Comments on: An insanity of global warming

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 18:52:26 +0000

>”More recent work is spot on”

Interesting development Dan, I was wondering if you were still refining the model. It would be good to have something to look at and track over this century similar to Scafetta and CMIP5.

By: Dan Pangburn

Dan Pangburn — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:10:23 +0000

That was an early paper. More recent work is spot on.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:39:25 +0000

Tamino has a good comparison of the massive fall in Arctic sea ice extent vs the almost imperceptible change in Antarctic sea ice extent.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/#more-5650

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 06:22:43 +0000

No thanks, I prefer “The Innocence of Muslims”, as it has better production values and is more considered and thoughtful….

By: Jesse Jones

Jesse Jones — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:32:01 +0000

I would like to extend to you personal invitation to check my feature length documentary on the “cold facts” of Global Warming entitled “The Boy Who Cried Warming,” available in full at http://www.theboywhocriedwarming.com. The virtual premier has been enjoyed by over 12,000 viewers due to a grassroots campaign effort of handing out flyers and emailing people just like you! We are independent filmmakers without corporate sponsorship, every view counts to us, and we would truly appreciate if you would take a look and (if you enjoy the film) encourage others to check it out. The list of websites mentioning our film growing, and we would be honored if you would join the growing list distinguished sites below:

“The Boy Who Cried Warming” has enjoyed recommendations from:

Watts Up With That?
Examiner.com
Digging in the Clay
Bishop Hill
Junk Science
Climate Depot
No Trick Zone
Before it’s News
Climate Change Dispatch
Climate Ponderings
Jammie Wearing Fools
Oh What Now
SCEF.org.uk
Tom Nelson

And the list keeps on growing… PLEASE feel free to Google the name to check out the comments, and as always, enjoy the show!
Jesse Jones
Producer/Writer “The Boy Who Cried Warming”

By: The Lewandowsky Affair | New Zealand Climate Change

The Lewandowsky Affair | New Zealand Climate Change — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 00:36:57 +0000

[...] is simply too much. However, I will link to one discussion which was in turn linked to from the Climate Conversation Group. The post in question is William Briggs, a statistician: One day a terrific psychological study is [...]

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 04:44:43 +0000

Spot on Huub. And how much credence do you place on domain “experts” when predictions are for decades or even centuries ahead?

E.g.:-

Mullan, A.B.; Bowen, M.; Chiswell, S. (2001b). The crystal ball: Model predictions of future climate. Water and Atmosphere 9, 10-11.

The IPCC GCM reality to end of 2010:-

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622

I prefer Scafetta’s crystal ball for the moment (but I think that will fail too circa 2030 or even sooner):-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure.png

Dan Pangburn (via Climate Realists) is out of the money right now (page 12 pdf) but maybe in 2020 – who knows?

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/2010/corroborationofnaturalclimatechange.pdf

By: Huub Bakker

Huub Bakker — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 02:23:14 +0000

And here we have the nub of the whole problem with climate science. Unless you are a domain expert nothing you say is worth assessing. The big question of course is Who decides whether someone is a domain expert? In fact it goes deeper than that because the next question is What expertise is relevant to the domain? For instance, statistics is very important to the whole area of climate science yet, time and again, we find that the climate science ‘domain experts’ are not expert at statistics.

I find, in the latter half of my career as a professional engineer, that such labels as ‘domain expert’ are worthless; either the person knows what they are talking about or they don’t (or they are suffering an ‘off’ day). There are many people who have expertise outside, or beyond, their acknowledged areas. When the rubber hits the road. It is only the correctness of the matter that counts. Since I don’t believe in other people telling me what to think, I will apply the ‘reasonable’ test to all statements, look up the data to verify the statements and even teach myself the material to allow me to make a judgement. I value blog sites that take me through the logical process to reach this understanding.

When I talk to an audience about this topic I tell them not to believe a word I say; go and look up the answers themselves. It’s hard for most of the public though; they don’t have the education or wide experience that I have acquired that allows me to to this.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:50:17 +0000

[144] also implies that Mullen was unable to replicate the Review’s results:-

“….resulted in adjustments close to those calculated in the review”

“close” being the operative word – how close?

NZCSET adjustment results were “close” to those of the Review too but it’s the early adjustments that are critical. I think I recall that there were at least a couple of early steps that NIWA apllied that are not required from application of R&S93 break-point mehodology.

By: Bob D

Bob D — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:07:21 +0000

In fact it was Mullan who mucked up the stats. He claims “…if the RS93 methodology was applied correctly…” however he is the one who changed the RS93 method to suit himself. He claims that the RS93 recommendation that a short time period be used is in fact entirely flexible, and so instead of using 1 or 2 years, as specified in the paper, and shown in the example, he claims 10 years should be used. Basis? None.

In fact, RS93 states explicitly that this approach will “seriously invalidate the model”.