Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147858 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Steven Mosher

0
0

Don
I’m asking a simple question.
Where was the fake post posted
In their secret tree house? That only they read?
Or on a public blog


Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Jim D

0
0

It looks like it was only for internal use. Scan down to 2011-09-21 for the full 4 sets, and there is no hiding attempted with the real email right there next to the post. He uses “Lubos Motl” both as a skeptic and warmist.
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/Technical%20Stuff/
Meanwhile WUWT are freaking out.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

0
0

Steven, look at the comments of Barry Woods on the WUWT thread about the Lubos caper. It was apparently not a public blog. It was an alleged “experiment” that most likely turned out to be not useful for their propaganda purpose of embarrassing and ridiculing skeptics. It would have been rather disengenuous, as they are playing the part of the skeptics. But it’s a nit, as far as I can tell.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

0
0

It’s only feasible to live well off the grid as long as 99.99% of your country is on the grid. The only off-grid diesel I’m aware of is made by ISIS in Syria. It’s nothing more than a Dude Ranch vacation… “sustainability for teabaggers.

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

Even if Earth didn’t have a moon it would still have tides thanks to the Sun. They would still be on a 12-hour clock, but would only be half as strong and there would be no neap-tide king-tide variation.

More importantly than that Venus doesn’t have a moon is that its day is 2802 hours, vs. 24 hours for Earth. So the tides induced by the Sun are on a cycle that is nearly 120 times slower than on Earth.

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by PA

0
0

Vaughan Pratt | July 22, 2015 at 1:37 am |

Indeed. In 2020 it will appear based on temperatures during 2010-2020 that 2100 will fry at 5 °C higher, while in 2030 a hiatus will be claimed leading to freezing in 2100.

We’ll see.

From what I can tell the UHI is significant and about the same order as the CO2 forcing.

The nature and solar trends seem to be heading in the other direction.

But there is another issue to consider:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

Since a 2011 graph on a page updated in January 2012 (3 1/2 years ago) the post 1960 warming has increased 0.1°C degrees. The difference between 1907 and 2010 has increased about 0.16°C and the difference between 1998 and 2010 increased about 0.02°C.

Now if we project that trend they will have a 3.88°C increase from adjustments alone just between the early 1900s and 2010 in 2100. Further the 2020 data will presumably be 0.03°C warmer than 2010 from adjustment alone.

This makes predicting the 2020 trend based on the surface data sets somewhat challenging.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@DLH: Why is that not an illogical appeal to authority rather than addressing the argument?

Given the choice between a universally accepted authority who has advanced science more than almost any other scientist ever, and a self-professed authority who has no scientific reputation whatsoever, what exactly do you find illogical about preferring the former over the latter?

“was not dedicated to tearing down long-established science”
Why is that not contrary to foundational principles of science?

Please don’t quote me out of context. What I wrote was “was not dedicated to tearing down long-established science in order to replace it with ID founded on John 1:1 as a scientific concept.

I have no objection to tearing down long-established science when there are scientifically solid grounds for doing so. ID makes the argument that John 1:1 is scientifically solid grounds for tearing down long-established science.

Good luck getting 3% of scientists to agree with that.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by climatereason

0
0

Seems a bit of a storm in a tea cup if the Cook comments were intended for internal use and didn’t legitimise a piece of research.

Presumably the name was used as Lobl is, more than many sceptics, a figure of hate, as much for his apparently right wing views and insulting demeanour as for his scepticism.

I would imagine John Cook chose the name ironically as someone with the opposite values of what he stands for.

tonyb


Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by davideisenstadt

0
0

Mosh and tonyb:
i dont think the scale of the defamation is relevant…it would be objectionable if Cook sent this to one person, privately. It would also be an actionable bit of libel.
For example, I write to you in a private email that some third party is a rapist…when he isn’t one. Even though its a private communication, meant for one person’s eyes, and not public, its still libelous.
Your concerns go to damages, no the legality of the act itself.
I dont believe that you are defending this practice, are you?
I cant believe that you think any good science was done on using these fabricated quotes, do you?
So…what is one to make of these clowns?

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

RCP8.5 is not a “business-as-usual” scenario.

Agreed.

However as any high school student can see by looking at the Keeling curve, the excess of CO2 over the preindustrial level of 280 ppmv has been growing exponentially (that is, as a geometric progression when looking at the annual time series) ever since measurements were begun in 1958.

“Business as usual” is nothing more complicated than the continuation of that exponential growth. This growth is easily seen by plotting log2(CO2 – 280) since 1958, which gives the following.

To within an R2 of 99.77% this is a straight line with a slope of 0.0319, that is, a doubling time of 1/0.0319 = 31.35 years. To convert this to a CAGR simply multiply by 70. 70*0.0319 = 2.233. That is, the compound annual growth rate of the excess over 280 ppmv when estimated in this way is 2.233%.

AR5 WG1 nowhere describes it as “business-as-usual”.

But FAR (= AR1) did. I’d be interested to know why the IPCC stopped doing so in later assessments. Did they replace it with a different “business-as-usual” scenario or did they have some more fundamental objection to the term?

