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

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar

0
0

We don’t trust Meteorologists as they provide information that is useful.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf

0
0

Panzers, hmm, maybe back to the climate change
consideration of running out of driving energy.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by mosomoso

0
0

The great grandmother responsible for making me one quarter Pom had her infant in Long Eaton, just a few miles from Trent Bridge, before removing him to Ireland.

Apparently, the sticky play dough left behind by my grandfather went toward making the Trent Bridge wicket.

But all of this is vastly off topic.

Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@cd: <i>You need one kick butt ocean model to show that, but that will come with time.</i> The quality of a model depends on who you ask, which in turn depends on whose butt the model kicks.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

0
0

You have been done here for years, yimmy.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by -1=e^iπ

0
0

So I read through the “A Simple Climate-Solow Model for Introducing the Economics of Climate Change to Undergraduate Students” link. I have a few concerns:

– “A Simple Climate-Solow Model for Introducing the Economics of Climate Change to Undergraduate Students” The relationship is logarithmic. So there is a potential to misinform economics students here. The linear assumption also overestimates future temperatures.

– Next, the paper assumes that a temperature anomaly of zero (i.e. per-industrial temperatures) are optimal. No basis for this is given, and actually this runs contrary evidence. Tol’s 2009 paper suggests optimal temperature is about 1.1 C above current temperatures.

– The paper assumes a climate sensitivity of 3.8 C, which is inconsistent with empirical evidence.

– The paper assumes that temperatures reach equilibrium levels with respect to atmospheric CO2 instantaneously.

– natural CO2 uptake isn’t included in the model, although it is mentioned.

– Increasing the depreciation factor in response to climate change as far as I can tell has no empirical basis. Let alone something as large as an increase in the depreciation rate by 1 percentage points per degree of warming above per-industrial temperatures.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

0
0

Well, gee. Lets look at the survey.

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
from their site:
Principles:
Ecological modernization Environmentalism Human impact on the environment Planetary boundaries Stewardship Sustainable development

Government funded advocacy group… that’s not good. Further, from his website Bart Verheggen (not Bert Verhagen the football player) is a global warmer.

Strike 1.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e
Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail.

What doesn’t get a lot of attention is a lot environment activists become climate. That the WWF and Greenpeace write parts of the IPCC documents and the some of their gray literature is included is troubling. That in fact was the source of the false glacier claim.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim/

The actual study – as they proudly emphasize – includes people in “impacts and mitigation”. People in impacts and mitigation might not be “real” climate scientists. Asking a biologist about climate science isn’t a lot better than asking your neighbor. Further, the impacts and mitigation fields are absolutely infested with activists.

That is strike 2.

The next issue is how they selected the contestants. They did a search on “global warming” and “global climate change”. They didn’t search for “climate scientist”. Further they supplemented the original 6000 with 2000 names from published literature. They sent out 8000 surveys and 1868 were returned – some partly completed.

It is pretty obvious what happened. The literature gatekeeping (re: climategate ) guaranteed the 2000 literature based names were heavily pro-warming. The less than 1/4 participation means they got mostly activists.

Strike 3.

What is interesting is the amount of less than 50%ers in a loaded study. 12.3% less than 50%ers.
21.8% “don’t know”/”don’t care”/”Can I have that donut”
65.9% actually think it is above 50%.

The number of publishers – especially heavy publishers is a small fraction of climate scientists. Around 95-98% of scientists are in the 0-3 category. The trend is more disbelief with less publishing – and of the 0-3s only about 58% believe in more than 50% CO2 warming

Given the steps take to concentrate the participants and the overweighting in publishers 65.9 is high by some percentage – perhaps a factor of two but certainly enough to assure us that less than half of climate scientists believe in strong (more than 50%) CO2 forcing.

A neutral organization should be picked to run a study that surveys a random sample of climate scientists (atmospheric scientists) and achieves at least 80% participation so we know it is a valid study. Hasn’t happened yet to my knowledge.

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by stefanthedenier

0
0

Peter Lang
They renamed it ”climate change” because they know that ”global warming”’ is a lie – so: when they say climate change, they are not even wrong, because: from summer climate is gone into winter climate in OZ, soon will get into summer climate again b] where is wet climate, changes into dry climate for couple of months – even in desert climate get wet by occasionally rain – can be improved into better climate IF Bob Brown and Flannery didn’t impose ” water embargo on Australian environment” no dam has being built for 30years, on the driest continent – to save stormwater and improve the climate; reason they lie that CO2 regulates the climate…?!

Is it better climate in Simpson desert, where is much ”less CO2” than in Sydney? Even earthworms refuse to live in the desert, because is bad climate, without water – Warmist have less knowledge about climate than an earthworm! I don’t know what’s the IQ of an earthworm, but comparing with the Warmist’ followers… THE WORMS ARE SMART!


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

0
0

Yes, he did deny that he had been “ousted” – at least according to the somewhat brief http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/i-have-not-been-removed-as-the-chief-of-teri-rk-pachauri-1028031.html.

However, it seems to me that if Pachauri had an ounce of decency, shame – or even understanding of the 2013 Act** under which he has been charged – he would have resigned gracefully and oh-so-quietly, as he did from his role as head honcho of the IPCC.

OTOH, perhaps some of the “blame” (for want of a better word!) can be attributed to the various and sundry arms, legs, and fingers of the UN which has long been notorious for paying little more than lip service (if even that!) to the principles and practices it claims to espouse. In this particular instance, those pertaining to “gender equity”.

