Ellison shows zero skill in analyzing climate change based on his thousands of comments here with not one single example of analysis by his own hand. What a phony phreak.
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
↧
↧
Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by jacobress
Kim,
I, of course, agree that armies do a lot of absurd and silly things.
See, for example, these “climate change” things they claim they are doing.
We would wish that they did less of those absurd things.
The idea that “since the army does it (fighting climate change), it’s a good and successful thing” is absurd.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
”
phi | July 21, 2014 at 9:00 am |
the burden of proof is certainly not for me.
”
Of course this guy phi can not be burdened by proof. As he says , “the burden of proof is certainly not for me.” So it is not for him, which contravenes the pillars of science.
He would much rather just make assertions than to construct any kind of proof or argument built upon observational evidence.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Jan P Perlwitz
“Rob Ellison” wrote:
Not quite true. The models have sensitive dependence b because there is a feasible range of valid starting points and boundary conditions.
Is this your private opinion or who says this?
Regardless whether the physically possible range of initial conditions is small or large, it is always the “feasible range”. So the phrase “feasible range of valid starting points” doesn’t say anything meaningful. And “sensitive dependence” means that a small perturbation will lead to a large change in the solutions.
The exponential divergence of the solutions for an arbitrarily small perturbation of the initial conditions is the essential feature of a system with deterministic chaotic dynamics. This is the difference to a non-chaotic deterministic system where the solutions stay in the vicinity of each other when the initial conditions are in the vicinity of each other.
The solution space looks something like this – http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F2.expansion.html
The graphic is consistent with what I said about chaotic dynamics. A small uncertainty in the initial conditions leads to a very large range of possible solutions.
‘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
This text fragment talks about abrupt climate change, but not about what chaotic dynamics is.
Climate has control variables that push the system past thresholds every 3 or 4 decades.
Is this a fact? Who says this? And which ones are the control variables of climate, which push the system over those thresholds? How do these variables do that? Why every 3 or 4 decades?
[Some smear of my person]
How long does it usually take, before you have burned your newest alias?
I will do a Springer. Go away Perlwitz – we are bored with your nonsense.
This kind of requests just decreases the likelihood that I am going to do that. And who is “we”? Pluralis majestatis? Multiple personalities? An anonymous crowd that has elected you as its speaker?
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Jan P Perlwitz
A string of words w/o meaning with a question mark behind it.
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
JD is correct, the effect is about 0.1C. And better still, this is a zero-sum effect, so that it has virtually no impact on the longer-term trend.
I figured this out the easy way. What I did was create a multiple regression model with all of the factors and found the best fit for natural variability.
It really is not that hard, you just have to do it.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Rob Ellison
I have been noting smear after smear Perlwitz. You can seriously object to be called a clueless drone? Tough.
‘Is this your private opinion or who says this?’
James McWilliams? Time Palmer? I have given references – indeed I included a sketch from a Royal Society Philosophical Transactions article. Your snide dismissals merely make you look ridiculous.
‘Regardless whether the physically possible range of initial conditions is small or large, it is always the “feasible range”. So the phrase “feasible range of valid starting points” doesn’t say anything meaningful. And “sensitive dependence” means that a small perturbation will lead to a large change in the solutions.’
The feasible range of starting points and the spread in boundary conditions provide physically feasible limits that ultimately determine the topology of the solution space.
‘The exponential divergence of the solutions for an arbitrarily small perturbation of the initial conditions is the essential feature of a system with deterministic chaotic dynamics. This is the difference to a non-chaotic deterministic system where the solutions stay in the vicinity of each other when the initial conditions are in the vicinity of each other.’
Did I not quote the NAS? Yes I did – go back and look at the definition.
‘The graphic is consistent with what I said about chaotic dynamics. A small uncertainty in the initial conditions leads to a very large range of possible solutions.’
Seriously? You think so? That’s why I linked the sketch. That one or more models is accidentally correct over short time frames is something that should be anticipated. The trick is to determine the probability of an outcome in a perturbed physics ensemble.
‘This text fragment talks about abrupt climate change, but not about what chaotic dynamics is.’
The definition of abrupt climate change mentions chaotic elements in the climate system. But then there is a whole book from the NAS linked to the definition.
‘Climate has control variables that push the system past thresholds every 3 or 4 decades.’
Is this a fact? Who says this? And which ones are the control variables of climate, which push the system over those thresholds? How do these variables do that? Why every 3 or 4 decades?
Control variables are a defining feature of chaotic systems. I don’t know – they just do.
e.g. http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/klimavorhersagen-ueber-mehrere-jahre-moeglich/ – http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/21743.pdf
‘How long does it usually take, before you have burned your newest alias?’
This is my name – and has always been known here from my first post a couple of years ago. Chief Hydrologist was the moniker referencing the Simpsons. The was a Generalissimo Skippy who was a climate warrior on the blue horse called Shibboleth. Google Chrome signs me in as Rob Ellison – and quite frankly I went with it because I am bored with humourless twats who think they can muddy the waters further.
