List begin
List end
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
Recent Comments
- dm on The Clean Energy Boom
- arn on Up Is Down
- Bob G on Up Is Down
- arn on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on The Clock Is Ticking
- conrad ziefle on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- arn on The Clock Is Ticking
- Mike Peinsipp on The Clock Is Ticking
“What we’re doing now is over a hundred times faster.”
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/aussie-antarctic-scientist-in-climate-studies-breakthrough/story-fn5fsgyc-1226434145677
Bad science delivered one hundred times faster than ever before is quite a breakthrough.
Complete List Of Important Breakthroughs In Climate Science Over The Last Decade – er century
List begin
List end
I still think your old icon was one of the coolest climate science breakthroughs. If only all of them were this cool…
http://www.real-science.com/favicon.ico
It’s worse than we thought.
-Scott
I’d go back further. They haven’t advanced beyond Hansen’s stupidity 25 years ago.
It’s what happens when you institutionalize science. You spend 10x the money and get about 1% of the results. It’s no more than glorified welfare for scientists who couldn’t make it in the real world.
And next week, boys and girls, we’ll list all the good things 0bama has done for America during his first term!
begin
end…
The Climate Scientolgy team has broken record after record for the last ten years in the staggering amount of public taxpayer funded dollars that have been squandered on useless research, used for trips to Bali and Copenhagen and flushed away pursuing deeply misguided public policy initiatives in pursuit of Ever So Greenie & Gaia Worshipping madness.
We learned that if we didn’t save the planet by 2010 that we were all going to die. OK, we failed to save the planet. So let’s eat, drink and be merry since it’s now too late! And also fire all the climate scientists, while we are at it.
Clearly, you are not qualified to judge the importance of breakthroughs in any science, let alone climate science. Or are you hiding your list of credentials?
I notice that David did not cite any climate science breakthroughs. Undoubtedly because he, by the same token of lacking qualifications, and being of humble and unassuming nature, feels unqualified to judge the science. He does however feel eminently qualified to deliver the ad hominem.
Only “qualified” people are entitled to judge the importance of scientific breakthroughs eh? Although I can understand this is a great way to maintain job security. 😉
Although I’m more inclined to the view that public benefit is a factor.
David, we might be more open to being convinced if you can explain the following two empirical climatic relationships.
HadCRUT detrended
pSCL-temperature
Both graphs are from the literature. I have replicated these relationships from the corresponding datasets. They look pretty real to me, and difficult to ascribe to artefacts.
Together they correspond to 5/6ths of temperature rise over the 20thC, with the residual consistent with Lindzen’s range for sensitivity.
Do you have a specific question? Then ask it… I have no idea what this graph is supposed to mean or what you think it says.
David, the first graph is HadCRUT detrended by a quadratic fit curve. The cyclic signal is pretty obvious. That signal appears in AMO (see Knight et al 2005 GRL) and also the PDO and smoothed ENSO. The magnitude of the temperature swing from bottom to top is about 0.3 C, which is about half of the temperature rise in that dataset since 1970.
Likewise the pSCL-temperature correlation explains roughly half of the temperature rise in HadCRUT since 1900.
My specific question is this: what is your explanation of these two relationships, which together appear to be behind most of the temperature rise in HadCRUT during last century?
Is there a paper that discusses this? — you’ve obviously not doing a very good job of explaining what it’s supposed to show. You haven’t even said which version of HadCRUT this is supposed to be, or what “pSCL” means.
I’d like a full reference, please.
In Appells world ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm ), we are unfit to make any judgements at all.
No — but those without credentials are unfit to make judgements about the science.
Does Goddard have any credentials? All I’ve been able to discern is that his daddy once worked at Los Alamos.
You’re actually agreeing with Eric. Non scientists should never question what scientists do because… they are not “qualified”. (Polite word = non scientists are stupid, we are clever.)
Intelligent questions are always welcome. Unfortunately, they never come from here (“it was -119 F in the Antarctic last week!).
