Jim D,
Trust me that my glasses are not rose colored. All I’m advocating is equal footing. Not all is “rosy” on either side, but not all is “evil” on only one.
Not sure if you saw the Hufpo about Steyer calling out Koch for a debate using the old “settled science” statement. But if you did, do you agree that all the associated science is settled? Steyer can call out Koch and those piles in Michigan (and I think there may be some in Canada too, but I’m not sure) are are pollutive, no doubt, but Steyer is stating a falsehood that the science is settled. I see no clean hands and self interest all around.
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Danny Thomas
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Peter Lang
As far as I can tell we don’tr even know if the human influences will be net beneficial or net detrimental. I’ve asked many times and no one has been able to answer whether the human influences are increasing or decreasing the risk (consequence and/or probability) of the next abrupt climate change.
I tend to think we are reducing the risk of the next abrupt cooling event and, since this would be far more damaging that an abrupt warming event, we are actually, inadvertently, reducing rather than increasing the risk of climate change.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Mark Silbert
The APS POPA post is what got me hooked on CE.
I am nauseated by their draft statement and their blatant political pandering.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by daveandrews723
So, there could be “serious consequences” but they will be “small.” As a layperson I have to shake my head at science speak. It sounds like political speak to me.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by GaryM
“Neither is an expert on climate physics.”
Here’s the really funny thing. No one on the planet is an “expert on climate physics.” There are lots of experts on small subsets of all the physics that go into climate, radiative physics, clouds, aerosol, oceans, multi-decadal oscillations, solar, global ice, etc.. But no one is an expert on “climate physics.”
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by kim
Koonan the ruin
Of coward complacency
At the APS.
========
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by kim
Eep, Koonin, abject apologies.
=========
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by ianl8888
> … the basis of personal freedom is the freedom to choose, not to have choices made for you
Unlike the full membership of the APS, eh Kenny ?
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Wagathon
What the federal judge said today to DOJ lawyers about their role in helping to push the Executive Branch’s overreach on immigration could easily be said about the pushers of the government-funded global warming agenda:
““Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the government misrepresented the facts… Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life… is unacceptable.
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by ordvic
It’s my understanding that solar variation results in only a 1% change and yet it produces significant change. Can they be compared?
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by kim
Tribe’s rogue pupil is violating both law and nature.
======
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Are human influences on the climate really small? | Enjeux énergies et environnement
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
I’m trying not to look at this from “an environmentalist” view or “an industrialists” view. What I suggesting is it be looked at from a “persons” view. As this discussion relates to Citizen’s United vs. Steyer what I’m suggesting is they each are due an equal voice. That’s just how it works. Part of the problem is you denigrate C.U. and are a Steyer proponent. It’s more of the same and will not lead to solutions only to further entrenched divide.
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by ordvic
Kim, lol I wondered where you were going with that ;-)
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
The St. Johns River deal is going to be interesting. The Koch brothers bought Georgia-Pacific in 2005. Part of the “dumping” allegation is that Palatka G-P wants to build a pipeline to move discharge from Rice Creek to the main river as a mitigation attempt. Dilution would reduce issues in the smaller Rice Creek area which is the plants main discharge zone. G-P Palatka has a lot of legacy pollution issues that complicates this temporary “solution” and there are a wealth of other pollution sources that have been gradually mitigated by the St. Johns River Water District. Basically, folks have been trying to make the St. Johns cleaner for over twenty years and have made considerable progress, but there is still lots to do.
So this is one of my favor conundrums, do you clean up your act or ship your problems overseas?
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Wagathon
When it comes to all climate change throughout the geophysical record of the Earth — Nominally, It’s the Sun, Stupid.
A study of the Earth’s albedo (project “Earthshine”) shows that the amount of reflected sunlight does not vary with increases in greenhouse gases. The “Earthshine” data shows that the Earth’s albedo fell up to 1997 and rose after 2001.
What was learned is that climate change is related to albedo, as a result of the change in the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the Earth. For example, fewer clouds means less reflectivity which results in a warmer Earth. And, this happened through about 1998. Conversely, more clouds means greater reflectivity which results in a cooler Earth. And this happened after 1998.
It is logical to presume that changes in Earth’s albedo are due to increases and decreases in low cloud cover, which in turn is related to the climate change that we have observed during the 20th Century, including the present global cooling. However, we see that climate variability over the same period is not related to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Obviously, the amount of `climate forcing’ that may be due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases is either overstated or countervailing forces are at work that GCMs simply ignore. GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo. Accordingly, GCMs do not account for the effect that the Earth’s albedo has on the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by popesclimatetheory
The cooling and warming events happen in a cycle.
A warming event, then a cooling event, then a warming event, then a cooling event, then a warming event, then a cooling event, then a warming event, then a cooling event, then a warming event, then a cooling event, then a warming event.
These natural events will continue to cycle, no matter what we do. The warm events are much nicer for our life on earth. The cold events are harsher for our life on earth. Both will repeat, over and over. If we do anything to change the heat balance, it may change these natural warm and cool event timing some, but not a lot and it will not stop the natural cycles. These cycles have been in place for millions of years.
We cannot change the risk of future climate change. Climate change works 100% of the time. The chance of climate change not happening is 0.00%
We cannot change that.
Will human influences will be net beneficial or net detrimental. It will not matter much. We most likely cannot measure data to prove either way.
Up to now, in the history of the world, human influences have been more beneficial, more of the time. Humans have multiplied and lived well.
Human influences were detrimental in many times. Often, beneficial to some while detrimental to others.
We are not reducing or increasing the risk of the next climate change. We are just watching to see WHEN it happens, it will happen, and we are taking more data to understand it better.
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Szilard
He’s not describing the consequences as “small”, rather the relative impact of human influences on various physical properties. Obviously, relatively small influences can have large consequences on the climate as we experience it.
As I read it, the point of the piece is not to say anything in particular about consequences, but rather about the difficulties of getting precise measures of relatively small human influences on physical properties, and the uncertainties these difficulties entail.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by HaroldW
Thank you Dr. Koonin for that clarification.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by ordvic
Wagathon, thanks for the detailed response.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
