Interesting that even the Republicans are saying Obama needs to do more to meet his climate goals. That’s a twist. What are they up to?
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by hockeyschtick
Jim D: “It was especially easy for Chilingar because he added 288 K as a surface temperature as an input parameter. QED right there.”
1. Not really, Chilingar used the 288K observation to derive the adiabatic exponent for his equation [2], which obviously differs based upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity differences between Earth & Venus, or any other planet with a thick atmosphere. There is nothing wrong about using an observation to derive a model, and in fact that’s the basis of all types of models, including the Arrhenius ‘model’, and today’s climate models.
2. The HS greenhouse equation, however, does not know the surface temperature in advance, only the solar constant & albedo is used to calculate ERL temperature, from which the surface temperature is derived from atmospheric mass/gravity/density. QED right there.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
Jim D | July 9, 2015 at 12:20 am |
100% less glaciers too. What’s not to like?
Well…
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
6 GT loss last year from Greenland.
Ice mass is still above last year at this time. We could be in for another 6 GT year.
There are 3000 teratons of Greenland Ice. At 6 GT per year it will take 500,000 years to melt the ice sheet. Even at 200 GT/year the Greenland ice sheet will be there for 15,000 years.
The 100% less glacier claim is absurd. The ice sheet will still be around when the interglacial ends.
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by Willard
> I didn’t ‘put you in a box’, but instead indicated this observers view of the box you put forth surrounding yourself
“You made me do it”: just like Andy did with his world-wide ” movement”.
I don’t recall having put forth that box, so a quote might be nice to check if Danny’s judgment got Inserted into his observation.
***
> Are we once again back to my “global cooling” when it comes to my fumbles?
Not the first time that Danny sneaks in a squirrel by playing dumb. It takes more intelligence than he’s willing to concede to do so as seemingly as he does.
***
> You’re offering several ‘presumptions’. Yet, how you know how I think and that which I presume is an amazing power you own.
There’s no need to sneak into Danny’s mind to see what his boxing requires.
***
> Personal attacks? Are you ‘presuming’ the reference w/r/t “It doesn’t matter how accurate as long as you ‘stand up’ for your side.” was directed your way? Remember, as you taught me earlier, when one uses “you” it doesn’t necessarily mean you!
Danny may have problems interpreting
this commentary of yours
as being an impersonal.
The earlier ClimateBall exchange was about quotation marks, and not the impersonal you.
***
The number of harmless jabs indicates that Danny switched torom boxing to shadowboxing.
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by Danny Thomas
Maybe so! Interesting to see what just may occur should a bit of inclusiveness and moderation become injected in the conversation.
What are they up to?
↧
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by Danny Thomas
Or did he, o’ Danny’s shadow?
‘You’ doesn’t always mean you, or so I’ve learned w/r/t “this commentary of yours”.
Always the climateball, but never the inquiry?
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by jacksmith4tx
verdeviewer,
“Historically, the “really evil people” are those who use expanded power of government to satisfy the greed of their most generous benefactors.”
I’m sorry I used the wrong word. Here at CE we say ‘wicked’ not evil, different but the same.
I can’t understand why the population can expand 10 fold and you think governments only get bigger because really wicked people use expanded power of government to satisfy the greed of their most generous benefactors. Do you think it would be different if we had a better ratio of citizens to legislators than the current 700,000 to 1? If I wanted to use money to influence congress it’s a lot cheaper to just rent just one rather than have to control 5 or 6 more per district to push your issues?
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by Willard
Danny, Danny’s shadow or anyone else can try to provide a plausible interpretation of “this commentary of yours” as being impersonal. Explaining how this interpretation follows from the many functions of quotation marks might be nice too.
Danny’s sneaked ClimateBall may not distract from inquiring into the CAGW for long. What is the relationship between the C and the AGW, beyond its juxtaposition in the usual strawman?
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by fireofenergy
The green activist lawyers will say we need more solar and less Fossil Fuels, whilst the fossil fuel industry will fight for more allowance.
What is lacking is the fight for reason. That would be for the source which is both non fossil and as vast in scope.
Why take a chance on excess CO2 not being dangerous to the entire biosphere?
However, We can not allow the very real threat of excess CO2 to enforce the very real possibility to restrictions on liberty.
The number one priority to prevent is the outcome which comes first, which is in this case, be the infringements of rights.
Not to say more severe in overall time, though. Living with less energy and, finally, outright energy poverty (and even worse) can be argued to still be second compared to fossil fueled depletion into an overheated and poisonous biosphere – especially by those born into the altered biosphere. It is even possible for accelerating FF combustion to cause mass die offs according to many hypotheses (since excess CO2 has been linked to ocean anoxic events many millions of years ago).
