Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #155 | Watts Up With That?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate dynamics of clouds by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #155 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #155 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Since the reference there is talking partial gas pressure in a volume of gas – it is all pointless misdirection.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Mike Flynn
mosomoso,
Gnocchi with pan fried baby kingfishers! Yum!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Raving
Judith, … “Baloney detection” … You are drifting and drifting without purpose.
Your blog is wonderful. In your journey you have put a reasonable and effective composition together. Yet one key aspect is missing. You seem stuck without it. Maybe I can help provide it to you.
You are lacking a motive. What is Judith Curry’s motive in all this slagging of climate change science? Why is Judith hell bent on wrecking the case for AGW.
You lack a tangible substantive reason to contradict the precautionary.
Okay … Your critics search this out from you. You yourself have earched for the motive etensively in this blog.
… For the love of science, for the pursuit of truth, for monetary gain, for ego or pride, for posterity … No, none of these typical motives will compel with force.
You need a motive which is of sufficient worth as to override the damage that the criticism creates.
======================
Here is a feasible motive for calling baloney to climate change science
UNCERTAINTY/VARIABILITY
This is in main conclusion in this journey …. The uncertainties and variabilitirs are huge. At present we have very little idea as to the qantitative envelope for AGW.
This is the essence of your critique of the science. That’s not enough to override the precautionary principle. Not knowing is not an excuse for not acting.
BIG VALUE MOTIVE: Yes the uncertainty and variability is very large. In fact the uncertainties, magnitude of variation and duration of excursion are so great that they overstep and outdistance the human scales
The magnitude and fluctuations of climte variability is an order or more greater than the fluctutions of population and evolution/development of technology and societal expectations.
The danger of mistating climate change is that it will overstep and corrupt thr expectation of the future. That will cause real harm
Human society is changing much faster of its own accord than climate is changing in response to human society.
↧
Comment on Week in review by D o u g C o t t o n
In reply to Rob Ellison: Your cited reference is in error on page 78 where they write “The same temperature appears in both equations, since
thermodynamic equilibrium dictates that all components of the system have the same temperature.”
You have not answered the questions I asked about the 255K temperature, and that’s because you can’t, and neither does your cited reference.
↧
Comment on Week in review by D o u g C o t t o n
Neither you nor your reference proves any error in my explanation that Earth would be just as hot or hotter than the present if there were no water, water vapour, clouds, vegetation, carbon dioxide or other radiating gases in it atmosphere which would thus have no albedo due to lack of clouds, and which rocky surface would have emissivity less than 0.88.
So the radiative greenhouse has no warming to “explain” with their false physics.
↧
Comment on Week in review by D o u g C o t t o n
No Rob Ellison it’s not irrelevant, and because your cited authors make such a huge error in their “physics” and clearly have no idea of what thermodynamic equilibrium is all about, we should have no confidence in any deductions they make from such physics. Obviously if they think there would be isothermal conditions, then they are never going to be able to explain why a region of the surface covered with thick clouds for several days and nights, still warms by day and cools by night. And until such is explained (as I have) then anyone not understanding the relevant physics cannot correctly understand observed temperatures in any planetary surface.
↧
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Canman
Don’t forget that the IPCC has said that sensitivity without feedbacks is about 1.2 C. CO2 is mixed evenly in the air everywhere. That looks to me like the simplest forcing. Trying to figure out the variability looks like trying to model a lava lamp.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Bob Ludwick
@ daveandrews723
“But the warmists claim their CAGW belief is beyond hypothesis, that it is a proven theory, unchallengable now.”
Actually Dave, you have described the problem with Climate Science: ‘ACO2 is causing the Temperature of the Earth to rise at unprecedented rates AND the temperature rise will prove catastrophic unless coordinated political action is taken to curb ACO2 emissions, worldwide.’ is NOT a theory. It is the central AXIOM of the climate science consensus and is treated as such by consensus climate scientists. Any ‘climate scientist’ who casts the slightest shadow of a doubt as to the axiomatic nature of either subsection of the central axiom is instantly shunned by the Climate Science Nomenklatura. Ask Dr. Curry.
From Wikipedia: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.
From Wikipedia: An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Geoff Sherrington
This brings to mind a truck crash in which the driver was pinned to the ground. While rescue authorities awaited a crane from far away, a passing farmer took his shovel and dug the soil away from under the driver.
That’s a case of the simple answer being a good one rather than the most likely. In retrospect, it seemed unlikely because none of the experts thought of it.
Does Occam’s razor have a reverse side as well?
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Japan is going nuclear again. From the article:
…
We expect roughly half of Japan’s 48 functional reactors will eventually re-enter service, as economic imperatives overcome health and environmental concerns. Along with a wave of new builds in China and other emerging markets, uranium demand growth over the next decade should be the strongest since Chernobyl. Set against a continued drawdown of finite uranium inventories and underinvestment in mines due to low prices, we expect uranium prices to perform strongly though the end of the decade.
…
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=672879&SR=Yahoo
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
The cold wave is about to wash over Oklahoma. Brrrrr ….
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Michael
Clearly Sagan was one of those evil scientists playing ‘power politics’ with their expertise and thus undermining the very integrity, yes integrity, of science.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Michael
Damn otters.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Barnes
Well stated. Unfortunately, I fear the cancerous lie that is agw has metasticized beyond a cure for a generation or two. The msm, gollywood, and the green blob are too invested in it to back off their agenda any time soon.
↧
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by MontanaVeteran
You haven’t been in a gen ed. natural science class in a while have you Mike Flynn. Because the sad fact for you, is the majority of college graduates are now coming out a with solid understanding of the scientific CONSENSUS, and would probably laugh at whatever drivel you could possibly add to a discussion, just like I am doing right now. Ha Ha Ha.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Steven Mosher
I think statements by actual scientists is even more relevant than some blog comment by Michael
Or blog comment by Joseph.
You realize that you just claimed you are not relevant
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Rob Ellison
So we have a 1990 excerpt that suggests models predict catastrophe.
1. Energy efficiency
2. Energy research
3. Reforestation
4. Bringing affluence to the very poorest to curb population
Do Michael and Joseph have a shred of self awareness?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
