Maybe a folded dipole antenna coupled to a tin foil hat would help the warmists detect the global warming signal.
Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by WebHubTelescope
Jinan Cao, I noticed that you have a blog where you try do some of your calculations in depth. Where exactly do you describe the propagating slab model that is required to match your words with the math?
As it stands, you are frantically hand-waving, not realizing what will come out of the wash if you do the math bookkeeping correctly.
↧
Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Rob Starkey
If land is burning in a nation isn’t it the responsibility of that nation to react?
This is your or my concern to deal with why?
You wish to impose your will on all independent nations over what? Is there a list?
↧
Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Jim2
Bart doesn’t like to provide any support for his ramblings. Obviously, he believes himself to be the end all and be all of climate science and policy.
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by Edim
It should be pointed out that acceptance by scientists is always qualified by a willingness to reconsider.
↧
↧
Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Bart R
qbeamus | April 12, 2012 at 11:21 am |
I have some sympathy for your position.
If you oppose tonyb’s lobbying efforts, then by all means lobby against them.
While I don’t think much of most lobbying, it’s a reality that those with the means will do it above or under the table. Far better it be done above the table, and far better it be opposed by people of good conscience taking their voices in the open to the arena of ideas by democratic means.
As Pollyanna as my attitude is, I’m much more proud of it than I’d be of succumbing to apathy.
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by Herman Alexander Pope
The 49 should have been 50. I signed an early version of the letter and the final version of the letter. My name was left off. That was a mistake.
We are 50.
Herman A (Alex) Pope Aerospace Engineer 44 years.
Intense Climate Theory Study, 4 years.
Earth temperature is not doing what the alarmists forecast.
Ocean levels are not doing what the alarmists forecast.
The Ultimate Climate Model, Earth, produces data and that is all on our side. It may take one year, five years or more, but as Earth data continues to not match the alarmist Theory and Model output, at some point they are done. There is no actual real data that supports the alarmist position. They do, from time to time, cheat and make it look like there is data on their side, but climate gates keep happening to bust their cheating.
Our letter was intended to stop some parts of NASA from taking part in the cheating. It is still our NASA and we do care.
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by Girma
Jim D
Can you expect an R^2 value of more than 0.997? Is this value not good enough?
↧
Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by peterdavies252
Hmm … not a positive way to join this blog IMO. You handled it well though Bart.
↧
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by Edim
Says Lindzen and I agree.
“the survival of accumulated snow and ice” is plausible. It’s an ice cold drink and a warm tea in one big cup.
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by Wagathon
What does the Democrat party create when it kills opportunity and penalizes success and uses taxpayer money to fund filing cabinets full of global warming pseudoscience in an attempt to take over industry and commerce? It creates more dependency.
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by Jim D
I don’t call a curve-fit a model. It is just mathematics devoid of nature.
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by Jim D
You extracted a quadratic from the data and another quadratic from your own curve and “surprisingly” these two quadratics have a correlation with each other.
↧
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by Herman Alexander Pope
You open a cold carbonated drink and it hardly spews at all.
You open a warm carbonated drink and it spews like crazy.
Did the CO2 make the warm drink warm or did the warm temperature make the warm drink spew more? This is simple stuff. They keep saying that CO2 sensitivity makes earth warmer. Basic Physics says that a warmer ocean will support a higher vapor pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. What are they thinking? That is easy, they are not thinking.
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by D Johnson
I disagree with your assessment that the letters are pointless. As a young project engineer, working as a NASA contractor during the Apollo project, with and for several of the signees, including Buzz Aldrin and Chris Kraft, i share their concern as to what NASA has become. There is a very valid point they are making. While you may be correct regarding the sparsity of their presentation of technical evidence and arguments regarding the science questions, they are certainly correct that NASA, as presently constituted, has departed substantially from the policies and principles that made it a respected organization throughout the world. I understand this feeling. It’s as if a trusted friend or relative has suddenly gone seriously astray. You would want remedial action to be taken before the trusted friend or relative is irreparably damaged.
I hope NASA can be cured, but I’m afraid the prospects aren’t great.
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by Herman Alexander Pope
We have a justice system that gives us the right to a trial by a jury.
If only Climate Scientists can give us decisions that relate to Climate, then only Judges can serve on a Jury. Makes sense, right!
No! Climate Science must be judged by a diverse jury. If they only pass in a Consensus Jury it is meaningless.
I repeat!
If they only pass in a Consensus Jury it is meaningless!!!!!
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by omanuel
I agree, David. I warned the Space Science Board in 2008 that NASA’s image would be tarnished by promoting AGW propaganda as scientific facts:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/ProgramandQuestionForNASPresidentandSpaceScienceBoard.pdf
The next year, official responses to information in the 2009 Climategate emails and documents convinced me that the Administrators of NASA and EPA, the Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, and the Secretary of DOE have little or no more control than you or me or puppets on a string.
