Page 25 of 228 FirstFirst ... 1523242526273575125 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #241
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    The entire blackbody radiation discussion put forth by Kimoto isn't relevant to any modeling(since they have vertical cell resolution in the atmosphere). The absorption and re-radiation occurs in each cell and is balanced across each boundary. Obviously there is then a much more complicated energy flow that can be depicted in a single cell, but it would be trivial to simply remove all the other physics and establish a baseline...Which was exactly Cess' exasperated point. Bringing up very basic things as if professional scientists' haven't thought of them is ludicrous.

    The Santer paper that Steve implored you to actually read is a good example of looking at how and where the models have missed the observed pause in warming. By fitting the model ("perfect model") to a larger ensemble of data, both past and present, they can assign statistical likelihood to explanations, as captured in the model.

    Their conclusion was that certain cooling forcings* have been underrepresented in the model. I understand that's been one of your points, but the combination of the pause and historical data suggest that this is not a predictably stable state.

    @John
    If you want to understand the models, read about the models here:
    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...g1/en/ch8.html

    As you can see, models at minimum use 16 levels for the atmosphere, with the radiation balance happening at each level cell. Resolution has only improved in the last 10 years.

    As I said in the very beginning, I was a skeptic until 2009 or so, when I read the 2007 IPCC report in full (while at my petroleum process design desk, ironically). My assumption was that the climate was, roughly speaking, a stable system. Any glance at the historical record shows that the climate is in fact a metastable system, with both very warm and glacial periods. Any analysis shows that since the industrial revolution, the temperature has changed faster than at any point in recorded history - this is not in question even by skeptics. Even IF this variation was principally natural, the obvious presence of positive feedbacks in the climate system should lead us to ask what the risk of amplifying the natural cycle is. In this sense, the CO2 lead lag phenomena is irrelevant, though skepticism is misplaced - it's obvious that it has a positive feedback loop with climate (very likely modulated through long term water vapor trends).

    Even if you take the very lowest estimates for the impact of anthropogenic emissions, it should be taken as a given that causing warming IS possible through atmospheric alteration and that at some point the costs of this exceed the benefits (e.g. improved growing season at northern latitudes).



    * I'll be first to admit (and I did, pages ago) that the uncertainty in stratospheric water vapor is the most interesting to me. I don't think I linked this earlier but :
    http://web-static-aws.seas.harvard.e...enlof_2010.pdf
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  2. #242
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Said another way... What value to your internet experience does the ISP add? The answer is NONE. They provide connectivity and that's it. So why then, should they be allowed to insert themselves into your experience or throttling it? Would it suprise you to know many ISPs don't even own the infrastructure, but rather lease it?
    That is an interesting way to look at it. So, how does that work with NN in affect and not in affect, as you see it?
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  3. #243
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    The answer is fairly straight-forward. If they can charge me for the content I choose to access then that gives them the ability to negotiate on both sides. In other words, they can charge me for "unthrottled access" to certain sites in different packages. Then they can turn around and tell the content generators that they have to provide local caching in ISP owned data centers to be offered in the lower tier consumer packages, then charging content providers lease space (which content providers currently do, but not from ISP datacenters). This puts them in control when they really provide no value. With no other options (and in some states, municipal ISPs are illegal) they own a monopoly again.

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Not just because. Take a small bit at least and try and figure out why they really want it repealed, instead of a strawman.

    Per Pai, who makes a pretty good point:



    I would hazard somethings are broken about it, unlike Pia, but for the most part he was right. When a company broke a contract and throttled or otherwise the FCC stepped in and took care of it.

    The argument seems be adding more regulation to a process that already has those rules in place? That being said, as I have seen this, my reply has been....ah, you realize Trump is the government now, and technically he could, under NN rules, impose a committee to regulate #fakenews? Want DeVos, Bill O'Reilly, Sessions in on that? I think there is a potential bullet dodged here.

    That being said - I have seen no real change in pre NN and post NN internet myself. Nor any real issue saved because of it. I see a lot of 'potentials' that didn't pop up pre-2015 that were not addressed by the courts already. If those were to happen, they would have in the past with a less educated internet savvy public. Well, AOL and the like did, but that is old news.

