About angech

harry@asoliduniverse.com

world horrible

An idea came to me to populate my mind with all the characters I know as clones of myself. Thus I could put one to learning Italian, one mathematics [or maybe 20] one personal relationships etc so that my mind, in running said clones, could experience all that they learn as well as what I am focused on.

Stock market would be good as well.

Now how much autonomy if any can I give and how far can I divorce myself from myself?

 

Crying wolf [2]

“Can we use ocean temperatures in the Arctic to predict temperatures in Europe?”
led to my favorite trope, the length of time to put up blogs on observations when they do not agree with your blog purpose and the increasing number of responses when they so. Possibly a paper in this.
The temperature on skeptical blogs seems to go up when the temperature goes down and vice versa for warmist sites.
Sea ice extent , area and volume is another.
I may try a backwards prediction, 2 weekly, on arctic sea ice growth this year. Hint comment in 2 weeks to focus on that small patch off ice off Alaska [if it still exists].
Otherwise this thread will vanish…

Well this will end up with egg on the face [mine]. Foolish to try to predict Arctic ice anytime. Nonetheless I want to believe in a very good growth year even though it started out well the last 2 years and fizzled.

Differences?

Deeper thicker ice this year and a cooler globe post El Nino should act as catalysts for an amazing early ice rebound. The small patch of Alaska, if it does not melt, will act as a seeding to actively speed up ice regrowth in this area. Then there is the ESS to consider!

Crying wolf

angech says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“No-one is claiming that these are the types of questions that we could answer, or even why we’d want to.”

The question of the response time to a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere is paramount or germane to a lot of the discussion on CO2 effect.
The result of not addressing it, other than “You keep on asserting things as fact that are simply and obviously incorrect. ” is to make one wonder whether the matter is too difficult.
Or taboo.
To put it simply I note from RNS that CO2 2018 is 410.79.
There is a world global temperature that fits this CO2 level, what is it?
CO2 controls temperature.
‘What temperature should it be, now, 2018?

“Even if we cannot definitively attribute a climate change link to a specific event does not mean that we can’t discuss how climate change is likely to impact such events and whether or not we’re seeing changes that are consistent with what is expected.”
Leads to a degree of confirmation bias.
If every extreme event is expected to occur with greater frequency then the mere occurrence of any said extreme event becomes automatic proof of your position, making it a definite attribution.
Seems wrong on some level even if right.
Nothing wrong with talking about the expectation
“Climate change is clearly happening and it is mainly driven by our emission of greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) into the atmosphere. Doing so causes atmospheric CO2 to increase, reducing the outgoing energy flux and causing energy to accumulate in the climate system. This will lead to warming of the surface and troposphere, increasing ocean heat content (and increasing sea surface temperatues), an increase in evaporation, an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events, and a change in the latitudonal temperature gradient that has the potential to influence the jet stream and, hence, weather patterns. This means that in regions that are susceptible to extreme weather events, the conditions will increasingly tend to favour these events becoming more extreme.”
But extreme events have to be rare and rare events are difficult to pin causation on and even a 5% increase is perfectly acceptable within a normal range. As well as fitting an expectation.
It is an argument that can lead to calls of crying wolf.
Wolves are out there but no-one appreciates calls that are not definitely attributable.

 

 

