Downloading; I’ll hope for more from the other ten chapters.
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by willard (@nevaudit)
> See also Longhurst’s biosketch at Elsevier [link].
404.
Found this:
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Joseph
If the future of the climate is so uncertain, why would you want to artificially change the dynamics on a global scale by increasing CO2 emissions?
↧
Comment on Week in review: energy and policy edition by jim2
From the article:
…
#3. Joule
Joule is advancing a production platform for Liquid Fuel from the Sun, expected to eclipse the scale, productivity and cost efficiency of any known alternative to fossil fuel today. Its transformative Helioculture platform directly and continuously converts sunlight and waste CO2 to infrastructure-ready diesel, ethanol or commodity chemicals with no dependence on biomass feedstocks, downstream processing or precious natural resources.
This process can yield renewable fuels and chemicals in unprecedented volumes with a fraction of the land required by current methods, leapfrogging biomass-dependent approaches and eliminating the economic and environmental disadvantages of fossil fuels.
Start your “countdown to commercial-scale” clocks, Digesterati, we are in the last 31 months and no more until the build-out of a 1,000-acre plant is set to begin in 2017, where as Joule observes “in an optimal location, a plant of this size has the potential to convert 150,000 tonnes of waste CO2 into 25 million gallons of ethanol or 15 million gallons of diesel per year – with no reliance on arable land, crops or fresh water.”
…
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2015/09/01/top-10-low-carbon-fuels-made-from-greenhouse-gases-all-around-you/
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Jay Currie
Did you read it Steve or is your position a priori based on the infallibility of surface temperature measurements?
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
I don’t know Steven Mosher. Chapter 4 seems to build perfectly on what you say about the surface temperature record in your book.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Michael
“I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state” – AL
A troubling start.
Longhurst might need to ponder on how he manages to perceive this rather odd perception.
“I found this rejection of an entire body of scientific literature troubling…” – AL
Even more troubling is the exaggeration and mis-respresentaion required to bso aldly make this statement.
“The research of H.H. Lamb … appeared to be no longer of interest…” – AL
The ‘but Lamb’ gambit – another red flag
Such early mis-steps do not a train-wreck make, but……
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by oldfossil
“Chapter 4 is pitiful.” That epitomises the warmist approach to debate.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Brian G Valentine
No math = I won’t pick it up.
I want to see the first definition of “radiation forcing” with no cyclically defined variables.
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by AK
Because of the number of people whose lifestyle it will improve? That’s a lot closer to certain, although not certainly so.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by omanuel
After a quick scan, I like the caution Dr. Alan Longhurst communicates.
While I am personally convinced AGW confidence is exaggerated, as is the scientific community’s understanding of Earth’s heat source – the Sun – Dr. Longhurst patiently suggests that the debate should continue because the IPCC’s conclusions concern topics that have not yet been properly addressed.
While I am aware that the general opinion of the relevent scientific community is that no further debate is necessary after five successive assessments by the IPCC, I suggest that this is premature because these conclusions concern topics that have not yet been properly addressed by that body, and so should be accorded status in a continuing debate concerning the influence of anthropogenic effects on regional climates:
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Brian G Valentine
As with any other disaster, you don’t have to wait until calamity to get out of the way
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by AK
<blockquote>Longhurst might need to ponder on how he manages to perceive this rather odd perception.</blockquote>Nothing odd about it.<blockquote>Even more troubling is the exaggeration and mis-respresentaion required to bso aldly make this statement.</blockquote>Yeah. People like you don't like having the truth boldly stated. No “<i>exaggeration</i>” or “<i>mis-respresentaion</i>” [sic] needed.<blockquote>The ‘but Lamb’ gambit – another red flag</blockquote>Yup. Lamb did real science. Any time you hear his name mentioned, you know you need to use dishonest rhetoric to smear the mention, and mentioner.
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by AK
<blockquote>The context in which much science, including environmental science, is performed today has clearly corrupted peer review towards supporting a socially-‐acceptable interpretation of observations</blockquote>Or perhaps it's just laziness. No, on second thought, I suspect the majority of “<i>peer review</i>” comes from incompetent time-servers with no idea about the science they're supposed to "review". Except for pal-review, and its diametric opposite: enemy review. Those are usually competent, but agenda-driven.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by dpy6629
I just started reading the section on numerical models and it is a jewel. The most interesting point is that those who “run the models” have higher confidence in the output model results than those who actually build the models. This struck a strong chord with me because it is so true in my field. We actually are trying to address this bias and there are some new papers coming out by big names (not me) about it. But I do have a paper on it in the works trying to do a rigorous job of evaluating uncertainty. Even for problems considered trivial, its much larger than the literature would indicate.
Of course in climate science, the problem is very bad. Political partisans and activist but ignorant scientists feel a strong need to defend the models despite deep ignorance. It’s a bad situation.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Michael
AK,
How could anyone come to a conclusion that science views the climate as stable when it’s science that has described the huge swings in past climate?
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Brian G Valentine
“Sounds like science” + “Has some obscure terminology ” + “Has some equations thrown around no matter how ill-defined the reasoning behind it” + “progressives believe it”
= it is science
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #197 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #197 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Hiatus revisionism by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #197 | Watts Up With That?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
