Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

rah postulates [correctly] “Perhaps the same endless nasty bickering went on about every subject under sun in a given field in the ivory towers for as long as there have been ivory towers.”

rah, your postulate has been correct for the past two centuries and more. From The Herschel Partnership, as Viewed by Caroline (2003)

To: King George III
From: William Hershel
Date: 1785

“In a letter which Sir J. Banks laid before his Majesty, I have mentioned that it would require 12 or 15 hundred pounds to construct a 40-ft telescope, and that moreover the annual expenses attending the same instrument would amount to 150 or 200 pounds.

As it was impossible to say exactly what some might be sufficient to finish so grand a work, I now find that many of the parts take up so much more time and labour of workmen, and more materials than I apprehended they would have taken, and that consequently my first estimate of the total expence will fall short of the real amount.

——-

Biographer Michael Hoskin comments  “Not for the last time in the history of astronomy, an astronomer seeking support had been modest in his initial demands, knowing that the funding body, confronted later with a choice between writing off all the money spent so far or coughing up more, would cough up.

rah, it is a pleasure to assist your appreciation that we are all of us living in a fallible-yet-golden era of 21st century science!

\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 Overconfidence(?) by rls

$
0
0

Very interesting. Does anomaly mean we don’t know why they are occurring?

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Joshua

$
0
0

Judith -

==> ” Climate scientist (Mann) using court to silence skeptics”

If I recall, correctly, Mann does not sue any “skeptic” for whatever they say, but that his pursuit of legal recourse is related to a rather specific aspect something a specific “skeptic” has said.

Now I’m not a particularly a fan of Mann’s rhetoric or approach to exchanging views with “skeptics,” but it does appear that in your zeal to exchange Jello-flings with Mann, you have displayed overconfidence on your own part.

The overconfidence monster would like to speak to you, Judith, and she isn’t pleased.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by A fan of *MORE* discourse

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by fulltimetumbleweed

$
0
0

On the contrary, “subsequent estimates based on updated data ,that are different to older estimates” is utterly fascinating to consider. The models made a specific set of estimates (predictions) and those estimates (predictions) failed. That suggests a fault in either the data or the modelling or both.I find this topic absolutely riveting and I intend to watch how it falls out very closely.

Comment on NCDC responds to concerns about surface temperature data set by Mi Cro

$
0
0

@Nick,
Earlier this week during the afternoon on one of the hot days, I got out my IR thermometer and measured the grass in the shade in the low 90 ‘s F, the concrete sidewalk upper 90 ‘ to 105 moving towards the sun lit portion, to 115 for the sun lit concrete, to 135F for sun lit asphalt. I’ll also note that the shadow of a large tree over the road will easily make a 10 degree change in temp’s that you can feel on a motorcycle.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

‘Climate sensitivity is then defined mathematically as the derivative of an appropriate functional or other function of the system’s state with respect to the bifurcation parameter.’

http://www.academia.edu/3226175/Mathematical_Theory_of_Climate_Sensitivity

Not so much overconfidence it seems as the inability to progress beyond dinosaur ideas about how climate works and/or simplistic pull it out of your arse angel calculations.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by fulltimetumbleweed

$
0
0

Joshua, that comment assumes that Mann has only made a single attempt to use the courts to answer a single specific critic. A quick search shows there are at least two specific critics who have had court action by Mann against them, namely Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball and Mark Steyn. It is therefore entirely correct to state that Mann uses the courts to silence critics, plural. It would be interesting to know if there are others out there who were similarly threatened but chose not to pursue the matter and quietly withdrew or apologized for their comments instead to avoid legal action.


Comment on Overconfidence(?) by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Jim2 links to ["combined Miami news-services" clipping]

Uhhh … jim2, that newspaper clipping is bizarrely far from a “first person” Hansen quote.

For sure, Steve Goddard does *NOT* augment his credibility by relying upon such shoddy materials.

\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 Overconfidence(?) by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Most of the recent warming – 1976 to 1998 – was changes in cloud cover. Which I think I may have mentioned somewhere.The change in ocean in the latter part of the last century was consistent with changes in net toa forcing changes – which I rather think is the point.

e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=236

There is little anyway to suggest that the oceans have warmed in the past decade or so.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ARGOGRACE_Leuliette2012_zps9386d419.png.html?sort=3&o=22

Steric sea level rise – 0.2mm +/- 0.8mm/yr?

There are some problems with GRACE in this graph – inconsistent with Argo salinity – but the Argo heat content seems about right. Small change and huge error bounds that make it impossible to draw any reasonable conclusion. That doesn’t even slow them down.

Argo salinity suggests that ocean mass is decreasing – or at least not changing all that much. .

