For as long as he is the executive he will do everything in is power to support the goals of EU and as he sees it that means blaming US oil companies for causing global warming, printing money to buy votes and blaming the productive for working.
Comment on JC interview on science communications by Wagathon
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by kim
Adds new meaning to ‘redlining’.
=============
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by vukcevic
Gavin never deleted any of my comments, he just dispatches them, more often than not, to the Bore Hole, which by all accounts contains the most interesting blog comments.
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by PA
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:”He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”.
Sole-executive agreements are valid – but only for agreements that may be dropped at will by either party. Since, at present, there is no way for congress to pass a law with sufficient majority to override a presidential veto, any agreement would be in place until saner executive leadership is elected.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by willard (@nevaudit)
> Historically the development of the lukewarmer position BEGAN with attribution assignments.
Our dynamic duo indeed pretends that the lukewarm gambit is about attribution on p. 30 of their pamphlet:
The next faction is referred to as the “Lukewarmers,” a term coined [at the Auditor's] and perpetuated [at Lucia's].
[Lukewarmers] tend to attribute the warming seen to date to a variety of sources: GHGs, land use changes, Urban Heat Island, and natural variability.
Interestingly, the quote does not say who came up with the term. Here’s one of the oldest occurrence of “lukewarm” at CA:
(Whoever called me an anti-warmer hasn’t read my posts. At least 3 times I’ve dared to classify myself as an uncertain luke-warmer.)
Comment by bender “¢’¬? 3 October 2006 @ 11:12 pm
http://climateaudit.org/2006/10/04/the-georgia-tech-report-card/#comment-65792
Our emphasis. So our bending machine is one of the first to use that term on CA. Here’s another hit, this time by David Smith:
Emanuel focuses on anthropogenic factors (CO2, aerosols) as the drivers behind late-20’th century global warming. As a lukewarmer, I’m inclined to believe the warming has been due to a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors, and I don’t know which is bigger.
http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/08/new-emanuel-presentation/#comment-69686
So the question remains: who exactly coined the term “lukewarmer”?
***
Come what may, as far as I can tell, the Pope of lukewarmism is Dick, e.g.:
The scientific basis for current projections of significant warming due to enhanced minor greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is reviewed. Care is taken to distinguish the issue of changes in radiative forcing at the earth’s surface from the issue of the climatic response to this forcing. With respect to the former, it is noted that the predicted forcing is, in fact, small (2 W m−2 at the surface for a doubling of CO2, or less than 1% of the absorbed solar flux). With respect to the latter, it is noted that predictions of significant warming are dependent on the presence of large positive feedbacks serving to amplify the response. The largest of these feedbacks in current models involves water vapor at upper levels in the troposphere. This feedback appears to be largely a model artifact, and evidence is presented that models may even have the wrong sign for this feedback. The possibility is examined that the response of climate to major volcanic eruptions may provide a test of the climate system’s amplification. The basis for this possibility is the fact that the response delay of the ocean-atmosphere system is proportional to the system gain.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0269749194900302
According to this example, lukewarmism is a strategy that reduces feedbacks as much as warrants justified disingenuousness. Dick’s claim seems below today’s limits of justified disingenuousness, since it’s far from clear that the actual lukewarm bet leads to an “insignificant” warming.
What matters, for our purpose, is to observe that the main strategy remains the same: minimizing the projected warming as much as can allow justified disingenuousness.
***
Feedbacks has a direct impact on sensitivity, and anyone who “read the blog” (H/T bender) can attest that “but feedbacks” always was an important move. But feedbacks are complex, and the appeal to ignorance is too obvious. So instead of arguing from feedback, the main battle cry has now become a number related to sensitivity, i.e.:
Your a lukewarmer if you think the future warming will be less than .2C
http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/24/the-50-50-argument/#comment-621395
A specific number does not seem that important, as long as it’s “lower”:
That component is the sensitivity of our atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2. The activists who have tried to dominate the discussion of climate change for more than twenty years have insisted that this sensitivity is high, and will amplify the warming caused by CO2 by 3, 4 or even 10 times the 1C of warming provided by a doubling of CO2 alone.