Extrapolating a geometric progression seems a pretty obvious concept. What’s wrong with taking that as the definition of “business as usual”?

Plugging 2100 in for x in the formula y = 0.0319x – 57.339 shown in the above graph gives y = 9.651, and 280 + 2^9.651 = 1084 ppmv. This is the expected CO2 in 2100 when “business as usual” is defined as “continued exponential growth of the excess over 280 ppmv”.

RCP8.5 is around 100 ppmv less, and I’m not aware of any compelling reason to consider it a “business as usual” scenario other than that it is fairly close to the above exponential continuation.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by KenW

0
0

David Springer,

Thanks for the perspective on IT. As a practicing infidel I hadn’t much considered the subject. I have made a mental note to be more circumspect in the future.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

0
0

No power tools.

Any other stupid english-major questions or will that about do it for now?

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by KenW

0
0

“ID” of course! (IT also has some fundamentalist fanatics ;-)

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

0
0

Don I’m always willing to yield to contrary evidence.

Do you know of any abstract code or machine where the origin is known and it didn’t result from the actions of an intelligence?

Speak right up when you have an example. I know about lots of machines and abstract codes. There is a single example where I don’t know the origin: the machinery of life which stores, transmits, and recalls information via an abstract genetic code. Then a whole bunch of other examples which are all the product of the only known intelligent agency in the universe: human-design.

Absent a demonstration that abstract codes can come into existence without intelligent agency tell me why I should assume that the only code found in nature where the origin is unknown somehow came about by happenstance.

Good luck!

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by climatereason

0
0

David

No I don’t defend it but we need some perspective and context which Brandon supplied here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/#comment-1991962

The whole thing is juvenile, from the study itself to calling yourself a particular sceptic in order to get yourself into the right mind set. The value of this sort of study is highly debatable and why the University gives it house room is perplexing. I guess if they are ‘progressives’ they think that anything to further their cause is ok.

tonyb


Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

0
0

AK you have never heard me invoke a creator in an argument about science. I’m an agnostic. I merely acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of design in the universe and don’t go out of my way making up explanations about how it might have come about by law and chance. Maybe it did and maybe it didn’t. The odds are against it happening by chance. No machine or abstract code where the origin is known resulted from law and chance. All machines and abstract codes where the origin is known are the product of intelligent design. Therefore when considering a machine or abstract code where the origin is unknown the null hypothesis is it is yet another product of intelligent agency. An unknown agency if it predates the human mind.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by davideisenstadt

0
0

Climatereason
Tony, as usual, your post is considered, on point and well reasoned.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

0
0

Istvan: Federal courts I thought are filled with lawyers like you not physicists like Lee Smolin. Lawyers are not scientists. No matter how many ebooks they have “published” or narcissistic visions to the contrary they might hold. You’re an uninformed asshat with delusions of grandeur. Stop pretending to be something you are not.

PA: there are two major forms of ID. You describe one of them; biological. The other form is cosmic ID and is based upon what’s called “The fine tuning problem”.

Lee Smolin does a fine job of describing it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/12/scientific-approaches-to-the-fine-tuning-problem/

Smolin is among the greatest theoretical physicists alive today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

0
0

PA: I would however argue that Biological ID can be stated as a valid scientific hypothesis. Smolin only considers Cosmic ID. The Biological ID statement would be that no abstract code exists where its origin is law and chance. This can be falsified by an experiment where an abstract code is created by law and chance. Many experimental attempts have been made. None have been successful. That is how science works. Refusal to accept the facts on the ground and lack of success in attempts to falsify are based on dogmatic beliefs not the scientific method.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)

0
0

The Utica study estimated resources, not reserves. In industry language reserves is defined as the recoverable volume using current technology and under current prices. Resources are more speculative, they allow use of much higher prices, and undefined costs. The true figure usually ranges between the estimated reserves and the speculative “technical resources” they have in this report.

The USA is consuming around 25 TCF per year, and the Obama administration is trying to force a switch from coal to gas to reduce emissions. There’s also industry plans to export natural gas as LNG. This means national production can increase to say 35 TCF per year. Such a high depletion rate will require much higher prices to justify drilling the gas wells and installing the infrastructure.

In recent years oil companies have reduced their oil exploration projects because we are running out of viable prospects. This has caused a gradual shift to unconventional “shale” gas. But the current gas prices aren’t that profitable. Many companies are drilling wells in what amounts to a huge “game of chicken”, waiting for the others to back off. They are also drilling to lock up the leases from the land owners (a mineral rights lease expires unless it’s held by production).

Conclusion: USA natural gas prices will likely increase to allow the profit margin needed to move forward and continue producing 30 plus TCF per year. But even with higher prices the natural gas production rate will hit a limit. Furthermore, at the rate we expect (due to the shift from coal to gas) the current source plays will be exhausted in this century. This will require we move on to extremely expensive alternatives such as gas dissolved in high pressure brine aquifers. The future gas sources will require four to five times the current gas price to be producible, and eventually those will also run out.

Viewing all 147858 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images