Climate change broke houston weather again. (The official everyone gets a h[w]oosh thread)
-
Well, that creates a high barrier to the intellectual right to disagree.
I can't just look at the model and see mistakes in their process, I have to buy a freaking supercomputer and make my own.
-
So come up with a better model. There's always room for that.
No argument here.
Armchair criticism is easy. It's also functionally useless in all fields of endeavour.
In this case: no. Pointing out that an assertion of doom is unwarranted is the opposite of functionally useless. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science.
Actually create the model and convince people who do climate modelling that your new model is better.
Just because I don't have a better answer doesn't make a bullshit answer good or correct.
-
Well, it's apparent that science is a monopoly now.
"Doctor left a tool inside of me"
How the fuck you know it's bad to have that in there. Do you have a biology degree? Go do some science and prove it to me.
"Pharmacy overprescribed my medication and I overdosed"
Do you know the specific dose of psuedomockerine that should be administered based on your weight? Show me your degree? Maybe those are within the reasonable level of side-effects.
-
are you trying to mock boomzilla's article or joining in his article's mocking of the science author?
i think my confusion stems from
@xaade said:monopoly
i dont think that means what you think it means. Unless your next 4 lines had nothing to do with that one. then i simply have no idea what you're referencing at all.
-
Judith Curry makes for a very bizarre read. Is she for or against the "do nothing because we don't know policy"...?
My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown
by Judith Curry I was invited to submit an op-ed regarding the recent Lewis/Curry paper on climate sensitivity.
The sensitivity of our climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is at the heart of the public debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon.
Continuing to use the higher global climate model-derived values of climate sensitivity skews the cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon. The implications of the lower values of climate sensitivity in our paper is that human caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2oC ‘danger’ level for all but the most extreme emission scenario considered by the IPCC AR5. This delay in the warming – relative to climate model projections – relaxes the phase out period for greenhouse gas emissions, allowing more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably and the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available.
Less than 12 months ago she said only that the models are projecting high, but appears to agree that the trend IS going to continue going up even if at a lower rate. In her conclusion she doesn't exactly sound like she thinks we need to do nothing, or that she thinks we know nothing... rather that we just have more time to act than we may have thought we had. But that apparently we do at some point need to act.
Entertaining that up until around 2008, she was a huge global warming alarmist herself... wonder what happened to that, I thought that's where all the money is?
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/pdf/testimony-curry.pdfIn addition to my own personal research experiences in the Arctic, a series of national and international assessments undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academies, and the U.S. Climate Change Science have made it very difficult to maintain a credible position of scientific skepticism regarding the influence of humans on global warming. The past year has seen striking resolutions to two controversies involving the data record of climate change that support anthropogenic greenhouse warming: the synthesis report on the surface temperature reconstructions over the past two millennia the (NAS, 2006) and the synthesis and assessment report on temperature trends in the lower atmosphere (CCSP, 2006). Further, the draft IPCC 4th Assessment Report presents climate model simulations that are far more sophisticated and accurate than were available in prior assessments, substantially increasing the credibility of such simulations and the associated projections. The cautious conclusions of the large body of scientists contributing to these assessment reports by evaluating a large body of published research are extremely important in providing a balanced overview of the state of knowledge in the scientific research community. Based upon these assessments, our understanding of how the climate system works, while incomplete, is more than sufficiently robust to afford a basis for rational action.
huh.
actually, searching for information about judith curry's stance climate leads down a pretty hilarious rabbit hole of her saying that it's happening but not and we need to take action but not do anything because we might not know.
Quoting from only her we-know-nothing stances from her blog rather does let me know that the cherry picking is alive and well though, so I figured I'd return volley with the above
comedy.
-
Maybe a better term is oligarchy.
I mean, climate science is a rather easy to understand topic, compared to say... quantum mechanics.
But it seems that we can't criticize it because we don't have the materials or expertise to create a model from the ground up. That's a huge cost barrier to begin with.
Like I gave in my absurd examples. You can't lock someone out of criticism because they have a barrier to replicating your results.
-
Is she for or against the "do nothing because we don't know policy"...?
Is it possible that she changed her mind when further investigation showed that the rate of temperature rise is much lower than originally anticipated.
I mean, when you go from 50 years to 200 years, attitudes change.
A lot of environmental stuff can happen in 200 years. Hell, technology could see another boom, \and we could have interstellar space travel by then. We just pack up and leave the planet.\
-
Well, that creates a high barrier to the intellectual right to disagree.
The point is that merely sitting there and saying “I disagree” is easy and useless. It's got about the same value as sitting there watching a game and shouting at the screen that the referee is blind for missing something obvious.
