Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Tackling human biases in science by sciguy54

$
0
0

An intrinsic part of human nature is the need to feel empowered, to have a sense of having control of the world around us. This need, this drive to find and manipulate the “control knobs” in our lives, creates a susceptibility towards bias which affects how we perceive everything around us.

A feeling of empowerment can often enable the vast resources of energy and creativity which reside within each of us. These powers can take us, and our neighbors, on journeys of either deconstruction or construction.

Sadly, history is littered with movements which are sparked by genius, either evil or well-intentioned, and then powered toward hellish ends by a host of empowered individuals bent to purposeful tasks. Successful completion of these tasks may be rewarded in a way which confirms a biased viewpoint, which empowers and encourages application of energy and creativity to the next task. Early and enthusiastic adapters often reap extra rewards, whether or not the new field ultimately proves beneficial to mankind.

Any society which wishes to retain individual freedom and self-direction must encourage and train each citizen to understand bias and to recognize when human endeavor has fallen victim to such and taken a wrong turn. Every citizen must be unafraid to voice sincere concerns without fear of reprisal by government or fellow citizens. Because mistakes will be made, and initial feedback may encourage biased and invalid assumptions. Such is the nature of every person and every union of people.


Comment on Tackling human biases in science by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

$
0
0

It’s too bad that the sciences aren’t like the stock market relative to the immediacy of pain for following a path of motivated reasoning. Human bias has led many technical stock market technicians to ruin who have figured out statistically how it works.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Lance Wallace

$
0
0

The Knappenburger and Michaels link to the MAGICKK program is great fun, but they should include the total increase in temperature, so one can compare the reduction achieved as a fraction of the total. (Of course, seeing that the reduction is always on the order of 0.1 degree C is pretty good in itself, but it is fun to also state that the total increase is, say, 3 degrees so you are reducing that to 2.9, or about a 3% effect.)

Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

$
0
0

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The last intact section of one of Antarctica’s mammoth ice shelves is weakening fast and will likely disintegrate completely in the next few years, contributing further to rising sea levels, according to a NASA study released on Thursday.

Huff Post does tend to run these silly stories that claim collapsing ice shelves (sea ice) raises the sea level. Huff Post doesn’t do well on sciency issues.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by angech2014

$
0
0

Ferdinand Engelbeen | May 15, 2015 at 2:55 pm |angech2014
It is not about % per year it is about the fact that all three increased in app. the same ratio in the past 55 years.

I just pointed out on your figures that none of the increased at the same rate, they increased at different rates

That some natural cause is involved is only possible if that increased in the same ratio, or didn’t increase at all…

Or if the sinks became bigger at the same rate the natural cause became bigger

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar

$
0
0

Regarding libertarians and a carbon tax, I’d agree a good guess of its effect would be – 0.01 C after 20 years. A revenue neutral carbon consumption tax could accomplish more tangible benefits. Saving just a bit more of oil and natural gas for the future. Depending on what tax is cut, we could improve our companies ability to compete internationally. Small shifts towards alternative forms of transportation. Small increases in energy prices send a signal, artificial in this case, but a broad signal that may not favor any one company such as Solyndra. The income tax code can be a patchwork of favors. Certain heat pumps and solar can get you material credits. When you compare that to a carbon consumption tax, some might say the latter is more equitable.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by angech2014

$
0
0

Why is the sea basic, pH 8.2?
Because the substrate it rests on, the sea floor is basic at pH 8.2.
Add some acid H2CO3?
neutralized.
Add more acid?
neutralized.
Add as much as you like it is neutralized by the far larger substrate [earth] of the sea floor
The pH can only change substantially if you change the substrate which will not happen any time soon.
This is why, Don, there can be larger CO2 production and absorption not accounted for by your mass balance concept.
It is also why we will never have to worry about ocean acidification.
We can only vary in a very narrow range

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

$
0
0

It tends to run science studies. This one was by NASA who have the satellites that you can see these things with. Skeptics prefer not to look, so my posting of this kind of thing makes them a bit uncomfortable with their position.


Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by angech2014

$
0
0

Steven
“The theory starts with this. If you increase C02 and hold everything else constant, then the temperature should go up over time.”

This is the same as saying

“CO2 has gone up so the temperature should go up in relative tandem”
“as a broad statement.”

The comment as “a broad statement” means effectively holding everything else constant, ie not picking on quibbles and caveats in a narrow statement

My statement is the actual theory, sorry your English acumen has failed your in your desire to nail my comment.

