I think they’ve rebranded the climate models from climate simulation to climate ANIMATION.
Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Your like a spoilt child. You can’t admit when you are clearly wrong.
10 signs of intellectual dishonesty: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/ Many are relevant but here’s three in particular:
4. Avoiding/Ignoring the question or “ . . . and let’s not forget about . . .” Anybody who refuses to admit that their argument is weak in an area and, worse still, avoids answering difficult questions in that area is being intellectually dishonest. If they don’t ignore the question, these people are easily recognised from their efforts to change the subject.
5. Never admitting error or “I am/We are right – regardless of your evidence”. These are the people who will never admit that they are wrong – ever – regardless of clear evidence that demonstrates their error. See Sign #1
8. Destroying a straw man or “You might say that, but how do you explain . . . ?”. Usually a case of shifting the subject and attacking the opponent’s position on that, unrelated or remotely related, topic. This is usually employed in an effort to avoid a question (Sign #4) or when the speaker/writer doesn’t have the knowledge to address the issue.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by jim2
So now, to complement the global surface temperature constructions we have the climate animations.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
I urge those who are concerned about reducing global GHG emissions and also concerned about improving human well-being worldwide to stop avoiding the obvious. Instead, apply the Pareto Principle to policy options analysis:
The value of the Pareto Principle for a manager is that it reminds you to focus on the 20 percent that matters. …. Identify and focus on those things.
http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Pareto081202.htm
From an earlier comment:
…we can achieve the fastest emissions reductions by replacing fossil fuel technologies for electricity generation with low emissions technologies.
…
We need to focus 80% to 90% of our efforts on reducing the cost of electricity from the already proven, fit-for-purpose electricity generation technology.
Read the full content of the comment about the application of Pareto Principle to climate policy analysis here: http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/04/week-in-review-policy-and-politics-edition/#comment-690435
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by kim
I read your stuff too pretty regularly, Peter, but nobody’s perfect.
===================
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
curryja, “Interestingly, current version of GISS model has one of the lowest sensitivities among climate models.”
If it got the ocean temperatures right I might get excited.
But there is a pretty big difference between the Russell and Hycom ocean models and observations. I am not sure how they guess at latent and convection without agreeing on historic SST.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Kim, I agree nobody’s perfect. However, there is no need for intellectual dishonesty. AK repeatedly displays the signs of intellectual dishonesty. I don’t like dealing with dishonest people, let alone on important policy issues that are costing the world trillions and seriously delaying and damaging the prospects for improvement in human well-being.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by kim
The Mad Coal and Cow Baron.
===========
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by kim
I’ve never met a person I couldn’t learn from. They all knew themselves better than I knew them.
====================
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by donaitkin
The calculator is great fun, and I wrote a piece about it here: http://donaitkin.com/if-we-do-all-this-by-how-much-will-we-reduce-temperature/
If the USA ceased all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, there would be no noticeable reduction in global temperature by 2050
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Kim,
Good point.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell (@davidappell)
Then the Cato calculator can’t be correct.
The US emitted 5.40 Gt CO2 last year. That’s 1.47 Gt of carbon (GtC), or (assuming it’s flat) 51.5 GtC by 2050. Using the carbon-climate response function of Matthews et al Nature 2009 (1.5 degC warming/TtC), the expected warming from that amount of emitted carbon is 0.08 degC.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by kim
How many degrees is that in Chinese Fahrenheits?
=============
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by matthewrmarler
Jim D: This is a measure of the distance from equilibrium which is now much wider and more long-lasting than when the earth is in a more natural state as it was during most of the last millennium.
When the equilibrium can’t exist, as in high-dimensional non-linear dissipative systems, there can’t be a “distance” from it, or a “direction” to it
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by Jim D
So you are saying there can’t be an imbalance in the energy budget?
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by Wagathon
… anime aimed at liberals and Leftsts: stupide?
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Peter Lang
Appell
MAGICC was developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research under funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Write and tell them they don’t know what they are doing and you know better.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Don Monfort
Billy is dancing around over there like a june bug on a hot griddle. He’s making himself the example that reveals why smug little warmist types rarely have the guts to venture into the Steve Mc. den. Funny character.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Don Monfort
“It could be a problem for Republicans if 80% of the young voters..blah..blah..blah”
You mean like what happened when the filthy rich Democratic fool spent $70 MILLION in the recent disastrous election for the Demos?
When those selfish little clowns find out that climate action costs them money they could be spending on herb and skateboards, they will vote a straight denier ticket.
Keep em coming, yimmy. Free entertainment.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Jim D
I think the reason that the Republicans are concerned about young voters is that they tend to show up for the Presidential races, even if they don’t care much about mid-terms.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
