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

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by kim

0
0

Heh, ‘William Webster, Contractor’ gets his credit. Thank you for the remembrance of Balzalgette; I’d not heard of him before.
=====================


Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by JimReedy

0
0

WHT/Joshua, is that not the same logic as applied by Lewandowski(?). etc. in going with the if you don’t agree with us you must have some mental problem… I believe a number of papers have been published along those lines

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by kim

0
0

Climate models do not a prison make.
============

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by Michael

0
0

kim,

I think you’ll find it’s reaching not quite as far as taking Biddles point and applying to climate science in general.

And let’s not forget how terribly concerned we are about Ethics.

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by mosomoso

0
0

A happy anecdote, kim:

Some twenty-five years before the inauguration of capital-C Climate Change, something astonishingly like it created the freakish North Sea Flood of 1953 (seems it was worse than they thought). Though Bazalgette’s original boiler engines had been phased out in 1913, the Prince Consort Engine was put back under steam to help with draining. It still worked!

Ah, but Prince Albert and Joseph Bazalgette were progressive before that word was used with a different meaning. Just like the Great Stink and North Sea Flood were manifestations of climate change – before “climate change” took on a very different meaning.

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by Steven Mosher

0
0

The most obvious piece of evidence looking at the number of IPCC sanctioned GCM experiments that were focused on looking at natural variability.

The funding effect and other biases express themselves in the questions ASKED not in the answers given.

So, you dont look for bias int he results.. you look for the questions that never get asked

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by phatboy

0
0

How about, is it unreasonable to assume that one large motivating factor in someone’s decision to become one more of a large and growing number of climate scientists, at least over the past two or three decades, has been a belief in the truth of CAGW and a strong desire to do their bit to “save the planet”?

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by Alexander Biggs

0
0

I agree that the Science Court ia not likely to work well in practice. That is because it is unlikely to escape the prejudices of the funder, To establish dissent, you need to do scientific work, not just sit on a bench and hear evidence.

The committee of APS members seems to be a better idea if they can come to some agreed position. Let us wait and see. It may be too much for individuals and may require the construction of a mathematical model which would require funding support.,


Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Rob Ellison

0
0

‘An important aspect in the theory of synchronization between coupled nonlinear oscillators is coupling strength. It is vital to note that synchronization and coupling are not interchangeable; for example, it is trivial to construct a pair of coupled simple harmonic oscillators whose displacements are in quadrature (and hence perfectly uncorrelated),
but whose phases are strongly coupled [Vanassche et al., 2003]. As such, coupling is best measured by how strongly the phases of different modes of variability are linked. The theory of synchronized chaos predicts that in many cases when such systems synchronize, an increase in coupling between the oscillators may destroy the synchronous state and alter the system’s behavior [Heagy et al., 1995; Pecora et al., 1997].’ http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/21743.pdf

The important relationship in the climate indices – these measured values that capture important modes of climate variability – behave like systems of coupled nonlinear oscillators. The theory of synchronous chaos. It is important to understand what is being demonstrated and why. We get back to network maths that John was so disparaging of.

The abrupt changes in the system are fairly obvious – e.g. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif

When did the ‘Great Pacific Climate Shift’ happen? Was there a shift in 1998/2002? Can we predict the approach to a shift using coupling strength between the network of nonlinear oscillations?

‘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

The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.

The theory of abrupt climate change is the most modern – and powerful – in climate science and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond.

The theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation. The new theory suggests that global warming is not guaranteed and that climate surprises are inevitable.

Makes sense as an explanation of climate data does it not?

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Rob Ellison

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by dennis

0
0

Litigation, regulatory control or shut down, and criminal prosecution. The FDA really likes to make examples of upper management and executives who have very little to do with the day to day science decisions. At my company (and I would think every pharma company), we are required to take annual GxP training (GMP is Good Manufacturing Practices and GLP Good Laboratory Practices)These are the regulations that the FDA uses. There is always a special session given to upper management. The message to them is always very clear. Peoples lives are in your hands, you are responsible to hire qualified people and have all the quality systems in place that will ensure that everything you produce meets FDA requirements. Failure to do so can result in criminal prosecution and there are many examples of this happening.

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

0
0

Baron Mannchausen.
==============

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by Faustino

0
0

Goldacre: “weird, unrepresentative patients.” I’m in a clinical trial of a cholestrol-lowering drug, I’d say I’m neither weird nor unrepresentative.

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

0
0

Mannchausen by proxy – “Mannchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) is a relatively rare form of science abuse that involves the exaggeration or fabrication of global warming by a primary climate scientist.”

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by Tom Fuller

0
0

I wonder why you don’t criticize Nascar for their obsession with cars, Joshua. They’ve never once criticized camels for slowness, ill temper or any of the other ills that we all know are associated with them.


Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by climatereason

0
0

Fan

You have surpassed yourself with putting forward as candidates those long dead and those whose knowledge of the climate has yet to become apparent. Poor examples, but I must confess I thought for your last link it would lead to Hansen so you do retain the capacity to surprise…

tonyb

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by beththeserf

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by JamesG

0
0

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that carbon dioxide is a climate driver beyond a spurious correlation with temperature in Antarctic ice cores where blinkered climate scientists talked up the supposed CO2-amplified warming phase but then just ignored the cooling phase that told them CO2 was obviously dominated by natural forces.

By contrast, there is quite a lot of data now telling us that CO2 is not a climate driver: We did the experiment of adding a large slug of CO2 to the air and the temperature stopped rising in 1997, the stratosphere stopped cooling in 1995 and the oceans showed no warming down to 700m when we replaced guesswork with accurate measurement in 2003. All of that was contrary to the notion of CO2 being a climate driver. The science is in and there is no need for alarm – just as in the 1970’s ice age scare and the acid rain scare where fossil fuels were also unfairly demonised.

Maybe just take your own advice, reread basic thermodynamics and remind yourself why heat by-passing the first 700m and settling in the deep ocean is unphysical. If you want to splutter that sometimes nature does the opposite to what we expect then try to apply that same thought to your inane dogma about CO2 being a climate driver. If you want to tell us that Enso is causing this pause then try to remember that skeptics told you that Enso likely created the heating phase and we were derided. If you deny that the pause even exists then at least face the fact that the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community has now left this type of reality-denial behind and finally faced up to what skeptics have been telling them all this time.

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by Joe Born

Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by Joe Born

0
0

“Give a new drug’s inventor the exclusive right to sell the drug for 15 years after the day the drug is approved by regulators in each nation.”

I gather the Patent Term Restoration Act was inadequate?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images