Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Did a comment disappear? I know I said arbitrary but capricious?

The number of appearances in the top 10 doesn’t include Obama the second at all and Clinton comes in well under Margaret Thatcher.. Longevity counts. It gives a sense of of the vagaries of history – and the futility of partisan posturing like Maxy’s.

As for the future – you need some new blood and new ideas. Perhaps the poll leader for 2016 – Jeb Bush. A third Bush in the White House? He does seem to have a bit of private sector baggage however. But let’s hope that the GOP has a credible candidate — just because Maxy and Joshua would be so annoyed.


Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by ordvic

$
0
0

JimD, thanks for the link, I’ll read it later. Other than the authors take on it, tell me what chart or table on the pseudo science site is in error. I’m simply pointing out it’s a matter of degree and that is what Gates started with with his hockey stick CO2 charts. I don’t think anyone knows, at this point, just how much the effect will be. If they did know Hansen and the IPPC computer models might have been a little more accurate with their predictions and projections.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Brandon Shollenberger

$
0
0
<strong>JC SNIP I am really tired of this bickering, I would delete this entire subthread but it is too much work to do that</strong>

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D

$
0
0

ordvic, if anyone uses ecoenquirer.com as a reference, I wouldn’t trust any words from them and would just look elsewhere. ecoenquirer is the Onion of the “skeptics”, it appears. The CO2 graphs from Gates are correct, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Judith has used it too. Skeptics have no alternative to it. You can search.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by phatboy

$
0
0

Yes, NCGG’s are required to maintain the climate we enjoy, but so is water vapour. Take away the latter and you also end up with a frozen planet.
The big question is sensitivity, and you cannot imply anything about sensitivity by invoking scenarios (no NCGG’s) which have never occurred, and will never occur.
And do stop with the feeble ad-homs – it’s not conducive to good discussion.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by phatboy

$
0
0

Jim D, it’s hardly surprising, since all of Gatesey’s CO2 graphs are the same.
Why do you imagine he found it necessary to present them all, when just one would have sufficed?

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Don Monfort

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Sorry, Judith. I didn’t see that.


Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Tonyb,

Thank you so much. The historic information you study and provide I find invaluable and I thank you so much. I’m playing a bit of catch up so please forgive if I missed this but the article about the Maya indicated a 100 year drought in approx. the 800-900 year age. Are you by chance aware of associated anomalies? I would be interested, and believe R.Gates and others would also.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by eadler2

$
0
0

I can understand why Wattsupwiththat is out there without links to other scientific blogs. If you oppose what Anthony Watts believes, you are quickly banned from posting there. AGW deniers flock there to confirm their biases, and don’t encounter anything that makes them uncomfortable in the comments section, which is mainly backslapping.
I personally have been banned from posting, because I called attention to a big mistake Watts made in the run up to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study publication.
I am puzzled that the diagram doesn’t show a connection between Hotwhopper and WUWT, since it is dedicated to debunking what appears on WUWT.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Wagathon,

I heartily disagree that Adkins is “not a good diet”. When I did it for a short while, it allowed as much bacon as I cared to eat. That, in my opinion, is a good diet! :)

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D

$
0
0

phatboy, you have to ask Gates that. As far as I am concerned David presented it, along with references, but looked skeptical despite those, not giving any idea which reference he didn’t agree with and why. Do you know?

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Brandon Shollenberger

$
0
0

Sorry about that Judith. I tend to be bad at ignoring things so I often respond even when I probably shouldn’t.

If it helps you any, I don’t think you need to “snip” comments to preserve threading if they’re at the bottom nesting level. The issues with threading getting broken happen when a comment which people have used the Reply feature to respond to gets deleted. If nobody has used that feature to respond to a comment, (I think) you should be able to delete it with no adverse effects.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Shub Niggurath

$
0
0

That’s right, Joshua, I try. One way of trying is to keep reading opposing perspectives and interacting with people with opposing/different views. I may be absolutely convinced I’m right on several topics but I am not dumb enough to think others don’t think the same way.

