You are overwrought again, perlie. Are you sure that you have read the right Risible Risbey et al. silly paper?
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Don Monfort
phi,
If the paper is behind a paywall, you are allowed to pretend that you read the whole paper if you have at least read the abstract. That’s what perlie does.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by kim
You missed a big opportunity, Jan, not getting your name on that paper with Oreskes and Lewandowsky.
=========================
↧
Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by dynam01
Reblogged this on <a href="http://ididntasktobeblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/pentagons-war-against-climate-change/" rel="nofollow">I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog</a>.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by ClimateGuy
OK, Jan. heheheheeeee
“Best”. Which are the best not worst?
↧
↧
Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by kim
Ahem, Don, that’s Obama’s golf partner you’re dissing. He’s got the ear of the man with the football.
================
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by kim
I don’t know if this paper is retard or petard but it sure blows a big hole in the wall around the models. How can the modelers be happy with this beast loose in Nature?
====================
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Rob Ellison
You’re a bit late to the party Jan. And it pretty much says it in the title.
‘Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase.’
Pick the four that happen to have some variability in the right direction at the right time. The trick of course is to do that beforehand and not do post hoc rationalization of a method that is inherently – but only nominally – capable merely of the discrimination between probabilities.
Now if they had said beforehand that there was a high probability of no warming – and this seems more likely than not to persist for decades more – we might be impressed. As it is we are amused.
I haven’t read it and don’t intend to. Life and learning is far too short. But what the hell do they expect Oreskes and Lewandowsky to contribute to any credible research let alone in technical aspects of climate science. The maniacs seem in charge of the asylum at Nature. Where the hell is their common sense let alone a healthy skepticism?
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by WebHubTelescope
Brandon S got it wrong when he said that BEST shows a “huge warming trend”. He started with zero credibility and has maintained that level.
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by kim
You know, Rob, I about half wonder if Oreskes and Lewandowsky don’t have some sick(healthy) subconscious need to blow up their own misbegotten cause.
Jan, this paper hardly inspires confidence in the GCMs. There are even some politicians who can figure that out. The question is why didn’t you figure that out? Why didn’t Nature and the reviewers figure it out? God only knows why Lewandowsky and Oreskes didn’t figure it out.
================
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Don Monfort
You are changing your story, jimmy. This is your strawman:
” no one, except perhaps these skeptics, expects the runs to have the correct ENSO phase. ”
I challenged you to name names of skeptics who expect the model runs to have the correct ENSO phase. You claim that Tisdale more than implies it, not that he actually said it. But this is the quote you provide:
“If models had any skill, the outputs of the models would be in-phase with observations.”
He was talking about the models being in phase with observations over a 15 year period. He didn’t say in phase with ENSO. You are substituting ENSO for observations. That doesn’t fool us, jimmy.
Tisdale may be wrong. The models’ skill may yet show up over a 30 year period, or in a hundred years. We should put the models on the back burner, until at least 2030.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Martin C
Hi Dr. Curry,
Interesting post at WUWT on a paper by Shaun Lovejoy. Since he has posted here, I would sure like to get your opinion on his paper. The It is ‘trying to explain away the ‘warming pause’ by natural variability’. Wow, natural variability can ‘slow down’ the warming; but it couldn’t be responsible for it also . . ?
THe link to the WUWT post is: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/21/claim-natural-variation-masked-global-warming-creating-the-pause/#more-113281
↧
Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by Faustino
Well, Jim, wind-power is currently in vogue. Still waiting on wind-powered submarines, though.
↧
↧
Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by Faustino
There has been over-investment in Australia’s grid, and the companies or state utilities involved charge under state government arrangements which give them a particular return on their investment, which means that power charges are much higher than they should be with an optimal grid. In some cases excess grid capacity has arisen because state governments have demanded unreasonably (i.e. not cost-effective) levels of reliability. Much of the capacity is used for only a few hours a year on the hottest days. Better to have time-of-day pricing. I regret the existing policies.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Rob Ellison
Not quite true. The models have sensitive dependence b because there is a feasible range of valid starting points and boundary conditions.
The solution space looks something like this – http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F2.expansion.html
‘What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.’ NAS 2002
Climate has control variables that push the system past thresholds every 3 or 4 decades.
Perlwitz is a drone with not much of a clue and a penchant for smug and misguided disparagement. We are not in the bully thread still – I wish he would drop the condescention act Especially in defense of what appears to be an inadequate idea – this time intended to prove that models sometimes accidentally get it right? Sounds suspiciously like a trivial result.
I will do a Springer. Go away Perlwitz – we are bored with your nonsense.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Rob Ellison
Models that accidentally get it right over very small periods?
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
What bizarre post hoc rationalisations. Abrupt climate change happens every 3 or 4 decades with unpredictable consequences.
It puts paid to Jimmy Dee’s simplistic nonsense and Randy the video guy’s silly narrative.
↧
↧
Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by Rob Ellison
Michael,
Sorry to hear you are laid up.
No regrets has a definition in environmental economics. It presumes that actions where benefits exceed costs without considering costs and benefits of climate change are ‘no regrets’.
Opportunity costs compare different actions within a constraint of limited resources. Obviously chasing bang for the buck. Much as Lomberg promotes.
Although I agree with the sentiments of Barnes – a rant that ignores formal definitions of the term he was misunderstanding, misusing and disparaging just misses the point and promise of no-regrets actions.
Cheers
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
You phatboy phreaks obviously never write research articles. Grant Foster (aka Tamino) obviously wrote the research rebuttal article and he then passed it on to others who placed their stamp of approval on it.
The glaring assertion by Blob Carter and his minions was that well over half of the longer-term warming trend was due to ENSO. Foster revealed the chicanery of da down-under boyz by showing how they were deviously playing calculus tricks on the data. In truth, the ENSO adds a zero-sum factor on the warming trend, which is something that the AGW abnegators refuse to believe.
Tamino can do these kinds of rebuttals in his sleep.
↧
Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by Jacob
It’s like road infrastructure. Building roads and bridges is a “no regrets” policy (i.e. always good), right ? No ! Building roads and bridges to nowhere isn’t “no regrets”, it’s a waste of money.
Same for the grid.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