  • ngech says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Thanks Izen for mentioning a sensible time scale environment.
    Andrew, I don’t understand or do not want to believe or do not get it.
    Your change in temperature for a x4 inst. forcing only goes up very slowly, years in fact to perhaps get to 2 C, then much longer to get higher [ATTP’s centuries+ to get to an equilibrium].
    I want to believe that an atmosphere with a x4 increase in CO2 [and maintained there thereafter] must have a new temperature very close to the maximum achievable and fairly instantly. like within 36 hours.
    I am prepared reluctantly to accept some lapse as the change in heating permeates to its final level. Perhaps a different simpler picture of a non rotating earth would help the imagery. Here the retained incoming heat would rapidly build up and then spread to the dark side over time, hours days until the outgoing again balances the incoming. Obviously some heat would be transferred/ building in the oceans. But this again could balance fairly soon. The oceans being hotter on the surface keep the air warmer and decrease rapidly the amount of heat needed to be put in to achieve that balance as well.
    My point, dense though it is, is that a volume of gas of known composition, on a known backdrop of water/land on one side, space on the other, heated by a known income source [np clouds] has a known expected scientific temperature.
    Earth at 500 ppm CO2 , Earth at 2000 ppm, each has a set expected temp [specifiable in a range if not exact]
    I realise that ocean temperatures can take months to vary but atmospheres are much thinner and reactive. 0 at night to 30C in the day at Alice Springs. Why should not the temperature reaction of a known composition adjust to that expected temperature, or close to. more quickly?

  • angech says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Steven, “attack the pattern argument”
    I read AD An Estimate of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity From Interannual Variability
    “It is also worth stepping back and asking what could cause our calculation to be seriously in error.
    It seems unlikely that forcing from doubled CO2 is wrong given our good understanding of the physics of CO2 forcing (e.g.,Feldman et al., 2015).

    Estimates of ? iv,obs and ?iv,obs are derived from observations we view to be reliable,
    so our judgment is that they are also unlikely to be significantly wrong.

    The ?TS/?TA factor comes from climate model simulations, but models have long been able to accurately reproduce the observed pattern of surface warming (e.g., Stouffer & Manabe, 2017), and we have simple physical arguments explaining how the atmospheric and surface temperature should be connected (Xu & Emanuel, 1989).
    Finally, we can compare the models to data (Compo et al., 2011; Poli et al., 2016) to validate their simulation of this ratio.

    Thus, the transfer function seems the most probable place for a significant error to occur. We also argue that while errors may exist in a model (i.e., in the cloud feedback), this will affect both the numerator and denominator and such errors will tend to cancel out.
    While one must be careful about conclusions based on a single model, this nevertheless provides some support for the hypothesis that errors in ? 4xCO2
    will cancel errors in ? iv when the ratio is taken.

    As a preliminary test of this, we have analyzed three different versions of the MPI-ESM 1.2 model that have had their cloud feedbacks modified to produce different ECS (Thorsten Mauritsen and Diego Jimenez, personal communication, 2018). The three versions are the standard model (ECS calculated from an abrupt 4xCO2 run using the Gregory method = 3.0 K), an iris version (described in Mauritsen & Stevens, 2015; ECS = 2.6 K), and a high ECS version, in which the convective parameterization has been tweaked to generate a large, positive cloud feedback (ECS = 5.2 K). ”

    I have cut, pasted and tweaked this somewhat, apologies for those bits left out. It contains numerous items relevant to past discussions on this and other blogs supportive of some of my past statements.
    I have trouble understanding “if the argument turns on which version of ice is used,”
    So I am probably cross discussing..
    Here, with Andy, He has outlined his procedures well. He believes ” models have long been able to accurately reproduce the observed pattern of surface warming ”
    I would argue that reproduction is different to predication, I would hope the models do accurately reproduce. any argument that observations could be put aside when they disagree with the reality of models is fraught. though not untenable.

  • angech says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    I have trouble understanding “if the argument turns on which version of ice is used,”
    Time scales as we both know are very relevant to the accuracy of prediction and expectation. When I argue from a very few years of ice increase from one data set you are more than entitled to laugh at me, and others. When the ice sets [satellites] are of short duration 40 years themselves then the laughter should be stifled though the message is still with the long term trend.
    I have no beef with people having beliefs or predictions. Only sticking to legitimate scientific methods. PIOMAS is currently creating some issues for people wanting warming. They believe it is not accurate now though they were happy to accept it while it was falling precipitously. Skeptics did not believe it when it was falling. Both cut from the same cloth.

