- RSS Channel Showcase 2948310
- RSS Channel Showcase 4822909
- RSS Channel Showcase 1438093
- RSS Channel Showcase 9055934
Articles on this Page
- 06/22/17--09:51: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--10:04: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--10:22: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--10:34: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--11:33: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--11:37: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--11:41: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--11:46: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--11:55: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--12:02: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--12:03: _Comment on The radi...
- 06/22/17--12:16: _Comment on The radi...
- 06/22/17--12:20: _Comment on Week in ...
- 06/22/17--12:21: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--12:24: _Comment on The radi...
- 06/22/17--12:30: _Comment on The radi...
- 06/22/17--12:31: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--12:38: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--12:43: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--12:46: _Comment on The radi...
- 06/22/17--12:46: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--12:49: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--12:52: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--12:56: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:06: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:07: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:11: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:14: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:22: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:24: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:25: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:27: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:45: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:50: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:53: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--13:58: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--14:00: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--14:00: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--14:00: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--14:14: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--14:17: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--14:21: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--14:22: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--14:25: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--14:42: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--14:47: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--15:04: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--15:10: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--15:22: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--15:31: _Comment on National...
- 06/22/17--12:20: Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
Dr. Michaels, if there is another national assessment, it should include a robust chapter on extreme temperatures in CONUS. Christy pointed out how extreme hot days in CONUS have decreased for over a century in his <a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf" rel="nofollow">2016 testimony</a>. I mimicked this and found a <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/16/on-the-decrease-of-hot-days-in-the-us/">similar result</a> ( as well as for the few consistently and persistently reporting stations outside the US for this period ).
I looked at the GHCN adjusted monthly data and also found <a href="https://turbulenteddies.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/on-the-decrease-of-hot-and-cold-months-in-the-us/" rel="nofollow">similar results</i>.
The interesting thing to me is that, while the distributions are messy, there is indication of a <i>decrease</i> of temperature variability. This is a result that has been predicted by numerous models of global warming since at least Manabe & Wetherald 1979.
The IPCC doesn't appear to have gotten the word. While it's only a conceptual tool, they consider changes in mean and variability, <b>remarkably leaving out the condition thought to occur, namely increasing mean with decreasing variability!</b> Such a response imposes fewer cold and hot extremes, with most of the mean increase occurring near the middle:
And that is what appears to have happened over the last 112 years for CONUS:
How about Dr Curry, Dr Singer and Dr STeve Koonin?
It doesn't matter whether it's one or two reports. The media will only report what suits their agenda. They will stick with the 97% consensus BS. Let them have their fun. We don't need to worry about any BS reports. Trump Rules!
But, willito. We have been sprung the Paris trap. Victory for the Freedom Fighters!
Neutral (that is, systematic) issue analysis is a hard sell. No one wants to pay to make their opponent's arguments clear, even though that is the only way to make their own arguments clear. I have toyed with an author pays model where everyone just pays to put their points on the public issue tree diagram. That might be fun.
Regarding the ‘reset’ button on National Climate Assessment process, I hope that they will have more skills than Secretary Clinton's 'reboot the relations with Russia' team. They came to a meeting with a big red button labeled in Russian to illustrate the concept. Unfortunately they mixed up Russian words 'perenagruzka' and 'peregruzka' and Hillary actually pushed a button reading 'overload'. I wonder if there was any Russian interference there.
Just like Freedom Fighters with Theresa "strong and stable"
"Reduced carbon gain as species diversity declines reduces carbon input to soil and, in some longer-term experiments, reduces soil carbon stocks." An extreme example of a reduced species diversity is a monoculture, be it of soy, potatoes, corn, or almonds. Long-term increases in agriculture production do not support that conclusion.
US national assessment are problematic for advocates, because the best long term measurements are from the US and concurrent with a century's global warming, those US measurements indicate:
* fewer extreme temperatures ( as above )
* no trend in CONUS drought
* fewer strong tornadoes since 1950
* no trend in US landfall hurricane frequency or energy
* fewer intense fires than 1,000 years ago
The US record indicates the nonsense of climate hysteria.
" You alarmists did that"
David Wojick would be on firmer epistemological and political ground pointing at a squirrel.
