Comments for Climate Etc.

It’s kind of like the good news it is when you see the train coming to hit you, as opposed to being blind to it. Some people might take action immediately. Others not until they see the train approaching more clearly.

Oil is still around $60 at the end of the week. There is an interesting article on Canadian Oil Sands.
From the article:
…
As much as Canada is the land of ‘eh’s’, igloos, and apologies, our US neighbours to the South (or neighbors, as they say in America) are often unaware that our oil is the largest share of their crude imports-and it just keeps growing.

…

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3284175-canadian-oil-sands-and-u-s-shale-innovation-via-necessity

Thanks ordvik

I don’t know how any of this relates to science? Characterizing scientists seems a useless pursuit to me.

In this case though how does one get off the tracks?

[…] http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/26/week-in-review-science-edition-11/ […]

I see the methodology here now, thanks for all the responses.

It is just the most visible of several trains, some of which we are still blind to, but all resulting from the same cause.

The reporting climate science seems to indicate there are two trains coming?

After discovering the LIA and the MWP, Mann has finally discovered the SUN.

Since Mann never predicted the hiatus, what is the likelihood he is competent to predict when it will end.

It doesn’t have to kill people to be bad.

ATTP, you’ve kind of been dining out on not looking specifically at the writings of those you criticize. Your favorite phrases seem to be ‘I am struggling to understand’ and ‘I haven’t looked closely at it but…’

You are quick to adopt charged phrasing such as ‘mitigation skeptic’ but you do no investigation of the concepts involved. You repeatedly mis-state the positions of those who don’t agree with the Consensus, let alone the ravings of the Konsensus, despite having your errors repeatedly pointed out to you.

So when you say that skeptic willingness to investigate claims is the hallmark of a real scientist, I hope I can be forgiven for wondering if that describes a set that doesn’t include you?

willard (@nevaudit) | June 26, 2015 at 7:53 pm |
> fish, forest, and food alone is an over $2.6 trillion industry

These are benefits from fish, forest, and food, PA. You talked about benefits of more CO2. I doubt more CO2 brings more fish, more forest, and more food in such a linear fashion.

To connect CO2 with these industries, we’d need cost-benefit analyses that would take carbon sinks into account.>/i>

Plants (corn in this case) stop growing for a period after midday when it is windless because they run out of CO2. Claiming more CO2 doesn’t increase yield seems unwise. The CO2 is reduced significantly 152 meters above the field.

The suggestion to document the benefits from more CO2 is a good one. By law the current funding, which may be as much as $200 million per year (it is clearly $200 million per year or less) to give more CO2 a black eye should be repurposed to for the next 5 years to document the benefits of more CO2 in excruciating detail and attempt to monetize the benefit so we can make better policy decisions.

If I didn’t know better I’d think JC has turned into an alamist. I’ve read about 10 of these links and find myself paranoiac and pessimistic. Maybe someone sabatoged her blog? :-)

ordvic, it is called the truth. You can’t hide from it here. Try WUWT if it makes you uncomfortable. Things like Greenland are the canaries in the coalmine that tell us that things are going wrong, and we should not ignore the signals.

It does appear that way.

Thanks bob for the helping hand on methodology

<i>Oh Noes! Computer model says society will collapse by 2040 due to catastrophic food shortages [link]</i> More CO2 would produce more food with less water, partially solving the problem.

Are we sure the train isn’t backing up?

Latest Images