Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

Pcar, please forgive me, but I'm an IT-sceptic (and ignoramus) as well as a climate sceptic, and I try very hard to avoid websites that require me to register. I take the view that the fewer people who have access to my information on the web, the better. Paranoiac perhaps, and unjustified, very possibly, but it's just the old-fashioned way I am.

I comment here and occasionally at cliscep and NALOPKT (and in the past even at aTTP) because I can do so without registering. You won't find me commenting on sites that require me to register first.

Sorry!

Oct 19, 2018 at 9:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Entropic man,

Thanks for laying out your reasoning. I'm not completely clear on it, mind, but it surely is more to work with. A few thoughts that occur to me:

I have a feeling that in most places where you say "climate" you should be saying "temperature". If CO2 is an input factor, the response needs to be in a simple variable, which climate obviously isn't (temperature is quite complicated enough).

I don't know what to make of the importance you ascribe to cause. I presume you'd rate CO2 spewed from a volcano as a "forcing". But all the positive feedback stuff that we're always hearing about (higher temperatures lead to CO2 coming out of solution in the oceans, H2O feedback, etc.) will happen just the same regardless of whether the CO2 that triggered them was deemed a "forcing" or a feedback. But these secondary effects are always feedbacks, right?

You needn't worry that I might think dozens of factors are too many to model the weather. There are surely far more variables in the real thing. My opinion is that modelling the weather is simply never going to work. Like economist's models, it all works very well when things are stable, and goes completely off the rails when things are more jittery -- just when you'd really like to have better prediction.

On the single variable for public consumption, why not go for something that gives a better indication of trouble? The finance pundits on the nightly news talk about the VIX (Volatility Index) and ordinary people seem to get the idea. The overall market indices are more akin to the mean (banks falling balanced by miners rising, say), and don't tell you much about when the market is becoming dangerous.

I suspect that a VIX style calculation might tell us that it's all pretty stable.

Oct 19, 2018 at 7:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Swan

"A sure sign of intelligence is the ability to look at and understand things from a different point of view, and intelligent people are open minded towards new information and changing parameters.

Stupid people on the other hand will continue arguing forever and will not budge from their position, regardless of any valid arguments brought against them. That also means they will not notice if the other person happens to be more intelligent and competent."

Remind you of anyone?

Oct 19, 2018 at 1:47 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

@EM

"If CO2 is released into a climate which is stable, then it acts as a forcing and is the direct cause of the ensuing temperature rise."

you been on the sherry?

All the calculating/modelling in the world won't help if you misrepresent / misconstrue / mangle observations

- and you've the utterly bald faced cheek to invoke "raw data"

Oct 19, 2018 at 1:12 AM | Registered Commentertomo

Robert Swan

CO2 'is both forcing and feedback, depending on the exact circumstances.

If another forcing causes temperature rise, then CO2 is released from storage in the ocean and permafrost. The extra warming due to that CO2 is because the CO2 is acting as an amplifying feedback.

If CO2 is released into a climate which is stable, then it acts as a forcing and is the direct cause of the ensuing temperature rise.

In the larger context, a forcing is the cause of a climate change. A feedback is one of the effects of an earlier climate change.

Thus the increase in CO2 at the start of the Holocene was a feedback response to orbital forcing.

A change in climate did not cause the Industrial Revolution. Thus the CO2 from fossil fuel burning counts as a forcing, not a feeedback.

The weather is a hugely complex system and cannot be *meaningfully* reduced to a single number."

Agreed. If you want to properly understand climate, one number is clearly insufficient. There are six main forcings and at least as many major feedbacks. An energy budget uses 14 variables. The Navier-Stokes equation used to calculate the energy state ot the atmosphere uses 40 variables.

Dont get carried away by these numbers. Any flight control software uses more variables. Process control software for a large chemical plant may have thousands of variables.

Unfortunately only a few people are willing to dig beyond one simple number, so global annual average temperature is the headline number the MSM and the politicians want to hear.

Not mentioned in the denier excitement is that the errors the good doctor found are all in the raw data sent to NOAA.. Compare the raw data with the error corrected data actually used to calculate HadCRUT4. You will find that the errors were filtered out and did not contribute to the final temperatures.

Oct 19, 2018 at 1:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Pcar - reality is kicking in around the place.... I wonder what the Greens in Brighton are doing?

Elsewhere - wft is happening in California? - it could easily (is?) happen(ing) here.

Supposedly, changing demography, massive illegal immigration, and identity politics had preordained a permanent 51 percent “Other” whose minority statuses, as defined by gender and race, had now become a majority, given the destined demise of the white working classes

A piece on why the US left is actually losing it and letting an unhinged rabble run things.... HERE.

Pcar Mrs May reminds me of a number of dim power crazed local councilors I've come across over the years who've been happy to be manipulated by council managers - I don't think she has an original thought in her head and is using devious authoritarian methods to cling on.

Oct 19, 2018 at 12:52 AM | Registered Commentertomo

Robert Swann, is the "average" of wrong data, a meaningful concept anyway? Climate Scientists never seem to make errors that are NOT in their favour.

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/hadley-excuse-implies-their-quality-control-might-filter-out-the-freak-outliers-not-so/

"The Met Office, Hadley Centre response to#DataGate implied they do quality control and that leaves the impression that they might filter out the frozen tropical islands and other freak data:

"We perform automated quality checks on the ocean data and monthly updates to the land data are subjected to a computer assisted manual quality control process."

"I asked John to expand on what Hadley means. He replies that the quality control they do is very minimal, obviously inadequate, and these errors definitely survive the process and get into the HadCRUT4 dataset. Bear in mind a lot of the problems begin with the national meteorological services which supply the shoddy data, but then Hadley seems pretty happy to accept these mistakes. (Hey, it’s not like Life on Earth depends on us understanding our climate. :- ) ) "

Oct 19, 2018 at 12:02 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@Stoic, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:25 PM

...the failure of taxpayer-funded computer models...

Yep, GIGO

Oct 18, 2018 at 11:47 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

@TinyCO2, Oct 18, 2018 at 8:57 PM

Why do we find the most expensive, most open to corruption and cock up solutions out there? Countryfile about 20 years ago 'we're not going to incinerate like the rest of the EU to meet our landfill targets. We're going to recycle properly.'

+1 on most expensive - and also futiile, loss making and economically negative. Yet Gove still pledging UK will "recycle properly" for a "circular economy"*.

Remainer Phil claims leaving EU will [allegedly via Gypsy Rose's crystal ball] damage economy by x% by 2030 - what about Green crap eagerly embraced damage?

Given a choice between EU & Green Crap, leaving EU comes first.

*circular economy - nothing changes, no wealth creation, no rise in living standards, no advances. Welcome to "Conservative" Cuba.

Oct 18, 2018 at 11:30 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

@Entropic man, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:03 PM

Playing the "Malthusian population" and "Think of the children" cards now.

ROFL

You've confirmed you're a Green Cult "humans are bad" Disciple.

Oct 18, 2018 at 11:28 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>