‘This kind of requests just decreases the likelihood that I am going to do that. And who is “we”? Pluralis majestatis? Multiple personalities? An anonymous crowd that has elected you as its speaker?’
I had little hope – but surely you have seen the consensus response to your banal, trivial and misguided arguments? Your endorsement by webby is unsurprising coming from his position of noxious partisan insult, freaky physics and incompetent math. By all means educate him on chaos – but I doubt that is at all possible. As it is – you have far from distinguished yourself. Instead you proceeded from bad faith – lecturing and hectoring replete with straw men and poor attempts at ridicule – to ridiculous posturing. A sad spectacle you have made of yourself.
My essential point remains – the likelihood more than not of no warming for decades at least emerging from decadal climate shifts. Predicting that seems the essential quest – and some did. It emerges from ideas and not from models. Certainly not from webby’s absurdly simplistic back of the envelope math and woefully inadequate physics. Have a look at his bathtub ENSO model. You are obviously well behind the curve – only just in front of webby by a nose. How embarrassing for you. If you were nicer we would let it pass.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Rob Ellison
Pretty much describes Jan’s entire approach – w/o the questioning.
↧
Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by Herve D
Military is not stupid and use all tricks to get reasonable Defense budgets from erratic politicians. Nowadays, politicians in power love the Climatic issue, whether or not they believe in it. So to get fund, they develop the idea and then will get funds. If they have done differently, for example advising that the biggest threat for US is a religious war inside Europe, present administration would even budget a dime for Defense.
Everything is “political”…!
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by phi
WebHubTelescope,
I do not have the burden of proof. This has not prevented me to show that Combo et al. could in no way be used to confirm the temperature curves. This has not prevented me to provide three high quality proxies showing the failure of these curves.
http://imageshack.us/a/img21/1076/polar2.png
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2jdq590.jpg
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by Rud Istvan
Thanks for the reference. A must read somehow previously missed.
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by David L. Hagen
Highly appropriate.
<a href="http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2014-07-23/" / rel="nofollow">Dilbert opines:</a>
<blockquote>"Certainty about the future is a sign of mental illness."</blockquote>
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by rls
Thank you. I fell for it.
↧
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by Hugh Whalen
Do you think FOMD fell for it?
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by Rud Istvan
In my opinion, a great decision. Images convey more than words. And on point satirical images are priceless. Have been since the Boss Tweed era at least. Your first was extremely well chosen. Beware the flying monkeys that will surely come to find you now. Keep a bucket of water handy…
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by Eric
Survival of the fittest is about inherent ability (effort and intelligence). Rich get richer is strictly about $$$$. The more money you have, the more opportunities you have to make more money. It is easy to see this in action in commerce where many of the richest make money by investing the money they have. In science it is a little less obvious.
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by David L. Hagen
<b>Federal policy on funding drives science politics</b>
<a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/patrickmichaels/2014/07/21/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-n1864397/page/full" rel="nofollow">The Threat To The Scientific Method</a> Patrick Michaels | Jul 21, 2014
President Roosevelt asked Vannevar Bush, who oversaw the explosively successful Manhattan Project, if there was a way that the horde of scientists recruited to produce The Bomb could somehow be kept in government employment.
Within eight months, Bush sketched out a blueprint in which the Universities, not the government, would be the employers, but that the pay, either for faculty or for hired researchers, would actually originate from federal science agencies, cabinet departments, or the clandestines.
The consequences were obvious. Universities charge 50 percent overhead on federal grants, using these profitable science Department monies to pay for unprofitable Art and Music Departments. The seeds of political correctness—which requires big, expensive, expansive government—were planted as the schools became addicted to federal welfare.
Under unforgiving competition to secure funding for their institutions (and promotion for themselves) some scientists are behaving badly.</blockquote>
↧
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by Rud Istvan
Jim, two things. First, hang in there. It cannot be easy for you, but rest well in the knowledge that you have already made a global difference. Every voice counts, and every person can make a difference if they choose. You chose, and already have.
Second, I for one am increasingly trying to bell this cat for you. Tried at Science with Marcott based on previous posts Judith was kind enough to host. Failed. Tried more recently in Australia concerning Cook et. al. via a letter and Jo Nova. Failed as predicted, for different reasons. Learning experiences on how to grasp some very slippery eels. But the eels should never forget that true fishermen always get better…and I love fishing.
As my business interests wind down these next many months (a process started last year), my energies increasingly turn to belling this cat for you. May not succeed, but am going to give it a serious go. Including a new ebook on some of this out somewhen soon that might get some US election traction. A complementary copy will be coming your way via our hostess.
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by Rud Istvan
Very well said. + E+X.
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by John Vonderlin
Dr. Curry,
Thank you for this post. Your mention of the Matthew Effect helped clear up for me why I am both incredibly intelligent and exquisitely beautiful. Why I should also be so devastatingly humble still remains a mystery though.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
