Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by cwon14

0
0

But Fanboy isn’t a conspiracy theorist? (nut)?


Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by cwon14

0
0

Wag, the MO is always the same. The political arm (mob in illustrated here in many forms: Joshua, Michael, Fanboy etc.) never have an ethical acknowledgement of the their political corruption or government authority agenda. On the other hand they see the word “ethics” and they can never shut up with every straw-man, expert opinion as “science” and internet board filibuster imaginable.

The entire warming agenda starts with a common fallacy religiously adhered to by the mob; “co2 drives climate and warming” and the reaction of the elite warming science community? Two mouthed support or crickets. It’s a clear case of a fringe idea with a political purpose they all share being massaged instead of policed.

The warming community, apologists and useful idiots really don’t have an ethical base to begin with. Post normal science leads us to post-normal ethics for the most part.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by cwon14

Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by eadler2

0
0

I never used the term “normal”. You have used this without defining what this means. I have no clue what you mean by this.
The Oppo graph that you reproduced is for a region in the Pacific Ocean, which is different from global average temperatures in the 20th century.

Other long term proxy reconstructions which include more of the globe have shown that the MWP was not as warm as today. There are about a dozen different ones, using different proxies and different statistical methods. These are all very noisy and none of them are definitive. Despite the noise, Most of them show that the recent global average temperatures are warming at an rate not seen in the last 1000 years, and it is probably warmer today than it was during the MWP.

What Tamino did was multi variable regression to account for natural effects on the global average temperature to find what he called the real global warming signal. He said he put in parameters to account for delayed effects. It isn’t clear whether the results are going to be sensitive to the point in time where he starts the analysis. He certainly reduced the noise in the trend by a lot, and gets a pretty good steady trend, which is what would be expected from a steady warming effect due to increasing GHG’s in the atmosphere.

Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by Mi Cro

0
0

eadler2 commented

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.

Well, what I’m saying is what surface measurements show to be the facts, but it has nothing to do with proof of AGW.

Does the Min temp anomaly look anything like a slight rising trend?

Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by Mi Cro

0
0

eadler2 commented on

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.

Except when you look at yesterdays temp rise, and compare it to last nights falling temps you get something like this:
YEAR RISING FALLING
1950 18.92050989 19.04083917
1951 18.57146076 18.5824181
1952 18.13525869 18.31130786
1953 17.82293032 17.85546676
1954 17.37874226 17.54219243
1955 17.35886761 17.41322352
1956 17.49403237 17.5128109
1957 17.32463934 17.48400653
1958 17.8007922 17.82826202
1959 17.42684609 17.59911514
1960 17.44499532 17.63915625
1961 17.79018057 17.95813771
1962 18.0106431 18.27484099
1963 18.36431864 18.52935222
1964 17.6737505 17.78752672
1965 16.82202477 17.08854006
1966 17.09444771 17.27294385
1967 17.08224932 17.25138179
1968 17.1355002 17.20610306
1969 17.45810359 17.62495587
1970 17.91987811 18.06958317
1971 17.14239614 17.12400035
1972 17.28088128 17.27055483
1973 17.40699643 17.74821952
1974 17.34863356 17.56297915
1975 17.64498828 17.76143356
1976 17.76924206 18.01606395
1977 17.63217802 17.85530611
1978 17.41397723 17.69134026
1979 17.60990484 17.83886668
1980 17.47200107 17.76277996
1981 17.57813869 17.80495907
1982 17.2756724 17.37584863
1983 17.2251366 17.28294307
1984 17.22913325 17.26005321
1985 17.27491182 17.34171981
1986 17.19416256 17.34655525
1987 17.20772097 17.28463402
1988 17.48544416 17.52294106
1989 17.57343029 17.62143428
1990 17.41235551 17.48392811
1991 16.75187665 16.86799808
1992 16.68316131 16.83950923
1993 16.83427424 17.01873129
1994 17.42155322 17.55040208
1995 17.14702755 17.23301663
1996 17.05783232 17.1198493
1997 17.16277616 17.19990807
1998 17.08504304 17.14207068
1999 17.61853025 17.66280313
2000 17.5794153 17.64004889
2001 17.87340637 17.89497488
2002 17.70576698 17.75310414
2003 17.96045386 17.99200218
2004 17.70235463 17.73471391
2005 17.45612756 17.46222204
2006 17.87285698 17.91873944
2007 17.93335232 17.95839775
2008 17.90006438 17.91606502
2009 17.93078087 17.94478324
2010 17.62333747 17.64184523
2011 17.92601114 17.93265255
2012 18.04235465 18.08422982
2013 17.96744525 17.97490912

Over all average Rise=17.51624357F Fall=17.61363578F

So, there’s been zero loss of nightly cooling since the 50’s as a minimum.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Danny Thomas

0
0

Steven,

Do you consider Doctors to be Scientists and of high ethics?