If you don't want to be that shouty guy who's easy to ignore, you've got to really take part. That takes effort, but virtually nothing that's worth doing is easy.
-
Is she for or against the "do nothing because we don't know policy"...?
I think she mostly tries to keep out of policy advocacy. She's more interested in the science side of stuff, not economics or other policy related things.
In her conclusion she doesn't exactly sound like she thinks we need to do nothing, or that she thinks we know nothing... rather that we just have more time to act than we may have thought we had. But that apparently we do at some point need to act.
That's probably an accurate summary of her views.
Entertaining that up until around 2008, she was a huge global warming alarmist herself... wonder what happened to that, I thought that's where all the money is?
Yeah, it definitely seems easier to get research grants if you can tie your proposal into global warming somehow. However, she also runs a company:
Obviously, actual results matter to paying customers.
actually, searching for information about judith curry's stance climate leads down a pretty hilarious rabbit hole of her saying that it's happening but not and we need to take action but not do anything because we might not know.
Yeah, honesty about what she doesn't know is pretty funny. I follow her blog because she looks at stuff that challenges her views and she points out interesting things from all over the "spectrum" of climate science.
Quoting from only her we-know-nothing stances from her blog rather does let me know that the cherry picking is alive and well though, so I figured I'd return volley with the above
comedy.I guess this is to be expected when you're coming at everything as a nihilistic troll who is more interested in fitting stuff into his Fox News stereotype than taking a hard look at an issue.
-
The point is that merely sitting there and saying “I disagree” is easy and useless. It's got about the same value as sitting there watching a game and shouting at the screen that the referee is blind for missing something obvious.
Sorry, but that's bullshit.
If you don't want to be that shouty guy who's easy to ignore, you've got to really take part. That takes effort, but virtually nothing that's worth doing is easy.
But pointing out that something is wrong is taking part.
An extreme example: We've talked about what to do about people who just don't seem to be smart enough or motivated enough or whatever to hold a productive job. If someone proposes that we round them up into camps and throw food over the walls as a way to deal with that situation, I don't have to have a better solution to figure out what to do to stand athwart this bullshit shouting "Stop!"
-
-
But pointing out that something is wrong is taking part.
On some discussion forum on the internet? Might as well be shouting it at the TV for all the difference it makes.
-
On some discussion forum on the internet?
Uh, yeah? That's what this is. We discuss stuff. You probably think I'm a horrible person because I'm not also out researching a cure for cancer.
Might as well be shouting it at the TV for all the difference it makes.
Could be. I'm not sure what you think I should be doing when someone says something that I think is wrong around here. And why it's a bad thing that I discuss things with people here.
-
Yeah, it definitely seems easier to get research grants if you can tie your proposal into global warming somehow.
she failed to secure a grant to continue her global warming related hurricane work in 2007. in 2008 she's changed her mind on how important any of that is. hm.
http://www.cfanclimate.com/
they pay her to tell them that they don't need to do anything because the climate is fine?
are you arguing for or against her here?I follow her blog because she looks at stuff that challenges her views and she points out interesting things from all over the "spectrum" of climate science
you mean, panders to anti-global warming theoristsnihilistic troll
are you sure you know what nihilistic means? for one, i'm not sure what religion or morals have to do with a debate on global warming or action against global warming, although it would sure explain a lot of your non-science head in the ground view. and i'm not sure when i've said life is meaningless other than to mock you guys that seem to think it's cool if the world is a mess in 200 years instead of 40 because you won't be here to see it anyway.
-
are you arguing for or against her here?
No no, I'm wasting time arguing with a troll.
they pay her to tell them that they don't need to do anything because the climate is fine?
Yeah, I'm sure that's what people pay them for.
are you sure you know what nihilistic means?
Yes.
for one, i'm not sure what religion or morals have to do with a debate on global warming or action against global warming
I'm saying you're just here for the trolling, not arguing an honest view point. At least, that's how it all comes across. It's possible I've misread you.your non-science head in the ground view
Uh huh. Look, I'm not the guy arguing against the numbers here.
guys that seem to think it's cool if the world is a mess in 200 years instead of 40 because you won't be here to see it anyway.
TDEMSYR
-
you might want to look up the word nihilistic then.
-
ni·hil·is·tic
ˌnīəˈlistik,ˌnēəˈlistik/
adjective
rejecting all religious and moral principles in the belief that life is meaningless.I think that fits pretty well here. You're rejecting all that in favor of simply trolling. But like I said, maybe you actually believe what you've posted. We'll probably never know.
-
I was gonna figure a way to work in another definition - a 19th-century Russian political philosophy advocating the violent destruction of social and political institutions [through e.g. terrorism] to make way for a new society. After all, terrorism involves using fear as a tool for change, and people are certainly swinging that hammer around about climate
chaoschange. It would've been a stretch, though.
