Harold Doiron,
So you didn’t? Got it.
Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by GaryM
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by GaryM
Most boring sub-thread ever.
pre·dic·tion
noun \pri-ˈdik-shən\
: a statement about what will happen or might happen in the future
pro·jec·tion
noun \prə-ˈjek-shən\
: an estimate of what might happen in the future based on what is happening now
1fore·cast
verb \-ˌkast; fȯr-ˈkast\
: to predict (something, such as weather) after looking at the information that is available
sce·nar·io
noun \sə-ˈner-ē-ˌō, US also and especially British -ˈnär-\
: a description of what could possibly happen
All from Merriam-Webster online.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of (perturbed physics) model solutions. ‘ IPCC TAR 14.2.2.2
We can neither project or predict. This is a core mathematical reality that seems to elude most people.
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
JimD,
Here is a pretty good explaination of the hydrologic cycle. I guess it has mainly to do with convection and storage:
↧
Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Klimataktivisterna lägger in en ny växel: lögner och Cli-Fi - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
[…] Curry är inne på samma tema med flera intressanta […]
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by climatereason
JIMD
On the one hand you torture the data and claim an increase per decade much faster than has occurred and on the other you say context is everything.
Here is the historical context I quoted above
http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/09/week-in-review-23/#comment-616600
Do you really believe in this constancy of climate through the ages until Man altered things around 1900. In other words are you a hockey stick man?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by nottawa rafter
After reading this thread and others like it in recent days, Jim D seems to be the last man standing. He is being a good soldier and trying to protect the fort until the cavalry comes to the rescue. Where is the rest of his unit? The weight of the evidence in recent weeks is certainly on the side of uncertainty and caution and the others may be getting a queezy feeling and having some self doubt bubble up from their sub-conscious. Carry on Jim D, you are one brave soldier.
↧
Comment on Week in review by climatereason
nottawa
jimd has always been one of the most polite of the warmist group but recently he seems to be using data in a way which , if applied to sceptics, would be referred to as cherry picking or even inventing cherries.
lets hope he reverts to his normal style of posting using purely factual information, rather than one viewed solely through the distorting effect of an alarmist prism.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Role of Atlantic warming(?) in recent climate shifts by Vilnius
@ curryja
“probably the most important topics in climate dynamics research”
Climate dynamics? Oh no. Weather dynamics, atmospheric dynamics, ocean current dynamics, yes. But climate is something stable (at least in the interglacials).
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by phatboy
Jim D:
I am interested to know your method of getting an annual average from monthly averages.
When you state that some years are warmer/cooler than others then you have to provide the averages for those years as evidence.
Yearly averages are not the same as 12-month rolling averages.
A 12-month rolling average will make a warm year surrounded by cooler years appear cooler than a cool year surrounded by warmer years.
If you want to talk about smoothed data then talk about smoothed data – just don’t pretend it’s yearly data.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
==> “However, he did nothing to show that interpretation is actually applicable.”
I don’t know if it is applicable. It may or may not be. My point was to show the flawed logic of your comment where you indicated a particular interpretation when others could be possible.
I’m perfectly happy to accept that your interpretation may have been correct. Maybe the authors really were thinking that there would be no positive impacts and only moderately negative impacts – and thus be inconsistent with the IPCC characterization of “beneficial” meaning there would be a net benefit. I also doubt that the IPCC would be arguing that despite there being an overall net benefit, there wouldn’t be any negative impacts from moderate climate change.
Sorry for forcing you to respond to my comment, and thus forcing you to “waste [your] time,” Brandon. But in my own defense, you have told me a number of times now that you weren’t going to respond to my comments, so I was assuming that under that condition, I wouldn’t be forcing you to decide to respond.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Rob Ellison
‘Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.’
It is more applicable to building a nuclear reactor than gene therapy – despite both being powerful technologies in a social context of increasingly powerful – and therefore potentially dangerous – technologies. It leads inevitably to the need for control of the application – rather than the science – of powerful technologies. A 50 year moratorium on nuclear energy would – for instance – have had very little impact other than to avoid a legacy of hundreds of thousands of tons of intractable waste, decaying facilities that can’t be safely decommissioned and blighted landscapes.