Who/what pulled the strings? Probably the instinct of survival, fear of the “nuclear fires” that consumed Hiroshima, and lack of appreciation for Einstein’s insight into the spiritual and physical aspects of reality in E = mc^2.
↧
↧
Comment on Conservation in the Anthropocene by Captain Kangaroo
G’day Jack,
Yes best to avoid Bart. I don’t think it’s something confined to Australians or engineers. He is almost universally detested as a serial pest and is most likely hairy and unwashed if the hydrophobia is anything to go by. He has eighteen names for snow – none of them mean what you think you they mean – and lives alone in the Minnesotan wilderness with only cougars for company. He has been driven insane by loneliness and alienation and inflicts this on the rest of us with wild and incoherent manifestos. I can see more than a smidgeon of resemblance to the unabomber.
If tempted to respond – it is safest simply go off into a totally disconnected rant of your own with no semblance at all to Socratic discousre. Think steam of consciousness rather than Wittgenstein. That way logic and rationality is assumed not to apply from the get go and you are spared the effort of trying to work out what the hell is going on.
Robert I Ellison
↧
Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by Bart R
More typical GWPF halo tactics.
If you can, claim you’re a Lord. Then, in the House of Lords. If you’re a commoner, then claim you’re in the House of Commons.
If you can’t be credible, pretend to be.
If you can’t debate substantive climate science, put up a ‘climate alarm’ straw man and debate that.
Where you can’t meet the evidence, observations, research and discussions of people who soundly disprove your case, then turn to the ‘complaints of those supporting alarm’.
One asks, which of Hoskins, Mitchell, Palmer, Shine and Wolff does the GWPF not have considerable respect for? It may help inform us who the GWPF pack intend to cull next.
After such a start, how is “..constructive exchanges are new in the field of global warming, and, perhaps, represent a return to the normal process of scientific discourse,” anything but stark hypocrisy narcissistically covering a huge error of fact?
Global warming discourses among tens of thousands of civil, earnest, willing participants have gone on for over a quarter century. Civility, sincerity and willingness to be guided by science is hardly an invention of the GWPF. Indeed, it appears the GWPF regard these traits as anathema, by their watermelon-flinging comportment overall.
And what’s with the GWPF telling readers what should be and who should believe, see, and do what? Isn’t that up to, I dunno, the readers to decide?
“..the only thing that is unambiguous is precisely the claimed large measure of ignorance needed to maintain the possibility of risk. As usual, no attention is given to the possibility that the response will be much smaller.”
What an appallingly irrational statement.
Does the GWPF not even know what the word RISK means? It’s entirely the possibility that the response will be much smaller, up to as large as the RISK.
And a whole paragraph of blah-blah-blah that so wildly mischaracterises the statistical understanding we do have of the temperature record, painstakingly mined from improvised collections of data from weather stations to put to some climatological use as to be window dressing on deception and flim-flam and no more.. disappointing. A man who rents rooms in the House of Commons ought behave better.
“..there is little question that Arctic sea-ice has been subject to large variations in the pre-satellite past. Of course, the more important question is what these changes actually have to do with increasing CO2, and this question remains open simply because the small changes in summer sea ice can have a number of causes.”
Wow. Just wow.
We almost certainly have enough weather records, both in actual recorded observations of temperature and precipitation and in historical compilations of extreme conditions as the likes of tonyb ably collate to know if such weather as Dr. Curry recently proved would result from so much Arctic sea ice loss had actually happened.
We can be pretty definite from the massive consilience of evidence that at least a millennium has passed since last the Arctic sea ice extent had anything like its current retreat. The GWPF would have us ignore this, or would conflate and obscure the best evidence, as it flies in the face of the GWPF’s raison d’etre: objection to conclusions they don’t want to believe.
For the GWPF to transparently clothe themselves in the whited sheets of the scientific method they so vainly seek to entomb in their polemics, dogma and deception is just amazingly shameless.
And people wonder why I compare the GWPF to what crawls out from under a rock.
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by David Springer
Here’s what you are proposing with a greenhouse effect limited by the temperature of the sun’s photosphere.
We (meaning an engineer like me) could take a very well insulated box black on the inside execept for one side where we’d put a one-way mirror. This is the ultimate greenhouse. If the maximum internal temperature was limited only by the photosphere’s temperature we could get the inside of that box hot enough to generate high quality dry steam to run a turbine which is a mere 500C not the 5500C of the photosphere.
It simply can’t be done. In order to heat things that hot in the real world (as opposed to your fevered imagination) we have to use lenses and/or mirrors to concentrate the energy which by necessity deprives some other surface from that amount of energy.
Do you have any idea whatsoever how f***ing much of a laughingstock you are for proposing something physically impossible?
↧
