My stochastic projection is that rationalists see AGW climate models for what they are: dead animals — climate models have zero predictive value:
(Demetris Koutsoyiannis et al., On the credibility of climate predictions)
Comment on God and the arrogant species by Wagathon
↧
↧
Comment on God and the arrogant species by ThePowerofXThePowerofX
Personally, I understand that people who don’t summarise the evidence correctly, (ab)use the ‘arrogant species’ and ‘Tower of Babel’ thing to support all kinds of rubbish.
Oliver will like like this one.
↧
Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Doug Cotton
I did attend the University of Sydney where I studied physics under Profs Harry Messel, Julius Sumner-Miller and Verner Von Braun from 1963 to 1966 inclusive before doing Economics and Business Adninistration at Macquarie University, making a total of 9 years tertiary education. I subsequently marked students’ university assignments and have operated tutoring services and tutored myself part-time in secondary and tertiary mathematics and physics, all of which required on going study beyond my formal education. I never said I was employed by any university. The marking arrangements were paid for privately by a lecturer who was too busy I guess.
Be careful, Pete, you’re treading close to the defamation line.
↧
Comment on God and the arrogant species by Willis Eschenbach
Koutsoyiannis, in my experience, is always worth listening to.
Thanks for this, Judith, good find.
w.
↧
Comment on God and the arrogant species by Wagathon
“… at the 30-year climatic time scale, the average correlation coefficient rises slightly to 0.237 for temperature and remains slightly negative (–0.046) for precipitation; however, the average efficiency values become tremendously negative, –81.6 for temperature and –49.5 for precipitation. This clearly shows that GCMs totally fail to represent the HK-type [Hurst-Kolmogorov behavior of] climate of the past 100–140 years, which is characterized by large-scale over-year fluctuations (i.e. successions of negative and positive “trends”) that are very different from the monotonic trend of climatic models. In addition, they fail to reproduce the long-term changes in temperature and precipitation (Fig. 8). Remarkably, during the observation period, the 30-year temperature at Vancouver and Albany decreased by about 1.5°C, while all models produce an increase of about 0.5°C … With regard to precipitation, the natural fluctuations are far beyond ranges of the modeled time series in the majority of cases …” (Ibid.)
↧
↧
Comment on God and the arrogant species by Wagathon
“… given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research.” ~Koutsoyiannis
↧
Comment on God and the arrogant species by David Wojick
They are not presenting a summary of evidence; they are presenting a theory, and a credible one at that. Your arrogance is helpful in this context.
↧
Comment on God and the arrogant species by Beth Cooper
‘Put the blame on Meme, boys, put the blame on Meme.’
(and on models that reproduce the hypotheses of their programmers)
(and on indulgences.)
H/T Rita Hayworth
↧
Comment on God and the arrogant species by Wagathon
“There is no scientific justification for some of the extremist economic and social penalties that a minority of zealots are trying to impose on the people of the world.” ~Koutsoyiannis
↧
↧
Comment on God and the arrogant species by Wagathon
Does everyone know who ‘they’ are? They are the same people who made Al Gore rich and hated G. Bush for standing in the way of Kyoto.
“… they are unable to predict weather beyond a week or two, yet in conjunction with the IPCC they presume to tell us what to expect over the next few decades.” ~Koutsoyiannis
↧
Comment on God and the arrogant species by Anteros
Yes – great post.
This seems to me to just about fall within the realms of ‘science’ but at the same time makes the point that it is less about ‘the science’ than many climate scientists would like to believe. Especially climate scientists that don’t like unpredictability and nasty, woolly vagueness.
But then, like Pekka, I think its less about the science than those people who don’t think it’s very much about the science..
↧
Comment on God and the arrogant species by Wagathon
IPCC scientists have already admitted the simple truth about computer climate modeling:
“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. … [T]he projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.” (Kevin Trenberth)
↧
Comment on New version of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature data set by Bruce
Malahat BC 2002 Dec
Only a 17.89 difference.
EC 2002-12:
MALAHAT |48.575 |-123.530 |BC | 4.1| 1| | 10.6| 0| -2.7| 1| | | | 3.0| 23| | | 1| | | | 416.5| 0.0|1014820
BEST:
7973 1 2002.958 -13.790 0.0050 31 -99
↧
↧
Comment on God and the arrogant species by Rob Starkey
If a system is too complex at a particular point in history to be fully understood and correctly modeled, that is NOT evidence of the existence or involvement of a supernatural being in the process.
It is frustrating to not fully understand an issue, but the climate is certainly not unique in this regard. Science does not yet understand what composes the majority of the matter in our universe. We don’t understand gravity, but we make use of it. Historically, humans have tended to form incorrect premature conclusions where the complexity exceeded the current knowledge. The climate seems yet another example of people jumping to conclusions without ample evidence.
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by Mark F
Uh, yeah, but why should a professor be immune to ridicule or criticism in response to their (IMO) arrogant display of hubris and intolerance?
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by Pat Cassen
Wojick is not Heartland's first venture into K-12 'education'. Fred, <a href="http://joannenova.com.au/2009/03/skeptics-handbook-spreads-en-masse-150000-copies/" rel="nofollow">here's</a> another reason to be dubious about Heartland's interest in contributing anything positive.
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by alfanerd
and pretending the “science is settled” is insulting. and wanting to regulate the lives of everybody on the planet based on faulty science is criminal and authoritarian. refusing to debate the faulty science which is the basis for your desire to regulate the lives of everybody is dishonest.
↧
↧
Comment on Gleick’s ‘integrity’ by huxley
ivp0: Great find!
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by MattStat
Kim Cobb: <i> Ironically, we cannot begin to have the kind of debates that you call for (is it “dangerous”? how much can we really say about regional impacts? how much should we invest in mitigation?) until we can all agree that anthropogenic CO2 is (very likely, to borrow a problematic phrase) warming the planet.</i>
You seem to have written that we can not debate the evidence regarding the relative strengths of the solar forcings (and roles of clouds, etc) and the <i> Anthropogenic </i> CO2 until after we have agreed that the <i>anthropogenic </i> CO2 is dominant.
↧
Comment on Teaching (?) the controversy by Anteros
OK – I confess. Gleick’s stuff was faked 
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