We are saying the same thing , except your statement implies no relationship of CO2 to Temp other than a positive response whereas we both know that their is a relationship, climate sensitivity which my comment of going up in relative tandem satisfiers

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Jim D,

Where I live, the tidal range is about 8m. How much will this change after the mammoth ice shelf melts, if at all?

Should I be concerned? What action should I take, if any?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by gymnosperm

$
0
0

Regarding rivers transporting C to shining sea.

” They estimated that the world’s rivers annually transport 200 megatons (200 million tons) of carbon to the ocean. The total equals about .02 percent of the total mass of carbon in the atmosphere.”

Whooboy, .002 Gt or Pg is sooo lunch money. Silicate weathering at .2 is a couple of orders more significant and it barely makes the radar in a +-200 Gt cycle.

This written as this is an active area of investigation. The Carbon cycle can be constrained by a net increase to the atmosphere of something like 5 Gt; a measured d13C to the atmosphere of about -.02; a measured d13C to the mixed layer of the oceans of about -.16; measured fractionation of ocean atmosphere exchange of about 10 for water to air (- to air, + to water) and 2 from air to water (+ to air, – to water).

This is a lot of constraint. A work in progress, but the days of pulling numbers out of hindquarters are over.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

$
0
0

Huff Post does tend to run these silly stories that claim collapsing ice shelves (sea ice) raises the sea level. Huff Post doesn’t do well on sciency issues.

That’s not really what it said. It said when the ice shelf breaks up, the glaciers it is holding back will dump into the ocean at a faster rate and cause seal level rise.

And thanks to Al Gore, skeptics have learned a lot about sea ice. He was obviously a great teacher.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by GaryM

$
0
0

Climate models are useless.

“…I would argue that calling these models ‘close to useless’ is generous: IAM based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision that is illusory, and can fool policy-makers into thinking that the forecasts the models generate have some kind of scientific legitimacy.

http://papers.nber.org/tmp/77673-w21097.pdf

Comment on Week in review – science edition by mosomoso

$
0
0

Enough with the martyrdom thing! If Lomborg thinks it’s hard for mensheviks and moderates, he should try being ancien regime.

Anyway, quantifying and theorising beyond one’s powers (yep, he’s an economist!) to institute some kind of global mass-welfarism is hardly moderate. I know Lomborg is what they call a thinker or public intellectual, but lately there’s been a tendency to go from bright idea to mainstreaming while skipping the whole trial-and-error bit. Something to do with models and so on. Whoops!

Let him think and write, by all means. You don’t have to be right unless people are investing billions based on your claims. (Then you have to be right.) Lomborg won’t starve and, in any case, a Perth university is not the kind of place people attend in order to think. Count the theses with the words “gender”, “climate”, “Marxian”, “Derridan” or the prefixes “neo” and “post”. I’m told it’s about 97%.

Really guys, we don’t need a better klimatariat. We need no klimatariat. No matter how earnest or rational, moderates support an industry that now needs dismantling.

Then we get back to actual conservation and generally not wasting and wrecking stuff.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by genghiscunn

$
0
0

Although Lomborg wrote ” The Skeptical Economist,” I think that he was more of a statistician at the time – as a CAGW believer, he set his graduate students some related statistical tasks, and was astounded by the results, which contradicted the CAGW story. Having met him, I don’t think that he would see himself as a martyr at all, though he’d probably roll his eyes at the pettiness of the alleged academics at UWA.

You may be interested to know that we have been curtailing tall bamboo today, one of them which I brought down onto the roof for cutting had a rather surprised ring-tail possum on board.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by mosomoso

$
0
0

It’s my primitive dread at work, genghis. I guess the only thing that scares me more than a climate expert is an economist. But we’re no doubt all part of God’s plan – even those irritating brushtail possums which force me to give my roof space to smelly pythons.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by genghiscunn

$
0
0

Pindyck writes “I have argued that the best we can do at this point is come up with plausible answers to these questions, perhaps relying at least in part on consensus numbers supplied by climate scientists and environmental economists.” The argument is fine, but the suggested possible data sources are highly dubious.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by genghiscunn

$
0
0

Our brushtails prefer under the house, fortunately.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by stevenreincarnated

$
0
0

Jim, I’m just waiting for you to either state you agree that the mass balance equation isn’t proof the atmospheric increase in CO2 is anthropogenic or to provide your equation that shows my equation is wrong. I’m not interested in your analogies of water warming and cooling or someone elses frustration with their wife’s spending habits.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf

$
0
0

Comes early morning, resident brushtails.eschewing
nocturnal habits, arriving at the bird feeding-centre fer
a diurnal treat.Caused by that ol’ global warming no doubt.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images