“Robert I Ellison | June 16, 2014 at 1:26 am |
I am going to stop Michael Mouse – the jokes wearing thin anyway.”
—
It was as thin as graphene the very moment your little mouse fingers decided to once more change your name. You are a living example of sudden, rapid, and unpredictable name change.
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by R. Gates
↧
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Faustino
Michael Mouse, I’ll leave the main ongoing debate aside except to say that I have no religious beliefs but maintain high moral standards and believe that it is positive for both societies and individuals to maintain high (and soundly-based) moral values. But I don’t attempt to impose my standards, based on my experience and understanding, on others, though I will respond to those who seek advice.
On the “about 25% of GDP” figure, around 1985-90 I read a large variety of studies attempting to relate the rate of economic growth to size of government, and all, as I recall, came up with 22% as optimal. Not 20, not 25, not a range, but, to my surprise, a consistent 22. Of course, life is not all about economic growth, but it’s been a pretty good proxy for general well-being for a long time. Perhaps at certain high levels of income and wealth, it will be less relevant.
Nor are arguments about the size of governmental all about growth, in general, the greater the reach of government, the less scope there is for self-reliance and individual enterprise, for freedom of action and even thought.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by GaryM
Chief Mickey,
I understand Hayek just fine. He’s just wrong about a number of things. Milton Friedman thought so too. The fact that liberaltarians only understand a caricature of modern conservatism doesn’t mean conservatives don’t understand you.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by Michael Mouse
Randy has added admirably to the topic. I’ll just repeat myself. Do let me know if he adds anything sensible to the discourse – ever. That would be a red letter day.
The El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system during the Pliocene warm period (PWP; 3–5 million years ago) may have existed in a permanent El Niño state with a sharply reduced zonal sea surface temperature (SST) gradient in the equatorial Pacific Ocean1. This suggests that during the PWP, when global mean temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were similar to those projected for near-term climate change2, ENSO variability—and related global climate teleconnections—could have been radically different from that today. Yet, owing to a lack of observational evidence on seasonal and interannual SST variability from crucial low-latitude sites, this fundamental climate characteristic of the PWP remains controversial1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Here we show that permanent El Niño conditions did not exist during the PWP. Our spectral analysis of the δ18O SST and salinity proxy, extracted from two 35-year, monthly resolved PWP Porites corals in the Philippines, reveals variability that is similar to present ENSO variation.
So not permanent El Nino but late Holocene typical? This is not the permanent La Nina that Randy’s strings a narrative around. If anything it suggests that carbon dioxide has no effect on ENSO.
Randy’s cartoon science and twee triumphalism – after the style (?) of webby – seems more a symptom of something that you would step over in the street with distaste – were it not paraded proudly about in polite company.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by Matthew R Marler
WebHubTelescope: I only started working on climate science a few years ago so you can’t blame me with that fallacious argument.
It’s not a “blame”, it’s a simple reminder that your model came after the onset of the “hiatus”. Whether you personally were “surprised” by the “hiatus” can not be established on the record provided to date.
↧
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by Edim
Jim D,
I agree about the effect of the long SC 23 (~12-13 years) and the long 23/24 minimum. This slowdown in solar cycle frequency (the real global climate knob, IMO) will cause cooling for decades to come. SC 24 will very likely be longer than SC23 – we haven’t seen that since the Dalton minimum (two consequent cycles longer than ~13 years in average).
Similarily, the two very short cycles (21 and 22, ~10 years, about 1976 to 1996) with the short and high minimums, coincide with the late 20th century warming. There’s really no room for CO2 – it’s (mostly) the Sun.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Robert I Ellison
Gates,
As you were the butt of the joke about cartoon science amongst a select few – it surprises me not at all that you didn’t find it funny. Nonetheless – the point about you pathetic narratives sans much in the way of in depth understanding of science About par for the course I would say for an undereducated government employed camera operator with an evangelical progressive bent. Now go away the adults are talking.
Michael,
My number derives from Keynes and Hayek – on which I seem to remember them being agreed. The Rahn curve I remember as well being a bit more flexible.
However, I see no reason why government expenditure should not be limited to maximize growth. Perhaps we should try for 25% – or even 30% – as a first step in most places?
Gary,
Can we usefully discuss the flaws of Hayek without actually mentioning what they are? Management of interest rates to prevent bubbles? That sounds fairly Milton friendly. Effective prudential regulation? An intellectual commitment to democracy and the rule of law?
You may rail and rant against whatever you wish – but if commitment to democracy and the rule of law as the central values of a just civil society is too enlightenment liberal for you – I’m not sure what I can do.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by WebHubTelescope
Yes, any advanced course on EM theory will discuss the quasi-static approximation in calculating fields.
http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter3/3.3.html
But what is exactly your point?
That certain aspects of physics are difficult?
.
↧
Comment on What is the measure of scientific ‘success’? by ianl8888
An experiment in open publishing is currently occurring on the Jo Nova website
It is being published in instalments and is really very interesting, both in content and design.