I am obliged to him for confirming the common sense of my first comment by directing his rant at someone whose criticism of climate hype - and data denial, began in Reagan's day in such alarmist journals as <i> National Review, The National Interest,</i> and <i>The Wall Street Journal</I>, and has continued un-interrupted in the scientific literature , to the public dismay of such as Carl Sagan, John Holdren and Naomi Oreskes to this day.
Thanks good sir!
Where do you think China sends its best students?
The only thing Stopping a red team is LACK OF PLAYERS.
We elected Trump and a Republican Congress, we have plenty of PLAYERS
Willard: "Just like Freedom Fighters with Theresa 'strong and stable'"
Theresa blundered - just one of those things. There are freedom fighters and then there are freedom fighters: -
Once news departments became just another business unit, real, informative, relatively unbiased news became RIP.
They better hope it stays bloodless, seeing as they are the same folks who deride at least half of their fellow citizens for clinging to their guns and their religion.
The self described anti-fascist's believe they are "protected" by the system of law and order they have grown up in. Therefore they feel free to upset that order in the belief nothing seriously bad can happen to them. They haven't a clue what would happen if the men and women in blue decided to take a break.
" Santer’s absurd claim to know the truth, such that others should not speak, is precisely why the red team is sorely needed."
Conspicuous as Santer's political partisanship may be, his published knowledge of the field of climate change and geophysice would make him no less useful to either team than say, out host. The same cannot be said of bibliographic blanks on the climate science map, David alas included.
In my limited experience, the success of past Red & Blue exercises has arisen from having an ample pool of scientists authentically disintersted enough to be switched from one team to another as a reality check
"David Wojick | June 22, 2017 at 7:08 am |
What climate projection effort? We do not know enough about climate to make meaningful projections. "
Please keep this man away from The Federal Reserve- if that's the way he thinks about radiative forcing and temperature inflation by CO2, God help us if he gets his hands on the money supply.
How about these guys
Benjamin D. Santer, John C. Fyfe, Giuliana Pallotta, Gregory M. Flato, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Ed Hawkins, Michael E. Mann, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Ivana Cvijanovic, Carl Mears, Frank J. Wentz, Stephen Po-Chedley, Qiang Fu & Cheng-Zhi Zou Given their new paper touting the failure of the models "Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates" https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html
I keep waiting for people to call politicians and media whenever they state Trump is anti - immigrant. That is a blatantly false statement. Anyone who is unable to differentiate between someone who is in the country illegally and someone who is not isn't worthy of being a part of the discussion. Trump is far closer to the ideal of American welcoming people to be a part of our society and take advantage of the opportunity to pursue their dreams than the jackals who constantly try to paint a false picture of him.
Santer would certainly be worse than useless on the red team. His scientific writings are pure alarmism.
I am beginning to think that you do not grasp the reality of the debate. Santer engages in what Kuhn might have called "paradigm protection" (a term that I have coined). His scientific work is primarily designed to rhetorically counter skeptical arguments. Like most alarmists, he has done very little actual science. He has however published a great many journal articles.
Yes, but that is not what they say in the Assessments, far from it. The question is how to get them to tell the truth? This is not an easy one to answer, because alarmism is deeply entrenched in the federal system.
You assume that the carbon content of cropland soil is maintained. That may or may not be the case.
"In Australia, soil carbon levels have dropped by up to half of pre-agricultural levels in many areas because of activities such as fallowing, cultivation, stubble burning or removal and overgrazing.2
Increasing soil organic carbon has two benefits – as well as helping to mitigate climate change, it improves soil health and fertility. Many management practices that increase soil organic carbon also improve crop and pasture yields."
Farmers all over the world are learning the lessons of soil health.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the K-Street warpath, this loud whoop was heard:
“<I>Bombshell papers have just hit the refereed literature that knock the stuffing out of the United Nations, and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In two research papers in…Geophysical Research Letters…we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the U.N.’s climate models have failed, as well as indicating its surface record is simply too hot.”</I>
Authors Singer & Michaels were dead wrong—the satellite data they cited was seriously in error—Christy & Spencer quite properly agreed to its retraction in <i>Science </I>in 2005 and told Newsweek in 2006:
“our satellite trend has been positive.”
I think it is all utter nonsense David.
