Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Nick Stokes

0
0
<i>AK | August 18, 2014 at 8:34 am | "You need to control your paranoia."</i> No, just misunderstanding, for which I apologise. I asked Rud to provide quotations; you responded after intervening material, and I didn't notice the change of author. <i>"How many of the “investigations” listed in the brief actually considered “fraud” on Mann’s part"</i> There is no implication that they all did that in the title. This is just a lawyer's recital of facts that they believe will aid their case. Whether it does will be argued; some may not. There is no claim that each item on its own exonerates Mann.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Michael

0
0

Away with your pesky facts Nick Stokes.

Burn the Mann-witch, burn him!!

Comment on Open thread by AK

0
0

@FOMBS…

This is really over the top! The blockquote you excerpted from NR’s brief is actually a quote, by them, of “Judge Combs Greene’s conclusion that the speech at issue is not protected as a matter of law”:

Without addressing the context of the heated public controversy over the hockey stick, the court adopted Judge Combs Greene’s conclusion that the speech at issue is not protected as a matter of law. Again relying on dictionary definitions, the court held that the speech could be interpreted as a literal accusation of data falsification, and if it is so interpreted, then “[a]ccusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations.” J.A. 163. The court acknowledged that “[a]ccusing [Dr. Mann] of working ‘in the service of politicized science’ is arguably a protected statement of opinion,” J.A. 163 n.6, but held that, “[f]or many of the reasons discussed [by] Judge Combs Greene[] . . . to state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation.” J.A. 164.

Will anybody ever trust FOMBS to provide accurate links and quotes again? The world wonders!

Comment on Open thread by aaron

0
0

Don’t forget the biological component. Plants and animals will consume more of these molecules over time. Shell fish will grow bigger shells etc.

Comment on Open thread by cwon14

0
0

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_global-warming.html

And if human emissions were behind rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, he argues, then the change in CO2 each year should track the carbon dioxide released that year from burning fossil fuels—with natural emissions of CO2 being canceled out by reabsorption from land sinks and oceans. But the change of CO2 each year doesn’t track the annual emission of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, as shown in Figure 1, which charts annual emissions of CO2, where an annual increase of one part per million is approximately equivalent to an annual growth rate of 0.25 percent.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

“There is no claim that each item on its own exonerates Mann.’
That will certainly impress the court!
None of them exonerate Mann.
Thank you Nick

Comment on Open thread by aaron

0
0

It’s often found that species adapt far faster than evolution would predict. Likely, many species have already adapted to these conditions genetically and simply await envornmental cues which will turn on traits and promote or inhibit the transfer of some genes.

Comment on Open thread by NW


Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

Mann’s original complaint reads

“In response to these accusations academic institutions and governrmental entities alike, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Agency and the National Science Foundation have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, and found the allegations of fraud to be baseless. Every such investigation have concluded…. ”

Every such, Nick. Then the list.

Steyn will have a him. :)

Comment on Open thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

Rob asked, “Are American civilians so different from Europeans or Aussies or Kiwis or Canadians that they have to be policed as if they’re cornered rebels in an ongoing civil war?”

Apparently so. “Getting tough with crime.” has been a popular political plank in the US since the first newspaper. Thanks to that, the US has the highest percentage of its population incarcerated in the world. We are number one. To keep the trend going we even have started incarcerating people that might possibly commit crimes. An ounce of prevention and all that.

Police though are people also and commit just as many crimes as the average population. For some reason, the police, even though there is a supreme court backed hiring policy to make sure police are not above average intelligence, are thought to be above average morally and ethically. That is the fantasy land mentality of the US and the ROW.

Comment on Open thread by jim2

0
0

Wow, down from 3.04 trillion miles to 2.97 trillion. That’s a relief.

Comment on Open thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

No Webster, the ensemble mean has already bit the dust and model conditions have to be reset due to the discrepancy. That doesn’t make long term predictions/projections/forecasts/swags with the current model generations very reliable.

The GFDL though has made a good deal of progress with their aqua and ridge world models that consider ocean heat transport a little more seriously. The Woods Hole model runs that happen to have that pesky century scale pacific “oscillation” are also looking a bit more pertinent. All of this tends to favor the lowest of the lower end “sensitivity” to CO2 estimates. My estimate is part of my handle doncha know.

