Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on We are all confident idiots by kim

0
0

John C. would be a useful idiot if he could only put his thoughts into words.
==========


Comment on Week in review by Lauri Heimonen

0
0

Judith Curry

As a synthesis of the topics and debates of last week I want to state some of my views I regard as essential. At first let us say that the last week did not change anything essential what I have said already e.g. in my comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 :

a) Firstly there has not been expressed any evidence based on empiric observations according to which the trend of recent multidecadal global warming could have been controlled by anthropogenic CO2 emissions to atmospere.

b) Secondly the anthropogenic share of the recent, increasing CO2 content in atmosphere has been only about 4 % at the most, which means that even the current CO2 content in atmosphere is not controlled by the anthropogenic CO2 emissions to atmosphere.

c) Thirdly the increase of global CO2 content in atmosphere follows global warming and not vice versa.

Every one of these three points above is able even alone to refute the climate model results according to which the recent global warming has been controlled by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There is no evidence available according to which man could mitigate either changes of global temperature or extreme events of weather. Mankind can only try to learn to adapt him/herselves, as well as possible, to these events.

As for solving a complex, multidisciplinary problem, it could easily be too challenging for any expert of a particular discipline. Therefore existing disagreements even between experts are understable, and this has made the cause of multidisciplinary problem of recent climate warming remain without any really working solution for potential actions. This is proved even by the disagreements stated in JC’s topic http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/27/climate-dialogue-influence-of-the-sun-on-climate ; excerpt:
”Marcel Crok provides an introduction to the current dialogue at WUWT, excerpt:
‘We have a record number of participants, namely five. Two of them – Nicola Scafetta (USA) and Jan-Erik Solheim (NOR) – believe in a large role of the sun. Mike Lockwood (GBR) – in line with AR5 – thinks the sun is only a minor player. The two other participants – Ilya Usoskin (FIN) and José Vaquero (ESP) – seem somewhere in between.’”

On the basis of my experiences in investigations of complex, multidisciplinary problems of metallurgical processes I agree with Sagan’s ‘rules’, and these principles are even valid on the investigations of recent, multidisciplinary problem of global warming, including so called cross-disciplinary approach, too. The basic qualifications for researchers currying out the kind of investigations are openmindness and ability to understand roles of all potential factors influencing a problem. The key issues here is to learn to know a) what so called cross-disciplinary approach of problem does mean, b) when it is really needed, and c) how it is applied to get a solution for working action needed.

Carol Anne Clayson seems to be concerned about gaps in knowledge of how oceans influence on climate. I am especially interested in statements of Bob Tisdale on sea surface warming all over the oceans. I have interpreted that this natural warming makes also CO2 content in atmosphere increase, the mechanism of which I have already tried to explain in my comment mentioned above.

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

0
0

““If you look at the 100-year global temperature chart, you look at the steep drop off we’ve had since 2007, it’s the steepest drop in global temperatures in the last hundred years.”
______
A perfect example of pseudoscience. Oddly, 2010 and possibly this year (2014) will be the warmest global temperatures on record. Very odd way for a “steep drop” to occur.

We must keep pseudoscience away from our children and politicians – but I’m not hopeful on either of those.

Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by John B

0
0

The idea of zeroing out a bureau’s budget has been around for a long time. It is, however, a bad idea. Ken Shepsle’s book Analyzing Politics has a good example of why it doesn’t work. The idea is based on the median voter theorem, which postulates that a legislative body chooses the policy preferred by the median voter in the body. But the problem is that the set of policies preferred by the median voter to a budget of zero is larger than the set of policies preferred by the median voter to a positive budget. Thus, an expiration date on the EPA would in fact give the government a larger amount of discretion in its budgeting, which under some circumstances (e.g., if the government supporters of the EPA could propose a take-it-or-leave-it vote on a budget) could result in a much larger budget for the EPA.

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

0
0

==> “Food riots will break out, demand for heating oil will spike, and the failure of the corn crop will put the squeeze on ethanol.
He even predicts the United States will ban agricultural exports to feed its own citizens.”

Thanks god we have “skeptics” around to prevent the “alarmists” from getting away with their hoax!

