Actually TJ, I think that the fossil fuel interests have stopped funding climate scientists directly. I think the they have decided that direct funding was making them look bad in the public’s eyes. I think they have decided to focus on funding right wing organizations that focus on climate change as well as political contributions and lobbying for the purpose of derailing policy that is not in their interests.
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Joseph
↧
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Steven Mosher
Gentleman here is Kristian at his best.
” I took for granted that it was empirically shown (out there in the real earth system) how more CO2 in the atmosphere will and does in fact help to warm the surface, and that the reason we are able to even live on this planet at all is because of an ‘Atmospheric Radiative GreenHouse Effect’ (rGHE) where so-called ‘GreenHouse Gases (GHGs)’ – like CO2 – make it so that some of the energy that leaves the surface of the earth never manages to escape the system as a whole to space, but is rather ‘recycled’ internally between atmosphere and surface, creating ‘extra’ atmospherically induced warming of the surface on top of the original solar warming.”
When he starts from a mistaken view of the greenhouse effect, as Kristian does, there is no point talking to him.
↧
Comment on Open thread by timg56
Don,
You are losing points in trying to press a point. Referring to Victorian era morals does not automatically imply that the other side has no morals. And while I have no problem coming up with a list of Democratic policies, agendas and politicians who I might consider amoral, I am just as capable of doing the same for Republicans. (I will say I expect the first list will be longer than the second.)
When discussing morality, I find it should be evaluated on an individual basis. Making the point the way you are trying to generally leads to a dead end.
PS – if you should happen to feel like sending me something, can the daisies and chocolate. The flowers will be dead in a week and I’m diabetic. Anything from the following list is acceptable:
Scotch, cigars, books, wine, cartridges.
↧
Comment on Open thread by KenW
I’m just bracing for the impending media hypegasm.
↧
Comment on Open thread by willard (@nevaudit)
> There might not be any “warming in the pipeline”, or at least not as much as we have been warned about
OTOH, what’s in the pipeline still matters:
However, our findings show that past emissions very much influence rates of warming on the time scale of a year or decade following the emission.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Open thread by willard (@nevaudit)
> According to the median estimate in that graph, the maximum warming from the CO2 injected into the atmosphere by 2004 has already occurred; CO2 accumulated through 2004 will produce no future warming — there is no “warming in the pipeline” from that.
I guess it depends what “from that” means:
Consistent with a long list of previous work (e.g., Archer 2005, Matthews and Caldeira 2008, Solomon et al 2009), figures 1 and 2 show that while the temperature consequences of CO2 emission materialize more quickly than commonly assumed, they are long lasting.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article
Must be a vocabulary thing.
↧
Comment on Open thread by timg56
RE: standing up to a 6’4″ 228 lb obnoxious bully?
I would note that size does not always matter. Nor is standing up always the recommended tactic. For example, I have found that the prone position makes for more accurate shooting. Not that I believe it would ever get to that extreme in your case.
↧
Comment on Open thread by JCH
It’s not going to be a warmest year on the satellite series.
Today the latest ENSO ONI number was posted: +0.5.
2014 may not be the warmest year on GISS and HadCrut4. NOAA looks like a lock.
Cowtan and Way looks unlikely.
So it’s not an earthquake.
If ENSO neutral continues through 2015, then back-to-back warmest years will be an earthquake.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by nottawa rafter
Fan
Finally! Something to make me smile from one of your comments. How could that movie not make you smile.
↧
Comment on Open thread by yguy
Not sure where this will go, hopefully nowhere, but I’ve got a challenge to the conservatives out there…..
Put forth a moderate candidate in 16.
I challenge you to provide conservatives with a reason to accept such a challenge.
↧
Comment on Open thread by ATAndB
Looked at Scott Walker, Wikipedia has enough negative stuff on him to make me like him a lot. Anyone who can make that many people that angry must be doing something right. Looks like a good candidate, but is he even considering it?
↧
Comment on Open thread by ordvic
Fan; “The comments of Climate Etc denialists have distslled down to irrelevant quibbling, angry ranting, impotent frothing and pointless abuse eh Climate Etc readers?”
How many rational debate commandments did you break with that one, eh?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Fernando Leanme
Jim I answering the Barnes comment, not your link. The one about innovation.
↧
Comment on Open thread by nickels
6 4 228 pound bully. Thanks Monfort, you just lost.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Barnes
Rud – thanks for taking the time to read through the paper and respond so quickly. I don’t have the technical background to interpret the much of the report but my general take away was fairly positive, at least wrt to recommendations made at the end, but I also got the sense the the report was a little optimistic which is why I wanted a little more dissection from those who can understand it better than I can. While I am not a fan of RPS, or wind/solar in their current state of development, I do think companies like PJM need to be figuring out how to mange them given our current political environment.
↧
Comment on Open thread by David Springer
No worries. Warming is good.
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Carrick
Michael:
Most health-related costs occur around the time death, regardless of age.
Can you provide a source for this assertion?
↧
Comment on Open thread by Fernando Leanme
Aaron the “A glut of oil?” article in econbrowser has it spot on. I know there are disagreements over the costs and reserves, but that’s why some companies plunge in, and some call it quits. My sense is the large companies are moving to gas, and realize we ran out of “cheaper” oil.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Fernando Leanme
I’m afraid our friend Fan thinks trolling with these comments is funny. I think it reveals a real tragedy: pretty smart individuals with some understanding of climatology but no idea whatsoever of what a real plan is supposed to have. All these poor scientists..,they are so frustrated by their failure, but they don’t understand there is a missing universe in their heads….
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
