Help
well he does have a good point re: australia... i guess we'll see
Climate change a different take on what to do about it.
#141
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2011-August-26, 15:34
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#142
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-August-26, 16:52
I would expect that the next step will be to have a legal procedure involving a jury of his peers and not his peer-reviewers... 
Now, while this may seem repetitive, each of the "reviews" was by an interested party. So, until we have something resembling an impartial adjudication, I will continue to reserve judgement on his use of various "tricks" to "hide the decline".
In the last 6 months, more and more peer-reviewed studies have refuted or corrected major tenets of the "anthropogenic" meme. From ocean-current effects to cosmic-ray influence on cloud nucleation, the "settled" science gets more and more unsettled. That is science and not agenda nor belief. The current global cooling (relative to the last several thousand years) came just a few decades too soon for the global warming crowd. Their models are in disarray and their bombastic and argumentative refusals to recognize reality have ceased to hold any sway in the scientific community. Agenda is all that is left and that will soon be on the back-burner as well.
Now, while this may seem repetitive, each of the "reviews" was by an interested party. So, until we have something resembling an impartial adjudication, I will continue to reserve judgement on his use of various "tricks" to "hide the decline".
In the last 6 months, more and more peer-reviewed studies have refuted or corrected major tenets of the "anthropogenic" meme. From ocean-current effects to cosmic-ray influence on cloud nucleation, the "settled" science gets more and more unsettled. That is science and not agenda nor belief. The current global cooling (relative to the last several thousand years) came just a few decades too soon for the global warming crowd. Their models are in disarray and their bombastic and argumentative refusals to recognize reality have ceased to hold any sway in the scientific community. Agenda is all that is left and that will soon be on the back-burner as well.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#143
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,817
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-August-26, 17:25
first, we have been lucky so far.
Regardless of how accurate the prevailing climate models are carbon-dioxide emissions from technology must, eventually, increase the temperature, which must, eventually, be harmful. Just think if this disaster hit a 100 years ago.
With that said this seems to be a challenge that is highly susceptible to automation.
Second point is that supercomputers simulations make conditional predictions, the economic forecasts make almost pure prophecies. I expect that the future of human responses to clmiate to depend heavily on how successful people are at creating new knowledge to address the problems that arise. Lets not compare predictions with prophecies.
third point is it is not yet accurately known how sensitive the atmosphere's temperature is to the concentration of carbon dioxide, that is how much a given increase in concentration increases the temperature.
This number is important politically, because it affects how urgent the problem is. This results in the political debate being dominated by the side issue of how 'anthropegenic' the increase in temperature to date has been.
As David Deutsch put it it is as if people were arguing about how best to prepare for the next hurricane while all agreeing that the only hurricanes one should prepare for are human-induced ones.
(some of these ideas from notes from David Deutsch)
Regardless of how accurate the prevailing climate models are carbon-dioxide emissions from technology must, eventually, increase the temperature, which must, eventually, be harmful. Just think if this disaster hit a 100 years ago.
With that said this seems to be a challenge that is highly susceptible to automation.
Second point is that supercomputers simulations make conditional predictions, the economic forecasts make almost pure prophecies. I expect that the future of human responses to clmiate to depend heavily on how successful people are at creating new knowledge to address the problems that arise. Lets not compare predictions with prophecies.
third point is it is not yet accurately known how sensitive the atmosphere's temperature is to the concentration of carbon dioxide, that is how much a given increase in concentration increases the temperature.
This number is important politically, because it affects how urgent the problem is. This results in the political debate being dominated by the side issue of how 'anthropegenic' the increase in temperature to date has been.
As David Deutsch put it it is as if people were arguing about how best to prepare for the next hurricane while all agreeing that the only hurricanes one should prepare for are human-induced ones.
(some of these ideas from notes from David Deutsch)
#144
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,282
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2011-August-26, 17:58
PassedOut, on 2011-August-26, 15:32, said:
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
ECHO...ECHo...ECho...Echo...echo...
Now batting,atting,atting,atting, Pedro, pedro, edro, edro, Bourbon, bon, bon, bon, bon...
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#145
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-August-27, 05:50
Nigel Calder was an editor for New Scientist and has been a science writer for a long time. In a post on WUWT concerning the CERN CLOUD experiment and its significance for climate studies and modelling, he expresses a viewpoint with which I concur.
How the warmists built their dam
Shifting from my insider’s perspective on the CLOUD experiment, to see it on the broader canvas of the politicized climate science of the early 21st Century, the chief reaction becomes a weary sigh of relief. Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases.
In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise.