Comment on Week in review by kim

0
0

Every C degree down is far more alarming than any C degree up.
==================

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

0
0

You see the same thing with the XL Pipeline issue. “Alarmists” suggesting that to not build it will harm “American Energy” and hurt “American Jobs”, when the truth is, once the pipeline is complete, there will be less than 100 American jobs involved maintaining it, and the energy will nearly completely go right to foreign countries. How easily people can be manipulated into alarmism when you wave a flag and talk about ‘merica.

Comment on Week in review by jim2

0
0

R. Gates – that Canadian oil is destined for Gulf Coast refineries. They spent billions on gearing up for heavy oil. Also, USA condensate is used to thin it, so that creates a market for our products. Your ignorance is showing.


Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

0
0

jim2,

Pretty small rewards for ‘mericans. Hardly “protects our American energy supply” as we keep hearing.

Comment on Week in review by Skiphil

0
0

R Gates, who can know now that refined products from Keystone XL will go primarily to foreign markets? We hear that a lot but it is probably a talking point concocted by some fantasist like Bill McKibben. Anyway, there are other excellent reasons to allow the pipeline to be built, and NO actual good reasons against it. The opponents truly are anti-capitalist anti-freedom zealots. If our neighbor Canada wants the pipeline that is a good reason in itself to allow it.

Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by climatereason

0
0

Peter

Only just seen your follow up comment which Brandon has fully answered.

The trouble is that a lot of the things you might want to do on Office or other programs are fairly infrequent so get forgotten.

Personally I find it easiest to jot down the instruction on a draft email and save it with the appropriate heading then its easy to find. Other ways of saving information are of course available but that works well for me.
tonyb

Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by climatereason

0
0

JCH and JImD

Lets hope Obamacare is not abused, otherwise that will reduce its effectiveness and increase costs and waiting times.

Perhaps you guys need to find another word for ‘socialised’ as that word seems to be a red rag to certain bulls,
tonyb

Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

0
0

Joshua
Thanks god we have “skeptics” around to prevent the “alarmists” from getting away with their hoax!

Thanks god we have John case round to prevent the “alarmists” from getting away with their hoax!

See how easy it is to avoid motivated generalization?

The difference between holding an individual responsible and holding a tribe responsible.

Comment on Week in review by PA

0
0

It is interesting. 3/4 of the forcing is since 1950.

I guess the warming coming out of the LIA was due to magic. Perhaps the forcing due to magic is located in another section of the IPCC document separate from the GHG forcings.

Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

0
0

Gatesy prefers the “shovel ready” type of temporary jobs created by Big gubmint’s profligate deficit spending. Or better yet, the well-paying (until the bankruptcy) Solyndra type green jobs created by Big gubmint’s silly subsidies. He no like capitalist jobs created to actually turn a freaking profit. Dip.


Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

0
0

Little joshie is just tedious.

Comment on Week in review by Skiphil

0
0

Jim D,
mid-term elections ALWAYS have low turnout. When they go better for your interests we don’t hear your side dismissing the results due to turnout. For that matter Obama was not elected by a majority of American adults (no President is), so Obama must be illegitimate for this reason. Arguments about turnout and legitimacy are crap. We could go to an obligatory voting system such as some countries do, but short of that turnout is what it is. Deal with the results and stop whining.

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

0
0

Steven -

My point is to express my gratitude to “skeptics” as a group for their willingness to stand up to the “consensus police” and fight the good fight against the “alarmists.”

I mean yes, I suppose there are a few “skeptics” that aren’t fear-mongering about fear-mongering. I can’t actually think of any – but I will exclude them from my expression of thanks.

Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by David Springer

Comment on Week in review by PA

0
0

It is one of those things.

Temporary warming in the North Pacific (two year running) is used to claim the hiatus is over.

Record cold temperatures in the US (two years running) herald a new ice age.

We’ll see. It might be climate. It might just be weather.

As to the oil – the warmist argument that an oil pipeline to the US won’t give us any benefit over a pipeline to China (the alternative) is just silly. If it wasn’t beneficial to the US the oil wouldn’t be getting shipped to the US by more expensive rail transport now.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images