Gene splicing seems one of those technologies that would benefit from an ordered implementation with very little downside – despite moralistic bleating about the dangers of sacrificing crop yields.
But it is not the precautionary principle that is applied to drugs and chemicals. It seems little enough to ask that drugs and chemicals dispersed in the population and environment be safe. This is the least that can be sought. It is a simple principle of consumer protection that existed long before the precautionary principle was formulated.
The precautionary principle is – however – strictly applicable to climate change. The confounding factor here is that energy is central to the realisation of human potential this century. The objective is a high growth and high energy future that will require pragmatic and creative approaches to emissions, land use, agriculture and conservation.
Both of these essays are superficial and forgettable. They are unfortunate and thinly argued knee jerk reactions to proposals for public safety – that seem in deep confusion to weakly critique the wrong and inapplicable principle.
Neither contain any practical alternatives – which makes it all irrelevant. Regulations for public safety are absolutely necessary. You may question rationally specific proposals but not the principle of consumer safety. Indeed in a rational view the precautionary principle is fairly unremarkable as well.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by NW
+1
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by NW
Exempting the status quo from an assessment of its risks, poorly understood features, and so on doesn’t sound like much of a rational decision making principle to me.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Joshua
=> “:Typically in the climate debate we are pitting a collective good against a private good –…”
This ignores uncertainties such as those from negative or positive externalities). Simply defining “good” in this context is “wicked.”
It also ignores the fact that “collective” good applies differently to different constituancies just as does “private good.”
It also ignores the complicated nature of defining some hard line that differentiates “collective good” from “private good.”
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by kim
Easy formula: Apply the Precautionary Principle to the Precautionary Principle. Now, you work it out in practice.
========================
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
“A number of the equations used in this paper have a lot of uncertainty the paper does nothing to highlight or account for. ”
If you’re refering to Zeke’s paper, then you are wrong.
The greatest uncertainties are in leakage rates and efficiencies.
Those are handled by sensitivity analysis.
As for his ham fisted handling of the damages argument.. he just doesnt get it.
Let me explain.
Today people who argue against gas, focus on the next 20 years and short term damages. they dont look 100 years out.
the literature suggests that damages 100 years out are greater than those 20 years out.
The whole paragraph helps
“Some economists who study the impacts of climate change on social and natural
systems argue that these impacts are highly nonlinear. They suggest that the
negative impacts on the world will be relatively modest for less than a degree or two
of warming, and that each additional degree of warming would bring significantly
more damages [8]. In this case, measures focusing on the longer-term forcing (e.g.
post-2050) would be preferred to reducing short-term forcing. If these economists
are correct, then likely CH4 leakage rates should not be as large a concern as CO2
emissions. The atmospheric concentration of CH4 can be rapidly reduced simply by
reducing CH4 emissions in the future, while the atmospheric CO2 we accumulate
today will persist for a long time regardless of future emissions [22, 23].
To recap. Those who want to kill gas as a bridge fuel want to focus on the next 20 years. we think the literature suggests that the damges 100 years out are more important.
apparently Brandon disagrees.. on some un known and un cited basis.
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by NW
Haven’t governments been messing around with the risks faced by citizens for well more than a century already? What is this portentious nonsense about a brand-new gee-whiz debate about a move from risk-taking to risk prevention? Can you say Bismarck and Beveridge? Honestly.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Paul Day
Give me any proposed innovation, any; and I can come up with a dozen ‘problems’ that you will have to prove don’t exist before I will let you proceed. This is insanity!
On the point of caution, just remember that maybe 20,000,000 people died because DDT was banned.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Luis Gutierrez
Just in case this might be of interest. They say not even the climate agreement being planned for 2015 would prevent passing the 2 C threshold. The precautionary principle doesn’t provide a magic formula, but I think it is a wise principle to keep in mind.
Expectations for a New Climate Agreement
Henry D. Jacoby and Y. H. Henry Chen
MIT Global Change Research Program, August 2014
http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt264.pdf
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