I suggest that we are willing to recognize the merits of BOTH “sides”, to not become polarized towards either, except to become all out nuts for thee better solution: PLENTIFUL (non carbon) ENERGY (based on the molten salt reactor concept).
What we need is “tech fix lawyers”!
↧
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by Danny Thomas
Willard,
Once again your powers of presumption are impressive. You seem to understand that which I’m “peddling”. When you state ‘you’, your not necessarily referring to me. Yet when I use ‘you’ it’s presumed to be referring to you. And you don’t care to bother to ask. All the while I’m presumed by you to be “putting you in a box”, and tasking you with that which you chose not to be tasked.
Then somehow, I’m boxing with a shadow of your imagination.
W, you never cease to amaze. All that knowledge, w/o need for inquiry, withing one skull. Quotation marks aside.
C to the AGW!
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by Willard
> When you state “you”
Where?
***
> when I use “you”
Actually, it’s “this commentary of yours”.
***
> I’m presumed by you to be “putting you in a box”
Not exactly. I claim that when Danny’s “your side” in the sentence following “this commentary of yours” puts me in a box, coincidentally sneaked in a discussion about the CAGW strawman.
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by Danny Thomas
Exactly! It’s all in “your” presumption. Just as I presumed when you stated ‘you’ to me, you meant me! ” Your “but Global Cooling” wasn’t bad either. (http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/03/a-key-admission-regarding-climate-memes/#comment-714909)
Interpretation w/o inquiry? Ain’t this entertaining? It is, what it’s not? Or at least so I ‘presume’.
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by jacksmith4tx
fireofenergy,
I like your user name.
One could argue that the moment human mastered fire we made the first evolutionary leap from just another hominid species to our current status as the dominate life form. Maybe moving beyond fossil fuels with launch us to the next level?
↧
↧
Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by Un effetto serra al contrario che raffredda l’Antartide | Climatemonitor
[…] un’interessante ipotesi lanciata e ampiamente discussa in una tesi di dottorato diffusa da Judith Curry nell’ambito di un post in cui ha presentato anche altri due lavori sul tema del bilancio […]
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by Willard
You really ought to learn to check back your source before starting this kind of shadowboxing, Danny:
<blockquote>
<strong>“Your” indicates that something’s yours, Danny. That’s for sure.</strong>
</blockquote>
Just a bit under the commentary you cite.
Now, please give it a rest.
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by Danny Thomas
Willard,
Why give it a rest? From what I’ve learned………the audit never ends! Or so I presume.
I believe I did check back to this: ” Your “but Global Cooling” wasn’t bad either.” (still can’t find where I originated). But this ‘your’ may indeed not indicate ‘mine’.
Go Denizens!
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by Willard
Search for “guru,” “monkey,” and “70s,” on Judy’s site using the G, Danny. Search for “idio” on this page. Why do you need to turn this into a Black Knight act?
↧
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Vaughan Pratt
@jc: But my main concern is this – the editorial was published in Science and written by McNutt who is the CHIEF EDITOR for Science.
Not to worry, Judy. Editors of ostensibly serious magazines sometimes say the weirdest things.
One of my areas of interest is vacuum technology (I have a basement full of vacuum equipment) and I’ve been subscribing to Vacuum Technology & Coating for over a decade. It has very serious stuff that I pay close attention to.
So I was quite startled by one of its editorials by its publisher, Richard A. Cowan, who went on and on about how Obama was born in Kenya.
Perhaps he was right. Perhaps McNutt is right. In neither case do I care. I focus on the data itself, not on what others make of the data.
These days I’m increasingly amazed at the diversity of interpretations of the data. It’s like the data itself didn’t even exist, or at least didn’t deserve to.
You should be paying attention to the science. If you’re in a frame of mind where you get worked up about what silly editors say, you’re missing out on the bigger picture that science has to offer.
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by fireofenergy
Thank you, got that name over ten years ago.
I certainly hope that fossil fuels will be used to build to the next level that could then build itself.
I see the AGW debate as mostly an inhibitor to that end because skeptics don’t seem to really care about innovation beyond FFs and that believers don’t seem to understand the work, call it industrialization, that is really required to actually replace FFs. Instead, many side with the environmentalists that would inhibit our energy, and thus, our personal liberties.
I believe that advanced nuclear is “the easy way”.
And that it is possible to provide enough energy for a still developing world with wind and solar when mass battery manufacture with a high energy returned on investment is perfected. Machine automation without much profit is key.
I also believe there is nothing wrong with efficiency and a redirection towards passive solar principles, and gardening.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Vaughan Pratt
@SdP: Time will put an end to this. I expect a drop in global temperatures before this decade ends. This should put an end to it.
What’s your Plan B? Seriously, now. Will you shut up, or will you keep on predicting a drop?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