    I don't care either way, but I would hate for NN to become a tool that can be used later in a nefarious way, so I only really mild agree with it going by the wayside. Right now it is a political tool to bash the other side and raise alarm over some duplicate regulations that haven't really done much and have very little use in benign hands, yet can be poorly used in the wrong hands. But hey, lets clutch some pearls!
    There is a pretty rigorous debate on the extent that the FTC can protect "net neutrality." Saying the regulations are "duplicative" seems like a pretty simplistic read to me. The FCC's are fundamentally more focused and even some Republicans admit they'd have to revisit the FTC's mandate on this issue. I'm not an expert on the FTC's jurisdiction, but I highly doubt we will see them bringing anti-trust actions against larger internet providers. Large anti-trust cases just haven't happened recently and doesn't appear to be a current concern of either democrat or republican administrations. There are also legitimate legal arguments that internet providers can throttle speeds under the FTC's current mandate. AT&T just won a case last year regarding this very issue because they were exempt from FTC regulations as a "common carrier" (this gets into a larger discussion of what is a common carrier, but to say the least the matter is legally unclear). Second, jurisdiction over unfair and deceptive practices won't actually protect consumers so long as the Company is transparent about throttling particular content, etc. If you are the only game in town, you don't have to lie to attract customers. This gets to the larger point that the market is simply too concentrated to expect competition to solve this problem.

  5. #245
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    The entire blackbody radiation discussion put forth by Kimoto isn't relevant to any modeling(since they have vertical cell resolution in the atmosphere). The absorption and re-radiation occurs in each cell and is balanced across each boundary. Obviously there is then a much more complicated energy flow that can be depicted in a single cell, but it would be trivial to simply remove all the other physics and establish a baseline...
    It is relevant in the understanding, and the basics - Plank and all that. They don't just abandon them though - they can add cells and layers and all of that, but it still is Energy In, and Energy Out through an insulator. How much does this little rock ball warm and cool due to sun input and heat loss rates. I was just trying to cover the basics for Steve, and the basic energy values I am using to show I am not pulling them out of my backside - he didn't seem to have that even. The Day 1 stuff that he though I was omitting, and I though he understood. But we finally got down to his level, so we have a place to start from.

    Nor is my discussion a route reply on the total of how they build a model. It is....complicated. And there isn't the room here to explain all of those details. Nor do a lot of them need to be explained if somebody has the knowledge of it, like they said they did. I assumed Steve understood the basics, per the course I linked to. You seem to.

    [Removed details about the models] in the end, even with the higher resolution, they all failed.

    In exactly the same way. I understand the huge volume of work they generated - but they never questioned The Theory, nor did they every try to falsify or test an alternative theory. They took this one, ran with it, and fought anybody who questioned it.

    They all showed higher warming than was produced.

    That shows the IPCC understanding is irrecoverably flawed. It is cool you read the 2007 report, and you believed it - but it turns out that there was a flaw in there. Because Reality and the IPCC have diverged a good amount.

    The 2007 report shows significantly too much warming. No matter how you slice it, the Skeptics has said the models over forced CO2/Water Vapor feedbacks . Christy flat out said is was by a factor of 2.5 times as much. He was demonized by that. Called a skeptic. Called a liar. Somebody friggen SHOT HIS OFFICE.

    Now, even if they word it as if it is something else, Santer et al say they over forced it by 2.5, the same amount Christy said. It took them quite a while to accept it, but they have in the end.

    We can parse it all we want, say I don't know crap about what I am talking about, try and argue semantics, question my diet even, as you have, but in the end the 2007 IPCC report, and 1990 and the rest:

    Were. All. Wrong.

    By a factor of 2.5 times.

    Falsified.

    Any analysis shows that since the industrial revolution, the temperature has changed faster than at any point in recorded history - this is not in question even by skeptics.
    Any? No. Ha! I can show you several that do. This is in question, while the skeptics are saying there IS warming (not the strawman that warming isn't happening) but that it is mostly normal, relative, expected. It matches the warming of the mid-1600's to the mid-1700s. If you had read the 1990, 1997, 2001 reports you would see that the past had changed a bit. That was a good portion of that in my initial comments.

    Even the IPCC has said human influence wasn't significant till the 1950s, yet the warming rate in the 1850s to 1930's was at the same rate as the warming rate from 1980's to 200's, and we had a cooling from 1950 to 1980. The rate matches nature. It is in the models that any warming looks different than the previous warming rates. The long term warming from 1850 till now is not really crazy fast, nor was the warming from the 1950s, partially because we had cooling for 20 years.