It is an interesting experiment, well worth following, and breaks the “Journal” mode of peer review and paywalling into itty-bitty pieces. Naturally this leaves the door open for nutty comments as well as constructive ones, but it is a very interesting venture
NOTE: open publication of the new hypothesis is not completed yet; I make no comment on the validity of the hypothesis at this point. For myself, I am content to follow the process through and then ask critical questions
↧
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by TJA
WHT has been getting a bit testy lately.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by Ragnaar
JCH | June 16, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
…since the climate shift of 2011-2012
Here you can see:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/pdo-5-pg.gif
Past short term reversals. Looking at the ’01-’02 run up, we get a nice collapse. Will the current ’13-’14 run up collapse? I don’t know.
This graph might concern PDO fans:
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm
A confused PDO?
Or maybe the cool phase started in 2008 after being a bit confused for a few years. Pushing back the start date which might turn out well for skeptics. A confused PDO might explain why this is a pause and the 40s to 70s was a cooling.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by Matthew R Marler
Steven Mosher: will the slope be Over zero or under zero?
That is an interesting question. The policy question is whether there will be much more than a 1.3 temp increase for a CO2 doubling over the next 130 years or so (one of the estimated doubling times for one of the estimates of A-induced CO2 increase and natural increase combined.) Starting 2014, that’s a trend of 0.1 per decade, or 0.05 per half decade, about half the “projected warming” of the title of the thread. If the increase from 2014 to 2019 is +0.01, that is equivalent to a continuing “hiatus”.
Why would anyone interested in the long term consequences of AGW be interested in a bet of simple warming or cooling over 5 years? One of the mantras is that short-term trends are meaningless.
More later.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by bentabou
David, thanks so much for educating me; I couldn’t possibly have followed your thought process without your assistance. I’ll write that down; in fact, maybe I’ll nominate you for the “Climate Skepticism Communicator of the Year” award. Informally, we could call it the “No Bridge Too Far” prize.
↧
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by JCH
Yes, the recent cycle is unusual in its prolonged resistance to bottoming in a normal fashion. The fish people can help you out with that. That’s called ACO2 warming. Obviously I think the trough is going to be very short lived, and the run up to peak very rapid. We may be in it right now.
The AMO doesn’t do anything other than follow the surface temperature. It does not drive anything; it’s driven. Yanked around like a sidewalk monkey. The PDO has a V-8 engine under the hood: ENSO. It’s a motor. It runs. It has power.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by John Carpenter
Just under cuz cool PDO and quiet solar cycle. If there was a choice for even, I would take it as I believe anthro forcing and natural variability are just canceling each other for the next 5 years. But it’s an over/under bet, so I go with just under.
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by TJA
And you get 7600 or so papers that use the term. Not just the two uses in the IPCC report.
Sorry, but the term conveys a belief that the models are reality. Experiment implies an empirical undertaking. “Model runs” would be a much better term.
These are exactly the kind of rhetorical choices made by so many alarmists that trigger BS meters everywhere..
↧
Comment on On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase by Matthew R Marler
Steven Mosher: will the slope be Over zero or under zero?
Maybe sooner of later I’ll flip a coin and write a bet.
In the meantime, I’d summarize my current opinion by betting that from Jan 2014 to Dec 2023, the slope of a linear least squares fit will be less than 0.05C per decade.
Why?
The recent trend is nearly flat, with no reason to expect an upturn.
The Tsonis et al model does not have much upturn very soon.
The ENSO predictions do not look like they forecast a high peak or strong El Nino.
I think that “climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2″ has been over-estimated.
On the whole, I think increases in summertime daytime cloud cover are more likely than decreases.
Whatever the effect of short-term solar variation, we look to be in for reduced warming for a decade, rather than increased.
I don’t expect much decrease in aerosols of Asian industrial origin, or generally.
OK, I flipped a coin and it came up heads, actually, it came up “head”. I lost the slip of paper on which I wrote whether that is “under” or “over”. I have been losing lots of things lately.
↧
↧
Comment on What is the measure of scientific ‘success’? by deepinelastic
The education system isn’t helping when a computer science professional gets ensconced as dean of the science and math department and suggests simulating all the labs. “Computers can do anything”. Even in my field of elementary particle physics some theoreticians are of the opinion that we don’t need any more measurements.
Charles
↧
Comment on What is the measure of scientific ‘success’? by David L. Hagen
One measure of success would be to cut university administration by 90%.
See: <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/06/16/university_of_alberta_professors_apply_for_vice_chancellor_s_job_in_clever.html?google_editors_picks=true" rel="nofollow">The Clever Stunt Four Professors Just Pulled to Expose the Outrageous Pay Gap in Academia</a>
4 Profs to replace 1 president.
↧
Comment on What is the measure of scientific ‘success’? by Sparrow
>My personal opinion is that science as practiced in universities is about to implode on its own administrative money centred bloat.
You mean like collage athletic departments? Have you compared head coach pay packages to what they pay in science departments.
>I predict real science will become the stuff of blogs like this until the implosion is over.
Just remember you are turning over stewardship of science to a virtual domain, the internet. It’s 99.9% digital, there is no guarantee any of this stuff would survive a Carrington event. Might want to have a backup plan.
Jack Smith
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
