Two puppet shows for every poppet.
==========
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Jim D
You have be a little careful, because this is a version of the calculator filtered through Cato that is not giving the correct answers. Appell’s number agrees with the graph in AR5.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Accusing a technophile like me of being a “Luddite” is the height of doublespeak. Or perhaps ign0rance.
No it’s not double speak because you have denonstrated repeatedly that you want to talk only about impractical solutions and you continually divert discussions away from practical solutions. You have shown continually that you are incapable of objective analysis, rational analysis and haven’t the faintest clue how to do even the simplest cost comparisons between alternatives. You continually avoid answering questions about costs and you misrepresent costs and relevant assumptions (such as projected learning rates). No matter how often I correct you and point out your errors, you just ignore that and then repeat it again in a later comment or a later thread. Therefore, I argue pointing out your continual intellectual dishonesty is not ad hom because I’ve already addressed the relevant issue (repeatedly). It’s a statement of fact and justified because you continually mislead and make disingenuous comments even when the relevant facts have been pointed out to you repeatedly.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by ristvan
Zipper, Google using specific search techniques. Seek, and you will find a number of older peer reviewed papers. The experimental technique is usually a long glass tube of some gas mixture/pressure. Know the light intensity/frequency in one end, measure the attenuation by frequency out the other end to get the absorption curves. (Glass tubes act like fiber optic waveguides, so most of the introduced light is internally refracted rather than escaping sideways along the way to the end owing to the difference in index of refraction.) You read this because of that same fundamental fiberoptic physics.
Used to verify the various atmospheric radiative transfer codes by bandwidth segment, like Modtran, which is publically available. Again a Google away. That GHG behave like Tyndall showed the Royal Society in 1859 cannot be reasonably doubted. Those few still making contrary arguments are true science ‘deniers’ who only discredit the rest of us skeptics.
AGW is all about the climate feedbacks/sensitivity. Including Mizkolski’s argument. Not whether a ‘greenhouse effect’ exists. (Note, real greenhouses work by impeding convective cooling. GHG work by impeding radiative cooling, since there is no convective or conductive heat transfer to the space vacuum–as Thermos bottles know. Difference has unnecessarily tripped up many.) Main feedbacks are water vapor and clouds. Mizkolski is wrong about water vapor. My ebooks have details.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by buck smith
How many physicists are expected to comment on it? Should be interesting. Would be interesting to have a few other American technical societies issue a statement and allow comments by members. I am thinking Mechanical, Chemical and Electrical Engineers, Chemists and Geologists. If we really care about the climate we should allows each member of these societies to count 20 hours of effort analyzing the climate science literature, data and papers as a tax deductible charitable effort at say DC Lobbyist bill rates.. Then we can see what the consensus is.
↧
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by W.T.
I’m an APS member but I rank among the “middle level physicists”. Well, it’s all poppycock. Pure irrational nonsense just like the ideas on the number of “civilizations” in the galaxy and the results of a nuclear exchange in the 1980s. Although both interesting questions and in the latter case something we don’t want to test, it doesn’t matter. Too many variables and too little known to make a significant decision. Especially a decision which may give absolute authority to the elite few with the right connections. We need more data over a wider range and better modeling.
Oh course we could solve this all in one swoop. Pour the money wasted on mitigating CO2 into nuclear fusion research. There, I solved the problem in one sentence. Now to find a J. Robert Oppenheimer to lead it.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Peter Lang
Don’t leave out the civil engineers. They are the ones who are closest to nature and provide all our water, roads, ports, bridges, buildings, etc. They are dealing with weather and climate change always and make allowances in their designs for worst case scenarios, maximum probable floods, 1 in 10,000 year floods etc. Don’t forget these guys! :)
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by bigterguy
The American Chemical Society is equally daft, and I am embarrassed to be a member (I’d quit if it wasn’t useful in finding clients)
““Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)”
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Peter Lang
The world needs more “middle level physicists” who can think for themselves.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by ristvan
SFP, you are likely right. But I have the hope that with enough patient repetition and reference guidance, we can start to coalesce the skeptical community around irrefutable facts that warmunists could only attack at their peril. Complete AGW denial is as wrong as CAGW. Two wrongs do not make a right.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Peter Lang
burdens of greenhouse gases
Emotive terms like this are sufficient to dismiss (or atl least file it under ‘catastrophist advocacy’) from the get go
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by spaatch
The Draft APS Statement on Earth’s Changing Climate seems perfectly fine to me. Can’t see what all the wailing is about.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Brian M
Yeah, I let my APS membership expire after the last iteration of this farce. It now looks like it was the right decision.