    In addition, we have had a relative pause for nearing on 20 years. That is counter to the projections, and I have shown that several different ways.

    If you look at the raw SS data vs the adjusted data, from IPCC report to IPCC report, they keep cooling the past, to show more warming.

    Also:

    In this sense, the CO2 lead lag phenomena is irrelevant, though skepticism is misplaced - it's obvious that it has a positive feedback loop with climate (very likely modulated through long term water vapor trends).
    No, that is again, wrong. As I showed, plenty of times, it never happened. The 'Missing Red Spot' in the climate models at 300mbar level never showed up. The increased water vapor never showed up.

    Empirical satellite readings show a NEGATIVE feedback. I have shown that also.

    Also I have shown that past environments also had significantly higher CO2 levels. 1200ppm was common.

    For this statement to be true: " it's obvious that it has a positive feedback loop with climate" then at 1200ppm we should have a run away climate affect. Logically, that would happen for a positive feedback.

    Instead we have a climate that never exceeded 24 degrees C - becoming metastable even up to 4000ppm of CO2.

    That logically means you have a negative feedback stabilizing the system.

    The Empirical data shows a negative feedback. Millions of years of history show a negative feedback. Logically it is a negative feedback.
    _________________

    To follow up:

    All IPCC models are wrong, they show too much warming, every single one. That isn't even in question.
    Warming rates match historic pre-contribution (1950's on) level of temperature raise if you look at the raw data.
    Feedback is negative, not positive, and can't be positive except in the models.

    You're a smart guy.

    With so much falsified or logically impossible - why do you still believe? The IPCC did a lot of research but only use one Theory, one plan, with one obvious conclusion.

    That didn't show up. That can't physically happen, and in contrast to empirical data and reality.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #246
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    1. My position is that the current climate (~15C) is a metastable state, with both hot periods (24C) and Ice Ages (~0C) representing bounding (equilibria, due to changes in overall conditions (albedo, humidity, thermohaline circulation, probably magnetic field reversal). Of course there exist negative and positive feedbacks in the system. They do not seem to dominate in the current temperature regime, based on the underlying physics and the historical record. Thus, definitively metastable.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-stability.svg

    (we're at 2, with hot and cold periods represented by 1 and 3. Feedback is local to the state you're in)

    2. The models are not "irrevocably flawed" - this would be incredibly obvious to everyone were it the case. Clearly, they do not produce a perfect simulation of reality. We are looking for trends. Adjusting the parameters that you've suggested would produce a worse model fit to the historical record than the current models. 2014 (AR5) CMIP5 models have a mean pattern correlation of 0.99 for annual average surface temperature and 0.8 for precipitation. That's incredibly good! You cannot get to there from "Climate 101". If you make changes that you're suggesting (negative or neutral water feedback is the only one as far as I can tell), the model produces worse results.

    3. Much of the data and papers you cite are not representative of the entire corpus of data available. I consider myself a Bayesian* in this regard - the vast preponderance of data supports the conclusions of the IPCC. Many of your objections (such as the satellite data) are explicitly addressed in the very Santer paper that you cite.

    *Yes, I realize I'm throwing you an alley oop for a prior beliefs jibe.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  7. #247
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    I'm trying to avoid walls of quotes so I wrote my own blurb and linked images. Just as a reminder to what I'm responding to, since I have to start somewhere-

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Let's take a step back here, I just want to make a quick comment of relativity. This might help put things in perspective.

    Per the models, after the paper Mann signed, we are left with the potential of 1.1wm^2 of increased warming for a doubling of CO2 from the 1850's.

    That is from 275ppm, to 550ppm. Let's assume that is fine.

    At 400ppm, we are looking at 25% of that 1.1wm^2 - so, about .25wm^2. If the forcing was in play, that would be about .75wm^2, total input from 1850.

    Van Geel and Ziegler, 2013 (continued)

    ' On centennial and longer time scales, differences between TSI estimates become increasingly larger. Wang et al. (2005) and Kopp and Lean (2011) estimate that between 1900 and 1960 TSI increased by about 0.5 Wm-2 and thereafter remained essentially stable, whilst Hoyt and Schatten (1997) combined with the ACRIM data and suggest that TSI increased between 1900 and 2000 by about 3 Wm-2 and was subject to major fluctuations in 1950-1980 (Scafetta, 2013; Scafetta, 2007).

