These unruly serfs. How dare they suspect us of being disingenuous when we want them to think we’re merely ignorant. It’s always the same question, McCarthy, McCarthy.
=====================
Comment on Week in review by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
An old Italian saying, possibly originating in times of famine, is that an egg a day keeps the doctor away.
‘Struth.
=====
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
It’s the dentist that an apple a day keeps away.
==========
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
tonyb, the Royal Society has 1600 highly regarded members. It is very presumptive of Michael Kelly to want to assert his personal view on their already very general statements on human-caused climate change. He is being the squeaky wheel, and trying to denigrate the rest of the membership in the process. That is not a way to get your opinion accepted. It is hard science that sways opinion with these independent academic societies (NAS, APS, etc.). This is the latest RS document on climate change.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Heh, the wheel would not squeak were there not friction and impending heat. Nor, Jim D, is enforcing an authoritarian consensus a good way for science to poke its slow way forward.
==========================
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
steven mosher, “PM25 is not a beauty product. when you can demonstrate that it leads to longer lives collect your nobel proze.
China’s plan to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 ran into an interesting snag. By their estimates about 50% of PM2.5 is naturally occurring in one of the most polluted nations in the world. You run into a situation where is costs more to get less improvement. Health wise, the impact needs to be based on realistic natural background estimates instead of SWAGs based on an environmentalist’s wonderland.
http://srv2.lemig.umontreal.ca/donnees/geo6143/lectures/6143_IIB.pdf
Greening the Sahel would likely do more than ultra low sulfur diesel to reduce PM in some areas and that “pine fresh” scent that many love is due to pm25. It would also reduce damage to those sensitive coral reefs you hear about all the time. Looks like there are a few confounding factors involved to me. So how about finding a laptop so you can outline your plans to save the world without the mis-spelled sound bites. .The US would be a nice place to start. You can show us just how much pm25 bang we can expect for the buck.
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Jeff Id
JCH
↧
Comment on Week in review by Vaughan Pratt
What is a person’s position on AGW better correlated with: their scientific background, or their political affiliation?
Starting from the premise that a majority of scientists expect future AGW to be harmful, the more scientists who can be found who reject the harmfulness of future AGW, the weaker the correlation with scientific background becomes, and hence the more likely that the correlation is instead with political affiliation. Such a trend would tend to make the future impact of AGW more a political question than a scientific one.
If that premise is false, i.e. a majority of scientists already expect future AGW to be harmless, then increasing that majority only improves the correlation with scientific background, making the question more a scientific one, i.e. the opposite trend.
My own impression is that whether future AGW is harmless is at present mainly a political question.
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Jeff Id
JCH
The real answer about heat being accumulated below 700 meters is — we don’t know. Our instruments have a great deal of trouble recording 0.01C of change over the volume of the ocean. Actually, they cannot.
By various chemical mixing studies, the oceans are expected to be well mixed in about a millenium. That indicates that perhaps 500 years is a good timeframe for surface heating to vanish into ocean water.
↧
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by GaryM
tonyb,
Don’t hold your breath waiting for mosher to admit error, on anything. His primary goal at any given point is to win the debate of the moment. Which is why he so often ends up arguing both sides of an argument, depending on his goal of the day. I once chronicled a series of them, it was hilarious.
His goal long ago stopped being moving the debate forward. He chose sides long ago, and all the rest is irrelevant to him. He does forget, because the substance is not what he cares about, winning the debate is all that matters.
It is hard to argue with someone who sees no categorical difference between a lie and the truth, who sees no categorical difference between “ground truth” (as it is defined by the rest of the world), and computer generated data.
That was one argument on which he once took both sides. First arguing that models were validated against “ground truth”. Then when questioned, he admitted that the “ground truth” he was talking about was other model generated data. On a later thread, he denied that there was any such thing as “ground truth”.
Mosher used to have a ratio of about 50-50 wheat to chaff. I think if is now 95%+ chaff. Virtually all of which is obscurantist argumentation.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Lucifer
Most states baccking away from renewable commitments ( too expensive ).
↧
Comment on Week in review by Lucifer
<i>“It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose. New enemies therefore have to be identified. New strategies imagined, new weapons devised. The common enemy of humanity is man. <b>In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.</b> All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”</i>
- Club of Rome ( Limits to Growth ) including Maurice Strong, Founder of the IPCC.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Another more pertinent RS report from last year.
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-q-and-a.pdf
The GWPF recently came up with a response that Kelly refers to.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Shortguide.pdf
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by willb
R.Gates, you are too quick to judge Michael Kelly’s criticism as simply incorrect. In your falling leaf model analogy you describe a key step followed by the statement: “The model is validated.” This is the step and result that is missing from climate model development and it is the step that Michael Kelly and others want to see taken before they have confidence in model output. Michael Kelly is correct to point out that until climate models are validated, the failure of the models to predict the “hiatus” is evidence that the climate models may in fact be invalid.
BTW, I think your analogy highlights a problem with one climate science claim, that it is easier to predict the climate 100 years from now as opposed to ten years from now. Your falling leaf model will produce much more accurate results from a 10 meter tower as opposed to the 100 meter tower.
↧
Comment on Week in review by tonyb
JimD
So is Michael Kelly to be less ‘highly regarded’ because he is doing exactly what he should be doing, querying the status quo?
You used the word ‘extremists’. How does he fit into that category please?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by PMHinSC
<i>jim2 | March 15, 2015 at 9:15 am
Joshua’s goal seems to be to dilute legitimate comments with crap…</i>
As of 320 comments and 25,500 words, Joshua has 25 comments (8%) and 2,500 words (10%) most of which are OT or extraneous. Although, IMHO, Climate Etc. has the overall best content of all the climate blogs, it often is not worth wading thru several commenters who are verbose, OT, and obviously not interested in contribution anything constructive or positive. I would be supportive of a word and/or comment limit. Our Hostess obviously has more patience than I do.
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Vaughan Pratt
The Meridional Overturning Circulation (aka thermohaline circulation, or great ocean conveyor) transports deep ocean heat to the poles. The return current is regulated by the temperature of polar sea ice.
Therefore in order for whatever heat that leaks from the mixed layer across the thermocline into the deep ocean to have any significant impact on abyssal temperatures it must first melt the polar ice. I would therefore expect negligible heating of the abyss until the polar ice is gone, unlikely in this millennium.
The rate of trans-thermocline leakage downwards is unlikely to change significantly over the next century. Hence whatever is going on in the deep ocean can have little bearing on projections for 2100 that are based on the past century and a half of global climate.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
In this environment, to squeak is to be extreme, making Jim D’s job of marginalizing easy enough for a camp guard.
==========================
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by kim
Hmmmm, Vaughn shows a valve.
==============
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by kim
With perfectly functioning seals. I suspect reality leaks around it short of complete melting of polar sea ice.
==========
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