Lukwarmers, for a variety of reasons, think it’s lower.
We don’t know what sensitivity is. In fact, there is more than one type of sensitivity and more than one definition. That doesn’t help matters.
That sensitivity is “lower” is not a very crisp assignment. Sometimes, that looseness helps define lukewarmism as the only rational position available between denial and alarmism. In any event, we can see that lukewarmism is mainly a story about lukewarmism.
***
If somebody could produce a lukewarm attribution assignment similar to Judy’s 66-33, I’d gladly stand corrected. To be able to see a complete generalization of the lukewarm gambit would certainly be great. It could help me complete that other project of mine:
http://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
Many thanks!
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by Wagathon
Does golfing cause brain damage?
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by timg56
RE:
Are virologists advocating if they recommend on-the-ground treatment protocols for Ebola? – I’d call that advisement.
Were chemists advocating when they recommended action be taken to stop destruction of atmospheric ozone? In a word, yes. Since it is appearing that they were wrong as to what was actually happening.
Were computer scientists advocating when they recommended steps be taken to avoid the Y2K problem? Perhaps not advocating, but they were certainly overhyping the threat. (Not a good example David when you are trying to tie these back to climate science.)
Or should all of these scientists just study the science, and leave all real world recommendations to others?
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by Fernando Leanme
Kim, instead of the invasion fleet I would have secretly financed Scottish separatists, encouraged the English to start a war with France and at the same distributed pamphlets touting climate change to encourage the crown to colonize Greenland.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Rob Ellison
There is no contradiction as seems evident from what I said. The science I referenced is consistent with what Salby said – the science is what is important and not a random video presentation or 2.
Webby was whining that I was some privileged twerp. I am far from that.
And I am laid up again with my foot – it gives me both time to comment (as well as watching Sherlock Holmes on Youtube) and impatience at clueless twits who are incapable of coherent, substantive and coherent argument.
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by Fernando Leanme
US foreign policy has been very ineffective for 22 years. I don’t see any improvement within the next 50 years.
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by jim2
All the world’s a green, and all the men and women merely peasants.
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by Svend Ferdinandsen
That sentence is very actual now regarding J Marohasy. “Taking the Temperature”.
Regarding communication as such, it is all about advocating and politizising, not science.
I cant see why the climate community are so keen on the communication. They have had all the media all time in more that 20 year.
It might just be that the science behind is a bit unconfounded.
It is not concistent with anything, even when we are told so for every weatherevent.
I would say, they have stressed the bow to the breaking point, and are now complaining we don’t get it because of communication!
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by Wagathon
In the link to ‘The Hill,’ where it says, “Climate plan spooks Dems,” I wonder if, e.g., “cows the Dems” may be more accurate (as in ‘having a cow over it), or perhaps, e.g., “bulldozes the Dems,” since they seem to be running from global warming as elections near, as opposed to connoting something that simply scares, unnerves or alarms Dems — although, for those in close races, the plan seems to “panic the Dems.” When it comes to deniers, such a plan is not even ‘shocking,’ coming from the Left, as it’s obvious this is the sort of thing you do to be awarded a Nobel.
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by clivebest
Why I think the answer is 75:25.
Gavin posted a response to Judith on <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/" rel="nofollow">realclimate</a>. His main point (so far as I understand it) is that the IPCC AR5 attribution result is based on temperature data since 1950 and not 1970 ( the minimum of the AMO cycle). However, he avoids the full consequences of the new independent evidence of an AMO 60y quasi-harmonic signal.
To see this, lets stick with the IPCC post 1950 time scale. The argument concerns figure 10.5 in AR5 - <a href="http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Attribution-forcing.png" rel="nofollow">see here</a>. The ‘Observed temperature’ rise since 1950 is given as 0.65±0.05 C, while both NAT and Internal Variability are shown as 0.0±0.1 C.
