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

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by climatereason

0
0

Stefan said;

‘Why am I including Tony Brown? Tony stands for ”Skeptics and against carbon tax” same as East Germany was called Deutsche ”Democratishe” Republic / ”Democratic” Republic of Congo / ”People’s” Republic of North Korea – where people can say something critical only ones. (Tony / Vuk are skunks in a cuddly sat’s skin) Nothing personal, just the truth.’

WHAT? I no longer -if I ever did-have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
your friend
tonyb


Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Brandon Shollenberger

0
0
Bart R, this comment of yours makes no sense. You cite my comment <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/26/doubt-has-been-eliminated/#comment-203995" rel="nofollow">here</a> and say: <blockquote>Read Halmos before you make claims about Halmos.</blockquote> I didn't say a word about Paul Halmos in that comment. I didn't even say anything about his book in it. In effect, you just told me to read something I didn't talk about before I talk about it. And naturally, you did so while not addressing anything I said. You simply ignored the contradiction I showed exists in your comments. Instead, you made the snide (and ironic) comment: <blockquote>Wow. It’s sad what energy drinks do to the mind.</blockquote>

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by climatereason

0
0

iolwot said succinctly;
‘WTF”
Indeed.
tonyb

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Beth Cooper

0
0

But Captain, aren’t we ‘told’ that ignorance is no excuse? Think I’d better depart the fray, hope Time Team is on tonight … have you finished reading ‘Hunger Games? I like the heroine,K, lots of spirit.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by stefanthedenier

0
0

@@ lolwot | May 27, 2012 at 10:41 pm asked: Correct me if I am wrong, but you argue that the atmosphere can’t get warmer or colder because the oxygen and nitrogen just expands to maintain the same temperature?”

Yes lolwot; if my two hurdles are not crossed; all the rest in the GLOBAL warming blogosphere is two mountains of destructive crap !!!!

1] expansion of O+N when warmed – increases the VOLUME of the troposphere = enlarges the cooing space; as doubling the size of your car radiator. Troposphere can double in volume in few seconds, not 100y. Can also shrink, and prevent ice age on the whole planet. Experiment: put two blankets in boiling water – one blanket leave on the lump in the yard – the other spread – monitor which one can cool first. Into the space the troposphere expands, when warmed; is much colder than in your backyard

2] always the extra heat is created close to the ground (reason dogs suffer more than human from heat / thy are closer to the ground). Anyway, the warmer that air gets -> the faster the vertical winds get. Ask the hang-glider people. Hot air balloon lifts 500kg up; hotter air inside than outside is lifting it up. The flames turn into CO2 + WATER VAPOR INSIDE THE BALLOON. Percentage of those two molecules after 10 minutes is imaginable; but hotter air inside the balloon goes up with 500kg load. CO2 + H3O are NOT a GLOBAL warming gases – go back to my blog

Unless your mob abolishes the laws of physics; the whole conspiracy about the phony GLOBAL warming is a two mountains of destructive crap!!! The fakes will have to learn the hard way that: same laws of physics were 150y ago, 300y ago, 1000y ago, 6000y ago and 15000y
ago; during the pick of the ice age SAME AS TODAY!!!

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Faustino

0
0

Strand said that he “will end by making the claim for piecemeal, reflexive, self-critical and tentative life philosophies.” That is, it seems to me, eschewing dogma and external, received “truth” and taking an exploratory, experiential and pragmatic approach to life: continuing to seek knowledge and wisdom. I’ll drink (non-alocholically) to that. If I have a philosophy, it’s “to thine own self be true,” be honest, have integrity, try not to harm yourself or others, do good where you can, maintain a sense of humour and a sense of perspective. Commended to all in the CAGW debate.

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by kim2ooo

0
0

http://climaterealistponderings.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/as-promised/#comment-121

As promised
Posted on May 28, 2012

I have debated the use of The Pontifical Academy of Science Paper Titled “Fate of Mountain Glaciers
in the Anthropocene”.

Some would wish us to believe that:

1 This is an Official Paper of the Pontifical Academy of Science.

2: That this paper is endorsed by the Pontifical Academy of Science.

3: That this paper is an endorsement by The Vatican and even The Pope.

It is none of these!

The paper is written by the same folks that brought us “Glacier Gate” and IPCC leads.Including IPCC’s main lead R.

Pachauri.