    ' Similarly, it is variably estimated that during the Maunder Solar Minimum (1645- 1715) of the Little Ice Age TSI may have been only 1.25 Wm-2 lower than at present Wang et al., 2005; Haig, 2003; Gray et al., 2010; Krivova et al., 2010) or by as much as 6 ' 3 Wm-2 lower than at present (Shapiro et al., 2010; Hoyt and Schatten, 1997), reflecting a TSI increase ranging between 0.09% and 0.5%, respectively.
    This fluctuates a bit here and there, SOON et al 2015 shows a very robust suggestion of up to 5wm^2 change (and the paper is open source, so http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

    That is 1357wm^2 to about 1365wm^2, or maybe less.
    I was going to put this off for the weekend, with charts, and spectra, and all kinds of figuring, but as I sat down for dinner I realized surely someone else has already done this. I hope josh doesn't object to this, it's primarily satellite data and there are essentially no models or "The Theory" here, it's just spectra and energy accounting. I skip over the part where it has the slightest potential to get muddled and say "fuck it, it all contributes".

    Here's a quick overview, there are references at the bottom: http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimut...ar%20radiation - I think this reference is the most comprehensive - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...008BAMS2634.1; it's free if you click "pdf".
    Note - there's a list of acronyms at the bottom of the paper. Figure 1 and tables 2a and 2b are probably most relevant.

    Here's the overly-simplified, 0th order approximation that explains some of the basic mechanics. Despite it blatantly demonstrating that you can't actually compare 5 W/m^2 directly to CO2 radiative forcing, Josh will no doubt insist that it's too simple. Oh well.

    TSI, or total solar irradiance, is a measurement of the intensity of the sun across all wavelengths at a distance of 1 AU. You would use the TSI to find how much solar energy is being delivered to the planet - so you multiply the TSI (in energy per unit area) times the cross sectional area of the earth, to get the full amount of energy delivered to the planet.

    But this is distributed across the surface of the earth, so you divide it by 4 - the cross section of the planet is pi*r^2, whereas the surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2. Since Josh posted that graphic above with 342 W/m^2, I don't think he disagrees. You divide your entire 1365 W/m^2 signal by 4 - along with your 1-5 W/m^2 increase. So right off the bat that 1-5 W/m^2 increase immediately becomes 0.25-1.25 W/m^2 across the planet, just due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. To be clear I'm not making any statement on the validity of the 1-5 w/m^2 analysis, and I'm pretty doubtful it exists.

    To make the rest brief; 30% of that 342 W/m^2 is reflected straight back into space. Some of the light then filters down through the atmosphere, where the infrared portion hits some absorption bands and warms the atmosphere. You can see that here:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...r_Spectrum.png

    The remainder, which hasn't been absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected into space, is absorbed by the surface of the planet (and all the crap on it). This raises the earth's temperature, which then re-radiates in the infrared following Planck's law to maintain an energy balance. The energy emitted (primarily in the IR band) is equal to the energy of the light absorbed. Some of this is, again, captured by molecular absorption bands in the atmosphere and sent back to earth/brownian dances around in the atmosphere, and some of it is at wavelengths outside those bands so it passes freely into space. You can see the spectrum here:

    https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eart...3/fig10out.png

    All in all, of that 342 W/m^2 that hit the planet, roughly 30% is reflected straight away; I'm not quite sure how I'd account for the rest, and frankly I'm a lazy physicist, so let's just say everything but the 40 W/m^2 that pass straight through the 'atmospheric window' after being radiated by the earth in Fig 1 contribute to warming.

    After albedo and radiated energy that passes straight into space you're left with ~200 W/m^2 out of that 1365 W/m^2 you started with, which is approximately 15% of what you started with. So your 1-5 W/m^2 increase in TSI becomes 0.15-0.75 W/m^2 of energy actually contributing to the earth's system across the surface of the planet. Despite no doubt being way bigger than the actual value (because 1-5 is probably high and because I'm lazy) it's at least something that starts to be an appropriate comparison. Fluctuations in energy from the sun in the earth's atmospheric system vs. energy captured by CO2. At best fluctuations in TSI are very comparable to Josh's absolutely ludicrous value of 0.25 W/m^2 value for CO2 radiative forcing.

    So, that's that.
    Last edited by PBSteve; 11-30-2017 at 12:12 AM. Reason: corrected the eq'n for surface area
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  8. #248
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Seems the attach file system here is limiting pics to 620x280 - meaning I can't upload a quick pic I did of the forcing numbers. So, this will have to kinda be a two part bit. But I figure pictures would help you understand.

