The above, by the way, is Andy Lacis. Thanks, Dr. Lacis, for once again providing your clear perspective. Nothing there that I would disagree with.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Danny, I certainly disagree that a short-lived blip of minority alarmism in the 1970’s has any parallel to the continual cautions on emissions put out by a scientific majority since at least 1979.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Don Monfort
Peter, google “decisions under uncertainty”. I have been making those kinds of decisions since I was a little toddler. Many life and death decisions. Investment decisions. Who to kick to the curb and who to marry. Very often, with little or nothing to go on.
It’s not the case that we know nothing. We know that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. We know it’s a GHG. We know that we are burning a lot of fossil fuels and the increase in CO2 is less than the CO2 that we are emitting. We know about radiative physics. Even the skeptical climate scientists figure that some warming will occur. They generally estimate it will be on the low end of IPCC guesses. Do you reject their low end estimates, as not knowing? What if they are wrong and the consensus crowd is right? The low end estimates seem plausible to me, but I know that I am influenced by wishful thinking.
I will give you an example. Allen Greenspan warned about “irrational exuberance”, during the tech stock bubble. I was making millions and millions and was greedy for more. I knew several tech titans and they assured me all was well. We had federal and state budget surpluses that I figured would allow fiscal stimulus to cushion any downturn. Allen didn’t worry me.
Wishful thinking and hubris. Bubble bursts, as it always does. I learned an expensive lesson that I have not forgotten. I don’t know everything. A lot of smart people say we should worry about AGW. I don’t believe they are all charlatans. I am listening. If they are right I hope they can convince me and the general public, before it is too late. They are not doing a very good job of it.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by NW
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-west-coast-sardine-season-halted-to-stave-off-overfishing-1429149949
What’s the skinny on the West Coast sardine fishery? Anyone know the science on this–all the journalism I see is very vague about causes. Some say overfishing, others say cycles, still others blame it on temperatures. Anyone know anything beyond what the journos are dishing out?
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Don Monfort
Ron, Jo Nova and Evans are nice people but they really made a spectacle of themselves with their notch filter foolishness:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/06/david-evans-notch-filter-theory-of.html
If you haven’t spent some time on Lubos’ blog, you should.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang
Dom Moford,
Peter, google “decisions under uncertainty”. I have been making those kinds of decisions since I was a little toddler.
That simply demonstrates you don’t have any understanding of policy analysis, policy development or what information is needed for rational analysis involving $ trillions.
Don, your first sentence is sufficient to show me there is no point you and I discussion this further.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by johnvonderlin
Turbulent Eddy,
AMS President Bill Gail’s op-ed in USA Today: “The world after global warming,” has this “money” sentence you excerpted. “For the first time in human history, our actions have substantially changed Earth in its entirety: not just one nation or region, not just for a few decades, but all of Earth, forever.”
I rate this 4 Pinocchios, a sterling accomplishment in just one sentence.
Working backwards we have 1) Forever? It’s hard to envision anything we do in regards to GHGs having any “Forever” aspects. Geologic time will swallow up every aspect of the Anthropocene and not even burb or later leave a foul odor to mark its passing. I’d recommend Bill read Ozymandias to rein in his ego:
…..”What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place?
2) “Earth in its entirety?” It’s hard to see what lasting, or in fact, any effect at all Global Warming might have on the Earth’s core, its mantle, virtually all of its crust or even the deep ocean. Once again I perceive an ego-centric POV as well as sloppy hyperbolic alarmist writing.
3) “have substantially changed” Does the uncertain AGW part of a SLR of 8 inches, a GMT increase of a degree, some receding glaciers, and decreasing Arctic ice cover amount to a substantial change already having occurred? Apparently Hyperbole is the twin brother of Hysteria.
4) “first time in human history” Apparently the development of agriculture and other survival technologies that have allowed the population explosion of our species and its diaspora to every remote corner of the globe doesn’t count when compared to his imaginings concerning CO2. Long before CO2 was a glint in somebody’s agenda, our population’s growing land use changes, including deforestation, crop planting, animal domestication, invasive species transportation, geo-engineering and the hunting-to-extinction of numerous species left more powerful reminders of our passage on the world’s ecosystems than CO2 has. Or is likely to, unless the most alarmist scenarios happen and are amplified by a growing suicidal urge in our species. Neither of which I believe are likely
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D
Regarding dangers of climate change, I think we can take a cue from Hansen’s Perceptions of Climate Change paper (PNAS, 2012). In it it is noted that taking a baseline such as 1951-1980, summer average temperatures have already shifted by nearly a degree in most NH populated areas which is a standard deviation. Tail of the baseline distribution, 3-sigma, summers were the French heatwave of 2003, the Texas drought of 2011 and Russia-on-fire 2010 episodes, meaning these would have been nearly impossibly hot for the baseline period. Under continuing emission growth scenarios, it is very possible that the temperature rise by 2100 will be 4 sigma relative to that baseline, meaning that a 1-sigma cool summer then will be the same average temperature as a 3-sigma hot summer now. Just a sobering perspective on the scale of the temperature shift and changing probabilities of a given temperature from being nearly impossibly hot now to being cooler than average in the future.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang
Don Monfort,
Sorry for incorrect spelling of your name.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Don Monfort
No problem, Peter. As your spelling of my name get’s more off track with every iteration, I figure you are becoming more and more incapacitated and your understanding of the science and the possible consequences are not likely to improve with further discussion. You have the perfect defense, if things go South and your stubbornly simplistic head-firmly-in-the-sand policy is proven to be a tragic error in judgement. “We knew nothing.”
