Fan,
“poisoning the wells of public discourse?” What a strange metaphor. Form letters generated by special interest groups are a time-honored technique in such matters. I’ve engaged in such efforts myself on the opposite side of the spectrum from the Koch brothers usual interests. It is easily recognized by the tabulators and based on everything I’ve read through the decades and my own lack of success at influencing policy, not very effective. Hookers and cash work much better than trash cans full of form letters.
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by John Vonderlin
↧
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by Matthew R Marler
Basil Newmerzhycky: I won’t bore you with the “2014 will be warmest year of all” hype, but it is almost certain, and with a greater likelihood of an accelerated warming trend well into the next decade at twice the rate of the previous one, similar to the 0.2 deg C.
Unambiguous predictions always clarify the discussion. We’ll be alert to see how that turns out.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by kneel63
“what, exactly, was declining?”
Honesty, openness, ethical standards, critical thinking…
Oh, you mean which data?
Sorry, my bad.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Delta Dawn
No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.
Christine Stewart
We don’t really need Schneider as an exemplar of the big climate lie – or delusion – whatever. There are many other mouthpieces.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Michael
Who’s Christine Stewart?
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Delta Dawn
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Schneider
Is 2014 as the warmest year a Schneiderism? Simplified and dramatic statement with absolutely no mention of doubts in support of a scary scenario?
What’s wrong with this picture?
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by Climate Researcher
Yes stefanthedenier, it is indeed correct that increasing the percentage of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere leads to lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures. My published study confirms this from 30 years of temperature data from three continents. The physics which explains it is also now well understood by a few physicists who have read and understood the explanation. Not one of them has been able to fault that physics.
So I don’t know what you are talking about, in that we at least agree that the most prolific greenhouse gas water vapor cools rather than warms. Perhaps you have some other “explanation” for all planetary temperatures.
But you’d be hard pressed to prove that the Earth has not warmed since the Little Ice Age when they skated on the River Thames.
You’ll get nowhere arguing against the alarmists or the lukes until you understand kinetic theory, thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy and energy potentials. Until the valid physics is understood and widely promulgated they will “prove” anything they like from temperature data.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by pochas
If you work for Genghis Khan your ethics is “Surrender or we kill you all.” What, exactly, is unethical about that?
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by steven
Vaughan, that is the conversation I was thinking of and you are right that you didn’t call me a denier so I am sorry for the comment I made that you had.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by John Smith (it's my real name)
Delta
BTW just caught your post up thread
outstanding
+me 99%
(just not the one that would end all human communication)
’cause alas I am a mongrel
:)
again, appreciate all at CE and grateful for being tolerated
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by JCH
↧
Comment on All megawatts are not equal by Planning Engineer
Thanks Peter. Good stuff.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by angech
Increased precip, can be increased snowfall.
No, it can lead to increased snowfall when the temperature gets colder.
Like America at Christmas this year.
You do not get a lot of snowfall in the tropics no matter how much the precipitation increases.
Because, I guess, it is Hot.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Bob Ludwick
@ Delta Dawn
“What inspires resistance is not so-called ‘global warming’ but the catastrophic scenarios posed as a justification for transformation of economies and societies.”
Exactly!
Or, as it was explained on another thread:
“………………“policy based evidence making”.
Consensus Climate Science condensed to one phrase.
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
eadler2, Maybe this will help you out a little bit.
That is tropical SST imbalance at the margins, 20-30 South minus 20-30 North. Earth has two hemispheres isolated by the Coriolis Effect. That makes timing a big deal. A volcano impact in December would be different than in June. These imbalance regimes can last 30 to 60 years with longer century to millennial scale shifts related to orbital cycles, since it is the Thermohalide circulation that will try to eliminate the imbalance. Very slow process.
When someone tries to “remove” ENSO or Volcanic based on an ideal sphere with nearly instantaneous equalization, they are removing something, but not really demonstrating they understand what they are removing. It is pretty obvious there are climate regimes related to equatorial energy imbalances.
J.R. Toggweiler with the GFDL has published on this shifting of the “Thermal Equator” in this paper. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5920/1434
This general hemispheric imbalance shows up in longer term paleo as the “seesaw”. That would be a “climate” reference. NINO and PDO and QBO are shorter term and would be “weather” references.
Now you can elect not to “see” longer term climate impacts, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by angech2014
Delta Dawn | December 19, 2014 at 12:37 am |
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” Sir John Houghton.
OK could this be taken as a plain statement saying when a disaster is truthfully announced people will listen? And if it is not a disaster should anyone care? He did not explicitly say that announced disasters were untruthful, did he?
“You can chose to lie or not to lie – although defining lying as ethical takes a special mindset. They don’t seem to get that this is the essence of the moral choice – and the choice to lie is one that can be be hocus pocused away by looking beyond the choice to lie to the act of choosing. As if that poor ethical choice was morally acceptable and really – up to the individual to make in an individual moral and ethical framework. Astonishing amoral nonsense – the choice is to lie or not.”
You have at least 2 people to consider and probably a whole lot more [Parents,friends, mentors to name a few] when you decide to lie to someone.
The person[s] you are lying to may be implicitly needing you to lie to them because of circumstances. You may need to lie to them to further your own ends in a good or bad way. The lie may not hurt them and may be helpful to them in a situation. The lie might save your life.
Children and adults lie a lot of the time as a convenient way to manage their life situations.
We also lie to ourselves to help us get through the trial of life.
Because we put a high value on the truth, and our society and superego [same Parents,friends, mentors etc] do as well, we suffer when we lie.
Ethics is a matter of how much you suffer as to how much the prize was worth. The pain never ends but is not always unbearable. If unbearable you have recognized the ethical wrong of a situation.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by angech2014
Ethics
December 16, 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice Blog
“Finally, everyone here will be pleased to know that I caught an Arctic specialist carelessly using the r-word yesterday and got prompt agreement from him (with a couple colleagues listening in) that using it is bad, bad, bad.”
Funny thing ethics I would have said using it is good, good, good.
Freedom of speech and all that.
It is a sad world when one has to have ones ethics pushed in one’s face, rather than a free scientific debate.
↧
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by eadler2
John Smith said,
It is pretty clear that you didn’t read my post accurately and have used your own garbled version of what I wrote. Your are showing that you are suffer from a deficit in reading comprehension.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by JD Ohio
MM,
This is off topic, but grand juries are in fact much less reliable than petit juries. About 25 years ago New York’s chief justice, in talking about grand juries, said that he could indict a ham sandwich if he wished. Almost always, only one side(the prosecution) is permitted to introduce evidence before a grand jury.
JD
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by eadler2
Micro wrote:
“Nonsense, almost all of the changes since 1970 are regional changes to Min temp.”
If what you say is true, you are confirming the theory that GHG’s are the source of warming. When the sun is no longer shining the surface of the earth will cool because upward radiation is continuing, and IR is taking energy from the earth into outer space. GHG’s hinder the progress of this radiation into outer space directly from the warm surface of the earth, absorbing and radiating 1/2 of the absorbed energy back toward the earth’s surface. More GHG’s in the atmosphere would increase the surface temperatures at night. This was understood in 1828 by Joseph Fourier, and verified by John Tyndall’s experiments with IR absorption in 1859.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