For the dam that was meant to ward off a growing stream of discoveries coming from the spring in Copenhagen, the foundation was laid on the day after the Danes first announced the link between cosmic rays and clouds at a space conference in Birmingham, England, in 1996. “Scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible,”Bert Bolin declared, as Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As several journalists misbehaved by reporting the story from Birmingham, the top priority was to tame the media. The first courses of masonry ensured that anything that Svensmark and his colleagues might say would be ignored or, failing that, be promptly rubbished by a warmist scientist. Posh papers like The Times of London and the New York Times, and posh TV channels like the BBC’s, readily fell into line. Enthusiastically warmist magazines like New Scientist and Scientific Americanneeded no coaching.
Similarly the journals Nature and Science, which in my youth prided themselves on reports that challenged prevailing paradigms, gladly provided cement for higher masonry, to hold the wicked hypothesis in check at the scientific level. Starve Svensmark of funding. Reject his scientific papers but give free rein to anyone who criticizes him. Trivialize the findings in the Holy Writ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. None of this is paranoia on my part, but a matter of close personal observation since 1996.
“It’s the Sun, stupid!” The story isn’t really about a bunch of naughty Danish physicists. They are just spokesmen for the most luminous agent of climate change. As the Sun was what the warmists really wanted to tame with their dam, they couldn’t do it. And coming to the Danes’ aid, by briefly blasting away many cosmic rays with great puffs of gas, the Sun enabled the team to trace in detail the consequent reduction in cloud seeding and liquid water in clouds. See my posthttp://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/do-clouds-disappear/ By the way, that research also disposes of a morsel of doubt in the new CLOUD paper, about whether the small specks made by cosmic rays really grow sufficiently to seed cloud droplets.
As knowledge accumulated behind their dam and threatened to overtop it, the warmists had one last course to lay. Paradoxically it was CLOUD. Long delays with this experiment to explore the microchemical mechanism of the Svensmark effect became the chief excuse for deferring any re-evaluation of the Sun’s role in climate change. When the microchemical mechanism was revealed prematurely by the SKY experiment in Copenhagen and published in 2006, the warmists said, “No particle accelerator? That won’t do! Wait for CLOUD.” When the experiment in Aarhus confirmed the mechanism using a particle accelerator they said, “Oh that’s just the Danes again! Wait for CLOUD.”
Well they’ve waited and their dam has failed them.
Hall of Shame
Retracing those 14 years, what if physics had functioned as it is supposed to do? What if CLOUD, quickly approved and funded, had verified the Svensmark effect with all the authority of CERN, in the early 2000s. What if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had done a responsible job, acknowledging the role of the Sun and curtailing the prophecies of catastrophic warming?
For a start there would have no surprise about the “travesty” that global warming has stopped since the mid-1990s, with the Sun becoming sulky. Vast sums might have been saved on misdirected research and technology, and on climate change fests and wheezes of every kind. The world’s poor and their fragile living environment could have had far more useful help than precautions against warming.
And there would have been less time for so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash.
How the warmists built their dam
Shifting from my insider’s perspective on the CLOUD experiment, to see it on the broader canvas of the politicized climate science of the early 21st Century, the chief reaction becomes a weary sigh of relief. Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases.
In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise.
For the dam that was meant to ward off a growing stream of discoveries coming from the spring in Copenhagen, the foundation was laid on the day after the Danes first announced the link between cosmic rays and clouds at a space conference in Birmingham, England, in 1996. “Scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible,”Bert Bolin declared, as Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As several journalists misbehaved by reporting the story from Birmingham, the top priority was to tame the media. The first courses of masonry ensured that anything that Svensmark and his colleagues might say would be ignored or, failing that, be promptly rubbished by a warmist scientist. Posh papers like The Times of London and the New York Times, and posh TV channels like the BBC’s, readily fell into line. Enthusiastically warmist magazines like New Scientist and Scientific Americanneeded no coaching.
Similarly the journals Nature and Science, which in my youth prided themselves on reports that challenged prevailing paradigms, gladly provided cement for higher masonry, to hold the wicked hypothesis in check at the scientific level. Starve Svensmark of funding. Reject his scientific papers but give free rein to anyone who criticizes him. Trivialize the findings in the Holy Writ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. None of this is paranoia on my part, but a matter of close personal observation since 1996.
