@timg56
“I pretty much have only the two parties to choose from”
Perhaps this relates to why climate is so much along parties lines in the US but not so much in Europe? My colleague here describes Europe as having more choices (yes, ignorant about European politics…)?
Comment on Open thread by nickels
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
It seems quite insane that you can get a result by arm waving at an equation with no obvious application to the problem. Please enlighten us by all means.
Here’s a calculator FOMBS – by all means supply some numbers. Although if stellar temps in a centrifuge are any indication – don’t assume reliability.
↧
Comment on Open thread by rls
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘Hi, I’m from the government and here to help'” – Ronald Reagan 1986
Keep Warm,
Richard
↧
Comment on Open thread by RiHo08
TonyB
Just saying, if the amount of SO2 emitted is sufficient to cool the planet for a year or three, and by assumption that CO2 is emitted in the same amount as SO2 if not more, then I would have anticipated a CO2 impact. As far as I can tell, the eruption of El Chichon did the same cooling during an El Nino event, just not as much.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn
AFOMD,
It is a pity that you are forced to suffer the present global warming due to the ignorance of your parents and grandparents not being able to foresee the consequences of their inability to halt progress.
I trust you – and other Warmists – will take steps not to fall into the same trap as your antecedents, and ensure that at the very least, you take immediate and effective steps to avoid producing children, grandchildren and so on.
Or do people like Hansen not have the courage of their convictions? If you realise that 97% of the world’s population cares not what you think, surely you must accept the majority decision, and stop producing grandchildren. Otherwise you might well be liable to prosecution for child abuse, inasmuch as you are knowingly introducing children into a situation of starvation, flooding, droughts, civil commotion, storms, and the collapse of civilisation generally.
Have you no moral fibre, or sense of responsibility to your offspring and theirs?
A person who would exhibit such a cavalier attitude to the well-being of small children surely deserves to be brought to justice! Wouldn’t you agree that the most severe sanctions should be levelled against such a fiend?
Away with ye, AFOMD laddie! Deniers pale into insignificance when compared with child abusers!
If you have already taken steps to avoid the production of children, I offer my most fulsome apology, and my congratulations for ensuring the safety and well being of the children and grandchildren you are not going to produce, even indirectly!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
FOMBS predictably focuses in on structural transformation – a notion that lacks any concrete detail – in society rather than practical and pragmatic solutions to hunger, grinding poverty and the exclusion of many from access to 21st century energy resources.
The nebulous notions of transformation are profoundly repellent if sound notions evolved over centuries of the scientific enlightenment of democracy, the rule of law, freedom, free markets are thrown over for some inevitably totalitarian form. There is room enough for transformation in the social contract forges in the cut and thrust of democracy. There is no room for romantic reinterpretations of the norms of freedom so long fought for and so hard won.
Such views seem always to stem from a inchoate revolutionary fervour – they require disaster of one sort or another to provide a transforming moment – they are ideas utterly alien to the bulk of humanity. The bulk of humanity want economic growth, scientific innovation, technical mastery, peace, a certain level of security and environmental and social progress and freedom. It is a very simple equation.
People like FOMBS – and Unger – are enemies of freedom even if they haven’t quite made the connection.
‘From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.’ Hayek
The true progressive has a place – at the fringe of politics and society. That way they can be largely ignored – but monitored and called out when they cross the line. The celebrity progressive has an especially important role in this. To be laughed at for hypocrisy and to be held up for contempt at the least provocation.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
OMG – the cliches – the cliches
↧
Comment on Open thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
• An nine-word lie “Market efficiency versus Marxism: these are your only choices.”
• A three-word mistake “Corporations are people.”
![\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 Rob Ellison
Wow. Is it not a trifle distasteful to use fallen heroes as ideological fodder?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Rob Ellison asks “Supply some [Sackur-Tetrode] numbers.”
Rob asks, history answers!
Seriously, Rob Ellisonif you have trouble carrying through the two-quantity entropy variation that yields the orthodox ideal-gas equation-of-state (and does *NOT* yield the gravito-thermic equation of state), then please post the point where you get stuck, and FOMD will be pleased to assist your understanding.
↧
Comment on Open thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Rob Ellison avers “[Progressives are] to be laughed at for hypocrisy and to be held up for contempt at the least provocation.”
Don’t ferget tah jail `em too!
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
Still from alien – arm waving – oil painting – more arm waving.
I don’t have any problem calculating entropy – but what that has to do with isentrophy in a gas under gravity is quite unclear. By all means enlighten us.
↧
Comment on Open thread by David Springer
Code is simply an hypothesis. The output is a prediction. Experiment is used to test the prediction. Good luck testing your hypothesis.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by nickels
“Best holiday wishes (again) are extended to everyone, without regard to math, science, politics and ideology”
Same. Dissent is appreciated.
↧
Comment on Open thread by timg56
I got your point Don. I don’t disagree with it. I’m simply saying that once made, continuing to push becomes non-productive. Your point gets forgotten and how you make it becomes the point of attention.
PS – you are not the only vet commenting here.
↧
Comment on Open thread by nickels
“I think I understand you, and I appreciate your closing dialogue with Don. Your a good man.”
Well, thx. People on the left need to not forget those who put themselves on the line for the rest of us. It seems to happen too often, although for the young’ens please cut em a break while they figure things out (been there).
I’m pretty mortified about who the likely Democratic candidates are going to be…
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
I just had a quick look at Ricke and Caldeira and I notice that their 10.1 years median maximum warming response is a response to a single pulse of emissions followed immediately by a continued slow uptake of the excess CO2 by the oceans and terrestrial biomass. That’s not a entirely realistic scenario in the context of discussing ‘the pipeline’. Earlier, I was myself discussing the response following a stabilisation of CO2 concentration, not a complete stop to emissions. The temperature would obviously peak much later, in that case. (Technically, it would never peak at all — merely growing asymptotically towards the equilibrium value). It would be a fair question to ask after how long half, or 90%, of the ‘pipeline’, say would be realized. I am prepared to accept that isn’t much longer than a couple decades but I don’t know the answer to that.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by quondam
↧
Comment on Open thread by Faustino
Dissent is appreciated. Dat scent is too smelly.
↧
Comment on Open thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
P-N, ” That’s not a entirely realistic scenario in the context of discussing ‘the pipeline’.” No, but it is better than nothing. When Schwartz did his estimate he used Pinatubo as his perturbation. When you consider the implication, max impact about 10 years after perturbation, some of the model inconsistencies make more sense.
That compares GISS E model runs with GISS. there was an ~1885 perturbation with the maximum response in about 1910 or so. Of course there was another perturbation around 1900 to complicate things, but in general the models don’t properly consider internal lag times which seem to vary from around 5 to 30 years. 10.1 years sounds like a pretty reasonable mean to expect.to me, but 30 years is reasonable too.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