And what discoveries have been made by climate scientists with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ? Feel free to add to the list David. There are plenty of open spaces. Or is this part of your “unfit to make judgements about the science?”. Or are we not allowed to point out that the climate scientists are naked?
Is toshinmack on the rag again, is it that time of the month already??? 😆
Have you learned any insults since 7th grade? I can’t tell….
I’m sure you can’t just like every thing else you bullshit about here toshinmack! 😆
Not sure about the rag Me, but I think I see part of his problem. He has atrocious taste in movies http://www.davidappell.com/favorites.html .
I wonder if this is his favourite! 😆
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BY9cvgrP1c
Still can’t answer the topics headline eh?
Hint: credentials has nothing to do with the answer to the topic headline.
Maybe you need to break out your comic book stash to get the answer to the topics headline you have yet to reply on.
Clearly you are not qualified to understand the written word. Or are you hiding your handicap?
What about the climategate emails? Oh yeah, that was an outbreak, not a breakthrough!
I suspect Scafetta 2010 is such a breakthrough, but not one you’ll ever see in an IPCC report.
The 60 year cycle and the pSCL-temperature correlation could both be solar emergent processes. Even without a clear mechanistic explanation (ie Scafetta, Svensmark respectively)their combined empirical effect kills CAGW stone cold dead. At 2XCO2 around 0.5 C-ish we can emit CO2 until the cows come home and the warming will be small and decidedly undangerous.
So you believe that, if the Sun were found to be stronger, the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist?
A more reasonable conclusion would be to say that he believes in a strong negative feedback, which counteracts the enhanced greenhouse effect.
As for Scafetta 2010, I find it about as plausible as the climate modelling stuff…. I.e., not much.
And why does the scientific community care what you think? You have some impressive record as an contributor to the field? You’ve done anything more than put up a few blog comments?
Because the scientists are paid by the politicians and the politicians follow the whims of people like me. (The mainstream crowd, not the fanatics.)
As for valuable contributions to society… I pay more taxes in a month than you probably pay in a year… You know the stuff that pays your wages – well not *your* wages ;-), schools, hospitals, education, roads… all that boring stuff. 🙂
David – I never said the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, I said empirically it appears consistent with Lindzen’s range of 0.5-1.3 C for 2XCO2. Which isn’t harmful due to the logarithmic response.
From what I see it looks more like 0.5-0.7 C which would mean we’d have to get to about 3000 ppmV for AGW to be +2 C from today. I don’t think there’s enough extractible fossil fuel to put that much CO2 into the atmosphere.
Wait a minute… How did this Scafetta stuff ever get published?? This was supposed to be censored at the editorial level… Didn’t they all get their cash-stuffed envelopes on their desk chairs??
Someone is really slipping up here, to have let these papers out. We can’t have anyone questioning the consensus, can we?
Yes, Will, I’m sure you’re some big financial tycoon, who thinks the size of his opinion is determined by the size of his bank account.
Stick to the science, if you can.
Ah, David, you’re hitting the ad hom button. Naughty, naughty.
The detrended HadCRUT graph is primary data. You can replicate it easily. I did so in Excel in about 10 minutes.
Furthermore the cyclic signal is in AMO, and the citation I gave is even one of Mike Mann’s papers. He might not like to be reminded of this but data is what it is.
How exactly is climate sensitivity as low as 1.3 C? Please show your math…. If you just consider warming since the start of the Keeling Curve, S is already above that — and that’s the transient climate sensitivity, not that of equilibrium.