 

ecs again

dikranmarsupial says:
August 17, 2018 at 6:56 am

angech wrote “ECS can only ever come out as it is programmed in. ”

This is just grade A bullshit. If I were a Magrathean and built a replica Earth (as indeed they did), it would have the same ECS as the real Earth because it is an emergent property of the physics governing climate (and the position of the planet in the solar system and the distribution of land masses etc.), not because the Magratheans “programmed it in”. It doesn’t make any difference whether you simulate that physics on a computer (supposing you could do so with infinite spatial and temporal resolution) or whether you simulated them using a replica Earth.

It is the constant stream of this kind of bullshit (and angech is not the only one) that means I am giving up on commenting on blogs, probably permanently. As a scientist, I feel a pressure to respond to this sort of incorrect assertion about science, but at the same time I know it is a complete waste of my time because angech (an others like him) will continue to spread the same bullshit elsewhere or here in a later thread, or move on to some other topic of bullshit. Thus I can’t enjoy just having a reasonable discussion here on a topic I find interesting without being bothered by bullshitters every time (and I mean every time). It appears I should probably stop reading blogs as well. Well done angech.
dikranmarsupial says:
August 17, 2018 at 7:00 am

I should add, it is very easy to show that ECS is not programmed in to climate models. If this were possible, then climate skeptics would just take the code for an existing GCM and twiddle with the parameters etc. until they got a GCM that explains past climate with a low ECS. The trouble is that can’t be done without using parameter values that are either inconsistent with physics or with experiment. Of course this is something that has been pointed out repeatedly over the years. Still waiting.
angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 17, 2018 at 10:03 am

angech wrote “ECS can only ever come out as it is programmed in. ”This is just grade A bullshit.”
One could look at 1000 papers like this. They show that ECS outcome, high or low, is very dependent on what initial parameters are put in.
Re examining the Relationship between Climate Sensitivity and the Southern
Hemisphere Radiation Budget in CMIP Models JOHN T. FASULLO
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 8 January 2015
models with the highest values of ECS strongly reduce low-level marine clouds in most regions of the subtropics as CO2 increases, whereas models with the lowest values of ECS actually increase low-level marine clouds in some subtropical regions
The trade-off between a better representation of present-day Southern Ocean or subtropical shortwave CRE in these subsets of models points to choices made in the model development process, rather than robust physical processes. [1]
Consequently, we find no clear physical reason to expect a linkage between subtropical cloud biases and the correlations between ECS and present-day biases over the Southern Ocean.
Instead, the linkage between subtropical and mid-latitude cloud properties is likely an artifact of choices made in model parameterization and tuning [2]
Identifying large model biases in fields physically linked to climate feedbacks remains a promising path for improving models and for potentially narrowing their spread in ECS.[3]
when the correlation between ECS and a present-day climate property arises from a systematic model bias rather than from a real physical process, its utility becomes
questionable [4]
angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 17, 2018 at 10:22 am

…and Then There’s Physics says:
angech, You’re just doubling down now. ECS is an emergent property of models.
From RealClimate “Each of these numbers is an ’emergent’ property of the climate system – i.e. something that is affected by many different processes and interactions, and isn’t simply derived just based on knowledge of a small-scale process”

“The wording is one issue that I am immediately defeated on. Of course anything that comes out of running a computer program can be said to emerge from it. ” I had this discussion at Lucia’s two years ago with no success. The word emergent is used by many including those promoting the ECS from models view as being an unknown that emerges from the model results. That is it could not be predicted beforehand and yet would fall somewhere in the predicted range.”

I feel helpless at this, caught in a paradox. Either we can discuss ideas and be allowed to be wrong but have it explained [I don’t mind being castigated for not understanding] or we can choose to dismiss contradictory views out of hand. Science depends on being explainable. To just say something is emergent means we cannot explain it. In which case what is the point of developing a computer model in the first place if the answer was unprovable?

The wording is one issue that I am immediately defeated on.