Comment on Open thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

jim2 that’s about 110 billion vehicles miles, almost as good as the CFLB effort.

Comment on Open thread by Jim D

0
0

The linked paper also shows that the models equally underestimated the actual heating in the 15 years prior to the pause, 1984-1998, making it probably quite a good 30-year estimate overall.

Comment on Open thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

JimD, possibly but not likely. The problem is the “surface” being modeled. The models assume that that “surface” is close to some “equilibrium” with the upper atmosphere and the oceans. The “surface” is not and likely never will be in any quasi-steady state condition close enough to an “equilibrium” for very long, making it a modeling nightmare. The models have a zeroth law problem. It is still thermo 101 Frame of Reference, KISS and ASSUME. Ocean models on a 71% ocean world are the way to go.


Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

0
0

‘Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.’ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

There have been some advances in decadal prediction based on initialised SST. So I suppose that those models that accidentally mimic SST will show improved decadal skill.

It must be remembered that this is no surprise. It was this element of natural variability adding to and reversing warming that was central to doubting the AGW collective. The expectation is that the current cool mode will persist for 20 to 40 years based on past behavior. Beyond that yet cooler modes seem more likely than not as cold deep water upwelling intensifies to pre 20th levels – with a biological boom as nutrients are brought up from the deep. This is the pattern of the past 1000 years.

e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=193

Like the notion that ENSO sums to zero – the boundary problem meme is a myth of the AGW collective. Which was of course the point of the joke that ‘know nothing’ webby failed to get as usual. It is simply wrong. Models are coupled, nonlinear chaotic systems and solutions diverge unpredictably with time as a result of small changes – within a range of feasible inputs – in both ‘initial’ and ‘boundary’ conditions.

‘AOS models are members of the broader class of deterministic chaotic dynamical systems, which provides several expectations about their properties (Fig. 1). In the context of weather prediction, the generic property of sensitive dependence is well understood (4, 5). For a particular model, small differences in initial state (indistinguishable within the sampling uncertainty for atmospheric measurements) amplify with time at an exponential rate until saturating at a magnitude comparable to the range of intrinsic variability. Model differences are another source of sensitive dependence. Thus, a deterministic weather forecast cannot be accurate after a period of a few weeks, and the time interval for skillful modern forecasts is only somewhat shorter than the estimate for this theoretical limit. In the context of equilibrium climate dynamics, there is another generic property that is also relevant for AOS, namely structural instability (6). Small changes in model formulation, either its equation set or parameter values, induce significant differences in the long-time distribution functions for the dependent variables (i.e., the phase-space attractor). The character of the changes can be either metrical (e.g., different means or variances) or topological (different attractor shapes). Structural instability is the norm for broad classes of chaotic dynamical systems that can be so assessed (e.g., see ref. 7). Obviously, among the options for discrete algorithms and parameterization schemes, and perhaps especially for coupling to nonfluid processes, there are many ways that AOS model equation sets can and will change and hence will be vulnerable to structurally unstable behavior.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

Comment on Open thread by Jim D

0
0

captd, so you’re saying the observed pause isn’t a real thing anyway? There are skeptics who don’t believe in the whole concept of a surface temperature, but these have been quiet lately.

Comment on Open thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

JimD, “captd, so you’re saying the observed pause isn’t a real thing anyway?”

I am not saying it isn’t real, just it doesn’t mean much. It is likely that at least 50% of the less than useful “global mean temperature” increase is due to “other” than atmospheric co2 “forcing”. Instead of the little ice age recovery ending in 1900 it more likely ended or came as close to ending around 1995, so now we can actually start “seeing” the impact of CO2 “forcing”. That 1900 date was just one of many questionable “assumptions”.. .

Comment on Open thread by Bob Ludwick

0
0

@ jim2

“Wow, down from 3.04 trillion miles to 2.97 trillion. That’s a relief.”

So can we assume that the reduction in miles driven is primarily due to the fact that people who have gone from employed to unemployed are no longer driving to work every day?

Comment on Open thread by Jim D

0
0

captd, so when the models and observations both have 0.2 C per decade for 30 years, and 0.7 C since 1950, your preferred view is that it is just one long-term coincidence rather than just a scientific success.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images