tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post3788105974943983051..comments2020-09-12T06:15:35.430+02:00Comments on The Reference Frame: Paper: TCR, ECS climate sensitivity: 1.3, 1.6 °CLuboš Motlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-62681048822624382032014-10-08T08:26:11.030+02:002014-10-08T08:26:11.030+02:00Slighty OT/ I suspect that this workshop might be ...Slighty OT/ I suspect that this workshop might be of interest to many people, starting for Lubos: Fine-Tuning, Anthropics and the String Landscape. Alan Guth, Lisa Randall, Tom Banks, Alexander Vilenkin and some other theoretical physicists will be there from today, and you can watch them in live streaming:<br /><br />http://workshops.ift.uam-csic.es/iftw.php/ws/anthropic/page/260Eclectikushttp://scienceisbeauty.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-55893554702186174542014-10-07T17:50:48.377+02:002014-10-07T17:50:48.377+02:00Chern-Simons
repair of Einstein-Hilbert action is ...Chern-Simons<br />repair of Einstein-Hilbert action is chiral. Knots are chiral. Six ways of testing spacetime geometry with quantitative chiral atomic mass distribution can validate such theory and falsify alternatives. Geometric calorimetry and geometric molecular rotational temperature require but 24 hours in existing apparatus. A geometric Eotvos experiment contrasting chemically and visibly identical single crystal test masses in enantiomorphic space groups is 90 days.<br /><br /><br /><br />Stop whining. Look.Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-55726129165696756302014-10-07T16:49:09.188+02:002014-10-07T16:49:09.188+02:00I don't think that it's based on this assu...I don't think that it's based on this assumption. The spread clearly means that there are other highly comparable sources, and the very methodology of the authors was working to remove some other drivers that they know to be at least as important, namely the volcanos.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-3679871101051444432014-10-07T16:47:57.645+02:002014-10-07T16:47:57.645+02:00Thanks for "fat tail" - I should have us...Thanks for "fat tail" - I should have used this phrase about 5 times in the blog post because that's the normal name for the main "hero" of my complaint.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-58245535727549009972014-10-07T16:38:31.131+02:002014-10-07T16:38:31.131+02:00Thanks for the numbers, very explicit.Thanks for the numbers, very explicit.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-59543462422848641512014-10-07T15:59:50.734+02:002014-10-07T15:59:50.734+02:00"Because we are separated from f=1, the nonli..."Because we are separated from f=1, the nonlinearities are not strong".<br /><br />I plugged in the numbers from the paper, and find the spread in f to be quite large. So for the ECS, they quote 5%=1.05 K, best=1.64 K and 95%=4.05 K. Taking a bare CO2 doubling of Tco2=1.2 K, one can plug in these dT's and find f from your formula dT=Tco2/(1-f). I get f(5%)=-0.143, f(best)=0.268, f(95%)=0.704, which is basically symmetrical around f(best) (-0.411 and +0.436), despite the fact that 1.05 K and 4.05 K are asymmetrical around 1.64 K (-0.59 and +2.41 K).<br /><br />Similarly for TCR, I get f(5%)=-0.333, f(best)=0.098 and f(95%)=0.520, which is also symmetrical (-0.431 and +0.422) despite the TCR values of 0.90, 1.33 and 2.50 K being asymmetrical (-0.43 and +1.17 K).<br /><br />So despite the central estimates coming out very similar, the 5%-95% uncertainty in f is so large that the nonlinearities do kick in at the higher end. That the central estimates are so close, while the spreads are so large seems a bit strange, maybe it is due to the relatively short timescales studied?brnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-8806887971515017612014-10-07T14:39:16.028+02:002014-10-07T14:39:16.028+02:00I think that this paper used all of the assumption...I think that this paper used all of the assumptions of the latest IPCC report along with historical data to show that even if you accept everything that the IPCC report says and compare it to actual data the climate sensitivity is low. The blind acceptance of the logic of the IPCC report may be the source of this "Fat Tail." But it is still a good form of argument to assume everything the report says is true to reach conclusions that are much less catastrophic.Scottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1352687170445992632014-10-07T11:22:37.700+02:002014-10-07T11:22:37.700+02:00And in the high energy limit the local QFT theorie...And in the high energy limit the local QFT theories in the worldvolume of NS5 branes in IIA and IIB are little string theories (2,0) and (1,1).<br /><br />From all these geometric realizations of QFTs via String theory it is evident that String theory is the natural completion of QFT. I wonder all these hasty critics of the theory have any idea about these amazing facts?Giotisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-61147741008603274942014-10-07T11:21:54.120+02:002014-10-07T11:21:54.120+02:00It all looks very neat and tidy. But it is based o...It all looks very neat and tidy. But it is based on the presumption that CO2 is the main driver. Phlogiston was the big thing at one time and probably had all sorts of statistical analysis to prove the theories. Didn't work out so well in the end. It's all above my paygrade. I'm just a suspicious observer who puts his 2 cents in now and again.Alexnoreply@blogger.com