[…] a name that may also capture his ambitions. But he won’t get my vote for higher office. Following the vicious call for RICO prosecutions of those who dissent on climate change coming from some who profit greatly from fears of climate […]
Comment on RICO! by Hey Senator Sheldon Whitehouse–What the…? More Climate Stupidity | The Lukewarmer's Way
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
Comment on A perspective on uncertainty and climate science by mwgrant
“parameterization” …..nice word choice Steve; it underscores the semiempirical nature of the models. ;o)
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by bernie1815
Judy: I found this an enormously disturbing post, especially your recounting of the email from Scientist X from NASA.
Your post came as I was working my way through Dan Ariely’s The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty. His data suggests that dishonesty/lack of integrity/cheating are pretty pervasive in all walks of life – including me. Your simple email narrative drove that point home like a sledge-hammer. It certainly also explains how Lysenkoism can become so powerful or how human beings can do terrible things to others after a few orders or blandishments.
I also doubt that there are any easy fixes – even at the Institutional level. It always depends on the integrity of individuals and especially a willingness of people to acknowledge their past lapses of integrity. It certainly can be done, but only the real lovers of the truth and science are going to stand up.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
VP: CLAIM 4: If A has x ≥ 50 elements then METHOD 0 enumerates at most 150 − x elements of A
Correction: “of A” –> “of X”
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by Ron Graf
JCH, Is there any papers by Lindzen, Essex or Lewis that you trust implicitly? But if Bjorn Steven writes the same paper you might give it a 50% trust I imagine. How confident are you in Lewandosky and Cook? Complete trust?
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Vaughan Pratt: One of the things you’re forgetting is that what goes up must come down. Your calculations only cover the case of rising air. If that were all there was to it then the atmosphere would rise to the stratosphere and we’d have a vacuum at the surface.
That is the stupidest comment you have ever written. I have not “forgotten” that the masses cycle, and I even referred explicitly to the “hydrololgic cycle”. Advection/convection, evapotranspiration, and LWIR radiation are net surface cooling processes (cf Stephens et al and Trenberth et al), and (some of) the heat that goes up does not come down. My calculations cover the same “case” as Romps et al, the net non-radiative transfer of energy from the surface to the troposphere. The only thing I added was a comparison of the calculated net cooling rate to the estimated 4 W/m^2 to result from doubling the concentration of CO2.
Warm air rises, warms the troposphere, then falls after cooling: it falls in a large set of large slow moving cool toroids surrounding the faster rising columns of warm air. The net heat transfer result is to transfer heat from the surface to the troposphere.
I have not contradicted anything that is in the standard texts or the peer-reviewed literature. The question I addressed is “How much do the rates of the non-radiative surface cooling processes increase, given what is known or has been estimated in the scientific literature?”
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by harkin1
I’ve never heard you deny climate Judith.
If there’s a term more ridiculous than “climate change denier”, the senator just coined it.
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by harkin1
That editorial…so pathetic.
Does this guy deal in anything but ad hominem?
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
@RS: As has happened previously, you have made inflammatory comments and then had to walk back from them when they were demonstrated to be WRONG.
Yet another claim not backed up with even a shred of evidence.
While it’s true that I’m sometimes wrong and admit it, I seriously doubt that you would have a clue when or where.
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Peter Lang
Typo CORRECTION #2:
The NPV to 2100 of the ‘1/2 Copenhagen Participation Rate’ scenario is -$32.72 (2010 US$ trillion, not -$13.72.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
Comment on Week in review – science edition by justinwonder
The “Rumble in the Jungle” had nothing on the “Slog in the Blog”. Unfortunately, I don’t know who’s roping the dope. That’s the climate policy delemma in a nutshell!
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Vaughan Pratt
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher
publish me now dammit.
PATIENCE SON.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
@RS: Sadly, you demonstrate intellectual dishonesty.
Rob, would you mind explaining what is “dishonest” about asking you to produce evidence for your claim.
If you have no evidence then the one who is being dishonest is far more likely to be you.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Vaughan Pratt: You really need to look at this classification of low and high pressure systems. Identify which of cold core low, warm core low (two types, thermal low and tropical cyclone), cold core high and warm core high best fits your scenario. Then repeat your calculations for the other scenarios.
That’s a good idea. For now I am assuming that the calculations of Romps et al, Stephens et al and others whom I cited are reasonably accurate, and I have derived a result from them.
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Some of my FB friends have diametrically opposed views on some important issues. Few share my interest in policy (alas). Maybe I could get some of your friends …
Comment on Adjudicating the future: silencing climate dissent via the courts by Kestrel27
Arch Stanton. The Rosenberg article is an incredible rant; so extreme it’s funny. Could it be that in fact he’s a closet sceptic who’s written it as a spoof to discredit the intolerance and religious fervour of extreme AGW believers? Great job if so!