Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by jim2

0
0

“I’ve always thought that BEST was doomed for wingers because of its name. ”

JCH witches a profound connection. You should use some ideas like this to invest in the stock market. Bet you could retire in a month or two.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2

0
0

From the article:

In the 33-page lawsuit obtained by Breitbart Texas, the plaintiffs provide a glimpse into how the Gulf Cartel made business difficult for the manufacturing plant called Thermo Fisher. Cartel gunmen would often enter the plant waiving machine guns and terrorizing the employees.

Gulf Cartel gunmen would also enter the plant to hide vehicles, including tractor trailers with unknown cargo, or they would go into the plant to hide from authorities, the lawsuit revealed. The Gulf Cartel also stationed lookouts around the plant which made the investors and employees very uncomfortable.

The issue of cartels harassing international companies is not just limited to the border. This past Easter, a group of highly coordinated cartel gunmen stormed a Canadian gold mine and managed to make off with 7,000 ounces of gold concentrate. This represents about a month’s worth of production for the mine and has a value of $8.5 million. The brazen robbery became public when Rob McEwen, the CEO of the company that bears his name went on TV to talk about the robbery.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/04/25/us-companies-investing-in-mexico-regularly-harassed-by-drug-cartels/

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Carrick

0
0

Jim D:

I am saying these errors, which average to much less than 3% when you consider all temperatures, are not first-order errors.

I understand your claim, but my guess is you are wrong here:

Three percent effects that are associated with modeling errors don’t typically scale linearly, especially when you look at the time evolution of the system.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by stevefitzpatrick

0
0

Yes JimD, models make projections, but whether those projections are of any use depends on how accurate they are. Observational data is crucial in validation/testing of models.

The focus of Federal funding ought to be on those areas where there is a clear consensus of a need for for better data…. direct and indirect aerosol effects, continuing (and improving) ocean heat measurements, continuing (and improving) mass balance for Greenland, mountain glaciers, and Antarctica, and cloud behavior (sub grid scale cloud dynamics).

The current uncertainty in model projections is huge, and worse, the models are in clear conflict with a host of observation based estimates of sensitivity (Otto et al, Lewis, Bjorn Stevens & Stephen Schwartz, Troy Masters, Lewis & Curry, and several others) all of which place sensitivity on the low side of the IPCC plausible range (1.5C to 4.5C), while most models are in the upper part of that range. A factor of two or more in the actual rate of future warming makes a difference in what constitutes sensible policy choices. The more accurate and better the observational data, the more accurate the models will be (constrained) to become, and the more believable their projections. Climate modelers work with some of the fastest computers in the world. More money for computers will not provide the data needed for <100 meter scale behavior of clouds, nor provide information about the true level of aerosol influences. Additional funding should focus on observational data, not more models.

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

0
0

Me: “I have no idea what the stats are, I just know to be careful when reading such a statement from the Climate, Etc. obscurantist-in-chief.”

Ken Denison: “Note I’m not saying this was done, just pointing out that Mosher’s original statement is indeedcontent free. As is his follow up.”

Mosher: “Once again the conspiracy nuts are let loose.”

Once again Mosher diverts to avoid responding to the actual objection made. He can’t rebut what I wrote, because it is simple mathematics. So for pointing out the obvious, that a mean of adjustments tells you absolutely nothing about the accuracy of those adjustments or the motivations of those who made them. those who question his one sentence, laughably false defense, become conspiracy theorists.

Mosher makes the claim (implicit in his first comment) that “It tells you that the underlying process is not skewed in any material way.” I am glad he came right out and said this nonsense. Because that was my point.

No it doesn’t no matter how many time MNosher says it does, or how many other issues he raises, or how many typical ad hominems he engages in.,

But I do want to thank his for demonstrating again why he has earned the rank of Climate, Etc., obscurantist-in-chief. I can’t imagine anyone else expending so much energy defending a dumb, flatly false statement.

Oh wait, this is ‘climate science’, so it happens all the time. Never mind.

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by aplanningengineer

0
0

Vaughn Pratt. All else equal if gas costs a lot more you will sell more hybrids/electric/fuel efficient vehicles than you would someplace with cheaper gas, same deal with electric prices and solar installations. If you want to nationalize electric prices then it may make more sense to compare Florida and California. The extra consumption just makes it harder to adopt a bad idea for altruistic region.

What part of Florida besides the Everglades might be more corrosive? If you have not been to both, Florida had much higher humidity than California. Record high humidity days in LA would be a dream come true low humidity day for much of Florida. There is tremendously more rain and molds and fungus across Florida as well (I’d take a bet any day the Florida had more pressure washers per capita, more frequent need for repaintings. It’s harder to keep stuff from rotting?). I’m no expert on how or why but The salt corrosion close to coastal Florida is worse the California from my experience. Utility corrosion in Coastal Florida a is a bigger deal than in California. (Impacted by more salt transportation through humid breezes? Maybe storms?). My experience from friends in car clubs is that older vehicles in California are more likely to age better because of lower corrosion as opposd to the southeast US. In any case most southerners think that.

Do you think California does a better job when it comes to hurricanes and Florida when it comes to earthquake preparedness based on their repawctive damage from each. I hope not. They are differnt places. They have differnt needs and drivers for many things and will not me arch each other often for rational reasons, nt because one is backwards.

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

0
0

Steven

I made it incredibly easy for you to deny that the past was cooled and the recent records were warmed. I gave you a template answer to deny it. What did you do? You go off on a wild rant. Do you want a third try to answer this very simple question?

