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

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Mike Flynn

0
0

Dan,

You wrote –

“Thus exact determination of temperatures and CO2 level are not needed. It is not necessary to know the “energy content of the Earth system”. Rough assessments of average global temperature and atmospheric CO2 level, irrespective of how determined, are all that are needed and there are plenty of them in the literature. It might all be in understanding the ‘computational mandate’.”

I’m a bit of a fan of theory backed up by experiment.

The fact that there are plenty of “rough assessments” in the “literature” leaves me less than convinced that the alleged “climate scientists” are any other than fools or frauds.

You may be right. Maybe it all comes down to the ‘computational mandate’, which sounds about as useful and well defined as the Warmist’s “global average surface temperature”, capable of measurement to 0.01 C, as I understand it.

I’m guessing you can’t define the ‘computational mandate’. It sounds like a wondrous Warmist device to avoid inconvenient facts, or even a lack thereof!


Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Steven Mosher

0
0

Don we don’t have all the power.
If we did watts Lewis McIntyre Monkton would never get published.

I’m confident that we have more power
Not all
More

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Dan Pangburn

0
0

The method/equation predicts average global temperatures to 2020 and, depending on what the sun does, to 2037. The prediction was made in 2012 and is obviously testable. It is documented in hard copy at Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471. Reported measurements remain within the historical uncertainty range in spite of NOAA tinkering with their data.

The method/equation allows prediction of temperature trends using data up to any date. The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2020 calculated using data to 1990, actual sunspot numbers through 2012, and predicted sunspot numbers 2013-2020 is within 0.011 K of the trend calculated using data through 2012. The predictions after 2020 depend on sunspot predictions which are not available past 2020.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by daveandrews723

0
0

Science has been turned on its head in this “man-made global warming/climate change” matter. It is a very dark period in science. I think I would be shocked and stunned to observe what impressionable college students are being taught nowadays on this subject. It seems as though the “warmists” have taken over academia and the political debate and are spreading unsubstantiated hypothoses as indisputable facts. Very sad. Very sad.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Steven Mosher

0
0

“ATTP, deletes comments from his site when he deems them to question the integrity of the IPCC and lead actors. Dr. Curry, on the contrary, has defended Jim D countless times despite lack of appreciation. ”

That is a rather odd Contrary

“ATTP, deletes comments from his site when he deems them to question the integrity of the IPCC and lead actors. Dr. Curry, on the contrary, allows people to question the integrity of the IPCC”

That is a good contrary.. although you get to be as confusing as you want to be.

ATTP owns a blog. It is his house. His cocktail party. If you come to his house with a cold it’s reasonable that he asks you to leave. If you
come with a gun, he can ask you to leave. If you call his kids brats, he can ask you to leave. If you show up naked, if you talk about religion, if you
cross dress, if you fart, if you didnt take a shower. He actually gets to decide what behavior he finds acceptable. The beautiful thing is that Judith gets to do the same thing.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)