There are other professional scientific societies that better deserve my time and attention without all the politics, duplicity, and other petty nonsense.
↧
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by daveandrews723
There’s probably no doubt that the organization’s formal position will be picked up by the warmists and touted as further evidence of their “97% consensus” nonsense. This whole debate is entering the Twilight Zone now. It is hard to imagine scientists actually acting this way. I’ve lost respect for the profession.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Joshua
==> “Apart from the issue that no one on the POPA seems to understand any of these issues beyond a superficial level”
Yes, this is obvious. If they don’t agree with your assessment of the science, what other interpretation could there be except that they only understand the issues at a superficial level.
==> “This is an egregious misuse of the expertise of the APS.”
Yes. If only they agreed with your assessment of the potential risk of ACO2 emissions, then their expertise would not be misused.
==> ” Their alleged understanding of issues like spectroscopy and fluid dynamics are not of any direct relevance to the issues they write about in this statement.”
Indeed. It is only the alleged understanding of “denizens” and “skeptics,” on all assortment of issues, that matters.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Bob Greene
Dr. Curry’s comment that it was “rather astonishing” puts it rather mildly. My attempts at reading this ran towards “bilge” and “unscientific claptrap.” I’m not surprised that the APS has struggled so long on a political statement.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by jeez
Well, it is possible that there was pressure from the White House (what a racist name). Easy to do through the NSF, etc.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by David Springer
@Appell
Who are you where is the real David Appell?
Seriously, I’ve never seen a series of responses this reasonable from you,.
I agree that higher ECS estimates are artifacts of models are unlikely to be constant. I believe that ECS decreases as temperature increases due to strong convection that begins when SST reaches 28C. It makes the earth sweat. SST measured by ARGO is so rarely over 30C we can consider that a ceiling temperature under normal conditions.
On the other hand as temperature declines ECS rises until the freezing temperature is reached and then a tipping point is reached in the northern hemisphere where snow and ice cover creates an albedo so high that an a quasi-stable state is reached – an ice age lasting approximately 10 times longer than the interglacial preceding it.
Climate would be a lot easier to predict if there were no water on this planet but it is close to covered in it. Aside from phase change from liquid to vapor able to insensibly carry huge amounts of heat away from the surface to higher altitude where it can radiate to space more efficiently, condensation and freezing creates drastic changes in albedo which throttle how much solar short wave reaches the surface to warm it.
Granted there is potential for adverse effects due to accumulation of CO2. The problem for the alarmist narrative is that the benefits of fossil fuel combustion and fertilization of the atmosphere with the CO2 byproduct has immense positive effects that are well known. No on in their right mind is willing to trade the tremendous positive effects of fossil fuel power for adverse effects that are imagined at best. The fact that alarmist narrative of rapidly rising surface temperature has not taken place for almost two decades now greatly multiplies the doubt about the veracity of the adverse effects.
Absent a sustained resumption of rapidly rising surface temperature the alarm of climate change can no longer be viewed as scientifically credible. It’s a political moving forward on rapidly diminishing intertia.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by jim2
This is pretty good :) Sweet, as a matter of fact!
From the article:
…
Laurence H. Tribe, the highly regarded liberal scholar of constitutional law, still speaks of President Obama as a proud teacher would of a star student. “He was one of the most amazing research assistants I’ve ever had,” Mr. Tribe said in a recent interview.
…
Which is why so many in the Obama administration and at Harvard are bewildered and angry that Mr. Tribe, who argued on behalf of Al Gore in the 2000 Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, has emerged as the leading legal opponent of Mr. Obama’s ambitious efforts to fight global warming.
…
Mr. Tribe, 73, has been retained to represent Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal company, in its legal quest to block an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that would cut carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s coal-fired power plants — the heart of Mr. Obama’s climate change agenda.
…
To many Democrats and professors at Harvard, Mr. Tribe is a traitor. “The administration’s climate rule is far from perfect, but sweeping assertions of unconstitutionality are baseless,” Jody Freeman, director of the environmental law program at Harvard Law School, and Richard Lazarus, an expert in environmental law who has argued over a dozen cases before the Supreme Court, wrote in a rebuttal to Mr. Tribe’s brief on the Harvard Law School website. “Were Professor Tribe’s name not attached to them, no one would take them seriously.”
…
Mr. Tribe dismissed the criticism and said that his brief and comments reflect his views as a constitutional scholar, not as a paid advocate for the coal company. “I’m not for sale,” he said. “I’ll say what I believe.”
“I feel very comfortable with my relationship with Peabody,” he added. “Somebody wanted my help and it happened to coincide with what I believe.”
…
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Joshua
Yes. How foolish for Judith to have thought that “relatively objective” people were involved.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