So the Earth’s temperature has increased by more than 1.3C since 1958… should you write the press release or me? 😉
David – I am talking empirically measured climate sensitivity net of feedbacks. You will have noted the many recent papers showing the large negative feedback from clouds. Allen 2011, Caldwell et al 2012, Cho et al 2012, Miller et al 2012, Laken & Pallé 2012, Sun et al 2012. They’re just from my more or less randomly bookmarked list. I have no problem with the generally accepted 1.3 C vanilla value for sensitivity – no I have not derived it. I am not an atmospheric physicist, I am a chemist. I could do so if I had to, but that’s not the best use of my time. But yes I have been interpreting datasets for 30 years, with a long experience of seeing relationships which are only explained at a later stage when the science has caught up. When I see a signal in multiple datasets I do think there is something going on. Whether Nick Scafetta is right is yet to be seen – all he is doing is interpreting what the cause of the cycle might be.
If you have an alternative explanation I’d certainly love to hear it.
> So the Earth’s temperature has increased by more than 1.3C since 1958
So you don’t even understand the concept of climate sensitivity.
Brilliant, Will, just brilliant.
Bruce: So you know how to crunch numbers. Big deal.
So calculate warming since the start of the Keeling curve. Use the published numbers for radiative forcing, and aerosol cooling. Tell us what you get for an approximate transient climate sensitivity. Hint: it’s larger than 1.3 C (and we’re no where near equilibrium.)
The many scientists who are concerned about carbon emissions know a lot more than some dabbling chemist.
No David, I was mocking your claim that one can know “S” – which is why I implied that the temp would have to have risen by at least 1.3C since 1958 to prove the sensitivity claim. (Although it would actually be somewhat different if we get into the technical details but that’s not really worth going into here.) E.g., established empirically, not based on a bunch of fairly shaky theoretical assumptions that purport to be able to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic components. Your argument is circular. You prove “S” by asserting you already know what “S” is. Sceptics call this begging the premise.
S is determined by the data — do you really not even know that much?
It’s very difficult to calculate, but not difficult to estimate the lower bound of. Try it.
LOL,
you can’t even give Bruce a decent reply to what HE wrote because you are on the sun and he is on the CO2 sensitivity effect.
Wow you can’t even stay on the same conversation wavelength with Bruce!
David – Please be a little more polite. (You can be impolite to Steve, he likes it, but I’m trying to be better behaved).
Climate science is not my profession. I therefore am not going to determine the CO2 contribution to the Earth’s temperature from scratch. As I said I’m quite fine with the basic corrected Arrhenius value of 1.3 C before feedbacks.
But do please be scientific about this. Feedbacks are not well characterised. I’ve cited several cloud papers off the top of my head just from the last year or so which are in reputable journals and which show cloud feedback is more than assumed. Indeed they show feedback is negative. If you start at 1.3 and apply a negative cooling feedback you get below 1.3 C. This seems quite logical.
Conversely if the temperature rise over the last century is not explained by CO2e then it is quite valid to ask OK what else. I can show using pSCL that combined solar output corresponds to about half – as U.R.Rao found. I think his credentials might be slightly better than yours or mine. Svensmark and Kirkby are making good headway on explaining the mechanism.
Furthermore the 60 year cycle explains about 1/3 of the centuric temperature rise due to the endpoint selection effect (ie 1900 AD, 2000 AD). What is the mechanism for this cycle? I have no idea. Did Kepler know what caused planets to orbit elliptically?
I think David will respond in one way or another that all the published papers that disagree with his beliefs are ‘junk science’. The journals got ‘tricked’ into publishing these works or something… By his own rules he is not actually permitted to use this argument because now somebody with no “qualifications” (i.e., = him), will attack and rubbish researchers who do have “qualifications” on these topics.
In this way David paints himself into a logical corner.
@David: “S is determined by the data — do you really not even know that much? It’s very difficult to calculate, but not difficult to estimate the lower bound of. Try it.
==============
People have tried it, and found the result non-alarming. To be alarmed and concerned about catastrophic effects, you must *interpret* the data in a very speculative way. Maybe you should try reading less nonsense?
Are you saying that the CO2 effects are easily masked by all other natural effects?
And that CO2 greenhouse blanket is threadbare?
Sorry tckev, missed your question in all the noise.
