Cant get to it all links are down

From comments coming from those who have seen it and digested it he seems to be making many of the points we have raised on here over the years <dangerous assumption though as I havent got to it yet>, Will check Briggs for a working link and his take on the paper.

Thanks for the heads up

Got it
Damn where is Ludo when you need him

I was hooked on this paper early on when I read this:

"I take it for granted that a Bayesian solution is preferred, because the dom-
inant source of uncertainty in complex systems is epistemic, not aleatory.
But I do not for one moment believe that a Bayesian solution can capture
all of my uncertainty, and am concerned that even to attempt such a thing
gives a false impression (Goldstein, 2011; Spiegelhalter and Riesch, 2011). I
do, however, believe that a Bayesian approach will do better at representing
epistemic uncertainty than the rather simpler and tractable non-Bayesian ap-
proaches that have been adopted"


The attentive regulars on here will recall My "Casino stats" argument with him when I made a very similar point <More simply>
If I could search worth a damn on here I would dig out the Bayesian reference I made then

Not finished reading through the paper yet, however it appears to confirm what many of been saying for some time on the statistical problems, inherent in the whole modelling excercise in a dynamic environment.
Thanks for this, its already giving me several chuckles and I am nowhere near done yet.
I reckon TB will enjopy this as well

Nice to see "Calibration" raising its head as well

^^^ Like I said I can't grasp the math but get the jist of it. The comments on Bishops are well worth a read as well - some very clever people on there.

World On Alert For Massive Solar Storm. Experts say the sun is reaching a peak in its 10-year activity cycle, putting the Earth at greater risk from solar storms.

http://news.sky.com/story/969059/world-on-alert-fo...

I thought we'd been having an extended period of inactivity?

Carrying on from a question I asked TB in the politics thread...

I can understand why the concept of CO2 driving temp change is, scientifically put, balls - it's based on GIGO models, poor data and political agendas.

We often slate the models for being too narrow and not considering various cycles within and without the planet.

Conversely, with the excellent post on WUWT discussing solar forcing and revised modelling projections for the coming cool spell: why is is acceptable to view that in isolation for accurate modelling of the planet? I assume it is seen as such a strong driver that other forcings are too short-term or of too small a magnitude?

He must be verging on insanity by now, these articles are pure comedy and I'm surprised even the BBC can't see they are being made to look foolish by this poor deluded fool......perhaps they do because they don't allow comments anymore

This is the part that I'm trying to get my head around and as I understand it's not about models or data but about fundamental science. I've read Jo Nova's 4 key issues booklet and the key part of the whole argument for me is - adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't make much, if any difference to temperature.

There is a significant warming effect at very low concentrations of CO2 but increasing the ppm doesn't have a linear effect, it's logarithmic. Not only that but we're pretty far up the curve in terms of the relative impact.

What I don't understand is why this issue doesn't get more attention? There seems to be a lot of discussion on statistics, measurements and data interpretation which seems a bit 'whatever' given the science.

Or am I missing something???

that'll be the chap

Mmmm, beer.

Plus the models codify a strong set of positive feedbacks from CO2 (primarily water vapour) but the evidence suggests a negative feedback. This is well documented on Jo Nova's site, Watts and some good YouTube presentations by Monckton.

That means wood must be carbon free, amazing!
And people claim there is grade inflation at GCSE - Pah!