Comments on: Antarctic Ice Sheet Deterioration Study Left Out Important Factors

By: Highlights of Climate Change Research in 2015 – Greg Laden's Blog

Highlights of Climate Change Research in 2015 – Greg Laden's Blog — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:14:59 +0000

[…] 11–22 Antarctic Ice Sheet Deterioration Study Left Out Important Factors […]

By: Antarctic Ice Melting: Tamsin Edwards Responds to Richard Alley – Greg Laden's Blog

Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:43:25 +0000

[…] got back to me right away, but Edwards was unable to do so, so I wrote up Alley’s commentary here, with the intention of covering Edwards’ response at a later time. Over the weekend, Edwards […]

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 14:17:55 +0000

In reply to Hartmut Heinrich. Hartmut Heinrich: "Is climate change a matter of statistics? Clearly no." No one here claimed otherwise. Human-caused climate change is a matter of physics. "It is a matter of its natural effects." Yes: the natural effect of humans producing greenhouse gases. We know. Your point was lost to me, some how.

By: Hartmut Heinrich

Hartmut Heinrich — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 13:00:28 +0000

Is climate change a matter of statistics? Clearly no. It is a matter of its natural effects.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:42:19 +0000

Post filled with Keenanspam, ruined now for its original purpose.

Heard anything from Tamsin, Greg?

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 06:02:08 +0000

Golly. I spent another 15 minutes looking at Keenan’s “challenge.” It sucks having nothing more productive to do when snow is falling.

The data show his randomization method(s) failed: the data are not pseudo-random, therefore the “walks” are not “random walks.” There is a very strong bias towards decreasing numbers, by 7d:3u ratio. A random walk will be 1d:1u even with a underlying linear trend added.

By: dean

dean — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:32:19 +0000

His problem is that he takes no account of all the physical evidence there is for human-caused climate change. To think it can be reduced to statistics is just loony.

The first new thing you are supposed to learn when (if) you are getting experience in consulting is that you need to learn as much as possible about the subject the person you’re helping is an expert in. Real world data does not equal text book data.

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:16:10 +0000

Snow is falling, and I don’t want to go feed the hens, so I ran the numbers—

His data series has a cooling bias of 56%, whereas his “model” should be within +5% / -5% (there are far more decreasing trends than increasing). Also, all 1,000 trends start at -0.23 as the first “year” even though almost all of the series’ remaining 134 “years” are small fractions of that. WTF? Did he even look at his series to check for errors?

His data don’t even do what he said they do. And again, I bet he knows that.

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:09:51 +0000

In reply to JohnL. Johnl: "His problem is that he takes no account of all the physical evidence there is for human-caused climate change. To think it can be reduced to statistics is just loony." Thank you. It appears the silly goose believes, or wants other people to believe he believes, that all of the independent temperature reconstructions are random walks, and the world's climatologists are basing their conclusions only on these reconstructions--- ignoring the laws of physics.

By: John Russell

John Russell — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 22:57:09 +0000

Doug Keenan’s $100,000 challenge is discussed at length here: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/a-stupid-100000-bet/

His problem is that he takes no account of all the physical evidence there is for human-caused climate change. To think it can be reduced to statistics is just loony.