Joshua.
Sorry about the circles.
Very well put.
“two people can have viewpoints that are mutually exclusive, where both are right”
Godel?
“In this case, we could say that ECS is the function specific inputs chosen by coders, and as such, those coders determine the final value by making choices among specific inputs. Or, we could say that the coders are putting in values that represent our best understanding of physics, and that ECS emerges as an output. Essentially, those views are incompatible, and yet I think both are true.”
You can say both those things.
Some people do.
“You can get anything you like out of a model. If you set it up with scientifically based suppositions about the physics of clouds, based on the existing evidence, and reflective of a scientifically quantified range of uncertainty, they will produce an ECS output range, which likewise reflects a quantified range of uncertainty. This will at some point in the future be modified with scientific improvements.”
is fine.
Note ECS may well be 3 or 4 and better provable and models in the future will, in their arcane way, be the best way of determining it. They must be in the ball park probably inside the bases.
Just they are striking out on the nature pitches.
“You can get anything you like out of a model depending on what you put into it” would be the best interpretation of what I was saying, which I think should be evident yet English is such difficult beast.
“You can only get out of a model what you put into it” is what people here are hearing me say.
Both statements are the same yet mutually contradictory.
Perhaps Willard could explain how this is allowed to happen.
Or ATTP could do a post.

IPCC 2007

This is the money quote.
IPCC 2007
“These studies highlight some common biases in the simulation of clouds by current models (e.g., Zhang et al., 2005). This includes the over-prediction of optically thick clouds and the under-prediction of optically thin low and middle-top clouds. However, uncertainties remain in the observational determination of the relative amounts of the different cloud types (Chang and Li, 2005). For mid-latitudes, these biases have been interpreted as the consequence of the coarse resolution of climate GCMs and their resulting inability to simulate the right strength of ageostrophic circulations (Bauer and Del Genio, 2006) and the right amount of sub-grid scale variability (Gordon et al., 2005). Although the errors in the simulation of the different cloud types may eventually compensate and lead to a prediction of the mean CRF in agreement with observations (see Section 8.3), they cast doubts on the reliability of the model cloud feedbacks. For instance, given the nonlinear dependence of cloud albedo on cloud optical depth, the overestimate of the cloud optical thickness implies that a change in cloud optical depth, even of the right sign and magnitude, would produce a too small radiative signature. Similarly, the under-prediction of low- and mid-level clouds presumably affects the magnitude of the radiative response to climate warming in the widespread regions of subsidence. Modelling assumptions controlling the cloud water phase (liquid, ice or mixed) are known to be critical for the prediction of climate sensitivity.”
There is more. I truncate only to get a readable comment in. As I recall, possibly from Soden somewhere different models arbitrarily choose a range for absorbtion in thes clouds which can be double another model. I hope most people would agree a doubling or halving gives critically different results and quite a different but predictable emergent ECS.
This is where the input that later forms the ECS occurs.
Worse it implies that 2 wrong assumptions may be being made that somehow compensate each other in that they then produce the right ECS.

an article on climate uncertainty and risk.

an article on climate uncertainty and risk.

The first issue with uncertainty and risk is with adequate, meaningful data.

We do not have this at this stage. We need data covering at least 60 years * with reliable data collections of temperature air mass and composition. Ocean salinity, density, volume and understanding of both pressure and current affects.at the surface and at all depths.Variations in atmospheric density, composition, fires, volcanoes, winds. Also volcanic effects, Tsunami effects, Anthropogenic CO2 and emission effects. Last the dynamics of planetary movement and of solar heat, magnetism and plasma effects.

We have some. We have an idea of what others we need to have. We have a starting point but we do not have an understanding of what the natural variations can be* and how often they can occur hence our risk assessment has a high inbuilt level of uncertainty.

People like looking for their lost keys under the streetlight because at least there they can see. Similarly Climate egnostics like to look at recent data and experience because that is what they know and are comfortable with. Secondly they like familiarity, normal is what one was born in and grew up with. But climate is much more unpredictable than what we have experienced in the last 20 to 70 years. My apologies to those too young, not enough data base and those too old, set in their ways.

