Ron, I think the debate has always been over. I recall people talking of the need for a debate, and many pronouncements about the debate being over.
Maybe there really was a debate – but I missed it when I went to the bathroom.
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by mosomoso
↧
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by gymnosperm
Logic is irrelevant when superstition reigns.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Don Monfort
Some might wonder what effect Ms. McNutty’s “the debate is over” doctrine has on the selection of climate science papers that are published, or not published in Science.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Ron Graf
She may not even know her stance is political, and she certainly would never admit it if she knew. After all, she is not a political scientist. All she knows are the unchallenged truths in her circular bubble of mutually adoring elite wielding the public coffers. The common ground for comrades, reich’s volch and Chrishnas is that once the bubble is burst they are perfectly normal and reasonable.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by omanuel
Professor Curry, I share your concern that the editor of <i>Science</i> is so close-minded as to publicly discourage debate and discussion.
I am also encouraged that public research funds have so far been unable to build an unassailable fascade of consensus science.
↧
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Ron Graf
For goodness sake I hope there is no such thing as an ” unassailable facade of consensus science.”
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Mike Flynn
The debate is over. The atom is indivisible. The Earth is 20 million years old. The Sun stays hot because meteors keep colliding with it.
Carbon dioxide heats things up during the night. The Earth is 33 K hotter than it should be. All the seas should be frozen. We should get rid of carbon dioxide and water. Poisons. Plants don’t need either carbon dioxide, or water.
Ah well, there’s one born every minute. Warmists ensure there is a never ending supply. They deserve our thanks for providing much needed amusement, to divert us from serious concerns – poverty, disease, natural disaster, and that sort of thing!
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Ron Graf
Maybe there really was a debate – but I missed it when I went to the bathroom.
I came late. I, like most of the public trusted the scientific community. I have been a member of it for 33 years and never dreamed such corruption was possible. But, I understand Judith was equally shocked by it. I know many here are praying for this El Nino to be the “big one.” And, if we end the year like 1998 I would have to accept that influence on my opinion. But, if the trend continues at an insignificant pace (pause or whatever) at some point Skeptical Science is going to have to live up to its name.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by popesclimatetheory
Science, along with Nature, has far and away the highest impact factor of any scientific journals on the planet –
Mother Nature is going to deal them a harsh hand .
They, along with the Pope in Rome, will be proven wrong and I don’t think it will take many more years.
↧
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by popesclimatetheory
Mad Scientists are real!
Not really. Consensus people are not really scientists. You must be skeptical to be any kind of scientist. They are mad, but they are not real scientists.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by popesclimatetheory
Don’t lump all of NASA together. The Climate People in NASA must support the alarmism or lose their jobs. Other areas in NASA are not required to support the climate alarmism. They can’t speak against it, but they don’t have to support it and as far as I can tell, they don’t.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Willis Eschenbach
I tried to warn people about her … but like a fool, I decided to be honest rather than osculate the fundamental orifice of Politically Correctness, and of course I paid the price. As a result, my warning went unheeded.
I wish you better luck with her than I had, and I commend you for your own honesty.
w.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by AK
<i>Non sequitur</i>?
↧
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Don Monfort
The last debate:
http://www.npr.org/2007/03/22/9082151/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis
“In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.”
I don’t think Lindzen, Crichton et al. mentioned uranus, or anybody else’s.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by AK
<blockquote>Say the solar cooker concentrates 324 W/m2 backradiation by 100X at the focal point to 32,4000 W/m2 IR at the focal point. </blockquote>Back-radiation is <b>diffuse!</b> Don't you know anything?
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by PA
hockeyschtick | July 6, 2015 at 8:26 pm |
Are you saying PA that 32,400 W/m2 at the focal point compared to the usual 324 W/m2 causes COOLING of the focal point?
The actual downwelling radiation is about 60 W/m2 less than would be expected from the ambient temperature. So yeah it is going to cool. Not familiar enough with the characteristics of downwelling radiation to go further than that.
The focus is shielded from most of the radiation it is normally exposed to and it is emitting at its characteristic temperature.
What you are really doing is sinking the IR from the object at the focus into deep space.
If your theory was correct I could point a solar cooker at the side of a 30°C building (477 W/m2) and have baked potato in about 30 minutes. Never going to happen. There is a thermodynamic law about that.
The sun is 5800 K and no matter how good your reflector is, how much area, how efficient, etc. you can’t heat an object with solar energy to higher than 5800 K.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Willard
Exactly. More generally:
Attempting to reduce the damages associated with extreme weather in the 21st century by reducing greenhouse gas emissions is very misguided IMO, and misses important opportunities to focus on better weather forecasting, better emergency management practices, and reducing infrastructure vulnerability.
Since it’s the opposite of what Marcia suggests, it can’t be advocacy.
↧
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by sciguy54
“In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish.” Pope
With all due respect, I will fix this for the Pope:
“In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with unsightly and noisy windmills”
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Willard
> Non sequitur?
The more accurate latinism is <em>op. cit.</em>, since it's taken from the paragraph that <em>precedes</em>the one where Judy suggests we put down the patient she diagnoses with an incurable and infectious disease.
A whole lotta memes Andy will analyze in 3, 2, 1.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by AK
As opposed to 200-300 years ago:
“In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with unsightly and noisy <strike>windmills </strike>church steeples”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....