The natural tendency of people is for like-minded individuals to come together as life gets tedious and stressful otherwise. But the means of engaging your opponents, exchanging insults, rotten eggs and the occasional handshake must be kept open. It’s all BS but that’s how I feel about it.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Lucifer

$
0
0

We share this, then.
Like your experience with WUWT,
I’ve been banned from SS and don’t see much point in returning.
‘RealClimate’ and ‘OpenMind’ don’t ban – just don’t post comments that don’t adhere to their beliefs.
The result is echo chambers.
Fortunately, here, we can discuss these things.


Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

‘From 1990 to 2009, left-of-center governments largely maintained the market-based institutions and economic policies established under the 17-year rule of General Augusto Pinochet. However, under the center-right Alianza coalition, which took power in 2010, President Sebastian Piñera has raised corporate taxes and personally intervened to stop the construction of a coal-fired electric plant that had cleared all regulatory hurdles. None of that has satisfied the left, and large street protests have become an ongoing problem for the government. Despite Piñera’s clumsy political leadership, Chile still has the region’s best reputation among foreign investors. It is the first South American country to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Chile is the world’s leading producer of copper. The economy is very open to imports but is also an export powerhouse in minerals, wood, fruit, seafood, and wine.’ http://www.heritage.org/index/country/chile

The reality – which Maxy is not very good at – is that there is mainstream economic management and his fringe extremist fantasies.

Here’s another country – No. 3 on the economic freedom indeax.

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/australia

Monetary policy.

http://www.rba.gov.au/monetary-policy/

Economic growth.

There are rational ways to manage modern economies – and the Nobel Prize winning work of Hayek is at the core of it. Forgetting these principles leads to Greece, Ireland and the US economic malaise.

The other principles of importance are those of classic liberalism. You know? Democracy, the rule of law, free markets? Are they arguing against this?

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Tonyb

$
0
0

Danny

My current studies of the climate are from around 1086 ( thevdomesfay book) to around 1539 ( the reformation of the mnasteries) with a focus on the period 1200 to 1400 so I can try and trace the (elusive) change from the MWP to the LIA.

As you go back in time it becomes difficult to sort out the many religious and supernatural references and legends with real weather events let alone trying to discern the ‘climate’ i.e. 30 year periods , with any certainty.

As regards the approximate dates you give we can say with reasonable certainty that the period between 910 to 930 was extremely dry with numerous very hot summers. In general the period from 790 to 1190 or so could be considered the peak period of the MWP with generally warm and settled weather, although there were plenty of exceptions to this.

Tonyb

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by ordvic

$
0
0

There are several new papers on how CO2 physics is more complicated than first known. I read one that was well advertised that had to do with how long wave avd short wave work with CO2 and if I am recalling correctly it showed that it is incoming radiation that produces an effect not outgoing. I’ll have to try and find it later. There is also this paper that is saying the same (it may be the one I’m thinking of):

http://m.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700.abstract

There is still no answer as to whether or not the graphs and tables on the pseudo science site are accurate other than cartoons and pontificating like super science observers (not very impressive or expressive). Also no mention of solar being in better correlation with temp than CO2 as the other site showed. I’ll have to take there is no real rebuttal here just huff and puff.

Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by David in TX

$
0
0

Steven Mosher | December 28, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
David in TX.
You just fooled yourself.
————————————————————–

Nope.

You just fooled yourself into believing I fooled myself.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by JustinWonder

$
0
0

R. Gates

CO2 as the atmospheric thermostat, the Crickian “central dogma” of climate science. I checked out your link referring to 4 papers by the usual suspects – Schmidt and Hansen. Only Rothman was new to me.

Regarding all the Mars comparisons, Mars is a very different world – mass, magnetic field, atmospheric density, distance from the sun, etc.

As for the graph, a y-axis range of 0 – 7,000 ppm and an x-axis range of 500 – 0 MYA (million years ago), the Phanerozoic era, would give a less misleading picture. At the very least, go back to the early Cretacious as even just the Pliestocene is insufficient to show true variability, IMHO as a not-so-confident id gee ought.

Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images