Climate is the Grapes of Wrath years in America. In Australia we had our settlers in South Australia who grew wheat and sheep for 40 years successfully only for the true drought and heat conditions of that area of the world return to wipe them out. History is redolent with famines and feasts [the bible] The deserts of the ancient Egyptian food bowls. Little Ice Ages Roman warm periods..

The best and most simple, elegant example of complete misunderstanding of the risks has happened before our eyes with hardly a whimper from anyone involved. The Global Sea Ice extent. Here we have an example of dropping levels from the 1970’s satellite levels With a recovery due to the Antarctic ice going up to and over x2 SD for several years. In fact roughly 4 years ago we had for one month the highest sea ice extent on record for 1 month. Just 4 years ago.

Then we had a fall in both Arctic and Antarctic extent together in the last 3 years giving a 5-7 SD drop to the lowest figures recorded, now thankfully improving. I cannot emphasize this enough. A 7 SD difference is immense, mind boggling and in terms of risk either immensely significant or significant of something immensely wrong with our understanding of the real standard deviations normally available.The latter is the reality. We are able to have climate and weather fluctuations in terms of years that are a lot higher than what we currently cater for. This means that people who want to see risk can find it anywhere if they are prepared to lie to themselves. Highest temp in all of recording time [3 years] for the hill on the back of our block in Tennessee for one hour in July 13th? Shame about the bushfire. But also for people who desperately wish to see green shoots of recovery anywhere and choose the opposite cooling examples.

Things are not made any better by specious, sometimes  mendacious and precious commentary on the different measuring systems available when they disagree with one’s own precious views.Or by using anomaly measurements and making backwards adjustments to real temperature measurements.

Disclaimer, CO2 is real. CO2 by itself can make temperatures go up and it is a small but important balanced component of our atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere.Some people like to argue an it is just atmosphere composition and gravity. Cart before the horse, no, just it is both cart and horse. If the CO2 goes up at a certain gravity and pressure then of course the temperature goes up as well. Both sides would do well to take a chill pill.

But CO2 is only one component of the complicated CO2 pathway for the atmosphere and due to the high carbonic content of the sea and the immense heat capacity of the oceans, which both give and take heat, Vegetation growth on land and sea, responses to CO2 addition are unclear and unknown

While chaos is an unknown, organisation is a given. The immense ocean buffering, the nature of our rocks and thin water envelope. The photosynthesis at this distance from the sun means that for human lifetime experiences, individually and collectively there is minimal risk of anything other than the gradual massive slow changes the earth has had for 2 of its 4 billion plus years.  This does not mean that on a decadal or centennial scale we could have changes that seem extreme to us, particularly when we panic.

 

 

 

 

Dear Bronwyn and David,

I have become aware that I have consented to being a director with the 2 of you in the William Robert Lee Discretionary Trust. This was not my intention as I thought I was acting as an appointee only to help  facilitate payment of money owing to Georgie. I apologise for not having fully informed myself of the details but as you know I have been under stress with Mum dying and was put under more duress with the demand for early attention to Williams financial problems. My fault, I thought I was doing the right thing.

A motion was put to sell Nancy Lee’s shares to the 3 directors which I also inadvertently signed. I have become aware that this is not possible as the shares form part of Nancy Elizabeth’s Lee’s estate and as such are not capable of having trustees or appointers decide anything about them.

I will notify the Probate lawyers in the morning as to this concern and will also have to notify ASIC unless this decision is reversed as quickly as possible and probate distributed as it was meant to be to all 5 trusts.

I propose that all units be returned to the Nancy Lee estate, Thank you.

I propose that one of you or David resign as a director  and that we sharethe responsibilities on a one to one basis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

decide anything a

The Sole Director, Appointer, Guardian and Trustee, Nancy Elizabeth Lee, has died.
Her will leaves a 1 fifth share to each siblings trust or beneficiary Trust company so each unit becomes a director.

Her deed of appointment lists a joint appointee, Harold, Bronwyn and David [HBD] needing unanimous approval to get decisions passed, including the appointment of new trustees. The new trustees have a majority vote for all decisions [including new appointees??] or is this the directors.

