Nice lesson, doc. They won’t get it. You are talking to impervious clowns.
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Lou Maytrees
so you have no answer to a 4*C swing in climate temps and so simply pass on a known fact. You have no point other than to misdirect i see. Good on you funny girl.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Steven Mosher
damn Vaughan… That was good
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by kim
Lou, Lou, Lou. You’ve got temps, sort of. You’ve not got forcings. You can’t talk about sensitivity, except, heh, in your little propaganda class.
==================
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by kim
There are trout in the milk, cloudy trout.
============
↧
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by justinwonder
This is a big deal the “N” in NOAA stands for “National” – they are our employees. The computers, networks, and software belong to us and we are entitled to look at their emails. The corruption of these people is incredible, but the fish rots from the head. Obama has led the way and Hillary is right behind them.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by kim
If only they were more interested in climate than narrative.
==============
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by scotts4sf
They are not claiming private but are claiming internal discussions exception pre decision making. I don’t think that works with Congress requests, especially when subpoena is involved.
“First, we are to work proactively and promptly regarding processing FOIA requests. We should utilize modem technology to inform the public on the operations of the Government and take affirmative steps to readily and systematically post information online in advance of a FOIA request.
Second, we are to adopt a presumption of openness. We are encouraged to make discretionary disclosures, when possible, and should not withhold information merely because we have a legal basis to do so. We should not withhold information to shield public officials from embarrassment
or to hide errors or failures or because of speculative or abstract fears. In addition, whenever we determine that we cannot make full disclosure of a requested record, we must consider whether we can make a partial disclosure. The Department of Justice (DOJ) will only defend a denial of a FOIA request if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure will harm an interest protected by one of the exemptions, or if disclosure is prohibited by law. Requested records must be evaluated on a case by case basis to assess sensitivity of content, age, and potential for causing a foreseeable harm. You must seek guidance from your local FOIA Office, Chief Counsel, or the Office of the General Counsel at Headquarters when making decisions to withhold information.
end quote. FOIA
Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.
Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.
Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.
Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including:
1.Deliberative Process Privilege
2.Attorney-Work Product Privilege
3.Attorney-Client Privilege
Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.
Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:
7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions
7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
Must be deliberative process exemption but can’t apply to Congress subpoena
Scott
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by hockeyschtick
Thanks for that review paper.
Conclusion: It’s the Sun, stupid.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Vaughan Pratt
@MRM: (pending further development of Vaughan Pratt’s hypothesis that the latent heat is returned to the Earth surface by the hydrological cycle.)
Two corrections to that:
1. It returns in the form of sensible heat, having been previously converted from latent heat by condensation. As such the calculation in your paper that I was commenting on should add it to the thermal radiation sent back to Earth (DLWR).
2. Only a fraction of that sensible heat returns, carried by precipitation. The rest is eventually lost to space by radiation as you say. My objection to your calculation is that you assume the fraction returned to the surface is zero. For example if it is 1/3 then the contribution of your LH term to heat lost to space should reduced to 2/3 of what you have. Obviously precipitation leaving a cloud starts out with whatever sensible heat it acquired from the cloud, much of which came from the latent heat, so it is not reasonable to assume that the fraction is zero.
The same is true of a laptop’s heat pipe: although some of the sensible heat at the external end escapes, the refrigerant that is wicked back to the CPU is quite warm and therefore carries whatever sensible heat doesn’t escape back to the CPU where it together with sensible heat from the CPU are converted back to latent heat.
Obviously precipitation must carry some sensible heat back to Earth (unless it’s at absolute zero). Any “development” of that obvious fact can only consist of improved estimates of the fraction of LH returned to Earth as SH vs. the fraction lost to space as thermal radiation. Your paper assumes the fraction is negligible; can you justify that?
Incidentally, since my last comment about your paper a couple of weeks ago I realized that you had increased your 0.33 °C per doubling of CO2 to a more plausible 0.9 °C in the paragraph you added at the end that took downward radiation into account. My apologies for overlooking it, I had been expecting to see it higher up in the paper since it’s not reasonable to assume zero downward longwave radiation. 0.9 is a plausible estimate for no-feedback sensitivity when using indirect approaches to estimating it such as yours based on frequency of lightning strikes.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by tomdesabla
Steve Mosher,
In the law there is a thing called the statutory presumption. I’m not saying I’m sure it applies to this CO2 concentrations discussion, but I’ll throw it out there anyway – I suspect it might apply.
A law is unconstitutional if there is no valid connection between the fact assumed and the ultimate fact proved. Numerical limits can’t just be picked out of the air. The SCOTUS (far from perfect I know) has ruled on concentrations of something (benzine I think) saying that the limit passed had no scientific basis – meaning that there was no basis that below the number was safe, but above the number was unsafe.
You can’t just wave your hands in the air and say 350 PPM has a safety margin. You have to be able to prove that there is a rational connection between going over 350 and an unsafe condition. You ought to be able to scientifically establish that there is a real safety difference between 350, 450, 550 etc.
Without that, it’s just an arbitrary number.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
Vaughan is good at explaining the basics. Does poorly in determining how that impacts long term climate.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout
My last comment should have been addressed to Stephen. Sorry.
Richard
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Arch Stanton
For married males who reached 65, it used to be until you would be 84 years old on average. WHO knows what the average lifespan for males will be by the year 2030 CE? Patterns being what they are today.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
PA
Surely the reasons for the decline in imports is that India at least is rapidly opening their own coal mines?
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
The issue is one of the most important in building a case for CO2 mitigation actions. I read through the 2011 Curry post and comments and it is interesting how disjointed and weak the case for mitigation is when examined
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
Rob
I think Ferdinand Engelbeen has the best take on this-see section 3
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html#Conclusion
He believes that the increased co2 does come from human sources but that the effects of co2 are exaggerated.
Several years ago I went with him to a talk in Southampton given by the distinctly warmist Dr Iain Stewart of Climate Wars fame, where we both asked questions of the good doctor.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Arch Stanton
The less expensive and more satisfying way is to just ask Him for mitigation.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
Opluso, true but irrelevant. Tol’s model, like the other two, runs for an absurd 300 years, finding horrendous damages hundreds of years from now from today’s emissions, technology be damned. The social cos of carbon is based on these 300 year predictions.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
Well you’d think Grace (state of the art?) would be the way to go but I’m no longer sure when to trust what? I mean after all we have buoy’s to measure SST’s and we chose to use ships bucket methods. And we have satellites to measure temps and they’re considered unreliable (ask JCH). And we can’t use them to accurately measure SLR nor light reflectivity so who knows.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