-
I was lazy and put up the first thing google told me. But that's what you have to do when arguing with overly literal trolls.
-
so i'm rejecting your moral/religious argument on global warming? i mean, if youre going to claim your own opinion is not rooted in science then ok.
i have yet to figure out how it sounds like i think life is meaningless.
-
so i'm rejecting your moral/religious argument on global warming?
I'd say that you're misinterpreting things for your own amusement. For instance:
i mean, if youre going to claim your own opinion is not rooted in science then ok.
i have yet to figure out
We can probably agree on that bit of wisdom.
-
maybe you shouldnt use words that dont actually mean what you wanted to say?
-
It hasn't made a difference so far in this topic.
-
she failed to secure a grant to continue her global warming related hurricane work in 2007. in 2008 she's changed her mind on how important any of that is. hm.
Wait....
Hold the fucking horses here.
She is a hypocrite because it's exposed that she doesn't necessarily agree with it unless she's getting money to research it.
But it's impossible.... impossible I say.... that other scientists happen to be a part of the consensus merely because of grants.
Oh please do tell me how I get the privilege to bomb ivory towers as well.
you mean, panders to anti-global warming theorists
Yet again, another example of how not, going along with every alarmist bullshit, is pandering to anti-global warming theorists. The debate is polarized past usefulness, because as soon as someone comes down the middle, they're forced to pick a side, or the side is picked for them.
That's not science....
nihilistic
Originally, satire.
-
If you really want to dip into the seedy side of climate science, you have to go to the paleo side of town. Oh, sure, bring up problems and they'll tell you that the paleo stuff isn't really important to the actual CAGW theory, and they're right, but of course it's a big part of the emotional component of convincing people of CAGW. "This warming is unprecedented!"
Today's example, a continuation of the saga of using proxies to mean the opposite of what they supposedly mean.
Raymond Bradley and the Grand Old Duke of York
In today’s post, I’ll return to more typical Climate Audit programming. Upside-down Mann’s mentor, Raymond Bradley, has somewhat surprisingly published an article (Balascio et al…
Adoption of the orientation of Big Round varve data used in Balascio et al 2015 ought to require fresh interpretation of all the varve thickness series used in PAGES2K and other multiproxy reconstructions. It would then be third varved series which had been conceded to have been used upside down.
Varves are the annual layers of sediment that are deposited in bodies of water. In addition to inconsistent interpretation of thick vs thin, samples that have been declared to be "contaminated" due to agriculture were used.
These guys should at least get credit for creative abuse of statistics.
-
declared to be "contaminated" due to agriculture were used.
Not only are humans at fault for global warming.
They are at fault for screwing up our statistics that prove they are at fault for global warming.Those selfish assholes.
-
These guys should at least get credit for creative abuse of statistics.
What gets me is some researchers publish an article, then a while later (some of) the same authors publish another article in a different journal that says there are errors in the first article, but they refuse to publish a correction in the first journal.
-
What gets me is some researchers publish an article, then a while later (some of) the same authors publish another article in a different journal that says there are errors in the first article, but they refuse to publish a correction in the first journal.
One of the professors here is busy working through a lot of medical/veterinary publications and finding massive problems with reproducibility and general abuse of statistics. OK, it's not climate science, but then there's a hell of a lot more published in medicine and so much of it is just plain terrible…
-
But, I thought they were morally infallible?
-
Excuses for ISIS?
First it was lack of jobs.
Now it is climate change.
Seriously, we need to ban the topic of climate change from politicians. The only people that we allow to speak on the floor about the topic are scientists.
Now, it might not get much better, but at least we would have all of our problems blamed on CC.
-
One of the professors here is busy working through a lot of medical/veterinary publications and finding massive problems with reproducibility and general abuse of statistics. OK, it's not climate science, but then there's a hell of a lot more published in medicine and so much of it is just plain terrible…
There's a guy at U. Maryland Baltimore who digs into the history of stuff like - why is the "average temperature" for a healthy person 98.6F?
The guy who originated the figure in the 19th century had gobs of data recorded, but the UMB prof can't for the life of him reproduce the 98.6 calculation.
-
But, I thought they were morally infallible?
Morally? Maybe. Actually? Fuck, no! A significant fraction of medics couldn't research their way out of a wet paper bag. Indeed, a lot of what they're doing is sufficiently poor that even doing aggregate statistics over all the studies is going to be horribly flawed.
The good news is that the really big studies are significantly better. This is especially true where there's a statistician among the people named as authors on the paper. The stats experts don't seem to be morally-bankrupt shysters or ignorant idiots.
