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

Comment on Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons by David Young

0
0

Fred, I note that the Lord Gavin has not come to your rescue on this thread despite your desparate pleas. Gavin’s a smart guy, but he has sold his soul to the idea of “communication of science”, a jealous god who generally rips to shreds his votives. I would suggest that there are a lot of other scientists who understand models at least as well as he does. Not that I claim to be superior to him, but you know science is about testing your mettle against other scientists. By the way, we need you to weigh in on the Judith’s latest post on models. Fred, where are you?


Comment on What can we learn from climate models? Part II by NW

0
0

Of course, on second thought, sometimes simulation methods actually ease the curse of dimensionality, but I mostly know of that in the context of estimation, as with simulated maximum likelihood and simulated method of moments estimations, which do also produce estimates of uncertainty in the estimates.

Since optimal control (mentioned by David Young) IS optimization, just as ML and GMM are, they might be wedded with simulation methods to produce relatively cheap (in a time sense) evaluations of uncertainty in complex models.

Comment on Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons by manacker

0
0

Vaughan Pratt

You write to Girma:

Of course the HADCRUT3VGL temperature will rise more than 0.06 C between 2011 and 2021. What are you talking about? You’re letting your obsession with WoodForTrees blind you to reality.

Vaughan, t show you how silly this statement is, I’m going to ask you to mentally transport yourself back to December 2001 and repeat exactly the same statement (minus 10 years):

Of course the HADCRUT3VGL temperature will rise more than 0.06 C between 2001 and 2011. What are you talking about? You’re letting your obsession with WoodForTrees blind you to reality.

Ouch!.

It actually cooled by almost 0.1 C.over that period.

Will it do so again?

I do not know. You do not know. Pekka does not know. Girma does not know. IPCC does not know. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Max

Comment on What can we learn from climate models? Part II by Peter Davies

0
0

Hector you said “Maximum sea levels were a little more than 200m above present level, not enough to “cover all land (except the highest Himalayan peaks)”.

If all the land can be seen as it was when it was called Gondwanaland and Laurasia you will see that the ocean around them is quite capable of covering them, by more than 2.5km in fact.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)

You are assuming that water will be coming from thin air and raising the oceans more than 200 metres on our present land formation.

Comment on What can we learn from climate models? Part II by John from CA

0
0

Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages

A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next seven thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/194/4270/1121

Comment on What can we learn from climate models? Part II by Captain Kangaroo

0
0

Bye, bye Miss American Pie
Granny drove the Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry
Them good ole boys were drinking whiskey in Rye
Singin’ this’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die

Hi-Ho Shibboleth

Comment on Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons by manacker

0
0

Web

I’m beginning to think you have a basic reading disorder.

You wrote:

Increase of greenhouse gases by 87%?
Co2 only has increased by 40%. Notice how Manacker has to stand up for a fellow skeptic no matter how ridiculous his claim is.

I did NOT write “increase of greenhouse gases by 87%”.

What I wrote, based on IPCC RF estimates for the various GHGs adjusted from 2005 to 2011. that the temperature increase from the increased concentrations of TOTAL GHGs was around 87% of the temperature increase to be expected from 2xCO2, rather than equal, as Lindzen had stated (so he was slightly off).

This was in response to a query by Robert regarding the.validity of Lindzen’s statement and a remark from our host that it sounded incorrect (although she had not checked it out).

Turns out it’s not exactly correct, but not that far off, either.

Get it?

Can you understand it now?

Not really too tough if you simply pay attention to what’s written.

Max

Comment on Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

I’m in no hurry. Let’s see how this all pans out once we have the HADCRUT3VGL reading for December 2021. See y’all in a decade’s time.


Comment on Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

Why is it a ‘gotcha’? Lindzen said ‘equivalent CO2′. Are you complaining that he’s wrong? Or that his remark is inconvenient to your ideas?

Neither, I’m just pointing out that what he’s attributing to the IPCC looks wildly wrong until you wade through the whole report to find the sentence buried deep in there that supports his statement.

Have you done this yet? Judging by the reactions to Lindzen’s talk it seems like a lot of people haven’t.

Comment on What can we learn from climate models? Part II by Brandon Shollenberger

0
0

Peter Davies, some time back I decided something like that would be a great resource for the hockey stick debate, though it couldn’t be an open Wiki. My idea was there would be individual pages on specific issues (as in, each point of contention), and each page would state the “right” answer. There would then be a “road map” of sorts which outlined how they all connected.

Doing it well would probably involve a lot of effort, but it would give people a clear map for discussions. It would allow people to easily figure out what they agreed and disagreed about. Imagine if a conversation started with, “We would agree with each other on this issue except I think you’re wrong on point 3.A.II.”

Of course, it would be far, far easier to do for a single issue like the hockey stick debate than for global warming as a whole. For that debate, it would be relatively easy to boil down basically all disagreements to disagreements to their factual issues, and thus be able to settle them. I don’t think that could be done for global warming as a whole, but a lot of progress could still be made.

Comment on Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@Friesen But please don’t attack Dr. Lindzen for using a well-established term,

I wasn’t, I was attacking him for claiming it was in the IPCC report. A casual reading of the report gives a very different impression.

