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

Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

Ok, but where did this forecast:

@Faustino: The International Energy Agency expects electricity powered by coal to rise by 33 per cent to 2040.

come from if not by extrapolation?

Are you suggesting that extrapolation out 25 years is somehow more reliable than extrapolation out 4 years?


Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by maksimovich1

0
0

Are you suggesting that extrapolation out 25 years is somehow more reliable than extrapolation out 4 years?

At present TSI is around the level of the 21/22 solar minimum.what would your extrapolation for the next 4 years be?

How about the next 90 years?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-015-0684-1

Comment on Climate closure (?) by opluso

0
0

Lou Maytrees:

…yet it does show that the climate is very sensitive to any kind of forcing…

That is a conclusion you may draw but one could also assert it shows the climate system is resistant to forcing (rather than “very sensitive”) since negative feedbacks appear to moderate — and even reverse — positive forcing.

Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by beththeserf

0
0

Such a difference betwixt the ivied walls of the Academy
and the Agora – one a marketplace where Hammurabi
consequences prevail, you sleep under the bridge of yer
own making, the other, a world of tenured philosopher
kings far from the madding crowd – less so.

Ehrlich, Hansen,Stiglitz failed predictions costly to
plebs but not themselves, privilege sans obligation,
Money is such a plebeian consideration, except in
regard to research grants of course, and ends justify
means, you know, a world run by philosopher kings
who know how to deal out funds, each according to
his need, is worth some intervening devastation and
failed predictions,( so U.N. and so, them Brussels E.U
unelected philosopher kings.
.

Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by cerescokid

0
0

VP

Markets don’t work like that. Using your logic, in 1933 the Dow would have just kept going to zero. The variables affecting price change every day.

Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by jim2

Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by jim2

0
0

I read the Mexican officials did a good job preparing for the hurricane. Also, I believe it didn’t hit a densely populated area and fell apart almost as fast as it spun up.

Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by jim2

0
0

I’m sure their extrapolation isn’t a mere, simple extrapolation such as yours. It is a conglomerate of extrapolations. It’s still a guess. But if the assumptions hold, i.e. we don’t blow a third of the populace away with nuclear weapons, their extrapolation probably is better than yours.


Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by jim2

0
0

So true, Beth. Here in the US, the elites won’t have to deal with the non-assimilated immigrants, we the serfs will. As long as it makes their rich donors happy, both the Dimowits and Redimowits would crawl over a room full of w____s to ____ their own Grandmother.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by stevenreincarnated

0
0

Lou, to show that the climate is sensitive to any forcing because of a RWP and MWP, you would have to show that the feedbacks to what caused those are the same feedbacks as you would get from increasing CO2.

Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by beththeserf

0
0

Waiting for the Big Pumpkin … See O too.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by AK

0
0
<blockquote>Hansen et al’s argument for 350 ppm is so terrible.</blockquote>Indeed. For instance, from the abstract:<blockquote>Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes.</blockquote>Pure argument by assertion: the evidence from Antarctic cores <b>strongly</b> suggests that temperature changes <b>precede</b> pCO2 changes on a time-scale of centuries to millennia. Whatever the relationship between pCO2 and “<i>global average temperature</i>” on an annual to decadal scale (if any), best evidence would suggest that the <b>cooling caused the pCO2 decrease</b> in the “<i>cooling trend that began 50 million years ago</i>”. But as Steven Mosher points out:<blockquote>The truth of Hansen argument is besides the point.</blockquote>The time (of publication) and level recommended demonstrate the political/ideological/economic agenda behind the "science": the supposed urgency is enough for Hansen and <a href="http://thischangeseverything.org/" rel="nofollow">those in his conspiracy</a> to agitate for massive social/political changes: “<i>global warming</i>” as a stalking horse for socialism.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by JCH

0
0

There are positives, and there are negatives. Is there a negative that causes up, or a positive that causes down?

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Steven Mosher

0
0

The truth is beside the point, because the point is skeptics get the argument wrong.

350 is NOT about an ideal climate

Comment on Climate closure (?) by kim

0
0

350 is arbitrary and meaningless, just as is the 2 degree C limit for benefit.

Three hundred fifty parts per million is still a relatively CO2 starved atmosphere. The plant kingdom will find its voice.
=========================


Comment on Climate closure (?) by Mike Flynn

0
0

Steven Mosher,

You wrote-

“350 is NOT about an ideal climate”

What is it about then? Nothing at all? Is it another completely irrelevant piece of Warmist nonsense?

What’s so good about 350 as compared to, say, 450? Maybe 500 is even better!

Do tell us all what it is you find so threatening about CO2. Nobody else seems to be able to.

Cheers.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Steven Mosher

0
0

Mike
What is it about then?
See above in my first answer.

Nothing at all?
No see my prior answer

Is it another completely irrelevant piece of Warmist nonsense?

No it’s an estimate.

What’s so good about 350 as compared to, say, 450?
Larger safety factor

Maybe 500 is even better!

No that would be lower safety factor

Do tell us all what it is you find so threatening about CO2. Nobody else seems to be able to.

Per se?

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Steven Mosher

0
0

really mosh…did he have to ask “will you cite an article for me please?”

No he didn’t have to ask that way

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Steven Mosher

0
0

Will you provide a citation for your claim?

Yes

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Mike Flynn

0
0

Steven Mosher,

You wrote –

“What’s so good about 350 as compared to, say, 450?
Larger safety factor”

More unsubstantiated Mosherite nonsense!

Safer how? Define the safety. What is unsafe about 450ppm? When it was 450 ppm in the past, what were the dangers?

Are you really as illogical as you make out, or is it just a facade?

You have so far demonstrated a lack of knowledge in relation to English expression, properties of gases, radiative physics, metrology, the role of CO2 in plant biology, the definition of climate, and chaos theory.

It seems logic is not one of your strong points, either.

My judgement may appear harsh, so if you can point out the documented harm that resulted from an atmospheric concentration in the past of 450 ppm, and why this was discernibly different from the harmful effects of 400 ppm and 350 ppm, (also in the past), it would be appreciated.

I suspect you haven’t a clue, let alone a fact, to support your absurd contention. Give it a try. Actually applying a bit of scientific method might well prove beneficial. You might even revise your opinions, who knows?

Cheers.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images