I believe that physics and chemistry mostly have reasonable reproducibility (except where the result is “Only try this if you're utterly bonkers!” and nobody minds that). That's in part because they've tended to internalise the need for getting the stats right, or go for experiments where alternative explanations can be ruled out much more simply.
-
I also imagine physics and chemistry are inherently easier to set up, as you're not stuck working with whichever ill humans happen to be around?
-
There's a guy at U. Maryland Baltimore who digs into the history of stuff like - why is the "average temperature" for a healthy person 98.6F?
The guy who originated the figure in the 19th century had gobs of data recorded, but the UMB prof can't for the life of him reproduce the 98.6 calculation.
You mean this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1302471 ? Because they don't have his old data. No one does (http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/11/4/278.pdf):
The final consideration is that, although Wunderlich collected large amounts of data, medical historians have found no evidence to suggest he used principles of statistical analysis on this raw data or that, with existing technology, he could have analyzed more than a small fraction of the total data set. The process used to analyze the data was not described and the actual raw data has never been published in full to allow for statistical analysis.
The UMB team's conclusion was slightly different from Wunderlich's
Our findings conflicted with Wunderlich's in that 36.8°C (98.2°F) rather than 37.0°C (98.6°F) was the mean oral temperature of our subjects;
-
I believe that physics and chemistry mostly have reasonable reproducibility (except where the result is “Only try this if you're utterly bonkers!” and nobody minds that).
Where the result of the experiment is a high probability that small pieces of the experimenter will be forcibly distributed over a large area, I'm not particularly eager to attempt to reproduce the experiment.
-
Looks like the same.
The description I had implied they had the old data available... and put some time into working out what he could have done to get his number... even though he had way too much data to have "analyzed" it in any real way.
Amazing how those authors spend so many words to say precisely and scientifically "YMMV".
-
Amazing how those authors spend so many words to say precisely and scientifically "YMMV".
Having worked with academics for a long time, it's not amazing at all. Their specialty is using vast numbers of words to say something precisely. I tend to write less because I get bored writing all that fluff…
-
Ditto w.r.t. our experiences...
So , I suppose, what I wrote is true for some values of "amazing" including, disappointing, but not including suprising.
I was particularly taken with a long paragraph that said "this is important, we should use a fact-based number instead of one pulled from our nether-regions." It was truly an elegant bit.
Then they get a citation for a "better" number based on 114 subjects from a single locale.
-
Copronumerology at its finest!
-
JC comment: In plain words, there doesn’t seem to be any observational evidence that Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ is hiding below 700 m.
...
JC comment: Trenberth claimed to have found the ‘missing heat’ in the deep ocean from the ECMWF reanalyses [link]. Looks like this was an artifact of the analysis process.
...
Well, it will certainly be interesting to see what the media does with this paper, after declaring the hiatus an artifact several weeks ago. This new paper, published in the same journal as the Karl paper (Science), should have come to the attention of the same journalists as the Karl paper (although I did not see any press release associated with this paper). I received an advanced copy of the paper from someone in a skeptics organization – no queries from journalists or anything. It will be interesting to see how (or if) this paper plays out in the mainstream media.
-
-
-
The heat isn't missing.
It's part of a climate cycle, which means that the climate is responding this way due to cause and effect.
Which means that this kind of hiatus could happen again, and likely will.
To say it's missing, is to sound like some devious oil company ran off with it and hid it in the ocean to prove AGW wrong.
-
The heat isn't missing.
It's missing in the sense that no one knows where it went. It might have gone deep into the oceans or it might have radiated out into space. Observations seem to favor the latter, but it's possible to torture them enough to make it plausible that it's hiding deep down under water.
-
Observations seem to favor the latter
If it's the latter, then that's working in our favor, right?
-
If it's the latter, then that's working in our favor, right?
So long as "our favor" means no climate catastrophe, yes.
-
So long as "our favor" means no climate catastrophe, yes.
That's the only "favor" I care about.
Seriously, when science becomes, "I hope a bunch of people die, so that I'm right", we have problems.
-
Seriously, when science becomes, "I hope a bunch of people die, so that I'm right", we have problems.
Most scientists I know are very conscientious. But if we ever go the other way, watch out for some awesome explosions in labs worldwide!
-
Some interesting (though still preliminary) work on comparing observations vs climate models:
-
Not related to the research, but the first thing I noticed on the page, messed-up apostrophes and quotation marks:
I wonder how he messed up the character encoding...
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Roy Spencer, PhD." />I don't think that's a valid charset.
(Not to mention a
DOCTYPEofhtml4/strict.dtdwith xhtml content, but that doesn't appear to be causing actual rendering problems.)
weather forecast and climate services: CFAN Climate Forecast Applications Network