    First, I am going to post up the 2009 NASA/IPCC Energy Budget for Climate, Source: Trenberth et al. 2009 http://echorock.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Sta...09etalBAMS.pdf.

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s5B-voJEH...1600/Kiehl.png

    So, the Basic is you have 341wm^2 in. This is variable though - by 1-5 Wm^2? Maybe just a portion of that? So I put a little error bar there. +/- 5 Wm^2

    Then you have Green House Gas Back radiation - of 333 Wm^2. The change would be.... 0.25 Wm^2 for the current level of CO2. So 333.25 Wm^2

    That is what I am comparing. See?
    Just for posterity, this is our resident expert and I need to "catch up".
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  9. #249
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    1. My position is that the current climate (~15C) is a metastable state, with both hot periods (24C) and Ice Ages (~0C) representing bounding (equilibria, due to changes in overall conditions (albedo, humidity, thermohaline circulation, probably magnetic field reversal). Of course there exist negative and positive feedbacks in the system. They do not seem to dominate in the current temperature regime, based on the underlying physics and the historical record. Thus, definitively metastable.
    I consider this a very basic, non controversial statement. It is like saying a truck has 4 wheels, comes in colors and can hold 3 or 6 people. Yet, it is in conflict with the origins of the entire process.

    If the CO2/Water Vapor system works like The Theory, then we would have run-away global warming. That is the end all expected from the way the feedbacks are built into the model. Hence all of the bits about 'Tipping Points' and how we have to not go past 350 or 400 or 550 ppm of CO2s or it is to late. I can cite a large number of stories that state just that. In fact, James Hansen, the head of GISS and the originator of the GISS-A and related models, say exactly that:

    Climate scientist John Houghton has written that "[there] is no possibility of [Venus's] runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth".[14] However, climatologist James Hansen disagrees. In his Storms of My Grandchildren he says that burning coal and mining shale oil will result in runaway greenhouse on Earth.[15]
    Your statement is in direct conflict with the head of NASAs GISS department, and the 'Father' of The Theory and Model for AGW. The models do not produce a metastable state. They produce a run-away state. Mind you, they are talking about a Venus level of runaway. Earth doesn't have the CO2 mass to produce that, since 95% of the atmosphere, which is also 95 times the mass, is CO2. But a run-away state is how the models work.

    2. The models are not "irrevocably flawed" - this would be incredibly obvious to everyone were it the case. Clearly, they do not produce a perfect simulation of reality. We are looking for trends. Adjusting the parameters that you've suggested would produce a worse model fit to the historical record than the current models. 2014 (AR5) CMIP5 models have a mean pattern correlation of 0.99 for annual average surface temperature and 0.8 for precipitation. That's incredibly good! You cannot get to there from "Climate 101". If you make changes that you're suggesting (negative or neutral water feedback is the only one as far as I can tell), the model produces worse results.
    Yes, they are. First, with the runaway affect that you say wouldn't happen yet Hansen says would. As discussed above.

    Second, well, this pic:



    This should be obvious. And it is. Dr Christy said warming was over stated by CO2 forcing by a factor of 2.5 not because of his models - but because he deals with the satellite database. He invented the technology to make it work.

    That is not a mean pattern correlation of 0.99 Ryan. The models... failed. That should be obvious. Look at them. None were even close.

    Now lets look at Santer in 2016 (his slightly earlier paper):

    Here, it is shown that the average ratio of modeled and observed TMT trends is sensitive to both satellite data uncertainties and model–data differences in stratospheric cooling. When the impact of lower-stratospheric cooling on TMT is accounted for, and when the most recent versions of satellite datasets are used, the previously claimed ratio of three between simulated and observed near-global TMT trends is reduced to approximately 1.7.
    Mind you, the rebuttal showed that Santer cherry picked some satellite data. Which resulted in the 2017 paper, which said:

    In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble

    Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed,....model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
    Santer is clear on this, the models showed too much warming. The factor of over-warming in the models are in the amount Christy and other Skeptics said it would be, so it can't be that our models would produce worse results. That is an incorrect assumption on your part.

    Santer is not a flash in the pan contrarian or anything, he was part of the IPCC process from the beginning, he wrote a paper this year to straight debunk Scott Pruit's statements as he joined the EPA. Santer authored a lengthy blog post in 2016 critical of Cruz’s contention there was an 18-year “hiatus” in warming that climate models didn’t predict. His is not a skeptic.