The rough breakdown of temperature rise across the 20thC appears to be:
Solar TSI + indirects (magnetic & UV) = 1/2
Cyclic oceanic signal = 1/3
CO2 and everything else = 1/6
If you look at it another way and say the IPCC value is 3 C for 2XCO2, and that CO2 contributes 1/6th or less of what they expect then the empirical value should be about 0.5 C. I didn’t need a supercomputer for this calc.
No one is denying global warming. Only questioning how much (a little) and is it dangerous (no).
@Bruce: “At 2XCO2 around 0.5 C-ish”
This is exactly the same figure Roy W. Spencer has come up with.
Yes, though 0.6 C in Spencer & Braswell 2010. The comparison with the poor GCM performance is also pretty stark.
I was interested to read Ben Santer’s recent paper on SST (Gleckler et al 2012). They found averaged SST rise of 0.125 C in 50 years. Taken on face value that gives a 2XCO2 of only 0.4 C.
And you think Spencer and Braswell is an accepted and respected paper in the field? A year later they had to trick a journal into publishing their followup work….
David admits he knows nothing about climatology but mysteriously he can spot junk science from ‘real’ science on this topic in a heart beat. It’s never explained to me how Warmists manage this trick… 😉
David – Why do you like playing the man not the ball (or the data)?
I have not replicated S&B2010, no. I don’t particularly want to crunch all that data when I’m not paid by anyone to do so.
But I have corroborated the general empirical 2XCO2 value of 0.5-0.7 C by applying these two relationships to the CET. S&B2010 and L&C2011 values for sensitivity fit rather well for the residual.
A couple of weeks ago I did the same for HadCRUT – the residual from the pSCL and 60 year cycle fits a 2XCO2 of 1 C. Higher than for the CET because there’s almost certainly some remaining uncorrected UHI in the data. If I exert myself (and can remember my password) I’ll put that graph up.
David – climate science is your job, not mine. My job is to determine to my personal satisfaction whether the IPCC claims are founded in science. They aren’t.
Climate science is not my job, and I don’t even know what “pSCL” means. Nor have you bothered to explain it, which is why I’ve asked for a paper so I can read more. Do you have one?
“David – climate science is your job, not mine.”
Actually David is not “qualified” either. So yes, he is actually presenting a tortured argument from authority among a warren of sceptics, dissing anyone who is not “qualified” while simultaneously not being “qualified” either.
I remembered my password! Here’s the modelled HadCRUT 3v.
Adding volcanic effects would probably improve things, but not a bad temperature model for only 3 variables. GCM’s don’t do so well.
Here is another possible 60 year cycle:
New paper finds a natural 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-paper-finds-natural-60-year.html
Hmm…
David Appell (@davidappell) says:
October 3, 2012 at 1:13 am
No — but those without credentials are unfit to make judgements about the science.
Does Goddard have any credentials? All I’ve been able to discern is that his daddy once worked at Los Alamos.
————————————————
Damn, Davey boy, those credentials are suggestive to contacts in real science. Do you have any (credentials, that is)?
Does Goddard have any credentials, of his own (not his father’s)?
What a moron.
And your credentials are what, exactly?
Also, can you please share your opinion on the recent proof of the abc conjecture, the latest study on lumbar fusion surgery and PTSD, and the supersymmetric implications of the Higgs discovery?
David, have you always been a total douche, or is this just recent?
@David: “No — but those without credentials are unfit to make judgements about the science.”
I guess those people without credentials in the science of Eugenics should have shut up during the 1930’s and 1940’s … right?
There are no value judgements in science. Scientists are above society and tell society what to do, not the other way around… First thing David presumably would do is get rid of those pesky ethics committees… I mean seriously, half those guys aren’t qualified! 😉
I think the criticism was directed at some of your recent comments David. Maybe they flew over your head. 😉
Seriously? I thought Steven was being too kind, the Breakthroughs have actually gone negative —> http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Why should anyone of us answer your credentials question when you have no intention of trying to carry on a real discussion on anything with us.
You keep avoiding the subject: does Goddard have any scientific credentials?