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/OceanSalinity_zps1ac25cd9.jpg.html?sort=3&o=11

The underlying point – however – is that climate shifts unpredictably three or four times a century. This makes climate unpredictable.

Randy’s case is made entirely on narrative – a very limited one at that suited to his limited scientific background. It shares the quality that makes this such an entrenched bias amongst the chattering classes. Not so much overconfidence in my view but cognitive dissonance.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by thomaswfuller2

$
0
0

Michael, you need a better team of monkeys. I hear the ones from Wizard of Oz haven’t had much to do lately… And if they can drag a scarecrow around I’m sure they can bang away at a typewriter.

You’ll get there. I’m very, very confident.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Michael

$
0
0

But that’s got nothing to do with confidence intervals on very specific questions.

Sweet Jebus!

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by ordvic

$
0
0

I’m not a scientist but I find this nomenclature debate to be very unscientific. I learned iin anthropology 101 that the scientific method goes something like: observation, hypothesis, testing, theroy and law. Using words like confidence seems very ambiguous and open to interpretation. What is that cofidence based on, a vote? Uncertainty may also have its own interpretation and not be very well suited as a scientific term either. In any case it seems to me that the language has gotten off track and causes unnecessary debate.

If I were calling the shots I’d go by the book. Now the IPCC is using a computer model to test the hypothesis that x amount of CO2 causes y amount temperature rise. It supposedly enters data pertaining to solar and other natural variables, but it doesn’t for instance say x amount of solar causes y amount of temperature rise. UV B in the stratosphere is at this point little known so the testing does have faults such as this (uncertainty or unknown). I don’t know how that would be quantified and communicated but perhaps I’m a little off track. Anyway, using the scientific language I learned, I would think you would look at your testing instrument and say okay x amount should cause y. If it is off by z amount then at that point x+/-z=y and it could be evaluated how far off the the model is at any given moment. If it was completely out of range the model would seem to be quite faulty. In this manner one could quantify the testing and reevaluate the hypothesis. It shouldn’t hurt any feelings or cause unnecessary debate it just is what it is. Perhaps Judith may be wrong in using such ambiguous language but it seems to me the IPCC is even more misleading and should know better than to use such ridiculous nomenclature.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Michael

$
0
0

I’m cut to the quick.

Judith, please protect me from Tom’s rapier wit!

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

‘Moist enthalpy hereafter referred to as equivalent temperature (TE), expresses the atmospheric heat content by combining into a single variable air temperature (T) and atmospheric moisture. As a result, TE, rather than T alone, is an alternative metric for assessing atmospheric warming, which depicts heat content. Over the mid-latitudes, TE and T generally present similar magnitudes during winter and early
spring, in contrast with large differences observed during the growing season in conjunction with increases in summer humidity. TE has generally increased during the recent decades, especially during summer months. Large trend differences between T and TE occur at the surface and lower troposphere, decrease with altitude and then fade in the upper troposphere. TE is linked to the large scale climate variability and helps better understand the general circulation of the atmosphere and the differences between surface and upper air thermal discrepancies. Moreover, when compared to T alone, TE is larger in areas with higher physical evaporation and transpiration rates and is more correlated to biomass
seasonal variability.’ http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/nt-77.pdf

Measuring atmospheric heat content by temperature alone at 2m is utter nonsense. The tropospheric record is so much more suitable for climate purposes it renders the surface record obsolete.


Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Michael

$
0
0

ordvic | July 4, 2014 at 12:17 am |
“I’m not a scientist but…..”
…let me lecture scientists on how to do science, while simultnesouly demonstrating that I don’t really have much idea of even the basics.

Overconfidence. Boo, hiss!

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Brandon Shollenberger

$
0
0

Fred Moolten’s described test is actually pretty much useless. He suggests we test for over confidence by “comparing conclusions with later evidence that confirms or refutes them,” but this wouldn’t work. There are many problems, but I’ll focus on the first two which come to mind:

1) Over confidence is an issue of confidence in an analysis based on the information available. That an answer is right does not inherently mean confidence in it was justified.

2) Conclusions which can be confirmed/refuted are not a random subset. The answers to some questions are far easier to confirm or reject than the answers to other questions. It’d be practically impossible to look at confirmed/refuted answers and translate their ratio to the population of all answers. It’s quite likely the answers which could be verified sooner would have been easier to predict in the first place, meaning their results could be biased high compared to the rest of questions.

Put simply, checking if people got the right answer is not the same as checking if they did their work correctly.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by David Springer

$
0
0

DocMartyn

LOL

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by David Springer

Comment on Overconfidence(?) by David Springer

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images