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

Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by David Wojick

0
0

So Koonin was forced out by the “passionate” warmers. Good to know. One wonders if SciAm knows what they are saying?


Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Danny Thomas

0
0

Jim D,

I’ve read a few times comments aimed at skeptics asking “what would it take for you to accept the AGW theory (or reject skepticism)”. Believing that’s an abundantly fair question I would like to pose same to you in reverse. What would it take for you to reject the AGW theory or become skeptical? (I see a lot of “maybe this or that” in your answer but falling back to “warming’s coming” {presuming you mean back to land} and this leads me to ask).

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Jim D

0
0

At this point every decade is warmer than the previous and this is consistent with the forcing change. If you get a decade where the forcing is stronger, but it is cooler than the previous decade or vice versa, that is what it would take. I am also sure that won’t happen.

Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by aneipris

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by JCH

0
0
<a href="https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/inter-decadal-pacific-oscillation-explains-global-warming-hiatus-2000" rel="nofollow">I started predicting this in 2012.</a> The PDO has flipped. Regime change. As I have tried to get people to realize, AMO = pansy. March GISS is .84C. 1st 1/4 of 2015 is .79C. 2015 is for the marbles, and it looks like a total surprise as to who is going to be doing the stadium wave. Woo-hoo warmunists!

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Danny Thomas

0
0

Jim D,
Thank you. It sounds like you’re comfortable that correlation is sufficient to causation and in fairness that’s the hurdle I’ve not been able to bring myself to get over yet. Any correction or modification is welcomed.
I cannot get past (yet) that warming has been occurring on a longer time scale than the current (defined) anthro warming. I keep evaluating why that is and also rely on “long term trends” and historical evidence as precedent. It sounds like loggerheads over the (ever present) time vs. risk issue. A shift in the pause or contributory definition for/against is that which I seek.

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Jim D

0
0

It is not just correlation, it is a quantitative energy balance, dF=dN+lambda*dT. Note that there are cases where an increase in forcing does not lead to an increase in dT due to the dN term. This is the imbalance, which is typified by a rise in ocean heat content even when the surface temperature doesn’t rise. However, this holding term is unlikely to stave off all the warming for a decade when the forcing increases. Anyway, as the equation shows, it is actually the First Law of Thermodynamics that I believe in, and my statement was just that in words.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK

0
0

As far as I can tell, all your arm-waving bluster boils down to “I don’t like the answer you got!”


Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK

0
0

As far as I can tell, all your arm-waving bluster boils down to “I don’t like the answer you got!”

Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by Cary Morris

0
0

Well have a good time and at least play tourist. But I am just cant stop seeing the irony of it being TAX day.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang

0
0

Repetitive projection

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Danny Thomas

0
0

Jim D,
Okay. Assist, please. “However, this holding term is unlikely to stave off all the warming for a decade when the forcing increases.” Has not CO2 concentration increased since at least measurements began in earnest at Mauna Loa circa 1958? Have we not seen a “pause” in surface temperatures for almost twice a decade time scale. How long can oceans hold heat, why was it diverted there, and when will it be released? Is the Ocean heat equal to the measurements of IR minus expected surface temps? (I’ve not researched this yet?) Are there any measurements of AGW vs. natural variability? Are they repeatable? In other words (and above may be poorly worded) the First Law is a law so why is there a question about attribution based on first law for anthro vs. natural? I don’t think there is for totality but until the attribution is nailed down it’s correlation all around.
I’ve heard no one challenge the First Law nor Greenhouse theory, it’s the application that’s in question.
You’d mentioned earlier: ” There are several candidates, possibly a sum of solar slump, PDO phase, Chinese aerosols,” ……….we can measure solar output. We can measure aerosols. PDO is defined by location of temps so obviously measureable. (Apologies for all the questions. I learn as much by formulating often times as having them answered). Gotta give it a rest for now.

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Joshua

0
0

JCH –

Wait. Hold on one minute. Climate scientists NEVER say anything like this:

“Naturally, people would ask the question: if the models cannot simulate the current global warming rate, how can we trust their projections of future climate change? This is a very reasonable question that deserves a satisfactory answer from the climate science community,” said study lead author Aiguo Dai, an associate professor at the University of Albany. “The global warming hiatus has also been used to dismiss climate science entirely by some deniers of global warming. Thus, explaining the warming hiatus has become an urgent task for climate scientists.”

That article you linked is obviously some kind of hoax.

Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by bernie1815

0
0

Judy: I trust you are asleep by now, but I would also endorse the point raised by Tom @ 11:19 am above about listening to their questions carefully and responding briefly and directly – leave the caveats to the end of your response. Of course, most of their questions will be of the self-serving “aren’t I smart” type, like Ted Koppel’s used to be. If you disagree (or agree) with their statement posed as a question, simply say that and provide the most memorable evidence that supports your position. Crispness will buttress your credibility.


Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Danny Thomas

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Jim D

0
0

Yes, everyone including most skeptics believe the equation I posted, possibly even you. The forcing change since 1950 has been about 1.7 W/m2 according to the IPCC. The imbalance and temperature vary on decadal scales, but have also both increased and are positive in response to the forcing. Everyone agrees that a positive forcing will lead to warming. I am not sure why the skeptics don’t want to say that the warming is just a response to the forcing. The positive sign of the imbalance tells you that the temperature is following the forcing, not leading it, making it a forced change, not a free change. Understanding the equation is somewhat key.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK

0
0
<blockquote>Repetitive projection</blockquote>Actually, I didn't realized you'd broken the threading (at least, AFAIK none of <b>my</b> comments got deleted). So I thought I'd forgotten to link it to your comment. From the “<i>Is Renewable Energy looking like a ‘new religion’?</i>” link:<blockquote>I would argue not, because in its environmentalist (not fundamentalist) form, a nuclear-friendly advocacy does not seem to meet any of the criteria Martin outlines above for religiosity. In this ‘doctrine’, <b>no energy source is demonised</b> — the argument is instead that all energy sources ought to be weighed fairly on their merits and demerits, on the basis of irreligious laws of nature (and market forces!).</blockquote>To quote Joshua: LOL!

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang

0
0

AK,

First, I didn’t break the threading – another example of your baseless assumptions demonstrating you inherent dishonesty.

Comment by Mark4asp

It doesn’t make sense to call renewable energy a new religion, because it’s part of a package containing:
* environmentalism
* climate change obsession
* renewable energy

RE is much better understood as part of a political project. Like many previous political projects, it doesn’t need to make sense. The trick is to offer something apparently new, while being as imprecise as possible over the practicalities. As CC damns us, RE is the salvation. It’s the fanaticism of the RE believers that draws comparison with religion: their ability to dismiss the usual rules of debate (economics, CBA, practicality, …) on energy matters. All political extremes show similar fanaticism. No one really argues from the evidence in politics; not even mainstream parties.

RE offers something apparently new, it’s the environmentalist’s heaven to their climate change hell. Heaven and hell are just metaphors here.”

Describes your zealotry to a T.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Joshua

0
0

AK –

I don’t use caps.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images