Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

jim2, I said that bluefin tuna larvae in the Gulf of Mexico were adversely impacted by the oil spill. Your argument against this made no mention of either larvae or the Gulf of Mexico. That’s like arguing that beer is bad for you because chocolate is. There’s no connection.

It would have been great if you’d said something that made logical sense. Instead all you did was to selectively quote some articles. Anyone can selectively quote articles, let me demonstrate.

“Bluefin once roamed the entire Atlantic Ocean but excessive fishing in their concentration areas has already forced the South Atlantic population into extinction as recorded in ICCAT’s latest stock assessment, below. This population spawned off the northeastern coast of Brazil (in the area of highest catches) at the same time and in the same general area as do South Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin and swordfish. None of these fish interbreed with their North Atlantic populations because spawning, which for all of them occurs in the spring, occurs in the Southern Hemisphere in November-December – 6 months later than north of the Equator. Within just 10 years of the introduction of longlines by the Japanese about 1960, this bluefin population which surely ranged throughout the South Atlantic had been extirpated and has not been caught there in 40 years.”

http://www.bigmarinefish.com/bluefin.html

So, jim2, you’re right that this species of bluefin tuna is not endangered. That’s because it’s already extinct.

Which is where the north Atlantic BFT’s are headed today.


Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by oldfossil

$
0
0

Dr. Curry this is an extremely courageous post, knowing that it can only intensify attacks against you. Even if I was a warmist I would have to salute you.

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

Unlike jim2 however, I don’t believe in one-sided quoting. Here’s a quote in support of Atlantic BFT’s north of the equator. (The fact that the western and eastern stocks mix was first noticed by our lab at the Hopkins Marine Station.)

“Finally, because the western and eastern stocks mix, western Atlantic bluefin are also affected by fishing pressure in the eastern Atlantic. There was rampant overfishing in the eastern Atlantic/Mediterranean during the 1990s and early 2000s. However, in recent years, catches in the eastern Atlantic have been reduced to levels consistent with scientific advice, and new monitoring and control measures have been adopted to address illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing on that stock. Scientists advise that improved stock conservation in the eastern Atlantic would likely benefit the western stock as well.”

http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/tuna/species_pages/atl_bluefin_tuna.htm

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Peter Lang

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

@gymno: The statement was that 48% of historic human emissions are already in the oceans. I’m saying it’s nowhere near that.

Evidence is mixed. Here’s Figure 5 from Sarmiento et al 2010.

It’s not at all obvious that the dark blue area labeled “Ocean sink” is “nowhere near” 48% of the orange area labeled “Fossil fuel emissions”.

But things can change in four years. Here’s Figure C1 (page 3468) from Raupach et al 2014:

In this plot the dark blue area labeled “Ocean sink” looks like about a quarter of “Fossil fuel emissions”.

For the explanation of the violently wiggling green line between “Land sink” and “Atmospheric accumulation”, which does not appear in the first figure above (Figure 5), see the article. Very interesting stuff.

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

Funny indeed given the more likely outcome that a nonwithered limb would come back out withered.

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Paul Matthews

$
0
0
What I find remarkable is that these people were so stupid. How could they possibly not realise (so soon after the Grijalva witch-hunt fiasco) that this was going to backfire horribly? Clearly they do realise this now, as they've taken down the letter from the link given here (it can be found on <a href="http://t.co/OXY3EbAHAq" rel="nofollow">the archive</a>). It's particularly amusing that one of them, Ed Maibach, claims to be an expert in communication and social marketing! Quite why he's signing a letter that says "as climate scientists" is a bit of a mystery. The silence of other climate scientists is deafening, showing that they realise it's a terrible own goal. The tactical incompetence of the more extreme warmists never ceases to amaze me. They'd lose the game even if there was no opposition.

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

$
0
0

Mick Hume at spiked-online has some pertinent comments, in a piece on other issues:

From the beginning, the demand for free speech was focused on freedom of the press – which meant the printing press. The modern struggle began in earnest from the seventeenth century in Britain and then America. It was not about an abstract wish for freedom of expression, but a specific demand for an end to state control of the published word.

The precursor to the fight for free speech — the demand for freedom of conscience — was about the liberty of the individual privately to believe what he thought true, not what he was told to believe by the political and religious authorities. The demand for freedom of speech went a step further, seeking the liberty to express those beliefs and opinions in public. And how was such public freedom of expression to be made effective? Primarily through the printing press, which made it possible to popularise ideas on a wide scale for the first time.

That was why the struggle for free speech focused, first in Britain and then in the American colonies, on attempts to end the system of state licensing. These laws gave the Crown control over everything that was printed, and could send those convicted of publishing unlicensed ‘seditious libels’ that criticised the government to jail or the gallows.