"In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential." https://judithcurry.com/2017/06/21/national-climate-assessment-and-the-trump-administration/#comment-851599
They are talking here about perturbed ensembles - and the methods of diagnosis are still rudimentary. And we are still a little from modelling chaotic Earth systems.
<i>"The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts," says Prof. Latif. "We have taken a major step forward in terms of short-term climate forecasting, especially with regard to the development of global warming. However, we are still miles away from any reliable answers to the question whether the coming winter in Germany will be rather warm or cold." Prof. Latif cautions against too much optimism regarding short-term regional climate predictions: "Since the reliability of those predictions is still at about 50%, you might as well flip a coin."</i> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm
You have far from a realistic expectation of what is possible.
<i>Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist's expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel's theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.</i> http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
It is hard to break this cycle because the most predictable contrarians long ago self-destructed on TV. In contrast, environmentalists have long stayed on message -- it's not just postmodern media like <i> Wired </i>--Frank Capra turned from Cold War propaganda to televise global warming in 1958.
The reluctance of the fringes in the Science Wars to come out and fight tends to polarize the apolitical scientific center. The AAAS is in Democrtaic captivity from the top down, and absent intellectually serious Republicans, scientific professionals on climate websites like have only Democrats with whom to discuss policy.
You're confusing the issue.
Both <i>“our satellite trend has been positive”</i> and <i>“U.N.’s climate models have failed"</i> appear to be valid.
The models have failed, since 1979, by predicting a hot spot which has not appeared. That is consistent with the models failing to accurately predict tropical precipitation, a failure which has gotten worse from CMIP3 to CMPI5.
The facts remain, for the US, mean warming has occurred, but commensurate with that warming, changes to extreme temperature, extreme weather, droughts, and fires are non-existent or benign.
<i>There are no players for the red team.</i>
Good scientists play for the red-orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo-violet teams on their own to challenge their own assumptions. Do you know any good scientists?
It's human nature to lock on to a specific team, especially if you think you're savin' the effin' planet.
An interesting pair of maps of the demography of the nation's climate views :
suggest neither Pat, nor his opponents, who are legion, have succeeded in connecting national and regional climate change in the popular imagination
My list of the top alarmist scientists would start with Hansen, Santer, Karl and Trenberth. You figure these are good for the red team?
It might be as simple as a Trump administration official coordinating with a red team liaison to develop a simple government web page template of the "issue tree" you have in mind. Let the red team seed the site with various dissent arguments juxtaposed to warmists arguments to get the ball rolling; then announce to the world the branded government backed site is open and ready for business; that the warmists are welcome to counter with further arguments, how could they resist, their heads would be exploding. Have several individuals on both sides of the debate moderate who can be trusted for fair, even handedness.
Just a thought, perhaps Dr. Curry could contact Senator Cruz to discuss the idea if she were willing, then simply delegate the project to a select inner circle to jumpstart the project. Drag in Mark Steyn/various media talking heads to stir the pot. All you need then is popcorn.
How could the Republicans possibly improve on a 97% consensus settled science? No matter how much money they spent and no matter what they came up with it would have been derided as the anti-science product of deniers. If I recall correctly your BEST stuff had to be published in a fly by night, pay for play, journal of last resort, because the consensus goons don't like Muller. Climategate, etc. Your 'debate is over' crowd ruined climate science. Now it is Trump Rules! The pen and phone is on the other foot.
I take that people realize that <i>climate change</i> is exaggerated from their own personal experience of not much difference, but feel guilty at the uncertainty that some of the hysteria might be real.
This would explain the irrationality of the movement.
Theresa is a sheep in wolf's clothing, willito. One of yours. She needs to go.
But, russ. Who cares? Elections have consequences. Get to the back of the bus. There is a new bus driver in town. Live by the phone and pen, die by the phone and pen. Paris is dead! Trump Rules!
One more thought; the "issue tree" could replace the next formal National Climate Assessment report. A great way to co-opt and derail a monolithic piece of corruption, and replace it with a real-time analysis of the issue. Another way for Trump to exploit new media.
But, russ. Paris is Dead!
It seems a laboured gotcha to posit falsification in the context of AGW. The question that some physicists ask is whether string theory can be called science in the absence of falsification. The modern concept is science as investigation sacrifices certainty for a property of uberty - or fruitfulness. I am not able to comment on the uberty of string theory except to say that - apparently - the answer to life, death and everything is not 42. It is 456.
