If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of giants
Beautiful spot. Brings back fond memories of bicycling trail ridge road and my first experience of hypothermia.
and while you're away:http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20130827_12.html"Japan's Meteorological Agency has decided to ask experts next month to analyze the cause of the country's extreme weather patterns this summer."
Great pics! Need to get out there with my family.Did you hear this morning's story on Morning Edition that sounds like it was written by Roger Ailes: http://bit.ly/17mTcAzI'm still apoplectic about this piece on NPR. It's fucking brilliant (from a climate denial perspective). It cherry picks the 1998 data point. So, technically, they aren't lying. And then it talks to multiple scientists who disagree about what's going on, to perpetuate the myth that climate scientists can't agree on anything.If it was on Fox News, it would be par for the course. But NPR?!?
Clay, There is a real problem with the models since 1998. So its perfectly scientific for NPR to focus on it. That's how science advances, not by repeating endlessly the dogma. As you may have noticed, there have been a lot of papers recently starting to admit the obvious.
Why is it that so many young ladies from Japan carry a parasol to ward off the sun? Seems absolutely quaint to me.
I think it's the pale skin/upper class thing that is common in non-white countries. In fact there is a current scandal here involving some skin-whitening product.The newest fashion is parasols for men. Not that there is any obvious reason they should be for women only.Re: slowdown. Well, I didn't hear what was said. Certainly there's an issue to be addressed, and it's good to see some papers doing more than trying to paper over things. That doesn't mean all the models are massively wrong, but it is certainly a bit embarassing.
James, I think this latest episode does demonstrate again the politization of the field. I have seen not a mention of this issue at RealClimate in their main posts. Schmidt has been promising a post on it for a very long time in response to enquiries. And of course Watts Up is blowing it out of proportion. What other field would escape severe scrunity if its predictions of the important policy number was off by a factor of more than 2 (last 20 years)? I think there would be endless scrutiny and there should be. I would be embarrassed if I had supplied those numbers and would be scrambling to find the problem or as may be the case show that its impossible to do better. But maybe that's just me.
Time for another science post perhaps...As for the model performance, well "a factor of more than 2" is one way of putting it, "about at the edge of the confidence interval" is another. I agree that there has been a bit of a "move along, nothing to see" attitude, but people are now catching up to the full implications, albeit with a bit more of a lag than I would have liked to see.
Post a Comment