First, do no harm? Subjective?

Would it be “unethical” (knowing you plan to poison his dog) for the scientist to keep quiet about the amount of poison you’re providing? Replace the dog with yourself (or one of them girlfriends). Is it a lie by omission to not give the amount of poison needed to kill the dog if not specifically asked?

Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

eadler2, “What Tamino did was multi variable regression to account for natural effects on the global average temperature to find what he called the real global warming signal.”

No, what he did was attempt to account for natural effects. In order to do that he assumed he understood what he was removing would produce a “normal” as in unperturbed by ENSO, Volcanic and Solar condition. What he did was fine, but not definitive. In fact there was quite a discussion on it at the BlackBoard. Normal is what should be a normal climate. If you assume normal is the climate of 1900, then you would get a different answer than if you assume the climate of the satellite era is “normal” It isn’t that hard eadler2, try to keep up.

All ocean warming prior to your “normal” would be “natural”. That warming would produce a “natural” water vapor feed back, land based ice reduction albedo etc. etc. So when Tamino removes enso, it is normalized to a period assumed to be “normal”. So whatever natural portion there is would be considered anthropogenic because of his choice of “normal”. Every analysis requires assumptions, there is no getting around that.

Now if you aren’t happy with the Oppo use consider that ENSO is a very small area of the equatorial Pacific known to have a high correlation with “global” weather. It isn’t that hard to do a correlation of the IPWP region and find that is as good or better than ENSO.

Here is a link to Oppo et al. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oppo2009/oppo2009.html

You can get an Indian ocean mask at Climate Explorer and openoffice dot org has free spread sheet software. Pretty simple stuff. If you don’t trust my work, you can do it yourself. I encourage it. In fact I encourage reviewing everyone’s work since there are lots of assumptions made by lots of folks. You know what happens when you ASS U ME right?


Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Planning Engineer

0
0

rogercaiazza – I think it applies to every resource decision of that sort. Off shore wind,massive solar farms, nuclear power, coal plants, combustion turbines, hydro generators, fracking, mining, farming…. All types of project endeavors have environmental costs that accompany their benefits. The distribution and magnitude of costs and benefits will vary by locations and differing areas will properly weight the various factors differently as well.

Different solutions for different areas is a good thing. It’s a huge problem that the “idealist” gets the same answer no matter what.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by bob droege

0
0

Angech,

You foot-faulted with both feet.

You have to do more than claim CO2 might be beneficial.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by cwon14

Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by R. Gates

0
0

“It isn’t that hard to do a correlation of the IPWP region and find that is as good or better than ENSO.”
_____
Indeed, heat content of the IPWP is one of the best long-term indicators of general climate trends and general direction of energy accumulation/dissipation from the system. In short, it is the single best and thermodynamically stable climate proxies we have.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by A fan of *MORE* discourse

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by A fan of *MORE* discourse

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Joshua

0
0

==> “But the discussion was on lying – and we certainly can’t lie to a cat. ”

We can entice a cat, that has been a treasured pet for many years but now has a terminal disease, say, or perhaps simply because it is no longer the kitten that we got at the SPCA and we no longer find it cute and we find it annoying, into a carrying case with food, so that we can close the door and then take it to the vet to have it euthanized.

Since you’re an arbiter of intellectual depth, I have no fear that you will be able to extend your expertise to judge the ethics of each case.


Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by RiHo08

0
0

Capt’nDallas

I read the Oppo abstract and the “remote control” statement at its end puzzled me.

Do you have the paper available by some hook or by crook?

Thank you

Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by RiHo08

0
0

I’m in the cozy company residing in moderation. I would like to get out though.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Steven Mosher

0
0

Unfortunately dawn kant is being inconsistent there with the application of his test for the morality of an action.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by A fan of *MORE* discourse

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Steven Mosher

0
0

More to the point dawn. Kant holds that animals are mere things. We cannot have moral obligations toward them. The obligations he speaks of are all indirect. There is no direct moral obligation to them.

The fact that we pause over this should tell you something

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images