Sure, Daddy worked up on the Hill. And your credentials are what?
I think you missed the part where you were mocked for asserting that only scientists can judge other scientists. Let me try to explain it this way David, since you’re being a little thick. Let’s say we have psychologist whose speciality is ESP. He does a complex statistical paper and declares ESP “proven”. At this point I would assure you, sceptics would declare “bullshit” – and some of us wouldn’t have even read the paper 😉
To makes matters even more reprehensible none of us even have “qualifications” in ESPology! Shocking isn’t it?
We’re talking about a science (climate science, i.e. applied physics) that is considerably more advanced than claims about ESP. So your analogy is crap.
Goddard has no credentials at all. He is merely a rodeo clown with a blog.
David,
If non-credentialed Steven is a rodeo clown with a blog, how would you describe non-credentialed David Appell?
Collecting data sir… please assist in my experiment.
David, if you don’t like my example pick another one. E.g., repressed memory syndrome, mega doses of vitamin C treating the common cold (or a whole host of medical studies), the merits of claims relating to life originating near deep ocean vents… Keep it as simple or as complex as you wish, the argument still stands; even if you attempt to hand wave away any specific illustration of the principle. (Or we could discuss bayesian probability and other epistemological strategies, but we need not get that complex.)
David Appell sdaid:
Climate science started as, and has alwas been a political science. When did it become applied physics, and what physics do you think it applies?
Well there is a fairly sold applied physics aspect to the theory. (This part of the theory actually refutes most of the things David passionately believes in.) What David is on about are things like feedbacks, speculations about cloud and aerosol behaviour, rapid changes to atmospheric circulation patterns due to changes in concentrations in greenhouse gases, etc. None of that is well understood, none of it is straightforward applied physics. Most of it is science fiction. David’s confusion lies in mixing the applied physics with all the fanciful speculations and declaring all claims (of catastrophe or otherwise) are of equal standing scientifically.
sold = solid
Michael D Smith says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Another log relationship ?
I see that David Appell is on a hot streak! as he is so busy babbling that he forgot to dazzle us with HIS scientific credentials and to awe us with it in answering Bruce of Newcastle credibly scientific comments.
Re: credentials:
Double BS: mathematics and physics MA in physics PhD in theoretical physics.
And you?
What about me David?
And out of curiosity what have you achieved/discovered? And what papers of yours may we peruse?
All my pubs are on my Web site. Happy exploring and thanks for the interest.
BSc hons 1 chemistry double major, PhD chemistry. Minors in stats, phys, computers. 20 years of modelling experience: statistical (published), thermodynamic and iterative process modelling. 30 years in applied R&D.
Appell, you are an embaressment to all institutions of higher learning. You spent all that time educating yourself and you can’t even perform the simple reasoning skills that everyone here is accustomed to using on a daily basis.
Eric: I know a hell of a lot more physics than some chemist.
Hey mr. Double BS: mathematics and physics MA in physics PhD in theoretical physics. You forgot to list all of the breakthroughs you think Steve missed.
Dang David, if you can’t play well with Bruce you have some serious interpersonal skills issues. You should work on that.
That shows you can learn – they are not credentials. What have you ACCOMPLISHED. I have more degrees than you have brain cells – all that proves is that I can sit in a class and soak up some drivel. Not that I know a damn thing or even that I have ACCOMPLISHED anything.
try again.
David likes to get into pissing contests with other posters. At the end of which he declares himself the winner. If I’m not mistaken he has so far managed to attack several academics vastly more qualified than himself in reference to a particular paper on atmospheric physics, and has just tossed a snide remark at a chemist with a PhD. Keep digging…
List of worthy comments in this thread by David Appell:
List begin.
List ends.
Congratulations!
😆
Ok, that’s funny.
When is David ever going to make an ON TOPIC comment where he can answer Steve’s topic headline with a dazzling answer and it should be easy because you have a PHD behind your name but for some reason he/you can’t seem to get around to it because he/she thinks everyone has to post credentials FIRST before he/her decides to get on topic with a comment worthy of a doctorate holder.