Here are the authors:

Ajai, L. Bengtsson, D. Breashears, P.J. Crutzen, S. Fuzzi, W. Haeberli, W.W. Immerzeel, G.
Kaser, C. Kennel, A. Kulkarni, R. Pachauri, T. H. Painter, J. Rabassa, V. Ramanathan, A.
Robock, C. Rubbia, L. Russell, M. Sánchez Sorondo, H.J. Schellnhuber, S. Sorooshian, T. F.
Stocker, L.G. Thompson, O.B. Toon, D. Zaelke, J. Mittelstraß
Working Group Co-chairs are underlined. [From the paper ]

So how many of these authors are actual members?

2 plus one ex-offical

Let’s look at the Lead Author. The group’s co-chair, Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen, signed the Humanist Mansefesto – a very

un Catholic stance. An Atheist.

So if the “entire” Pontifical Academy of Science endorsed this paper…….We seem to be missing 78 signatures.

The paper referred: Isn’t even a Pontifical Academy of Science Paper. It was commissioned by the PAS…mainly by one person

within the PAS, to report TO the PAS. It is a “Working Group Paper” as it clearly states. “A Report by the Working Group

Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences”.

Many like to refer to the “PRAYER” WITHIN THE WORKING PAPER” as if this came from the Pontifical Academy of Science.

Catholics don’t usually abide by Atheist prayers…For that matter…Identify The Catholics within this Working Group. [ I can

only identify one - for sure ].

The commissioner of this working group has had some other questionable “Working Groups“.Which prompted this reply from the

OFFICIAL SPOKES PERSON OF THE VATICAN…””The statement is not a statement of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences because the

Pontifical Academy of Sciences as such — 80 members — wasn’t consulted about it and will not be consulted about it,” Bishop

Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the academy’s chancellor, told Catholic News Service.

The statement, which was recently made public by a private science-publishing company in the Netherlands, also “has no

value as the magistrate of the church,” he said in an e-mail response to questions Dec. 1.

Later the same day, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, issued a similar communique, adding that the

pro-GM statement “cannot be considered an official position of the Holy See.”

”The working group consists of glaciologist, climate scientists, meteorologists, hydrologists,
physicists, chemists, mountaineers, and lawyers organized by the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences at the Vatican, to contemplate the observed retreat of the mountain glaciers, its causes
and consequences. This report resulted from a workshop in April 2011 at the Vatican.” AND at least ONE rail road engineer….

R. Pachauri.

The Pope has NOT spoken from “The Chair” these words: “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. “AGW”. “Anthropocene”?

That leaves one: “Natural Climate Changes” does it not?

As a Fact, Pope Benedict XVI’s Prayer Intentions For January 2012
General Intention: Victims of “Natural Disasters”.
“That the victims of “natural disasters” may receive the spiritual and material comfort they need to rebuild their lives.”

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Latimer Alder

0
0

@Max_OK

Your decision process is little different from ‘gut feel’. And for really complex problems where the uncertainties are high and the variables are many, that’s probably the best any of us can do.

FWIW my gut feel after about four years of informally studying ‘climate change’ is that it is most likely a vastly overblown religious scare. It has all the classic symptoms of a crock…dubious (hem hem) practices, hysterical fire-breathing advocates, a closed group of ‘leaders’, assertions of self-appointed authority, denunciaton of apostates and heretics. And a big black book written by themselves that proves to their satisfaction that they are right. So my gut feel is that if these guys tell me the time of day, I need to check it with at least three independent sources before I accept it.

As to all the Bad Things that they so loudly predict will come to pass if we do not Mend Our Evil Ways, I have yet to see anything convincing that suggests we will not be able to adapt if and when they occur.

So my gut feel is that the best thing we can do with AGW is keep a small watching brief on it, close down the remaining 98% of the alarmist industry and be prepared to take action at a generational timescale if and when anything significantly unpleasant starts to happen.

After 30 years of intense trying nobody has found anything yet, so I’m not holding my breath.


Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Beth Cooper

0
0

Faustino, 3.16
Hey, that’s about what I espouse as well, ( except I don’t go fer the non alcoholic drink. I need some consolations, music, starry skies, jokes, the vodka cocktail, to hold back the Chekhov, ‘Cherry Orchard,’ Lorca, ‘Blood Wedding,’ goddam duende.)
Say, it’s 5 ‘o’clock, Cocktail hour ‘here’. where’s ‘here’ in eastern Australia :-)

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Willis Eschenbach

0
0

No, I won’t “see lapse rate willis”, that’s a fools errand. I know plenty about lapse rates, including saturated, unsaturated, and environmental lapse rates, and I haven’t a clue what aspect of lapse rates you might be talking about.

