What is this – ever moving goal-posts?
Umm, no, you offered up one argument and a “rebuttal.” I don’t really think the issue is with PCA as much as it is with the basic assumptions behind it.
Back-fitting. There nothing wrong with that, but there can be a discussion on appropriate levels.
Well, if it did turn out to be done at an inappropriate level, wouldn’t one possible result be “a decline”?
Steyn can say whatever he wants – there just may be consequences.
WTF!
You raised the issue of back-fitting, and what, now you’re saying it was just random speculation??
Solar is and will be a bad joke for replacing conventional generation capacity even if panel prices hit zero. Panel cost already is often not the main issue in making PV wildly uncompetitive. It’s the framing and tracking and backup systems and storage systems and installation and maintenance and land costs that get in the way. And it will always suffer in deaths per kilowatt-hour compared to nuclear or natural gas because of its decentralized nature, exposing thousands of people to interaction with it throughout the whole supply, installation, and operation chain. The fusion dreamers are in better shape than the PV dreamers.
TJA,
It’s pretty simple maths -they showed a 1% sample and here are saying that it produced a HS, over “99%” of the time.
Head:sand.
Michael,
Are your referring to this paper?
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
If so, perhaps you’re confused by the difference between Figure 1 and Figure 2?
Ross McKitrick just published this paper clearly explaining the policy implications of overestimating ECS and TCR. It includes a great explanation of the “fat tail” and pretty well debunks it.
Solar is and will be a bad joke for replacing conventional generation capacity even if panel prices hit zero. [blah blah blah] The fusion dreamers are in better shape than the PV dreamers.
http://freeradicalnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Ostrich-man-head-in-sand.gif
Ha ha ha! Classic Alinsky, make the enemy live up to impossible standards you have no intention of respecting yourself.
TJA the standards in question are the ones that Dr. Curry claims all scientists should live up to including herself. If they are impossible to live up to then don’t you think we need to think more about those standards?
thx for the link
Faustino
Great comments. Some observations. Today 21 million US households have incomes of $100,000 or over . During the “good ol days” of so called income equality in1963 there were 2.5 million households with incomes equivalent to $100,000. The median real family income today is twice what it was in 1963. The top marginal tax rate in 1963 was 91%. The effective rate was 13.8%. The top marginal tax rate in 1988
was 28%. The effective rate was 13.6%. Top marginal tax rates appeal to economic illiterates and they give a punitive satisfaction but they are meaningless in generating revenue. Clinton suggested raising the minimum wage to reduce income inequality. Adding $2 per hour to the wage of the 3.3 million earning at or below minimum wage generates at most $12 Billion to the current $12 Trillion personal income total. These ideas appeal
to the emotional sides of our brains but do little else.
I think I put this in the wrong thread. It’s hard to figure out how to reply here.
Michael said:
It’s pretty simple maths -they showed a 1% sample and here are saying that it produced a HS, over “99%” of the time.
You are making a very serious charge here. You are claiming that M&M lied in their paper. Because the paper very clearly states that the 99% figure applied to ALL of their data, as does Fig. 2, which quantifies the effect. In essence, you are accusing M&M of scientific fraud. Which, by your own standards, should be actionable if it is not true.
So please provide a citation to some evidence that M&M were lying in their paper, and that your claim is not just random libel.
‘Here we show that observed multidecadal variations of surface climate exhibited a coherent global-scale signal characterized by a pair of patterns, one of which evolved in sync with multidecadal swings of the global temperature, and the other in quadrature with them.’
You are full of obvious nonsense on both counts. There is no change simply because the AMO is the focus of someone else’s attention. You were obviously wrong and now claim that Wyatt and Curry changed the focus. There is no ‘coherence’ with the surface temperature by the nature of the propagating signal. There is no suggestion that all of these patterns have a direct influence on temperature.
Yeah, Michael. Show us where on what blog you read that.
fizzy, “You are making a very serious charge here. You are claiming that M&M lied in their paper?”
An anonymous troll cannot make a serious charge. Nick Stokes, not anonymous and qualified to make a serious charge appears to be dancing around doing that, but as far as I can tell, is only supported by anonymous trolls. There are more than enough non anonymous, qualified individuals that dislike M&M to jump on the band wagon if things were serious. So far, they can only celebrate their trashing of Wegman. If Nick had found anything substantial, I am sure he would have co-authors lining up behind him.
It’s basically fluff for his followers who already have opinions about Mann. Mann should have ignored him, but appears to also like the attention, so in a sense they deserve each other and they encourage those tweeting blogging masses to go down that rabbit hole with them. It’s a complete personality-driven sideshow.
+ a bunch
Yes, I don’t equate dripping disdain and name-calling with wit. On the left wing, what they do for wit (as we saw recently) is show people like Palin saying things like that there is a lack of truth at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue, which is funny because it is ironic (wrong address).