“It’s the Sun, stupid!” The story isn’t really about a bunch of naughty Danish physicists. They are just spokesmen for the most luminous agent of climate change. As the Sun was what the warmists really wanted to tame with their dam, they couldn’t do it. And coming to the Danes’ aid, by briefly blasting away many cosmic rays with great puffs of gas, the Sun enabled the team to trace in detail the consequent reduction in cloud seeding and liquid water in clouds. See my posthttp://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/do-clouds-disappear/ By the way, that research also disposes of a morsel of doubt in the new CLOUD paper, about whether the small specks made by cosmic rays really grow sufficiently to seed cloud droplets.
As knowledge accumulated behind their dam and threatened to overtop it, the warmists had one last course to lay. Paradoxically it was CLOUD. Long delays with this experiment to explore the microchemical mechanism of the Svensmark effect became the chief excuse for deferring any re-evaluation of the Sun’s role in climate change. When the microchemical mechanism was revealed prematurely by the SKY experiment in Copenhagen and published in 2006, the warmists said, “No particle accelerator? That won’t do! Wait for CLOUD.” When the experiment in Aarhus confirmed the mechanism using a particle accelerator they said, “Oh that’s just the Danes again! Wait for CLOUD.”
Well they’ve waited and their dam has failed them.
Hall of Shame
Retracing those 14 years, what if physics had functioned as it is supposed to do? What if CLOUD, quickly approved and funded, had verified the Svensmark effect with all the authority of CERN, in the early 2000s. What if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had done a responsible job, acknowledging the role of the Sun and curtailing the prophecies of catastrophic warming?
For a start there would have no surprise about the “travesty” that global warming has stopped since the mid-1990s, with the Sun becoming sulky. Vast sums might have been saved on misdirected research and technology, and on climate change fests and wheezes of every kind. The world’s poor and their fragile living environment could have had far more useful help than precautions against warming.
And there would have been less time for so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#146
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-September-02, 13:51
PassedOut, on 2011-August-26, 15:32, said:
An alternate viewpoint by an otherwise interested party.
the thorn in the side of CAGW
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#147
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,676
- Joined: 2006-February-21
- Location:Upper Michigan
- Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge
Posted 2011-September-03, 09:12
Now that the charges against the so-called "climategate" scientists have proved unfounded, we can refocus upon where the actual frauds lie: Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper
The editor resigned, but Spencer is hunkering down. No money in retractions...
Quote
The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.
The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.
It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.
Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.
"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science," he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.
"Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.
"Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."
The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.
It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.
Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.
"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science," he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.
"Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.
"Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."
The editor resigned, but Spencer is hunkering down. No money in retractions...
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#148
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-September-03, 09:28
This is indeed a troubling situation. (At least as troubling as similar instances in pre-climategate times.)
I am not sure what the editor's expertise in satellite measurement is, or how he assayed the validity of the contents of the paper that the peer-reviewers signed off on... but certainly he has his reasons for resigning. What those motivations might be or where they originated remains to be seen. Now, like all journals and the peer-review process, refutations, corrigendums and retractions, if warranted, will surely follow.
Based on what I read from his resignation letter, it appears that he didn't realize that the paper refuted the arguments of the Trenberth paper that he stated was a reference source for his position. Most strange, since you would expect a refutation to disagree with what is being refuted.
I am not sure what the editor's expertise in satellite measurement is, or how he assayed the validity of the contents of the paper that the peer-reviewers signed off on... but certainly he has his reasons for resigning. What those motivations might be or where they originated remains to be seen. Now, like all journals and the peer-review process, refutations, corrigendums and retractions, if warranted, will surely follow.
Based on what I read from his resignation letter, it appears that he didn't realize that the paper refuted the arguments of the Trenberth paper that he stated was a reference source for his position. Most strange, since you would expect a refutation to disagree with what is being refuted.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#149
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,519
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-September-03, 10:16
Al_U_Card, on 2011-September-03, 09:28, said:
Based on what I read from his resignation letter, it appears that he didn't realize that the paper refuted the arguments of the Trenberth paper that he stated was a reference source for his position. Most strange, since you would expect a refutation to disagree with what is being refuted.
Maybe you should learn to read before trying to form your own opinion about climate change. The resignation letter clearly states that:
1. There had been studies similar to Spencer's before.
2. These had been refuted by Trenberth's paper, and in other discussions.
3. Spencer's paper ignored the refutation by Trenberth.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#150
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-September-10, 14:08
There is certainly quite a bit of buzz concerning this resignation although it has been further trumped by the response to the paper in question (Dessler 2011) that got written and reviewed in record time. Based on the changes that the author himself has started to make, based on Roy Spencer`s communication with him, perhaps those editors will resign for having let through a paper without sufficient review.....or does that only apply to skeptic papers and not rebuttals to them?