    HIS statements in 2 of his papers state the models show too much warming. His statements show these is not a 0.99 correlation level, but show a factor of warming 2.5 times what it should be. That means there is no correlation between the models and reality.

    None of your above paragraph is correct. Maybe based on 2007 IPCC assumptions. But the data and the models diverged a large amount in the last decade. That it has tracked so poorly in 10 years should give you great pause before you write another completely incorrect reply. If they are that wrong in 10 years, how wrong will they be in 100?

    3. Much of the data and papers you cite are not representative of the entire corpus of data available. I consider myself a Bayesian* in this regard - the vast preponderance of data supports the conclusions of the IPCC. Many of your objections (such as the satellite data) are explicitly addressed in the very Santer paper that you cite.

    *Yes, I realize I'm throwing you an alley oop for a prior beliefs jibe.
    * Ha! Yes.

    As I stated a while back, there is a large body of work (I mentioned thousands of papers, and linked to them) that show a different result. Which would mean the science is very dynamic still, and a consensus would be premature. In addition the IPCC is, as a majority, tasked not with the science, but with the Affects of the Possiblity of CO2 causing warming. So a large portion of the body of the work is to look at the results, and potential harms. There is a large portion of funding for that research also. When Cook's work was reviewed it found out of the 12,000 papers selected less than 1% strongly supported AGW.

    Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

    David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    http://link.springer.com/article/10....191-013-9647-9

    "However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."
    I mentioned in the very first rant on this that the problem with the satellite database stem largely from only being a small dataset, relying on a couple units instead of multiple redundant items. The problems with the GISS dataset is even higher, and we haven't had a good UHI study done either. I was rather emphatic on my belief that we need far better datasets and monitoring stations. This is rather young science, with many areas not covered, and many long term stations in poor quality. The Satellite and Weather balloon data has a very good correlation. The GHCN dataset shows a different result from raw vs adjusted that shows some major statistical errors.

    It is all kinda poor at the moment.

    And the 2007 IPCC paper used nearly 1/3rd uncited papers:

    http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audi...-main-page.php

    PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE CLAIM
    The chairman of the IPCC has declared repeatedly that the report is based solely on peer-reviewed literature. (This means research papers that have been submitted to an academic journal, scrutinized by anonymous referees, and frequently altered in order to qualify for publication. Although the peer-review process does not guarantee accuracy, the fact that research findings have undergone this process promotes a feeling of confidence.)

    This Citizen Audit focused its attention on the peer-reviewed literature claim. A team of 43 volunteers from 12 countries examined the list of references at the end of each chapter. We sorted these references into two groups - articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals and other references. (Non-peer-reviewed material is often called "grey literature".) Then we calculated the percentage of references that do, indeed, appear to be peer-reviewed.

    All 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
    5,587 are not peer-reviewed
    IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
    each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
    21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F
    43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project
    They even just pulled stuff from Greenpeace on several areas, which ended up being straight out false: https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/201...pcc-part-ii-2/

    That being said, as a Bayesian:

    Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated to a posterior probability in the light of new, relevant data (evidence)
    The Santer papers clearly say the models are not in correlation with reality. The data is very clear, and the admission by the strongest supporters of AWG Theory are signed on in addition.

    The Empirical Data is clear.

    A Review of Cook et al. is very clear that only a small portion of the body of work strongly support AGW.

    Nearly of 1/3rd of the 2007 report was not peer reviewed, and often came from greenpeace or related literature.

    I can stack evidence up enough, that is not a problem. I have links to pages and pages of papers. Thousands out of tens of thousands.

    ________________________

    Nothing you wrote in your later two paragraphs, short of maybe being a Bayesian, is correct after the failures of the Cook paper and the results from Santer's two papers.

    1) In counter position of James Hansen, writer of the GISS modeling, and AWG CO2 Theory
    2) Falsified by Santer et al, Emprical data
    3) Falsifed by review of Cook et al.

    Lets see if you really will pay tribute to Mr Bayes and start looking at counter evidence.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-30-2017 at 10:54 AM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #250
    so still no evidence of the TSI increasing.

    k.

    seriously, why bother with all this shit? josh can't even show evidence of the root of every single one of his arguments. the TSI has not increased. sorry. you lose.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •