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

Comment on Tackling human biases in science by David Wojick

0
0

My discovery of the issue tree was supreme, but the amazing thing was the discovery of the deep rationality of ordinary human discourse.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by GaryM

0
0

Steven Mosher,

Yes, you filling your gas tank is exactly like decarbonizing the global energy economy. Which is the “use” for which the GCMs are sold to, and financed by, the taxpayers.

Keep up the bait and switch. Keep defending the GCMs and temp records which are the centerpieces of the progressive CAGW political campaign. Then pretend you are all about free markets.

At least your mini-mes are buying it.

Al Gore, James Hansen, Thomas Friedman – the world is full of people who are happy to make money off the free market they are doing so much to undermine. Glad to hear you are joining their ranks. I didn’t know that obscurantism was such a profitable career field.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ron Graf

0
0
On the "I didn't see that coming" technology front -- <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/16/8615089/vortex-bladeless-wind-turbines-shake-to-generate-electricity" rel="nofollow">enter blade-less windmills.</a> I can't wait until they have the yard version doing the hula.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by GaryM

0
0

“Make a case for the connection, Gary.”

I did. The fact that you did not grasp it is of no consequence to me. I will now vacate the residence I have apparently taken up in your head, and go back to ignoring you.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Willard

0
0

> Astrologers use models every day to produce their results, from which they make a living.

Astrologers also use computers. Right I am, right now, like all Denizens.

That explains everything.

PS: Some astrologers refuse to make a living out of what they consider a sacred art, BTW.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

It’s silly to say that something that is used is not useful.

You could be right.

Hansen used these model predictions to whip up a frenzy.

The predictions weren’t correct, of course, but they were useful:

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

sorry my purpose is business related. and yes they are useful for prediction. and yes people pay. I’m a free market type. if people pay, it has value. maybe GaryM knows better than the market.

So, since the implied context is general circulation models, and since the ‘rule of thumb’ duration for climate trends is thirty years, I’m guessing you aren’t looking at predictions from thirty years ago, because, as above, those predictions were incorrect.

Most of the IPCC predictions, are of course, for the year 2100, which is safely far enough in the future to avoid ever being invalidated by any adult living today.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

0
0
I think he wrote <i>The Skeptical Environmentalist</i>.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

Dam building peaked about 45 years ago, so too did the rate of sequestration. Once a dam is in place, farmers, golfers, and shower takers tend to drain the capacity – water which finds its way back into the ocean. And even water that doesn’t get used right away is still subject to evaporation and ultimate deposition back into the ocean:

I happen to live in a desert community that receives irrigation from a dam, but those irrigations are fewer and fewer because of all the competition for the now rarely filled reservoir.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

0
0

Aren’t you supposed to be a lawyer, Gary? Is this how you argue cases in court?

You said:”Climate models are useless.”

Mosher , who is a lot smarter and trickier than you are, replied:”Nonsense. I use them every day. And they work for my purpose.”

You can’t argue with that, as is. How you gonna prove they don’t suit his purpose? You don’t even know what he is talking about.

It’s like if you made the categorical statement: “Chocolate ice cream tastes nasty”.

Mosher says:”I like chocolate ice cream. It works for me”.

And then you think you prove he is wrong by ad homming him and hollering about some progressive plot to keep poor people shoeless and dependent on da gubmint. He said it works for him, not that it works for you, or anybody else.

Your hysterical yammering is irrelevant and immaterial, Ga-a-a-ry.

You need to gain some heft. You are not filling your own shoes.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

0
0

The Warmists appear to be abandoning Warmism for the more general Alarmism.

Alarmed at the pause, they concentrate on the rising CO2 levels. CO2 levels of 350 ppm! Doom! 400 ppm! Despair! 450 ppm! Woe, thrice woe!

My query to the reborn Alarmist is simple. What is the danger of CO2 levels rising? Continuation of climate change? Plant growth? War, famine, and pestilence?

Of course, they will try to conflate all sorts of pollution from incomplete combustion with rising CO2 levels. Just look at the correlation! Alas, the suckers have a need to believe. A CO2 tax is just what they need. Once the Alarmists have reduced us all to poverty, living the simple life without any CO2, we’ll find we no longer have worries.

Without CO2 we will all die. Grand.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

0
0

You are right again, willy. I can testify that I donate my services as an astrologer to the Zen Baptist Church of Southwest Detroit.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

0
0

There is bound to be some resistance to the dike idea from deniers, so they are going to build it at night and give you the bill when it’s completed, nicky.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

0
0

That’s a double-double, david. They could each anchor one side of the dike and you wouldn’t need much dirt and stuff to fill in the gap in the middle.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by stevepostrel

0
0

I think I read that the university in Perth housed one of the world’s leading labs for high-precision lasers that are incorporated into gravitational wave detectors. So Lomborg missed out on proximity to that, at least.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by GaryM

0
0

OK, one last response, because you are terminally confused. And your hero worship of Mosher is hilarious.

“You can’t argue with that, as is. How you gonna prove they don’t suit his purpose? You don’t even know what he is talking about. ”

This blog is about the climate debate, one of the central political issues of our times, precisely because so much is at stake. It is hard to think of anything less important to that debate than what is or is not useful to Mosher in his personal life. No one knows what Mosher is talking about here, because he doesn’t want anyone to. His goal is not to make an intellectual argument, it is to prevent one. That is what obscurantism is all about.

Mosher knows this. He is an obscurantist at his very core, and is just playing with words as he usually does to confuse the debate. It is apparently how he passes his time when he is not running the commerce department or state department.

GCMs are the center piece of the progressive CAGW movement that seeks to use decarbonization of the global energy economy as the means of centralizing control of that economy in the government. That is what the climate debate is about. It is the only aspect of the debate that matters, until the drive to decarbonize is actually defeated.

It matters not at all that you don’t get that. It matters not at all that Mosher does, and still defends the GCMs and reported temp records as holy writ.

“All models are wrong” is supposed to be some sophisticated rejoinder to the attacks on models’ inability to predict future temps AS GROUNDS FOR DECARBONIZATION. The point is not the trivial truth of his comment, it is that his comment is designed to obscure the actual heart of the debate.

I can’t help it if you get suckered by his obscurantism. But don’t p*ss and moan at me because you don’t get it.

Mosher at least knows what he is doing, which is why it is so much fun pointing it out when he takes both sides of an argument; redefines words into meaningless; engages in moral relativism to a degree that would make a real nihilist blush; etc. It is fun lighting a match to his straw man armies. Your attempts at wit, however, are juvenile and boring. Which is the real reason I ignored you before, and will again.

Comment on Tackling human biases in science by kneel63

0
0

OT – the value is not so much in the fresh set of eyes, but the re-arrangement of data and thought processes required to explain the current situation and/or problem and bring an outsider “up to speed”.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Willard

0
0

> as a CAGW believer, he set his graduate students some related statistical tasks, and was astounded by the results, which contradicted the CAGW story.

Sounds like an adaptation of the litany.Another one:

In many ways, Lomborg´s book is a repetition and extension of Julian Simon´s ideas, not a critical testing of Simon´s assertions. Lomborg writes on p. xix that when he and his students examined Simon, they found that “not everything he said was correct”. However, not a single place in “The Skeptical Environmentalist” are we told where exactly Simon was wrong. Instead, there are several places in Lomborg´s book where he uses Simon as a source for his own assertions – which of course is completely against the purported idea of testing whether Simon is right. This is the case in chapters 11, 16 and 20 of Lomborg´s book. Also, many parts of his biodiversity chapter (chapter 23) are taken uncritically from Simon.
In conclusion, when Lomborg declares in the preface that he wants to examine if Simon is right, this is not true. Nowhere in his book does Lomborg mark any disagreement or dissociation vis-a-vis Simon, and instead he repeatedly rests on Simon and even uses Simon as a source.

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Preface.htm

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Rhyzotika

0
0

Hate to reignite the attribution thread, but this talk from the Royal Society workshop on “Feedbacks on Climate in the Earth System” is relevant, covering temperature induced CO2 level changes, from an IPCC lead author. Note this line in particular, which seems to support the basic point Bartemis was trying to make: “During warm El Niño years, atmospheric CO2 shows larger than average growth rate, indicating reduced storage in land and/or oceans; the opposite being observed during La Niña years. ”

Professor Pierre Friedlingstein, University of Exeter, UK
Carbon cycle feedbacks and future climate change
Abstract:
Climate and the carbon cycle are interacting on every timescale. On short, inter-annual timescales, there are numerous observational evidences revealing the strong response of the carbon cycle to climate variability. During warm El Niño years, atmospheric CO2 shows larger than average growth rate, indicating reduced storage in land and/or oceans; the opposite being observed during La Niña years. Multiple lines of evidence point towards tropical land ecosystems as main drivers of this variability. On such short time scales, the ocean shows much lower variability in its carbon exchange with the atmosphere.

On multi-millennial timescales, such as over glacial-interglacial cycles, ice core data clearly shows a strong correlation between climate and atmospheric CO2, with again, warm/cold climate being associated to higher/lower atmospheric CO2, i.e. lower/larger storage in ocean and land. Here, the ocean, probably the Southern ocean, is the main culprit for these changes.

On the centennial timescale of interest for the anthropogenic perturbation, there are indications of similar behaviour during warm/cold periods over the last millennium but no direct observations over the historical period. This is primarily due to the unprecedented input of CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning and land use change that dwarves any natural response of the land and ocean to the current warming. However, modelling studies unanimously show, again, a reduction of carbon storage both on land and ocean due to global warming. This induces, as during glacial cycles, a positive feedback in the climate system, a warmer world leading to larger atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The talk will review the observational and modelling evidence of a positive feedback between the climate system and the global carbon cycle, highlighting the implications for 21st century warming and cumulative emissions compatible with a given climate target.

[audio src="http://downloads.royalsociety.org/events/2014/feedback-climate-system/friedlingstein.mp3" /]

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Rhyzotika

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images