0
0

Danny Thomas | June 22, 2015 at 11:07 am

Danny, you are right about the “”us vs. them” undercurrent. There is a good reason for it: both sides claim science proves them right. The science happens to be on the side opposing the global warming doctrine supported by pseudo-scientists of the global warming movement. There is no way to split the difference because real science can only give one answer. This becomes really bad when one side falsifies scientific observations and then claims that the other side is anti-science for not accepting their lies. I have personal observations that I want to share with you on that. Let’s start at the most fundamental level, meaning existence of global warming. The claim that global warming exists is founded upon the laboratory observation that carbon dioxiode gas can absorb infrared (heat) radiation and thereby get warm.The next step in the argument is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs the infrared thge same way as it does in the laboratory. The infrared in the atmosphere is heat radiation from the earth that the sun has warmed, and it leaves the earth for outer space. Atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbs it, gets warm, and thereby causes global warming. And because we burn fossil fuels there is an increasing amount of it in the air which causes more and more warming until we reach a catastrophe. This must not be allowed, according to warming advocates, and therefore we must do all we can to reduce production of carbon dioxide if we want to save the world. This seems very simple and clear but it is completely wrong. That is because the assumption that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does just what it does in the test tube is demonstrably wrong. The atmosphere contains other gases, among them water vapor. Hungarian scientist Ferenc Miskolczi showed both theoretically and experimentally that carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere combine in such a way as to block warming from increased carbon dioxide in the air. It so happens that both carbon dioxide and water vapor are so-called greenhouse gases. The atmosphere as a whole has a fixed transparency in the infrared that is called its optical thickness. It maintains it accurately as Miskolczi has proved by measuring air samples returned by weather ballooons over a 61 year period of sampling. This is where it fits in. If you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere this will increase its optical thickness. But as soon as this happens water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. It is not a miracle because what is happening is that reduction of water vapor diminishes the absorption just by the same amount that addition of carbon dioxide increased it and no warming takes place. This is of course totally opposite of what true believers in global warming will say. To them water vapor increases absorption by carbon dioxide instead of keeping it in check. They have absolutely no scientific observations to support this view while Miskolczi proved his point by studying atmospheric data collected by NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There is now an unusual global temperature standstill called a hiatus that has lasted for the last 18 years. Those favoring global warming cannot understand it but Miskolczi theory fits right in with it. More than 50 scholarly, peer-reviewed articles have been written to prove that it cannot exist. I get a kick out of it when they start searching for that “lost heat” on the ocean bottom. Some weird predictions about it keep coming out that are best described as pseudo-science, not science. To sum up: there is no greenhouse warming now and it is likely that it never existed. With it, AGW dies. Time to close down those multi-billion dollar mitigation boondoggles.

Comment on Driving in the dark by Ragnaar

0
0

I think it was Willard’s comments that got me started on this prey/predator line, Thank you. Assuming we can cause it to warm, increase the Hare population, what do the predators have to say about that? The Lynx are likely to adjust to the situation. If they cannot, we’d have a problem.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Pooh, Dixie

0
0

I suggest that the root cause is sloppy writing of the Clean Air Act. It specifies GHGs as pollutants. (Variously CO2, CH4, N2O, CFC, CO) + H20; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases ).
I don’t know whether or not Congress enumerated a list, but the EPA settled upon CO2 as the villain.
Clever politicos; they chose CO2, which is produced while supplying ~80% of our energy. Their advisers had a sense of history. In WWII, we denied energy to the Axis by raids on Ploesti and by sinking Japanese tankers. This led to the inability of the Axis to stop allied bombers. The Japanese battleship Yamoto had a one-way ticket to Midway.
Energy ‘policy’ is a means of controlling citizens. It ideal for rationing; it can be allocated to favorites; allocation can be used to induce the greasing of palms, Chicago-style.


Comment on Driving in the dark by PA

0
0

Vaughan Pratt | June 23, 2015 at 2:50 pm |

The Hofmann formula for year y is
280 + 36.2*exp(0.693*(y-1958)/32.5)
Setting y = 2020 gives 415.78732, 0.00710 more than RCP85_MIDYEAR. Absurdly smaller than the annual range of around 6 ppmv

Thanks for the insight on how the numbers were generated.

There are a number of moving parts to the yearly rise in CO2. 1/4 of the total increase in emissions (2.4 GT) happened between 2003 and 2013. If that continued the numbers should be licking at 412, but the emissions trend doesn’t look supportable… so I am cautiously optimistic in my prediction.

You are right, the weekly data is pretty noisy. 2020 might not be definitive if the CO2 level splits the difference.

Thanks for the confirmation of the IPCC 2020 CO2 level and if the actual emissions alter the 2020 level forecast feel free to update.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Pooh, Dixie

0
0

Just for fun:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Mark Silbert

0
0

Tonyb,

Well it seems that Amber Rudd wants to hear what Lawson has to say. That counts for something. As I understand it, she is a Minister in your new government who has some remit for energy/environment. This counts as influence in my book.

I don’t see Obama or our Gina McCarthy (EPA administrator) seeking out Heartland or Cato for a chat.

BTW, thanks for keeping this discussion civil as opposed to some of the others in this post.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by climatereason

0
0

Mark

I don’t know if you read Bishop hill?

