There are very few climate scientists with the integrity and courage to be on the skeptic side.
More of the “evil scientist” meme* *yawn*
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/26/mikes-nyt-trick/
Note Jean S comment 26/09 @ 11.48am re Mann’s
comment to Jones about MBH98 trick.
↧
Comment on Week in review by rls
Found this in one of the comments at physics today:
Koonin has an annotated version of his article at cusp.nyu.edu
At the bottom of the page click people, then Koonin,, then the + on the publications bar
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Jim D
Two things are known with a high degree of accuracy: the CO2 forcing rate of change and the temperature rise. Where disagreements begin is how to fit these numbers to total forcing and transient climate sensitivities. With these constraints you can have a range from high forcing rates of change and low sensitivity to low forcing rates of change and high sensitivity. For example, a high forcing rate of change of 0.5 W/m2 per decade, as is consistent with Lewis and Curry, goes with a low sensitivity, like 0.3 C per W/m2, while a lower forcing rate of change like 0.3 W/m2 goes with a high sensitivity like 0.5 C per W/m2. These both give a product of 0.15 C per decade to agree with observations, but with different forcings due to uncertainty. Using temperature change per CO2 forcing increase avoids most of these uncertainties. It just assumes that the total forcing is proportional to CO2 forcing even without knowing if it is more or less than the CO2 forcing. This is where you get TCR = 2 C per doubling from.
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Joseph, “What I mean by “skeptic: is being skeptical of AGW and its effects as described by the IPCC.”
Most here aren’t skeptical of AGW, just the way it is described by the IPCC. We tend to notice the errors and additions that just don’t fit with AGW, like models that are no where near ready for prime time. I think just about everyone on this blog would be delighted to support reduction in black carbon/particulates and improve land use remediation, plus most are aware that productive things are being done in spite of the IPCC.
The IPCC basically has lost most of its credibility.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
Correction. @ 12 .51pm.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
Rob,
You are right. Scientist should be skeptical and not accept that any particular paper is the final word on a subject. But scientists work in a theoretical framework where certain assumptions must be made. If the assumptions or theory ends up being disproved,then they must accept that as well.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
Capt,
I don’t think most people here have the expertise to criticize the science. I know I don’t. For example, have you ever worked on a GCM? How much of the literature have you read on GCM’s?
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rob Ellison
We don’t know the forcing because we don’t know what the albedo changes were. Even where there is data – it is dismissed.
The temperature change since 1944 – the period of most CO2 increase – is some 0.4 degrees C. !944 is the cusp of the change to cooler temps – and 1998 likewise. The cusps of multi-decadal natural regimes. A convenient reality.
Assuming it is all anthropogenic – a big call – TCR is some 0.8 degrees C.
If you are going to play with numbers – play fair.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
I thought Robert Kennedy Jr had them arrested and sent to the Hague for Climate war crimes?
↧
Comment on Week in review by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Fitting since he refers to himself as a “drama queen”.
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
The link to Steyn doesn’t work.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
I am a hydrologist with a Masters in environmental science – I have run models for a lot of my life.
Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
I have read quite a lot – and above is a couple of other names – Tim Palmer and Julia Slingo. Tim Palmer is head of the European Centre for Mid-Range Weather Forecasts and Julia Slingo is the head of the British Met Office.
Work it out – you need more than memes and prejudices to play here Joseph.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Self deprecating humour becomes an opportunity for the Master of Malice and Misinformation?
Go away – webby – no one’s impressed and you will never recover from your Bose-Einstein meltdown.
↧
Comment on Week in review by phatboy
Wow! What a back-slapping, high-fiving echo chamber that is!
Just about the only voice of reason there is Pekka.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
Rob, well go ahead publish something in a reputable journal since you seem to have all the answers.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Joseph | September 26, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
Rob,
You are right. Scientist should be skeptical and not accept that any particular paper is the final word on a subject. But scientists work in a theoretical framework where certain assumptions must be made. If the assumptions or theory ends up being disproved, then they must accept that as well.
Science and the Borg collective echo chamber that is ATTP – are 2 very different things.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Joseph, “I don’t think most people here have the expertise to criticize the science. I know I don’t. For example, have you ever worked on a GCM? How much of the literature have you read on GCM’s?”
There are quite a few here that are qualified actually. Myself, I can just compare the ensemble mean to observation and see things aren’t following the game plan and it is not hard to compare region “projections” with regional observations. It isn’t really rocket science. Most here were mentioning the Pause, Hiatus, Slowdown or stand still long before it was even acknowledged by the modelers. The Himalayan glacier melt “not a typo” was pretty obvious. When there is a glaring error and one of the authors admits that it was left in order to stimulate action, you would have to be pretty blind not to notice doncha know.
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
You mean like the breakdown of big bang as it gets closer to singularity? I suspect it’s quite possible.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
From the article:
…
Usually when there is trouble in the Middle East, oil prices spike. However, despite recent airstrikes on oil refineries in Syria, that wasn’t the case Thursday. Crude held steady in choppy trading, and Dennis Gartman said the reason for the muted reaction is twofold.
“We are, in fact, creating a lot more, finding a lot more, producing a lot more crude oil here in the United States than anyone would have guessed a mere two years ago,” Gartman, editor and publisher of “The Gartman Letter” said in an interview with “Closing Bell.”
In addition, he said, demand for gasoline is down and that had been the real product driving prices to the upside.
…
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
