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

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Danny Thomas

0
0

Joseph,
Create your perfect world and tell us what it is you’d prefer to see posted here, please.


Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Jim D

0
0

Judith regularly groups all the consensus scientists into a set of bullet-point thoughts that she attributes to them as though they think the same things down the line. She does not seem to grasp that independent thinking scientists can reach the same conclusions about sensitivity, don’t all have solid opinions of deniers and the fossil fuel industry, etc., and they do not like to be grouped like that. It doesn’t win her any points in climate-science audiences to group them that way, yet she persists mainly because it helps her own argument to knock against a majority if she can package them together rather than on their individual views. With scientists it really is like herding cats to try to group them into bullet-point thoughts especially as pertains to their opinions, if any, on policy paths and the mechanics of denialism. Many just do the science and don’t care about details of policy or what deniers think.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Peter Davies

0
0

The “establishment community” is not, IMO, a place for free thinkers and other heretics and its inhabitants are, frankly, boring and repetitive in their pronouncements. Nothing new here folks, time to move on. Judith is keeping much better company these days and the discipline of climate science will be better off as a result.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by aaron

0
0

I thought that empathy is recognizing and understanding the emotions of a person and having compassion from intuition, sympathy was having had the same experience and therefor understanding.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by curryja

0
0

Well this is incorrect. My concern is the scientists that are UNFCCC/IPCC ideologues. There are many of them. But not all scientists who think humans have caused most or all of the recent warming are ideologues.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Michael

0
0

This is much of the problem that Judith, in her preferred victim-hood narrative, creates for herself – it’s her approach that is offensive, and offends, far more so than any actual substantial idea or specific scientific critique that she has.

The IPCC slide that she has in her post that Bjorn Stevens objected too (“‘irate audience member’ was Bjorn Stevens. He STRENUOUSLY objected” – JC) , is an excellent case-in-point.

Could anything have been more pointedly stupid, crude and broad-brushed?

No wonder he was “irate”.

Judith wants to be seen as some kind of maverick, but given the complete lack of maverick science she has produced, has to settle for painting everyone else as some part of some monolithic ideology persecuting others who fail to march in lock-stop with the alleged dogma.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Jim D

0
0

Possibly hardly any of the scientists who agree with the IPCC consensus opinion are ideologues. They are just scientists doing their jobs at their labs or universities, writing scientific papers, not interacting with the press or Congress, not taking any notice of denialists, etc.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Richard Arrett

0
0

Michael asks:

“Could anything have been more pointedly stupid, crude and broad-brushed?”

Yes – calling people deniers.


Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by ristvan

0
0

You really should go elsewhere. Everything you assert is objectively false. There is the Youtube video she, not you provided. There is Sci Am 2010. Again a lonk she, not you, provided. There is Lewis and Curry 2014. There is the Wyatt and Curry stadium wave prediction.
Michael, one of the problems with religious fanatics is that they disconnect from reality. Thanks for the vivid demonstration of same.
You really should apply for a PR internship at POTUS.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Danny Thomas

0
0

Isn’t this:”“My job,” Mr. Stevens said, “isn’t to convince the public more” about the reality of climate change. “I have a naïve faith the truth will win out.” what a scientist (or any unbiased party) should state vs. “Some scientists, though they welcome Mr. Stevens’s contribution, wish the paper had been written in a different way. “This paper is designed to make a larger story out of a relatively small result,” said Chris Bretherton, a professor of atmospheric sciences and applied mathematics at the University of Washington”
or this: ““I thought this was not well written and quite misleading,” added Kevin E. Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. There was no need to sound the “iris” trumpet, given how far it was from Mr. Lindzen’s original ideas, he added. “They even put it in the damn title.”
Respect for Stevens is growing with this observer.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by ristvan

0
0

An analogy to Lysenko under Stalin is more apt than to the Victorian era under Victoria. Many more people are at risk. And the ‘science’ is much more perverted.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Peter Davies

0
0

+1 Danny. Letting the science speak for itself and disengaging from personalities or generalisations is a worthwhile goal for us all.