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/6/8/rudd-to-meet-climate-untouchables.html

As you can see amber RuDd expects to convert Lawson and not the other way round.

Lawson is a well regarded ex chancellor of a previous Tory government. As such he would be accorded a polite hearing by current ministers on any topic

Successive govts have spent a fortune on carbon mitigation and I think there is a ground swell of dissent by Tory MP’s whose constituents are fed up with the costs of energy and it’s uncertainty, as few new grown up power stations have been built over the last 20 years and there is very little in the way of reserves. Also constituents can see mostly useless Wind and solar farms destroying the countryside.

Bearing in mind the uk govt was the first in the world to pass a climate change bill with only four or five dissenting MP’s out of some 650 , there is undoubtedly more sceptics, than there was a decade ago. I met my mp some months ago to talk about the subject and received a sympathetic hearing.

So there is a lot going on behind the scenes which collectively I would suspect is having more influence than the gwpf. Having said that there is undoubtedly more interest in the sceptical viewpoint than a decade ago so the gwpf may have more impact in the future than they have had in the past

Tonyb

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by dpy6629

0
0

Still think this failure to understand what Judith is doing is really denial that climate science has serious problems. Those who are confused are mostly apologists for the current science establishment.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by climatereason

0
0

Mark

I had previouslhet thought you British due to your knowledge of the gwpf. I now realise you aren’t so it is worth mentioning that influence is exerted in many different ways in Britain through interconnected families, those you meet in business, university, politics, the media etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Nigella_Lawson

As an example of that lawson is influential but not necessarily the lawson you know about. Nigel lawson has a daughter nigella, a celebrated cook who often appears on tv and at the best functions. He has a son Dominic who was an editor of the Sunday telegraph and is now a columnist at the Sunday times. I have exchanged information with him.

More intriguingly, there is a family connection with George monbiot, who is a cousin. Monbiot is of course the celebrated green campaigner on the guardian newspaper which is highly influential with the BBC who nigella makes tv programmes with….

Heartland does not speak for me, they appear rather right wing so are out of sync with Obama who I perceive to be rather left Wing.

Tonyb

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Steven Mosher

0
0

Thanks for admitting Judith’s error Don.


Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Philip Lee

0
0

Prof. Curry writes: For scientists, particularly scientists in universities, there is no code of conduct for how to communicate with the public and to engage with the policy process.

To the contrary we have:
Each physicist is a citizen of the community of science. Each shares responsibility for the welfare of this community. Science is best advanced when there is mutual trust, based upon honest behavior, throughout the community. Acts of deception, or any other acts that deliberately compromise the advancement of science, are unacceptable. Honesty must be regarded as the cornerstone of ethics in science. Professional integrity in the formulation, conduct, and reporting of physics activities reflects not only on the reputations of individual physicists and their organizations, but also on the image and credibility of the physics profession as perceived by scientific colleagues, government and the public. It is important that the tradition of ethical behavior be carefully maintained and transmitted with enthusiasm to future generations.
and more from the APS at http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm

The Institute of Physics has a code for members at http://www.iop.org/about/royal_charter/file_38393.pdf . That code says, in part, Members shall strive to be objective, unbiased and truthful in all aspects of their work.

While some university scientists may not be covered by their membership in a professional society, it would be a failure of university leadership not to have a code for employees — doesn’t Tech have one?

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by mwgrant

0
0

Don…I think he meant “Tack så mycket”

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort

0
0

You are carrying joshie’s water on this one, Steven. Leave the nitpicking to lesser human beings. You got more important things to do.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Steven Mosher

0
0

Don.

You are getting closer——-

I would say that Judith has better things to do than nit-picking over

1. Adequate statements of uncertainty
2. practicing “approved” forms of advocacy.

That is what started this. The notion that you can establish a code of conduct for people that will let them know when they have addressed all the evidence and all the uncertainty and all the nits, or a code of conduct that will let people know when they are “forcefully” advocating and when they are not.

Like I said. This starts when folks try to regulate behavior. In some areas it works ok. thou shalt not kill. In other areas,,,, I’m not too keen on the idea.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Joseph

0
0

Don, who controls both the House and the Senate in the US?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images