So, considering his long association with the UNEP and his rise through the ranks of the decreasingly-relevant IPCC, he’s probably far more accustomed to tossing up word-salads laced and suitably dressed with buzzwords of the hour, day, week or year than he is with considering the consequences of his choice of actions.

Hence, perhaps, his (and/or his PR handlers’) utterly ludicrous recent knee-jerk speculation that the “complaint against him might be backed by ‘climate sceptics'”

** Mileage of others may vary, but until I read:

Now that the council has acted, it must also put in place an appropriate mechanism within the organisation to ensure that similar delays do not recur. Harassment at workplaces is a problem the best of companies worldwide have faced. That is proof of the seriousness of the issues involved. Public bodies in the private as well as government sector must inculcate a culture that deals with offences in offices with the sensitivity they deserve. As more and more women join the workforce, the issue will require greater attention. Passing of laws will have little effect if the spirit behind them is ignored.

in the July 28 issue of the New Indian Express, I for one was not aware that the applicable rules, regulations and/or legislation in India are relatively recent.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

0
0
Aaack! My kingdom for a built-in WP preview:-( Every time I take a shortcut and fail to compose via my own WP, it seems that I fail to properly close some tag or other... last para should read: in the <a href="http://www.newindianexpress.com/editorials/Let-Women-Work-without-Fear/2015/07/28/article2943901.ece" rel="nofollow">July 28 issue</a> of the <em>New Indian Express</em>, I for one was not aware that the applicable rules, regulations and/or legislation in India are relatively recent.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by genghiscunn

0
0

Many climate change alarmists cite the increasing frequency and intensity of cyclones as a cause for concern. The latest analysis by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of data for 1990-2014 shows that in that period there was no significant change in the frequency of Category 4-5 hurricanes, and global Accumulated Cyclone Energy experienced a large and significant downward trend. NOAA finds that the earlier claims of increased cyclone activity were due to observational improvements at the various global tropical cyclone warning centres, mainly from 1970-1990, rather than an actual increase in activity.

Let us hope that we will hear no more alarming claims about cyclones.

(Journal of Climate link above)

Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason

0
0

England is officially the most inconsistent team in Test history. It is as well to get in the gloating before the next walloping.

tonyb

Comment on Week in review – science edition by mosomoso

0
0

Of the elite of cyclones which have measured 880hPa and below, four were in the 1970s, one in the 80s, one in the 60s and one in the 50s. Factoids, of course: ie, facts which indicate little but could easily be grouped/manipulated to mean much. Factoid: cyclones in the Western North Pacific Ocean are decreasing in intensity. Stupid, I know.

As for frequency, as you say, more storms will be noticed. Paris would be a cold buffet without some factoids to prove stuff is Worse Than We Thought. COP 21 will need lots of WTWT between the lobster sandwiches and white elephant proposals. You don’t just blow a few trillion euros without some beating-up. One the other hand, skimming a few billion euros from the trillion is done quietly.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes

0
0
I googled amazonia "daily mail". And the first story that popped up was headlined <i>"Rare Amazonian fish called 'the Nutcracker', which eats testicles with its human-like teeth, is caught in New Jersey lake"</i> But yes, I did add holocene and got <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3173398/Is-Amazon-rainforest-MAN-8-MILLION-humans-lived-farmed-basin-peak.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> on the amazon basin. Which rambled a bit, but good in parts. I thought it was odd that they started with a picture of Machu Picchu.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason

0
0

NIck

Why not read the original story rather than someone’s version of it?

Did Latif not say this in 2010?

‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

Seems pretty accurate to me or is he now saying he was wrong? Rose makes it clear that Latif is a proponent of global warming and that any change is temporary.

The reason I asked about Le Roy Ladurie is that a knowledge of past climates is very useful in order to recognise that todays events are not the startling departure from the ‘normal’ climate that some scientists believe.

It would help people like Prof Wadhams for example to come to terms that the melt is nowhere near as drastic as he believes. He is only a few hundred yards from the Scott Polar institute in Cambridge where a browse of the extraordinary papers held there might help to put todays events into perspective.

tonyb


Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by David Springer

0
0

Mosher,

There is no theory of climate. Therefore there is nothing for skeptics to replace.

Duh.

Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by David Springer

0
0

Mosher,

There is no theory of climate. Therefore there is nothing for skeptics to replace. Duh.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes

0
0

Tony
So Latif said
“For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.”
and Rose’s ‘accurate’ version is:
“only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years”

I haven’t read Ladurie’s book. But I wonder how authoritative it is on 15C arctic climate.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason

0
0

Nick

You seem to be suggesting that Rose paraphrased them. But those are the words as quoted by Latif in the Mail report. Latif back in 2010 was accurate. Are you saying he was misquoted and Latif actually got things wrong?

E Roy Ladurie did a highly detailed examination of world glaciers , specific glaciers, the Antarctic and the arctic. Some months ago I took the trouble of taking this extensive data and adding in such as pfister in order to come up with a graphic overlaid by MBH98

. As always with glacier change there are many caveats so the advances and retreats we can observe over centuries should be seen as only indicative.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i9qkeglbck7h2fc/revised%20glaciers.docx?dl=0

tonyb

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes

0
0
<i>"But those are the words as quoted by Latif in the Mail report."</i> The nearest thing quoted there is <i>"They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer."</i> He seems to have hybridised this with something quoted from Tsonis, who is not an eminent climate scientist, but a <a href="https://uwm.edu/math/people/anastasios-tsonis/" rel="nofollow">math professor</a>. A respectable profession, I hasten to add, but not the same. I don't myself know whether Latif was quoted accurately, but he sure seems unhappy about it.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images