sun/CO2 system anymore since they don’t have a heat source. The Earth has a constant heat source: the Sun. So, as you add CO2 to reduce the rate of heat loss, but the solar input isn’t reduced to the same extent, the Earth warms. Go back to your live climber analogy. Puting gloves on will warm his hands. If you postulate that the climber dies, then, sure, its corpse will cool down. But that’s like saying the Earth will still cool down in spite of the enhanced greenhouse effect *if* the Sun goes out permanently. Nobody disputes this. But that’s irrelevant.

Comment on AGU: Enforcing the consensus by jim2

0
0

Michael – Before you embarrass yourself further, why don’t you read the submission.

Comment on AGU: Enforcing the consensus by beththeserf

0
0

Heh Michael, an amazing sense of entitlement – that ‘skeptics’
papers not ever be published?

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by jim2

0
0

@ Pierre-Normand | June 3, 2014 at 9:44 pm |
The Earth has a constant heat source: the Sun. So, as you add CO2 to reduce the rate of heat loss, but the solar input isn’t reduced to the same extent, the Earth warms.
*****
Unless the extra warmth creates extra water vapor which in turn … ready? … REDUCES solar input, cooling the Earth, causing water vapor to condense again, for a net gain of La Nada.

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by jim2

0
0

That should have been “reduces solar input via clouds,”

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by jim2

0
0

That should have been “reduces solar input via clouds,”


Comment on The Astonishing Math of Michael Ghil’s Climate Sensitivity by Dr Norman Page

0
0

Robert I don’t expect to convince you of anything. Also I’m not engaged in astromancy – my forecasts are empirically based on the quasi periodicities in the global temperature record itself and the neutron count and 10 Be data as the best proxy for solar activity.
I say in the link
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
“NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV,solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.”
Obviously it would be nice to be able to trace all the connections and understand the processes involved in producing the earths temperature record including the orbital – solar activity relationships but it is not necessary in order to make acceptable and likely skillful predictions. I would be happy if I could, say, bring that idea into your mind.
Keep in mind also the utility, in all scientific endeavours, of entertaining multiple working hypotheses.
This latter approach ,while scientifically fruitful is not very useful if your object is to provide a guide for policy makers or propaganda for a particular position as is the case of the IPCC
I note that your approach seems to produce similar results to mine for the next 20 – 30 years- clearly you must be doing something right!!

Comment on The sociology of correlation and causation by curryja

0
0

stay tuned, post on abrupt climate change coming tomorrow.

Comment on AGU: Enforcing the consensus by Mike Flynn

0
0

Robert I Ellison,

And I have a similarly irrelevant experiment for you. Throw a blanket over anything without an active internal source of heat – say a corpse, concrete block, cylinder of compressed CO2 – and measure the resultant rise in temperature. No surprise – there isn’t one. But Warmists continue to insist that due to the magic of one way energy transfer, not cooling as quickly as otherwise would be the case, is the same as warming or heating.

Sorry, once again your irrelevant and misleading analogies fail when examined.

I award the round to Mike Flynn. Robert I Ellison again fails to score.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on AGU: Enforcing the consensus by fizzymagic

0
0

I side with the rev on this one. There is, indeed, no evidence that s/he is a scientist.

Indeed, I would claim that there is pretty good evidence that s/he does not understand science at all.

Comment on AGU: Enforcing the consensus by Mike Flynn

0
0

Michael,

You wrote –

“I’m going to cry all over the internet about how I’ve been repressed/oppressed/victimized.”

This sounds like something a Mann for all seasons might write, but I could be wrong.

Sorry about that.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images