Tung and Zhou (2013) present evidence of an AMO induced natural 60y signal with an amplitude of about 0.1C. The correct way to remove this natural variation from the analysis is to compare two dates that are in phase with the AMO oscillation. Therefore the start date should really be 1940 and not 1950.
<a href="http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TCR-plot.png" rel="nofollow">See this graph for the result</a>
This shows that the net observed temperature rise since 1940 is just 0.45±0.05 C. So when comparing this result to figure 10.5 we see that the 'INT' component should really have been 0.2±0.05 due to a latent AMO component, while the ANT component should have been ~0.45±0.05 for the same reason.
Therefore the PDF Bell curve that Gavin showed in his realclimate post claiming that 110% of warming is anthropogenic since 1950, should instead have demonstrated that GCMs exaggerate warming to about 150% of the observed temperatures . Models are overestimating AGW by 50%,
So for the IPCC report should have been
75-25 ANT/NAT
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Steven Mosher
poor scholarship.
read every post.. your in the wrong year.
the use preceded the formal definition.
google wont help you with this search.. and neither will I.
benders law. read it all
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by Michael Larkin
Know why you’re successful in engaging with the public, Judith? Above all, I think it’s because you possess integrity and honesty. That’s the way to get people to listen. It took a while when you started your blog for me to allay my suspicions about your motives, but you won me over because you demonstrated the aforesaid qualities: and too many advocates lack them.
We laypeople may not always be able to grok the science, but we usually have no difficulty judging whether communicators possess the two qualities. That has a crucial effect on whether or not we pay attention to them. This is such a simple point that it amazes me how much hand-wringing puzzlement there is amongst “communicators” who aren’t actually seeking to communicate, but to indoctrinate. They genuinely seem incapable of enough self-reflection to gauge how they appear to their audience, and how they’re shooting themselves in the foot.
Good communicators aren’t sure about everything, know they aren’t sure, and aren’t afraid to openly say so. The more certainty they express, the more our BS detectors quiver. We may not be scientists, but most of us have learnt the hard way that certainty rarely exists, and a feeling of it has often been our downfall. So as we grow older, we tend to become more and more unsure: once upon a time that was thought of as increasing in wisdom, and was respected.
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by Wagathon
US foreign policy in Iraq was very effective (in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and deposed the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein. ~wiki): 3 weeks. It would have been about 2 weeks if not for Turkey. It was humanitarian policy afterward that was ineffective –e.g., even American women could care less about the liberation of Arab women and children from oppression and the American Left sees only America as being evil.
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by willard (@nevaudit)
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by Steven Mosher
you see willard if you knew how to read OR search
you would find the origin.
when the question was first posed it was done on the basis of priors
related to the attribution question.
The priors of lukewarmers averaged around .2, and warmists averaged
around .6
But this definition was based on a small poll of CA readers.
Willis had a prior of .3
As time went on and folks wanted a better definition, I offered up a couple
that were based on sensitivity.
And yes, the estimates are lower. That’s were the data pointed.
in 2008, you’ll recall that we argued the models were running too hot.
and yes, we were right.
and yes I RAISED the estimate from what bender said the lukewarmer position was.
bender supplies the link. you could also read lucia’s
or learn to DAFS
↧
Comment on JC interview on science communications by Alexander Biggs
It has always been my view that scientists should be responsible for explaining their work to anyone who will listen
, in the language of the recipient. That is, one can’t hide behind a barrier of scientific jargon. Of course this can be difficult and may require unusual skills of explanation. This is where communication media can make it all the more difficult because, in theory media can be read by anyone. but in practice is mostly academia. For example, how does one explain internal vibration in a molecule to some one who does not have any idea of the composition of matter? Yet this has to be considered important in climate science.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
