I don’t think the six and a half billion people who don’t give a ff about climate are going to notice. Are you going to the failed Paris junket? It ain’t started and already it’s a dud. Can’t you think up some kind of freaking name to use? Willard would suit you.
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Appell
Don: I’m not hiding. You long ago showed you were too personally disrespectful to deal with. I’ve seen it on other blogs too, the way you respond to people.
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Judith Curry: How Much Warming Are We Really Causing? And What’s The Point Of Cutting Emissions? | PA Pundits - International
[…] Plain sense like that drives warmists to extremes of abuse and hyperbole: […]
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Don Monfort
Have you seen this, davey?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/pdf
Did you get enough to eat today, davey?
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Ragnaar
Interesting to me point, how much can the oceans evaporate causing more of the most potent GHG? It seems we should be concerned more about the water vapor than the CO2. I think most agree the oceans will lag a temperature increase because of their massive volume and weight. The most efficient way to heat up an ocean would seem to be with sunlight. Raising the temperature above that ocean by 2 C with CO2, that wouldn’t seem to be much of an effect. And it would be a mixing effect. Warming the ocean by trading cold from the ocean to get warmer would subtract heat from the atmosphere. You can’t warm the oceans with heat from the atmosphere without cooling the atmosphere. Over more than 80000 year time frames we’ve gone through warmings where the increased evaporation from warmer oceans has not caused a runaway disastrous feedback loop. Maybe in a warmer world, increased evaporation just falls as precipitation above a threshold.
↧
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Appell
ppaa wrote:
“That is a hell of a lot better than guessing at it like the IPCC does.”
1) The IPCC doens’t do science, they assess it.
2) Scientists don’t “guess” at CO2’s radiative forcing, they calculate it. Such as:
“Radiative forcing at high concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases,”
Brendan Byrne and C. Goldblatt, Geophysical Research Letters, Jan 13 2014.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058456/abstract
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Don Monfort
That’s a good excuse, davey.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/pdf
Your guts are far more apparent than real. Bon appetittte!
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Appell
Ragnar wrote:
“You can’t warm the oceans with heat from the atmosphere without cooling the atmosphere.”
That’s not true if the atmosphere itself is warming.
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Jim D
Also the atmosphere can radiate more heat without even warming. Want to know how? Add GHGs to it.
↧
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
As Paul Harvey would say………and now, for the rest of the story (note: MSNBC): http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/senate-votes-climate-change-isnt-hoax
Climate changes, the question is man’s influence. Nice rewording on your part though.
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Danny Thomas
David,
Hindsight is a wonderful thing! In the moment, however……………
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Don Monfort
Jimmy got it right and davey got it wrong. Explain it to davey, jimmy.
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Appell
Danny Thomas wrote:
“Hindsight is a wonderful thing!”
That makes no sense at all. Do you buy bread based on its price in 1971? Do you watch no TV shows made after 1971? Do you drive a car made before 1971?
Then why judge science by what it said in 1971? That’s almost a half century ago.
You are trying too hard. Give it up.
↧
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Don Monfort
Now that I have thought about it for a second, you are both wrong.
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Jim D
So, you don’t interpret this as agreeing that it is at least warming? Did they just agree that the Ice Ages existed, or was it more than that? Our Senate in action. So proud.
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Santoron
If Dr. Curry is sticking to the science and policy as best she understands them what does it matter the venue she speaks at? Do you think only certain audiences should be privy to her expertise? Or are you just trying to marginalize her influence by intimating there is something “evil” about Mr. Levin, his audience, or Dr. Curry’s motivations?
Do you think Mr. Levin has somehow caused Dr. Curry to lie or distort her opinions to appease him or his audience? Do you believe Dr. Curry has fabricated her take on CC as to get invited on to Mr. Levin’s show? If not, you’re wasting your efforts over nothing of consequence to the subject at large, and come off all the more petty and partisan to boot. Not smart.
For a guy who talks a lot (of late) about getting politics out of the debate, you seem to spend an awful lot of time playing games about others influences and very little discussing the science. Weird. Creepy.
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Danny Thomas
David,
Thank you for making my point! What doesn’t science understand in 2015?
Cholesterol
Albedo
Clouds/Water vapor
Volcanoes
Oceans
Arctic Ice
Antarctic Ice
Ocean vs. Land warming
Geology w/r/t climate
Is it cooling to mask warming?
Is it warming to mask cooling?
CO2 sensitivities
Aerosols
Add this list to those that science didn’t understand in 1970’s, please.
Do I need to go on?
↧
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Danny Thomas
David,
But, but, but, but, but…….peer reviewed. And, with NOAA…………http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/#comment-694408
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Appell
Danny Thomas wrote:
“What doesn’t science understand in 2015?”
I disagree with your list. But even if true, so what?
You’re assuming uncertainties mean no action is necessary. In reality, uncertainties can go either way, which implies action is even more urgent. Because what if uncertain terms come out on the high side?
This is about minimizing risk. Do you not buy fire insurance just because you don’t know the date your house will burn down?
↧
Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
I don’t speak for the Senate. Just showing what MSNBC stated that the Senate said in the Senate’s declaration for itself. A left leaning media source’s discussion (to satisfy you) of the Senate speaking for itself. What does the article say? (More than you did.)
↧