Comment on Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons by Brandon Shollenberger

0
0
manacker, I think you misspoke: <blockquote>that the <b>temperature increase</b> from the increased concentrations of TOTAL GHGs was around 87% of the <b>temperature increase</b> to be expected from 2xCO2, rather than equal, as Lindzen had stated (so he was slightly off).</blockquote> The parts I made bold don't make sense as written. You meant the increase in forcings, not the increase in temperature, right?

Comment on What can we learn from climate models? Part II by Peter Davies

0
0

It would stop the current circular debates that we currently have Brandon and that real progress can be made on a series of specific issues. Agreed that the wikis cant be open to everybody because it would just lead to argumentation.

Comment on Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons by manacker

0
0

Web

I see that Brandon Shollenberger has tried to explain the question regarding the validity of Lindzen’s claim (that the net impact since pre-industrial times of the increases of ALL GHG concentrations is roughly equal to that of a doubling of CO2 alone).

He apparently has also made a rough calculation (as I did) coming to essentially the same conclusion.

The conclusion stands: Lindzen was not precisely right, but close enough.

If you can provide data to show otherwise, please do so.

Otherwise, stop your snarky remarks – they make you look silly..

Max

Comment on Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

Oh come on, Matthew, don’t be such a wet blanket. Josh’s cartoons were inspired.

I especially liked “Trust me, I’ve been doing this for 4.5 billion years,” which put me in mind of my wish to see the unexpurgated version of my life flash before my eyes. My two fears are that it will be released early, and that I’ll blink during the scenes edited from the PG-13 edition.

The opportunity to ignite 200 million years accumulation of fossil fuel in a mere 200 years only happens once in the lifetime of a planet. It’s like a magnesium-powered flashbulb going off. The opportunity to do it again on Venus has passed, assuming that’s even what happened there. At surface temperatures hot enough to eliminate all seismic activity by making the surface plastic there is no fracking way to tell (or any other way).

Unless, that is, the third rock from the Sun shields the second rock therefrom with a parasol in the 25th century and then waits a few million years for it to cool down. Maybe in this way Venus and Earth can pass the baton of life back and forth until the fruitcakes on the extreme left or right on whichever planet has the upper hand gets the upper hand. (Democracy is not compatible with picosecond online trading.)

The curious thing is that it’s not the heat from the flashbulb, which is hardly anything. It’s the Sun, stupid, whose incoming heat is trapped by the burnt flashbulb and is millions if not billions of times the heat from the original flashbulb itself. That’s what’s happening on Venus today. There but for the grace of common sense goes Earth.

But hey, we’ll all be long dead and gone before anything like that happens on Earth. What, me worry? I’m just the messenger, my only worry is being shot at by extremists for pointing out the obvious. ;) Fortunately I’m as good at dodging electrons as Neo and Trinity are at dodging real (?) bullets.

Lucretius


Comment on Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons by hunter

0
0

Dr. Pratt,
What is it with you guys and Venus? It is sort of creepy how implying Earth could be like Venus sticks around, no matter the differences that make it impossible.

Comment on JC interview by hunter

0
0

cnp,
The logical question your point raises is who kidnapped so many of the scientists out of climate science?

Comment on Week in review 3/2/12 by robin

0
0

I don’t think much of any of it goes to actual research. Oil has had plenty of subsidies with the ‘running out of oil’ boogy man, and then the ‘risk premiums’ due to instability in the ME etc. The more people that fear we’ll end up penniless and freezing in the dark if the greens get their way, the easier they have it. By easier, I mean direct subsidies tax breaks and grants, not just easier permits and reduced restrictions.

The military uses ‘terrorism’, finance uses ‘depression’, churches use ‘hell’, greens use CAGW, the prison system uses ‘surging violent crime’, politicians use everything they can reach. Heartland etc definitely use ‘eco freedom haters’ to raise money (and they don’t pay tax), but no argument they are less successful by many orders of magnitude than the green side.

I’m just saying it is easier to get resources with controversy, so a lot of that is generated. Not sure how physicists have pulled it off all these years, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they discover some unprecedented-impending-doom(TM) when looking to finance the next large collider : ).

Comment on Week in review 3/2/12 by Beth Cooper

0
0

Stefan@ 3/12 12.01

Yep! Bob Brown has his own agenda, ‘guilt and maidens,’ (H/T Kim.)
Water will be rationed and cost HEAPS.

There are lots of trees where I live, Stefan. I guess I’ve planted a small forest myself. Sheokes whisp’rin in the wind, magpies chortlin in the eucalypts
‘and
the goat footed
balloon man whistles
far
and whee.’

(e.e.cummings.)

Comment on Week in review 3/2/12 by robin

0
0

(specifically, the reason there is no funding for ‘skeptical research’ the goal of industry is to have private enterprise subsidized – climate research doesn’t help them much. You have to look at the subsidies they get to compare, how they use them doesn’t matter. I think you can go category by category – research, exploration, development, infrastructure, etc and you will find it pretty gigantic on both sides).

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images