Meanwhile a NON doctorate took down a group of doctorate holders over a paper.
Can you guess what that paper is David?
David “the doctorate holder” Appell has yet to provide a counter to the topic which is:
“Complete List Of Important Breakthroughs In Climate Science Over The Last Decade”
It is so gosh darn hard for him because he is too busy being a credentials bigot! or is it because he aint smart enough to answer it.
He can’t even be honest with himself. What a sorry way to live.
David please allow us to have fair debate on climate science without your personal attacks on everyone who does not agree with your point of view.NSIDC have just remembered that there are two poles on the earth and comment..
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Your papers please…
Wow. David Appell is truly an idiot. Why does he even bother??
I notice that David Appell is attempting to write in English. I would suggest that he is unqualified, as I see no advanced degrees in anything even remotely related to the Languages.
He has a nasty little fascist streak in him, I think. For example, the juvenile assertion that intelligent people presented with evidence cannot judge the merits of claims unless possessed of certain “qualifications”. This rule of his, he breaks every time he types something here.
For arguments sake, let us say that it was Lindzen behind Stevens mask. What David won’t tell you is that the credentials still would not be good enough. He’ll just move the goal post.
Credentials are necessary, but insufficient to receive the stamp of approval.
Obviously, credentials of some form are required for making claims. However, what we are discussing is the broader principle of evaluating claims. If you’re a non expert on a topic then you might employ various strategies here. E.g. ask for the evidence to be presented in a format that can be understood by non experts (or scientists outside that field of expertise). This is what a judge will do when presented with forensic data in a court. Or one could seek the evaluations of other experts with the required qualifications, and so on.
If you follow David Appell’s train of thought (No — but those without credentials are unfit to make judgements about the science) to its logical conclusion, you can easily make the case that those without a political science degree cannot vote. After all, they are unfit to judge politicians and their ideas.
I think David would distinguish between ‘scientific’ information and ‘non scientific’ information. Such as historical data, opinions, value judgements, etc.
However, even if we restrict his argument to ‘scientific’ claims, this remains problematical. Consider Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a highly qualified individual with peer reviewed work in The Lancet, etc. Ultimately he was not brought down by the scientific community, but by a sceptical investigative journalist (without qualifications).
According to David’s argument, Wakefield faked research should not have been questioned in the way it was.
@Will. “According to David’s argument, Wakefield faked research should not have been questioned in the way it was.”
Spot on. By the way, was Dr. Wakefield was the one who faked the MMR research?
It would appear to be so, yes. But unless you get a confession out of an academic, fraud is not easy to prove.
David Appell Said; “climate science, i.e. applied physics.” I don’t know David he seems like a nice enough person and as all things being equal, lets try to understand Davids point! trust me, understand David, do not dismiss the guy.
I don’t understand what he means when he throws around the words “applied physics”. I think he wants it to mean “infallible laws of nature” or something like that. Applied physics just means you are trying to put the laws of physics to use by solving a practical problem. Applied physics is a valuable tool but it is not capable of solving many types of problems. E.g., it can’t tell us with much certainty what the weather will be like a week from today. (Which is a big part of climatology). It can’t tell us what the “climate sensitivity” is either. For that we need observations and data as well as physics (plus other things). David seems to sprout a lot of vague gibberish in order to score what he thinks is some sort of rhetorical point… I don’t think he has thought particularly deeply about what he writes before he throws it out there.
Will, I wouldn’t trust David with a spirit level on a building site. gibberish rhetorical points do not build schools.
David Appell knows fuck all about physics but it’s nice to be nice.
Apparently!
I guess that makes you just a clown barrel then.
Appell has a creative writing degree from ASU, while I have a science degree from ASU. It is kind of sad, because he isn’t doing very well at either creative writing or science.
He does have a science degree from UNM, which is one of the crappiest schools in the country.