There is a similar discussion in our less exalted field of global hydrology.
<i>Modern hydrology places nearly all its emphasis on science-as-knowledge, the hypotheses of which are increasingly expressed as physical models, whose predictions are tested by correspondence to quantitative data sets. Though arguably appropriate for applications of theory to engineering and applied science, the associated emphases on truth and degrees of certainty are not optimal for the productive and creative processes that facilitate the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery. The latter requires an investigative approach, where the goal is uberty, a kind of fruitfulness of inquiry, in which the abductive mode of inference adds to the much more commonly acknowledged modes of deduction and induction. The resulting world-directed approach to hydrology provides a valuable complement to the prevailing hypothesis- (theory-) directed paradigm.</i>
Not surprisingly - hydrology is a sub-set of climate - there are parallels with the way that climate science proceeds. When not playing computer games with no prospect of validation. Certainty devolves to almost complete uncertainty and the fruitfulness of much of it is questionable. But the reality of it is that falsification in the strict sense is not possible - despite the deluded aspirations of skeptics.
But poor wee willies content less game of wits - based as it is on low level sophistry - is lost before it starts. He just doesn't have the amperage.
I have linked to descriptions of the complexities of the soil carbon pools at other times and on this page.
You assume that carbon inputs - and primarily by plant carbon fixation - balance the removal through cropping and grazing. It is not true - there are a number of other processes in agricultural systems that determine soil carbon pools. And again - the information is in links that I provide. But equally - the internet facilitates research on this or any other topic it seems. Not like the days when years were spent photocopying articles on biogeochemical cycling in libraries.
This link - provided above - provides an excellent introduction by the global leader in the field.
The technical challenges how to display and navigate a tree diagram with say 10,000 nodes, each of which is just a sentence or so? I know of no software that does this, perhaps because no one has tried to do it. It would be great fun.
"The reluctance of the fringes in the Science Wars to come out and fight tends to polarize the apolitical scientific center."
Not sure what you mean here. Who would you consider to be on the fringes? The ones I can think of seem to fight all the time.
And who would you consider to be in the "apolitical scientific center"? This sounds like lukewarmers to me but you may mean something else.
"On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said.
There are clearly unknown risks that cant's rationally be dismissed out of hand. Not knowing the effects of changes we are causing in chaotic Earth systems is not an unmitigated good.
The scientific center ought to serve not faction, but the naton by, advancing the science that underpins realistic national policy.
An aging fleet of nuclear plants that should never have been built in the first place competing against natural gas? Low gas prices cannot last very long in the scheme of things.
“To provide [electricity] in today’s world, an ‘advanced reactor’ must improve over existing reactors in the following 4-core objectives. It must produce significantly less costly, cost-competitive clean electricity, be safer, produce significantly less waste and reduce proliferation risk. It is not sufficient to excel at one without regard to the others.” Dr. Christina Back, Vice President, Nuclear Technologies and Materials for General Atomics, May 2016 testimony before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the status of advanced nuclear technologies.
But the first of the modular reactors - within a decade - seems likely to be NuScale - which is a smaller and simpler light water reactor.
I think EM2 is a much better idea. And it is already leading to development of accident tolerant fuels - that are more generally applicable in different designs.
The trouble is that Pat's cohort less represents the methodology of a JASON-style Red Team, than the bombast of Lewis Carrol's Red Queen:
"Science means what I say it means, neither more or less."
The whole point of such an exercise is not to pretend to know the answer beforehand--<i> thou shalt not covet thine own hypothesis.</i>
Oh Mossshhher the once Great and Powerful, your descent into madness is quite sad.
If you were a scientist you would understand that what your team claims is science is not and those your team holds out as scientists are not worthy of the name.
The alarmist team is greatly outnumbered when it comes to scientists.
What science is that Russell? Be as specific as you can.
If Don can get Heartland to hold its next palaver in a blimp parked at the equator just under the tropoause, he may be able to point to a flying squirrel for a change. The problem of the turbulence and vertical instability of the ITC occuring on a scale too small for GCM's to resolve has been freely acknowledged by modelers since 43 was in office. As suely as Trump reigns, Bayes rules.