In the first wave of the free-speech wars in England, those demanding freedom of the press were religious heretics who wanted first a Bible printed in English rather than Latin, and then the liberty to express their Puritan and non-conformist creed. Their clash with the censorious power of central authority soon melded into a rising political clamour for freedom of the press. As the English Civil War broke out between the king and parliament in the 1640s, the demand for freedom of the press was at the forefront of the movement for political and social change, led by the ‘revolt of the pamphleteers’. John Lilburne of the radical Levellers demanded of parliament ‘that you will open the press, whereby all treacherous and tyrannical designs may be the easier discovered, and so prevented’.

Crown licensing of the press formally ended in 1695. Yet in the late eighteenth century, English radicals such as John Wilkes were still fighting for the freedom to publish what they saw fit, criticise the king’s government and report the proceedings of parliament without the threat of being sent to the Tower. The ‘liberty of the press’, declared the front page of Wilkes’ notorious newspaper, was ‘the birthright of every Briton’.

… [re US] Freedom of the press had proved the catalyst for the creation of a free nation. Little wonder that it was to be embedded in the US Constitution by the First Amendment.

Yet today, freedom of the press is often looked down upon in high-minded liberal circles, as if it were some sort of corporate trick that only serves the interests of the major media organisations. … Freedom of expression is not a negotiable commodity that can somehow be ‘redistributed’ away from the rich and powerful towards the rest. To infringe on the right to free speech of others can only risk undermining your own capacity to exercise it. Those who fought for freedom of the speech and of the press through history demanded the extension of those rights to the lowest and ‘the meanest’ in society, not their removal from others. [end quote]

The RICO-letter signers deny the freedom of thought and freedom of expression which is at the core of the First Amendment. If those in power, currently the warmanistas, can control speech and expression, how are alternatives ever going to replace the prevailing orthodoxy? And if they do, how will the warmanistas feel if their weapons are turned back on them, and they are denied the right of expression? Not thought through, I fear.

[First Amendment – Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.]

http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/the-forgotten-first-amendment-freedom#.VgpFU_T0O6p


Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by beththeserf

$
0
0

Some cits are drawn ter enlightenment, others jest wish
ter burn the witches ( or any others who challenge their
entrenched-mind-set-conn-sens-suss-gate-keeping.)
La Fontaine all over again.

Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by Alan Longhurst

$
0
0

Richard

Its off subject, but see the further discussion of this point on p. 94 (or just after the discussion of El Nino effects if the page numbers have slipped in the copy in front of me). At its simplest – trade winds fail, upwelling of cold water along American coasts and along the equator ceases, SST becomes warmer, global index of SAT+SST warms strongly as in 1998 – with no assistance from radiative warming. I’m currently in correspondence with some physical oceanographer friends to try to quantiy this issue.

On scales less than NINO, wind-induced changes in vertical motion in the ocean must cause this process to occur all the time.

I’m out on a limb on this, because I have found no discussion of it in the literature. Anybody want to cut it off?

Alan

Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by ulriclyons

$
0
0

“This conclusion is based on analyses that suggest that this pattern is closely associated with strong negative trend exhibited by the NAO during the last 30 years or so.”

In fact 20 years or so, since the AMO warmed strongly from the mid 1990’s, no doubt due the decline in solar plasma pressure/density/speed increasing negative NAO states.
Increased CO2 forcing should increase positive NAO, so if anything increased CO2 levels should have inhibited the AMO warming from 1995 compared to from 1925.

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by bedeverethewise

$
0
0

Excellent Dr. Curry,
A well reasoned and powerful response. The 20 signers should be ashamed of themselves, unfortunately, they won’t be. It is very difficult to shame someone who has an arrogant sense of self-righteousness, combined with group think and a need to save the world.

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by bedeverethewise

$
0
0

The “scientific consensus” is much, much narrower than you think it is. It includes the facts that: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, burning fossil fuels increases the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere should cause some warming. That is it.

There is no consensus scientific of otherwise on the right course of action to deal with it.

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by cerescokid

$
0
0

Mark, this is not about a literal threat. It is intellectual intimidation and creates a damper on a freedom of inquiry. How many scientists are wondering about the slippery slope in the coming decades? Even if nothing comes of this one action I am concerned about the precedent it sets for our culture and the expanding parameters for acceptable political action.

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Fernando L.

$
0
0

I see the RICO 20 includes a Dr. Robock from Rutgers. He’s the recipient of a “Fidelity Award” given to him by the Castro dictatorship. The link shows the odd looking award memento he got when he visited Cuba and met with Castro.

I can’t help but notice the connection between those who advocate censorship/repression in the USA and are also linked to extreme left iand populist ideas.

I have tendency to think many of them are very politically inclined and use the global warming theme as a horse they can ride to make profound changes in the world’s political structure.

http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es


Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Fernando L.

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by angech2014

$
0
0

Shukla’s Gold.
Surely Shukla’s Shekels?
As in he sells seashells ….

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by beththeserf

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by philjourdan

$
0
0

Any non sycophantic organization is “polarizing” to the left. The age of newspeak is upon us.

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by philjourdan

$
0
0

The only “mischaracterizing” seems to be that you are a sentient being, and not just a mindless drone who failed reading 101.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images