Repeat after me. Or just whack the conspiracy nuts again and demonstrate you don’t want to answer the question.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by stevefitzpatrick

0
0

ristvan,
Throwing a $billion away to figure out what any 2 day study would tell you is… well… nuts. Google serves a useful purpose in making a vast amount of information easily available. Studying the painfully obvious and making investments based on wild-eyed fantasies is not what they do well.


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

0
0

Don’t forget, some of these are the same folks that were absolutely convinced that the pollsters “skewed” the polling data prior to the 2012 presidential election.

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Ken Denison

0
0

Wow, heaven forbid one point out an error or ask a question. Guess I’ll just go check my conspiracy theories again.

Projection much Mosher?

Comment on Puzzle in the Atlantic by Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)

0
0

The first, second and fourth one are fairly clear views. The third one involves clouds and the last two also involve clouds. In my opinion we are looking at a border zone where two massive ocean currents of different origin meet along a dividing line and rub shoulders. Their temperature and salinity are likely to be different and their mixing along the contact zone is what produces the visible display. The fourth picture shows clouds forming as the oblique wind crosses the demarcation line between them, a sure sign that one of these massive currents is quite a bit warmer than the other one is. We can say that one of them came from the south, perhaps hitching a ride with the Gulf Stream. The cold one then has to be from the north, perhaps from the Labrador Sea. Do currents from these places ever meet? I don’t know but someone with local knowledge could probably take it from there.,

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

0
0

Jim D,

Anything which is only approximately correct may be useless in the context of attempting to model a chaotic system, as arbitrarily small variations in input may lead to large changes in output of unknown direction and magnitude.

Chaos is a world unto itself. Unpredictable, apparently disorderly, seemingly random, but often displaying beauty and scale invariance based on an absurdly simple equation. The Mandelbrot set is one such example.

The main problem with climate models of any type is that their outputs are not useful in any practical sense, but you may have evidence of benefits which have escaped me to date.

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by matthewrmarler

0
0
David Ramsay Steele: <i>But it’s not feasible to get rid of belief. </i> I am still interested in the responses you would elicit at Real Climate.

Comment on APS members comment on climate change statement by curryja

0
0

Underlying the APS statement there are two unstated assumptions:
1. Climate models have good predictive power.
2. The effects of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration are all negative.
These assumptions are controversial at best and arguably false.

Regarding the first assumption, the recent divergence between observations and model predictions is strong evidence that climate models have limited forecasting skill. This problem was anticipated by Hendrik Tennekes in 2009 (A Skeptical View of Climate Models), long before the divergence was as clear as it is today. This is important because any call for action to reduce emissions, as is contained in the APS statement, is predicated on model predictions. If the models have overestimated the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, the benefits of reducing them are overstated. It is impossible to weigh the costs and benefits of a policy of the benefits are uncertain.

Furthermore, the APS statement does not account for the benefits of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The IPCC Assessment Reports focus on the possible effects on climate caused by greenhouse gases. However, changes in CO2 concentration have consequences that are beneficial, including the well-documented effects on plant growth. By implicitly assuming that the only effect of CO2 emissions is on climate (and deleterious), the APS statement fails to take a comprehensive view of the issue. To make informed policy choices, all the costs and benefits of any action (or inaction) must be considered.

In 2007, the APS issued an intemperate climate change statement containing unscientific exaggeration of the certainty of climate science understanding and predictions. This statement was so ill advised and poorly considered that a lengthy explanation was appended in 2010 to the original statement in an attempt to correct some of the errors. The new statement contains much of the same alarmism and immoderate language as the 2007 statement.

I urge the APS to step out of this controversy until there is less uncertainty lest we find ourselves repeating the mistakes of the past. The APS has no business taking an official position on this topic at this time. At the very least, the APS should eliminate any call to action, which is a political recommendation, and stick to scientific issues.

Gabriel Lombardi

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by jim2

0
0

That is so true. Even science rests on belief.


Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by jim2

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by jim2

0
0

Originally, the States were to elect Senators. That should have never changed.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler

0
0
Jimd D: <i>I assume you mean 2%-7% per degree of warming. The latent heat flux would have to increase in proportion. </i> Thanks for the correction. That was the way I calculated it, proportional to the increase in rainfall rate. However, with cloud formation and rainfall, most condensation occurs in the mid-to upper troposphere. The warm, moist air rises in a column surrounded by descending cool, dry and denser air. Although the rising column does lose some heat to the descending toroidal surround, the water vapor does not condense before the air reaches a high altitude and cools by expansion. A relatively brief account is in Thermal Physics of the Atmosphere by Ambaum.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

One of the uncertainties is the forcing used to drive all the models. Under AR5, the IPCC specified a forcing, which appears to have been overestimated, either through underestimating the aerosol effect or missing solar or volcanic variations. This would explain why all the models were high, but only for the last 15 years, while they were low up to 1998. Or, that could have just been a natural variation that was recently negative but positive in 1998, or a combination of these. Only longer term model projections can be verified. Fifteen years is too short for a climate verification.

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

0
0

The storm surge level on Manhattan was 13.88 ft during Sandy. The Tidal gauge at NYC Battery Park, on the southern tip of Manhattan, shows a sea level trend since 1856 of 2.88 mm/yr. So the sea level has risen at the rate of 11 inches a century for the last 160 years at this location and AGW is to blame for the damage? Regardless of attribution, the 13.88 ft storm surge dwarfs the baseline level of the water. If you want to go halfzies and say 5.5 inches for the last century comes from AGW, the logic becomes even more bizarre.

When are the protagonists going to catch on that they destroy their credibility when such ridiculous arguments are put forth.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images