My previous post was the expression on my opinion of the editor`s motivations, especially when you consider the stated goals of that "open" journal, espoused and expressed by that same editor but a short time before as he took the editor`s position:
Remote Sensing journal is an Open Access journal and an online journal, with the Editorial Office located in Basel. It maintains a rapid editorial procedure and a rigorous peer-review system. Because it is an open access journal, papers published will receive very high publicity. The Remote Sensing Editorial team consists of trained scientists (Publisher: Dr. Shu-Kun Lin, PhD in Organic Chemistry from the ETH Zürich, and the Production Editor: Dr. Derek McPhee, California, USA)
My previous post was the expression on my opinion of the editor`s motivations, especially when you consider the stated goals of that "open" journal, espoused and expressed by that same editor but a short time before as he took the editor`s position:
Remote Sensing journal is an Open Access journal and an online journal, with the Editorial Office located in Basel. It maintains a rapid editorial procedure and a rigorous peer-review system. Because it is an open access journal, papers published will receive very high publicity. The Remote Sensing Editorial team consists of trained scientists (Publisher: Dr. Shu-Kun Lin, PhD in Organic Chemistry from the ETH Zürich, and the Production Editor: Dr. Derek McPhee, California, USA)
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#151
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,676
- Joined: 2006-February-21
- Location:Upper Michigan
- Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge
Posted 2011-September-12, 16:26
Very warm in the UP again today, and I guess we are no exception: Arctic ice levels hit historic low
Consequences. Yes indeed.
Quote
The North Pole skull cap shrank to about half a percent under the previous record low set in September 2007, according to the school's Institute of Environmental Physics.
Researchers, including those from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, had predicted earlier this summer that Arctic sea ice levels could reach extreme lows. But the University of Bremen physicists said there was uncertainty in July about whether the ice melt would surpass the previous record.
They said their studies indicated that continuing ice decline was related to man-made global warming.
"It seems to be clear that this is a further consequence of the man-made global warming with global consequences," researchers said in their report. "Directly, the livehood of small animals, algae, fishes and mammals like polar bears and seals is more and more reduced."
Researchers, including those from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, had predicted earlier this summer that Arctic sea ice levels could reach extreme lows. But the University of Bremen physicists said there was uncertainty in July about whether the ice melt would surpass the previous record.
They said their studies indicated that continuing ice decline was related to man-made global warming.
"It seems to be clear that this is a further consequence of the man-made global warming with global consequences," researchers said in their report. "Directly, the livehood of small animals, algae, fishes and mammals like polar bears and seals is more and more reduced."
Consequences. Yes indeed.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#152
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2011-September-13, 03:51
PassedOut, on 2011-September-12, 16:26, said:
Consequences. Yes indeed.
on no!!!! quick, raise my taxes!!!!
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#153
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,485
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2011-September-13, 04:55
Al_U_Card, on 2011-September-10, 14:08, said:
My previous post was the expression on my opinion of the editor`s motivations, especially when you consider the stated goals of that "open" journal, espoused and expressed by that same editor but a short time before as he took the editor`s position:
I encourage anyone who is actually interested in the editor's motivations to look at the actual letter of resignation rather than trusting anything that Al posts.
The complete letter is available at: http://www.mdpi.com/...92/3/9/2002/pdf
Personally, I think that its pretty hard to misinterpret a letter that starts with:
Quote
Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be
able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet
discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded
climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statement
able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet
discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded
climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statement
Not to mention
Quote
The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which
was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―tomake clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.
was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―tomake clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.
Alderaan delenda est
#154
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-September-13, 13:21
PassedOut, on 2011-September-12, 16:26, said:
Very warm in the UP again today, and I guess we are no exception: Arctic ice levels hit historic low
Consequences. Yes indeed.
Consequences. Yes indeed.
Bremen might want to check their figures, as they are in disagreement with the other five sea-ice monitors (NSIDC, JAXA, DMI, Cryosphere Today, and NANSEN) You can check for yourself. What stands out is that we are certainly at the low ebb for arctic sea-ice and that 2007 definitely had an outlier type melt season. (The curve is distorted relative to the other years and was possibly due to weather phenomena that blew a lot of ice out the Fram Strait that year.)
Either way, polar bears don`t seem to be suffering, as their numbers over the last 30 years have more than tripled from around 5,000 to upwards of 20,000. As for the taxes, definitely as sure as death but somewhat less certain than the weather, as it should be...
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#155
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-September-13, 13:23
luke warm, on 2011-September-13, 03:51, said:
on no!!!! quick, raise my taxes!!!!
I gather that Barry O heard that the snow banks of Alaska were disappearing so he offered to bail them out...