The director status is fluid. It might be possible for any 3 siblings to become the new directors of the company, or 2 siblings and the WRLDT. In distributing the will 1/5th share in WRLDT. At Probate. If it is done in respect of the will’s instructions. Or even 2 1/2 siblings if the trust does not vote.

While such a directorship exists the trustees may be able to be renoved if the appointees give their power over to the directors?

 

The Petrie Dish SMB.

smallbluemike says:
“What exactly is our species’ end game or exit strategy if it is not to wildly rein in consumption just as fast as we can, if not faster?”
The Petrie Dish SMB.
One Agar plate, the planet.
one little group of bacteria [people] find a way to use the plate resources , sugar [oil] and start to grow. New colonies sprout up like mushroom bubbles around it or those bubbles colonists use on Mars. The central hub grows bigger, richer, more complex with the bacteria driving cars and dying their tendrils [hair] green. You can see them from the moon or at least on the petrie dish as a big white central spot.
Then, Climate change, the oil [sugar] runs out and the colony starts to decay and crumble. The lights go out.
But we [they had a good time.
The epitaph and the answer SMB. There was and never will be an end game exit strategy of consequence for the Petrie dish.
Please feel OK to use a variation of this theme [TM angech and a lot of biologists]

Falo

Just do it

To learn Italian you have to speak it, rapidly, and know what the words mean or you will be left behind for dust.

The verb Fare or facere is one of the most important verbs and one of the best to start with. To do to act to make are some of the things you can say with it.

An interesting aside is that our English word far [as in far away] possibly comes from it. As in lontano fa a long way away. But I digress.

So lets do it. Let us do  it.  Facciomo lo.

We will start in a room in a house.

Cominceremo in una stanza in una casa. Another verb of many for starting is Inizieremo.

It is not important at the start to be totally correct in Italian. Fluency and choice will develop as you speak with or listen to people speaking the language. Here most English speaking people will be more comfortable with the verb Cominciare as it sounds like the word commence which is used more frequently that the word initiate for start in English.

Her we are using the ending for we or us, iamo, added to the verb, Cominciamo, iniziamo, partiamo etc. meaning we start. When we use the future tense we will start we instead add eremo to the base word.

In  can sometimes be the same as the English in. Or it can be nella or nello and variations on this according to the subject. Occasionally one uses fra or tra instead which are interchangeable. Tra in English is an additive part to a word meaning between or across as in transit Fra is used to give a range as in infra red. Both are used to indicate an in between property usually of time or space.

A is a term indicating singularity. Un is the base for masculine words often ending in o.
Una for feminine words usually ending in a.
Uno is of course used for the number one in Italian.

Stanza is the dictionary and accepted word for a room but there are many others.
The most commonly used being camera.We could also use commonly use sala.

Finally a house is a casa. Though there are other names for use in different circumstances.

Now for a bit of fun or as the Italians say  un po ‘di divertimento. Notice the un with the masculine word ending in o. It means Diverting as in entertaining by the way. Not diverting [taking away] attention but purely entertaining as in that was a diverting show, it took my mind off other things. Po means a little and di is one of the versions of the word of.

Try white house. Yes the president lives in one but so do a lot of other people.
Casa bianca. Bianca besides being a colour and a girl’s name is a version of blank. Which is like white paper that no one has written on. In Spanish it is blanco or blanca.

 

 

 

 

See rules in appendix

 

 

iniziare start, begin, initiate, introduce, institute
avviare start, initiate, begin, start up, set up, set
cominciare start, begin, commence, proceed, enter, open
partire start, leave, go, depart, set off, start off
avviarsi start, jog
lanciare launch, throw, cast, start, send, flip
incominciare begin, start
innescare trigger, start, prime
mettere in motostart
mettersi a get, start, begin, settle down
esordire begin, start, open
scattare take, click, snap, spring, start, sprint
sobbalzare start, jolt, jerk, boggle
sussultare wince, start
balzare jump, leap, spring, skip, dart, start