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Don Monfort
I don’t care how you spell my name Peter, I was just using your mistakes as a literary device. Didn’t notice your comment re. spelling as my eyes were watering by the time I got to the end of the previous comment. What you don’t get Peter is that I am not suggesting that somebody spend a trillion dollars, on a whim. I am telling you that some serious consideration should be given to the possibility that the alarmists have stumbled onto the truth. Their story is at least somewhat plausible. Google plausible. Or continue to know nothing.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by mosomoso
Yep. Allowing siltation, preserving/extending buffer zones etc in major deltas could be big conservation initiatives in coming years. I’ve read that the Dutch have been helping in Bangladesh with their expertise and euros to take things in a new direction. There will be huge costs and downsides, but the benefits could be much greater. Let’s hope more aid dollars and “climate” funds find their way to sane conservation efforts which are free of green fetishism.
And the Dutch, instead of preaching against coal while being a global hub for Russian fossil fuels, can promote something beneficial while keeping a perfectly straight face.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Jeff Id
I’m seeing an even stronger….
↧
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by jim2
Josh. This will come as a shock to you, but sometimes scientists argue about science, sometimes vehemently. This means they are advocating a particular position or another. There is nothing wrong with it.
Your tempest in a thimble arises because you are ignorant about scientists and science generally.
You are an idealistic nitpicker who is a victim of his own ignorance.
There’s nothing wrong with that per se, but we have to put up with you cluttering up perfectly good posts with this bilge.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by David L. Hagen
Steven Mosher
Feynman is applying the scientific method of providing evidence that challenges the conventional model showing its inadequacy. In this case the model is that the o-rings were flexible and adequately sealed. He provided a simple test to show the fallacy of that model. (He is not presenting a full scientific model for the deformation of rubber.)
Curry, Monckton, Salby and others are showing the divergence between the IPCC models and reality.
Showing evidence disproving a model is essential to the scientific method. That is separate from the level of integrity Feynman raised in presenting a new/revised model. The IPCC has failed at both.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Joseph
afraid of public punishment
You know there does seem to be some degree of paranoia involved in this for a number of skeptics. But you know if I really believed what they had to say, I would be a bit paranoid too. I mean you would have the government, politicians, scientists, and all exaggerating the risks of climate change for some unclear (at least to me) reason. I don’t know.. I am kinda glad I don’t live in that world right now.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by ristvan
Without knowing details, hard to say what the Koonin deal was. But as observer, survivor, and victim (once) of corporate politics, it sure looks the same. And that is neither science not its subbranch physics.
Hope Judith’s sunshine effort pays out. Doubt it will, as the APS draft statement already shows no shame, nor respect for Koonin’s process. Very Mannian.
↧
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Ron Graf
w/r/t Brandon's blog post on BEST
Steven Mosher: "Since we already showed that our method is superior to GISS I already have considered the question carefully and methodically. Blogs are not science. "
Blogs are a good place to debate science and I would be interested in you comment on Brandon's <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2015/03/outstanding-issues-with-best/" rel="nofollow"> blog post here.</a>
"There is no evidence that anyone lives in fear of being called a denier. They may feign outrage, but some embrace the term.
Creating a derogatory label for a politically adversarial point of view serves one purpose and it aint about engaging in a wholesome debate. Scientific ethics should protect debate as debate is critical for healthy science. Nobody on this site has yet called me a denier but elsewhere yes. From what I've read of you I don't think you use the term.
w/r/t climate debate S. Mosher: "Yes, however there is no other side when it comes to the IPCC. There is no credible account of the science that could be offered as “the other side”"
I submit there is a robust other side within this thread and <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2015/04/20/pitfalls-in-climate-sensitivity-estimation-part-3/" rel="nofollow">Nic Lewis Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation: Part 3</a>
S. Mosher on science: "Feynman was talking about doing science, not summarizing the state of science. The IPCC reports summarize science. they are not science."
I will allow you one stupid statement.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by beththeserf
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Willard
> Nobody assumes that he is saying that this is a statement about which there is perfect certainty.
All that is needed for the double standard to obtain is to show that Judy’s own claims downplay uncertainty, e.g.:
Back in the days, circa 2006/2007 when I was not skeptical of AGW, i did emphasize uncertainty in my public presentations, and I did not find that this lessened concern or left anyone thinking that this wasn’t a problem worthy of serious consideration. They left the room trusting me because I was honest about the uncertainties.
[…]
As a result there is some pretty irresponsible public behavior by academic and think tank/advocacy group scientists, and there are absolutely no repercussions (I’m sure we can all think of examples).
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/21/ethics-of-communicating-scientific-uncertainty/
Mr. T’s a mean cookie.
↧