Richard,
Like when Judith called Bjorn Stevens a denier in this very post?
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Michael
↧
↧
Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by aplanningengineer
Stephen – what cost per kWh do you refer to as potentially causing shock? The cost of natural gas peaking provided by a combustion turbine or what the market price is sometimes for systems with majority fossil fuel generation or something else? I’m thinking natural gas CTs provide peaking power pretty economically. I would also think the factors causing market fluctuations in system kWh costs are not going to be improved by lowering a reliance on fossil fuels.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Michael
Rud,
I might be mildly concerned over your allegations…..if I hadn’t suffered through checking your hopelessly wrong ‘critiques’ of various papers last year. Confabulation, mis-understanding, mis-contrual and a general inability to read carefully makes your ‘objectively false’ good for a giggle.
But please, keep blowing smoke.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by JCH
Matthew, how many meters of this can be called deep?
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Jim D
However, having seen the video now, I see that this was not a mainstream climate scientist audience. I saw Monckton in the front and probably Fred Singer. This was Judith’s kind of audience where she can freely make claims like that. Unluckily for her Bjorn Stevens was there to call her out on generalizations, but the chairperson was more sympathetic to Judith’s view and quashed Bjorn’s interruption asking for no more such interruptions.
↧
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by fizzymagic
Joshua:
<i>Too bad that others don’t have your objectivity in evaluating your own objectivity and your integrity in evaluating your own integrity.</i>
Do you <i>really</i> think you are not being blatantly insulting to our host with this? This kind of gratuitous snark, which adds exactly zero to the discussion, is completely inappropriate.
That you have not been banned says a great deal about Dr. Curry's character.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
Generalizations? How many is “many”? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
In discussion about APS may we not add Koonin? Roger Cohen? Robert Knox? et al as included in “many”?
Who’s generalization is a generalization? Hers, or yours?
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Jim D
When many means a few, it is not quite right as a characterization. In the APS we hear many object, but so far it is something like 12 angry men in an organization of thousands, so I would call that a few, just to be accurate. If only a few object, their statement stands.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Willard
> Can possibilias be counterfactual?
All counterfactual are, I believe. Possibilias can fail to be factual, or plausible, or entertained as being real. That a counterfactual needs to be contrary to fact is a matter of debate.
For instance, I believe you are entertaining a counterfactual, since your argument would otherwise have no bite. If it is indeed the case that a 3C increase obtains, the fact that Mr. T can drown this increase in noise is quite irrelevant to its realness, and therefore its impact.
Come to think of it, it might be possible to infer from this that the more counterfactual Mr. T gets regarding AGW in general, the more he may need to invest into epistemic gambits like detection & attribution.
↧
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
Definitions, please. Many means a few? There are 50 plus in the wiki alone that are some variation of disagreement with the “consensus”. I added a couple from the APS. That, in my book is more than “a few”.
So what was our gracious host’s statement once again?
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
Apologies to all for derailing the discussion.
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by justinwonder
JCH – “… Congress is about to get pile driven …”
Pile driven? The American people don’t care about AGW relative to other issues.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Don Monfort
You are changing the story, jimmy disingenuous:
“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,…”
Judith actually said:
” My concern is the scientists that are UNFCCC/IPCC ideologues. There are many of them.”
We can read, jimmy.
“There are many of them.”
She never said they are mostly ideologues. You made that up. You and your partner mikey are shooting yourselves in the foot. What do you hope to accomplish with this foolishness? You can’t fool us.
It’s like this jimmy, if you got a a thousand scientists and 12 of them are ideologues, that’s too many. If they are also loudmouths and politically influential, it gets worse. When the alleged leader of the free world listens to these bozos, it’s a big problem.
↧
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by JCH
The pause has made fools out of a lot of very intelligent people.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Don Monfort
You didn’t derail the discussion, Dr. Tol. Bjorn Stevens was pretty much the topic of the discussion. You made a legitimate comment in good faith. It was one of the trolls that Judith let’s run wild around here that derailed the discussion.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Michael
Don Don,
Thankyou for backing up Judith’s handwaving.
How many is many?
4?
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Danny Thomas
Michael,
I’ll share with you this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
and leave it to you to look at the APS members only post to add a few others.
How many is many?
↧
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by Ted Carmichael
ATTP – you said, “Do you mean that the feedback response is always positive or always negative? That doesn’t seem right, if so. How can the water vapour response, albedo, or lapse rate be independent of whether the perturbation is warming or cooling?”
I think you are misinterpreting what Judy is saying, when she talks about negative feedbacks. Negative feedbacks for a forcing attenuate the effects of that forcing; positive feedbacks amplify the effects. This is the case regardless of whether the effect itself raises or lowers the temperature. It sounds like you are interpreting “negative” to mean “reduce the temperature” rather than “reduce the effect.”
When the oceans warm, evaporation is increased. This probably increases the number of clouds. Clouds are a negative feedback, because they block some sunlight during the day and help insulate during the night. However, it is likely that the cloud effect during the day is stronger, and so clouds also act as a negative feedback on the overall temperature increase. Note that when the oceans cool, there are fewer clouds, which would then attenuate the overall cooling. I.e., they mitigate the effect regardless of what direction the effect is.
↧
Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Peter Lang
sciguy54,
Thank you. I agree with all your points, However, I think we need to have a much more active and involved approach than this:
But totally hamstrung by a generation of a certain faction on the left, and unlikely to change until those folks fade from the scene and a subsequent generation feels enough pain.
Their effectiveness at raising the cost of nuclear power, delaying progress has progressively increased over the past 50 years.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by climatereason
JCH
With an average ocean depth of 4000 metres I guess everything below that could be termed ‘shallow.’
http://www.mbgnet.net/salt/oceans/data.htm
The arctic ocean is by far the shallowest. As Thomas Stocker remarked, we do not have the technology to ,measure the deep oceans
tonyb
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