 

la camera room, chamber, house, apartment, lodging
la stanza room, stanza, living room, apartment
la sala room, hall, lounge, saloon
il ambiente environment, room, setting, surroundings, ambience, habitat
lo spazio space, room, blank, slot, interspace
il locale local, premises, room
il posto place, site, spot, post, seat, room
il vano room, doorway
la stanzetta room
le aula classroom, room, hall, courtroom, chamber, schoolroom
la possibilità possibility, chance, scope, way, means, room
la casa house, home, household, family, place, flat
le abitazione home, house, dwelling, housing, residence, habitation
lo edificio building, edifice, house, structure, construction, fabric
la dimora residence, home, dwelling, stay, house, abode
la camera room, chamber, house, apartment, lodging
lo albergo hotel, inn, house
la pensione board, pension, guest-house, boarding house, house, superannuation
il teatro theater, stage, playhouse, house, theatre
la casata house
il tetto roof, ceiling, top, limit, house, home
la ditta firm, business, house, concern
il pubblico public, audience, people, attendance, house

What I do not post

“A key point is that the system will always tend towards a state in which the amount of energy coming in, matches the amount going out into space, and that this state depends mostly on the boundary conditions.”
Would it be more appropriate to say this state determines the boundary conditions?
Energy in equals energy out is a scientific tautology.
The boundary conditions are implicit in the setup.
Time and size are important constraints given that humans live such very short lives compared to most of the time involved in climate change features. We live near a vanishingly thin water envelope on the earth [the oceans] where a vanishingly small alteration in sun energy output could spell curtains for us.
The hubris in expecting a perfect climate [defined I guess as what we had when [us old white men included] were born] is great. The fear of change is great and equates, I guess, with a fear of death.
Where I appreciate the discussion here is when people are more open to the challenges that present in using the data available openly and honestly even when it hurts.
[Garfield on the fence pose].
The fact that

 

Marco says: June 5, 2018 at 9:44 am
“Since when is motivational reasoning “a good thing”?
Take for example.
Going into something with the explicit starting point something is right means that you almost *have to* find something to be right.
It is called Confirmation bias for a reason, bias perhaps. Not always a skeptic problem.
Surely this is not a good thing?
On the other hand being scientific ie skeptical means having an open mind, not a bias to finding something negative. Could I adjust the sentence to start with an if to ease your concern and make the meaning clear, though “on the other hand” would seem to imply this anyway.
If ” On the other hand, if you find a mistake, or are able to question something they’ve done, then you potentially have ammunition if your goal is to undermine their results. This could be true, even if the consequences of this issue is negligible.”
Surely this is a good thing?

“In which case why mention the 97% unless it was just your usual trolling?”
So, in expert opinion there exists a 3% chance of being wrong.
No certainty then.
It is hard enough to put up arguments, sensibly, without anything that disagrees with your world view point being accused of being trolling. Why don’t you give me a break and try to work on convincing me with sensible arguments instead. I am trying to engage, admittedly it annoys you and I am sorry about that but discuss the arguments, not diss the person.
Thanks.
“angech wrote “I did not say it, JC, I found it. Argue your point with Best Schools, not me. And I acknowledged, did you miss it that JC was not a skeptic, yet.
How many times has she published articles on her blog questioning whether the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic? How many times has she commented to agree that we know it is predominantly anthropogenic in origin? How many times has she rejected the mass balance argument, which shows that the natural carbon cycle is a net carbon sink and hence is opposing the rise and not causing it.”
JCH said June 6, 2018 at 3:08 pm
“Two of them clearly are not skeptics: JC and LB. Even Lindzen, if you read the transcript of the physics society roundtable, is a complete dud as a skeptic.”
So your view on JC as a skeptic is not shared by JCH, JC herself, WUWT [she was listed as a lukewarmer on the old site] or the skeptic community as a whole.
Like me, she has acknowledged the warming effect of CO2. Did you miss that? The fact that she has raised and raises questions is Skepticism, not denial.
A perfectly legal, temperate approach to science which you should embrace and answer.