Comment on APS discussion thread by Ragnaar

0
0

What causes the warm phase of the PDO? The Pacific Ocean trying to maintain an equilibrium for its seawater. It’s trying to neither boil away nor freeze into a solid block of ice. Though its water is not sentient that does not preclude it from acting that way. In its cold phase it sends warm water North and cool water South, but not necessarily for our benefit. Perhaps it is maintaining the correct temperature for the lower latitude oceans, consistent with preserving life where it has the best chance to thrive especially during glacial periods. During a glacial, the PDO might reduce its circulation greatly preserving its warmth and keeping out cold. That would be a warm phase. So during a cool phase it may be that the ocean is cooling itself and that indirectly causes the atmosphere to cool. During a warm phase it may be that the ocean is trying to warm itself and that causes the atmosphere to warm indirectly. We can think of it as exchange between the oceans and atmosphere where everything must balance. But we then add in indirect effects such changes in clouds and water vapor. The question might not be, is the atmosphere warmer or cooler but rather what is Pacific ocean trying to do in its own interest? A slowed North Pacific gyre would show Blob like temperatures as now as less cool Northern water is being transported South. The cool waters near Japan are probably cool because Southern water is not moving North as much. If the ocean has a narrow range of acceptable temperatures it would put a lot of what it doesn’t want into the atmosphere. That’s a thousand pound entity passing everything it doesn’t want through the 1 pound entity of the atmosphere.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by matthewrmarler

0
0
Willard: <i>possibilias </i> Can possibilias be counterfactual? I wrote of what is not known, not what is known to be false.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Don Monfort

0
0

I might have to go with jimmy, on this one. He surely knows what an IPCC ideologue looks like. And his estimate of the number of ideologues is so freaking vague, how can we lose:

========>Possibly hardly any….

Jimmy, do you work with any of the possibly hardly any scientists at a lab or university? How would you know the number is possibly hardly any? Willy or joshie could say the same thing and we would laugh and wonder aloud, how they could possibly know. We trust you a lot more than those two, but please explain how you make your estimate of ideologuery.


Comment on APS discussion thread by JCH

0
0
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/to:2015/last:12/trend/plot/gistemp/to:2015/last:12/plot/gistemp/from:2014.5/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2014.5" rel="nofollow">It's unavoidable, Danny, it's getting hotter. A bunch hotter.</a> BoM just upped the odds of an El Nino. Their model array has model runs with ONI at 2.0 by the end of the summer. We're going to be frying eggs in the shade.

Comment on APS discussion thread by Danny Thomas

0
0

JCH,
LOL! “We’re going to be frying eggs in the shade.” Not much alarmism in that, huh? I’ve not tried frying an egg in .76c. How’s that taste?
But what does that have to do with Congress being “pile driven”? Do you really expect that to happen? Seems like a short memory if one were to look back a mere 6 months. Wishful thinking?

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Jim D

0
0

I am just saying, if you are in front of an audience of climate scientists and are going to say they are mostly ideologues and attribute a list of views to them, you need to be sure of what you are saying if you want to maintain any credibility, because it could go seriously wrong and reveal your own ideology instead.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Michael

0
0

And Don, how do you know Jim is wrong?

How many is Judith’s many??

3?

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by matthewrmarler

0
0

at best tangentially related. At Real Climate there is a description of an on line course by Lewandowsky and Cook describing the psychological mechanisms of “climate science denial”. A couple of my remarks were put up, but these follow-ups were consigned to the bore hole.


17, John Cook: As Naomi Oreskes describes it in Merchants of Doubt, there is an “unholy alliance” between vested interests and ideological think-tanks.

Two obvious questions.

1. Will you explore the psychological processes by which people glide over the liabilities in her book?

2. Will you explore ALL vested interests, such as the vested interests shared by government scientists and government-funded scientists?

You can guess my bet: people who agree with you will be judged not in need of explanation, but people who disagree with you will be found to suffer from diverse cognitive impairments.

As I wrote to Steve Fish: Likewise, the student will be instructed that the well-understood concepts of equilibrium lead to the derivation of really accurate consequences of CO2 increase; but to point out that high dimensional non-linear dissipative dynamic systems, like the Earth climate, do not have equilibria will be presented as a “motivated” septic (i.e. repeated) denialist trope, or perhaps bought by a rich energy company.

But equilibrium chasms are among the leaps of faith required in between the well-grounded science of CO2 absorption/radiation and the unreliable forecasts (models, etc) of future effects of future CO2 increases. Why would you want to avoid the psychological processes that support the leaps of faith, if your goal is understanding? Maybe I am wrong and you’ll explore those leaps of faith in detail.

Comment by Matthew R Marler — 22 Apr 2015 @ 10:47 PM

20 Marcel Kincaid: This isn’t the place to debate climate science. Leading off with that is clearly trolling. The subject here is the science of climate science denial. – See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/an-online-university-course-on-the-science-of-climate-science-denial/comment-page-1/#comment-628853

Consider the equilibrium/nonequilibrium contrast I wrote about. “Denial” (more properly skepticism) of which claims should be included as “climate science denial”? Assertions of “equilibrium” are empty in high dimensional nonlinear dissipative systems, so which “denialist” scientist suffer the cognitive deficits — those who deny chaos or those who deny equilibrium?

Comment by Matthew R Marler — 22 Apr 2015 @ 10:57 PM

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images