Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

0
0

jim2 –

As always, thanks for reading bro’ I can’t tell you what it means to me.

What caused you to change you rmind?


Comment on Week in review by David Springer

0
0

Joshua is pushing bogus point about savings being down. Home equity is not considered savings but favorable tax treatment has made it the primary means of savings for most people. Home mortgage interest is deductable and profit from sale of primary residence owned at least 5 years is tax-free for first $250,000 ($500,000 for married). So middle class young and middle aged married-with-children get into largest home they can afford then downsize when the kids are grown up keeping most if not all the profit tax free.

Home mortgage interest deduction did not exist prior to tax reform act of 1986 which is the exact year when savings as percentage of personal income began taking a nosedive according to the very chart which Joshua used to make his mistaken point:

Nice own goal, Joshua. You know as much about economics you do about science and by that I mean illiterate in both.

You’re also supposed to be in moderation and you’re cheating your way out of that too continuing to pollute this blog with your typical uninformed dreck at a rate exceeding anyone else here.

How about some moderation here, Curry. Moderate by name not by IP address to prevent cheating. At least that way the cheating is easily spotted as Joshua will have to switch to a different name to avoid it.

Comment on Blog discussions by popesclimatetheory

0
0

If one side is wrong and one side is right, why would intelligent people stay on both sides?

I know that they do, I know intelligent people on the different sides.

Some of the really intelligent people on the different sides are really friends of mine.

Sometimes, I learn the most from intelligent people who disagree with me.

Comment on Blog discussions by Jim D

0
0

Apart from the ones doing paleoclimate, or statistical studies, or out in the field doing observations, while the skeptics seem mostly to be desk jockeys.

Comment on Blog discussions by David Springer

0
0

What? Wait… he handed his ass to you?

I hope you took him out to dinner and a movie first.

Comment on Blog discussions by cerescokid

0
0

Ultimately, It will move one conscience at a time.

Comment on Blog discussions by ...and Then There's Physics

0
0

tonyb,
I’ve given up caring about things that may or may not be thrown back at me. Plus, if that’s the best that some can do…… :-)

Comment on Blog discussions by popesclimatetheory

0
0

This Blog is about blogs.
I did listen to and meet and talk to Dr. Jennifer Marohasy last year at the Climate Change Conference. We have been exchanging emails, from time to time since then.

A couple of days ago, I discovered she had a website and a blog.
I recommend you spend some time there. She is a Climate Scientist in Australia. She is a Skeptic and a really good Skeptic.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/jenns-blog/


Comment on Blog discussions by David Springer

0
0

You could left out everything before “dismayed” and the point would have been the same, Richard, or can I call you Dick?

Comment on Blog discussions by Philbert

0
0

For what it’s worth, I think far too much time is spent “driving in the rear view mirror.” We spend countless hours and keystrokes saying we can’t figure out what has been happening because of inadequate data networks and instrumentation, observed data bias adjustments and political issues out of our control.

I would like to see this blog host ideas based on user needs to assess climate impacts. I have not seen a comprehensive plan that focuses on data networks, instrumentation, appropriate data processing and methods to assess climate impacts. “Pie in the sky” discussions about absolute data accuracy don’t do a county or city council any good when they need to upgrade the design for a new storm sewer system that requires voters to pass a bond measure.

What can we do now as a community of professionals to aid in these decisions the rest of this century and beyond?

Comment on Blog discussions by jim2

0
0

It would be great if she commented here a bit. I’ve been to her blog from time to time, but not commented there.

Comment on Week in review by jhprince2014

0
0

Thank you, Peter! “Why not focus your time on issues that are relevant to affecting rational policy analysis and through that influencing more rational policy decisions?” Thank you.

Comment on Week in review by matthewrmarler

0
0
jim2: <i> Given the fact that CO2 comprises only 1% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of this, the best of all possible worlds, doubling it will have no consequence whatever.</i> What matters is the change in total CO2. Doubling CO2 concentration adds enough extra absorptive capacity to raise the global mean temperature, What is at issue is how much.

Comment on Blog discussions by David Springer

0
0
...and Then There's Physics | March 22, 2015 at 1:59 pm | Reply <blockquote>If I do have a magic touch, I’ve no idea what it is. I’ve never claimed to know what I’m doing, and still don’t really.</blockquote> Truer words never spoken. Pretty much says it all.

Comment on Week in review by matthewrmarler

0
0

Jim D: By thermodynamics, water vapor increases about 6% per degree warming.

What increases 6% (Held and Soden say 7%) per degree is the water vapor pressure, and by extension the equilibrium specific humidity. What happens in the actual never-close-to-equilibrium atmosphere is only a matter of conjecture (based on models that are already known to be “running hot”). O’Gorman et al surveyed studies and found a range of estimates for the increase in rainfall rate, 2% – 7% per doubling, with the lower estimates from GCMs and the upper estimates from empirical studies. If the upper estimates prove to be accurate, then doubling the CO2 concentration from its present concentration will have little effect on surface temperature: much of the energy represented by the hypothetical surface increase will instead go into increasing the evapotranspirative transfer of heat to the upper troposphere.

How changes in non-radiative transfer of energy from surface to troposphere affect calculations of the change in surface temperature inducible by increased CO2 is mostly a neglected topic. A topic on which I have written a few notes here, at WUWT, and at RealClimate.


Comment on Blog discussions by David Springer

0
0

..and Then There’s Physics | March 22, 2015 at 1:59 pm | Reply

“As far as moderation goes, I moderate mainly for tone.”

Really? You made an exception in my case. Deleted because I used “typical Skeptic talking points”.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/talk-politics-not-science/#comment-40057

David Springer says:
December 17, 2014 at 2:30 pm
[Mod: These are typical Skeptic talking points which have no place on a science blog]

I guess only atypical skeptic talking points are okay? Please explain.

Comment on Blog discussions by GaryM

0
0

tonyb,

There is no more prolific challenger of skeptics, or defender of the consensus, than Mosher himself – on climate models and reported temp products that are the core of CAGW dogma. While Mosher is an obscurantist, he at least occasionally engages on the substance (although I think the wheat/chaff ratio is declining over time). R.Gates and Jim D and other warmists do here as well.

Comment on Week in review by matthewrmarler

0
0
jim2: <i>And, water vapor adds about 200 w\m2, so again the contribution from CO2 is washed out by that of water vapor. </i> Only if the water vapor <i>changes</i> in such a way that the effect of the water vapor <i>change</i> is to wash out the effect of the <i>increased</i> CO2. Warmists think that the change in water vapor will augment the effect of increased CO2. I think that the change in the hydrologic cycle will wash out most of the effect of increased CO2.

Comment on Blog discussions by richardswarthout

0
0

Jim2

Why would a person move his family out of the USA. His answer was, paraphrasing, the re-election of Bush. Hard to believe that the election of a president, even a president whom one detested, could cause this action. My conclusion is that he moved because he came to detest America, because it stupidly elected a bad president.

Richard

Comment on Blog discussions by justinwonder

0
0

The implication is? Conflict? Spectacle? Skimpy dress? ???

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images