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#156
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-September-15, 15:29
Speaking of dire consequences, I am sure that the planned allocation of resources to climate-ravaged regions of the world is well supported by the consensus science of the IPCC... eg
AR4 IPCC Report 2007. For example in Chapter 11 of the Executive Summary:
There is likely to be an increase in annual mean rainfall in East Africa.”
On page 869, in Chapter 11.2.3.2 (emphasis added):
"The increase in rainfall in East Africa, extending into the Horn of Africa, is also robust across the ensemble of models, with 18 of 21 models projecting an increase in the core of this region, "
Surely the Somali and Ethiopians sujected to the current drought-induced famine will understand that the above "conclusion" was just a model-based projection.
AR4 IPCC Report 2007. For example in Chapter 11 of the Executive Summary:
There is likely to be an increase in annual mean rainfall in East Africa.”
On page 869, in Chapter 11.2.3.2 (emphasis added):
"The increase in rainfall in East Africa, extending into the Horn of Africa, is also robust across the ensemble of models, with 18 of 21 models projecting an increase in the core of this region, "
Surely the Somali and Ethiopians sujected to the current drought-induced famine will understand that the above "conclusion" was just a model-based projection.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#157
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,485
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2011-September-15, 16:08
Al_U_Card, on 2011-September-15, 15:29, said:
"The increase in rainfall in East Africa, extending into the Horn of Africa, is also robust across the ensemble of models, with 18 of 21 models projecting an increase in the core of this region, "
Hey *****head, if you actually read the report rather than just parroting Watt's up with That's latest screed you might have noticed that said results were contrasting the periods 1980 - 1999 and 2080 - 2099...
No one other than you asswipes claim that long term climate models are appropriate for short term forecasts
Alderaan delenda est
#158
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-September-15, 17:15
"I just finished using Mike's Nature trick, to hide the decline."
Must be contagious...when exposed to climate "science". All those Haimalayan glaciers melting by 2035 and snowless Kilimanjaros caused by CAGW etc. etc.
Must be contagious...when exposed to climate "science". All those Haimalayan glaciers melting by 2035 and snowless Kilimanjaros caused by CAGW etc. etc.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#159
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,485
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2011-September-16, 05:49
Al_U_Card, on 2011-September-15, 17:15, said:
"I just finished using Mike's Nature trick, to hide the decline."
Strange, should have sworn that we dealt with this "issue" years back...
Guess you're too stupid to remember.
Alderaan delenda est
#160
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-September-16, 08:34
Cloud formation shouldn`t be that big a problem when modelling precipitation... 
... it`s just that projections are being used to guide policy that are allocating resources, to say nothing of the inherent up-coming tax grab.
(Keep an eye on Australia, they will become the test case when they adopt their carbon "price".)
From the AR4, precipitation model ensemble page: (my bolding)
Despite the many improvements, numerous issues remain. Many of the important processes that determine a model’s response to changes in radiative forcing are not resolved by the model’s grid. Instead, sub-grid scale parametrizations are used to parametrize the unresolved processes, such as cloud formation and the mixing due to oceanic eddies. It continues to be the case that multi-model ensemble simulations generally provide more robust information than runs of any single model. Table 8.1 summarises the formulations of each of the AOGCMs used in this report.
There is currently no consensus on the optimal way to divide computer resources among finer numerical grids, which allow for better simulations; greater numbers of ensemble members, which allow for better statistical estimates of uncertainty; and inclusion of a more complete set of processes (e.g., carbon feedbacks, atmospheric chemistry interactions).
Projections for 2070-2099
... it`s just that projections are being used to guide policy that are allocating resources, to say nothing of the inherent up-coming tax grab. (Keep an eye on Australia, they will become the test case when they adopt their carbon "price".)
From the AR4, precipitation model ensemble page: (my bolding)
Despite the many improvements, numerous issues remain. Many of the important processes that determine a model’s response to changes in radiative forcing are not resolved by the model’s grid. Instead, sub-grid scale parametrizations are used to parametrize the unresolved processes, such as cloud formation and the mixing due to oceanic eddies. It continues to be the case that multi-model ensemble simulations generally provide more robust information than runs of any single model. Table 8.1 summarises the formulations of each of the AOGCMs used in this report.
There is currently no consensus on the optimal way to divide computer resources among finer numerical grids, which allow for better simulations; greater numbers of ensemble members, which allow for better statistical estimates of uncertainty; and inclusion of a more complete set of processes (e.g., carbon feedbacks, atmospheric chemistry interactions).
Projections for 2070-2099
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!