If you have a point, then make it. I’m not going on a snipe hunt. My point is that the environmental lapse rate is dependent in part on the rate at which the surface loses energy to the atmosphere. If you have a comment about that, then I invite you to make it.

w.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by willb

0
0

@andrew adams

Re your comment of May 28, 2012 at 7:31 am:

I did study the Goody and Yung diagram and found it interesting for what it portrays. However, I think you’ll agree it has nothing to do with a controlled experiment, which in your previous comment is what you are claiming has been conducted. Rather, it shows that IR measurements of Earth have been taken in order to gather evidence to support an hypothesis (the hypothesis being that atmospheric CO2 affects Earth’s climate). This type of measurement does _NOT_ constitute an experiment!

And I don’t think you are justified in the conclusion you draw, that “this [Goody and Yung diagram] proves that CO2 does have a measurable effect on the amount of LW radiation emitted at the top of the atmosphere”. What the diagram shows to me is that CO2 is in fact acting as a greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. The diagram is strong evidence that CO2 affects the spectral content of LW radiation emitted at the top of the atmosphere. But it is weak evidence that CO2 has, per your conclusion, a measurable effect on the amount of LW radiation emitted at the top of the atmosphere. In fact, from what I understand of the arguments put forward regarding energy balance, proponents of AGW seem to suggest that GHGs do not at all alter the amount of LW radiation leaving the TOA.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Lauri Heimonen

0
0

Gro Harlem Brundtland, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, said:
”So what is it that is new today? What is new is that doubt has been eliminated. The report of the International Panel on Climate Change is clear. And so is the Stern report. It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation. The time for diagnosis is over. Now it is time to act (Brundtland 2007).”
That kind of doubt can not be eliminated, as there is no due premise for that.
It is well known that in reality IPCC can’t present any evidence according to which the recent global warming could be controlled by the increase of atmospheric CO2 content. Even there is no valid evidence according to which the atmospheric CO2 content could be controlled by the increase of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There are only hypotetical climate model calculations, being essentially based on assumed parameters. The assumed increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere during the industrial time periode is one of this kind of main assumptions.
As I have closely argued in the thread http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions (May 9, 2012 at 10:56 am) the recent multidecadal increasing trend of carbon dioxide in the atmoshere is a consequence of warming and not vice versa i.e. the warming trend of sea surface waters at upper latitudes is controlling the increasing trend of CO2 in atmosphere; even nowadays the anthropogenic influence is too minimal to be found by measurements.

Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by cirby

0
0

I’ve already seen the first “get used to having more hurricanes because of global warming” post of the season on another site…

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Jim D

0
0

Edim, the direct answer to your question about what happens to a non-GHG atmosphere is this. Its temperature is governed by convection from the surface. The surface would be 33 K cooler due to not having the blanketing effect of a GHG atmosphere. Basically everything is 33 K colder including the atmosphere. It gets complicated if you let the atmosphere warm due to solar radiation (absorption by dust, clouds, etc.) because then it would have to stay warm and it could only lose its energy by contact with the surface.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Max_OK

0
0

Latimer, I get climate change information from sources I believe I can trust, such as the National Science Foundation , National Academy of Sciences, and the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

The subject of doubt or uncertainty about the causes of recent global warming is touched on in a 2011 CRS report titled Climate Change: Conceptual Approaches and Policy Tools (see link at end of post). In discussing the “Research and Wait-and-See” approach, which best describes current U.S. policy, the report questions whether further research can narrow uncertainties and eliminate all doubt about the causes of the warming. To me this suggests further research may not lessen controversy over the causes.

The report also sees the controversy as over-blown. “In public media, the controversy over causes may appear much greater than the broad scientific agreement that exists: the scientific evidence best supports rising atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse gases” (GHG) (particularly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides) and other air pollutants as having contributed to the majority of global average temperature increase since the late 1970s.”

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41973.pdf

IMO, much of the public is not interested in the controversy over the causes of climate change and in the possible consequences of anthropogenic climate change centuries into the future. Continued global warming over the coming decades, however, could make more of the public interested in addressing anthropogenic causes. Unfortunately, there is the risk of “too little, too late.”


Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by jim2

0
0

I was asking, not accusing; nor was I assuming – that’s why I had to ask. Had I assumed any of that, I wouldn’t have felt the need to ask.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by gbaikie

0
0

“Lindzen accepts it, but he’s not good enough for you to trust apparently. I think Spencer does too.”

Yeah, I would not call 1 C increase from doubling of CO2 [this is very vague term] CAGW, I would all it AGW.
I think it’s debatable. But it’s easier and more relevant to argue about the amplification of this number. There no agreement on it, it could be 2 times or 3 times, or why not 5 times.
It only exists because it’s put into computer models- there zero evidence of it in real world.
But not only is it easier, it’s 2, or whatever the factor, plus it’s a runaway affect. It’s the doom of the world. Why stops before earth turns into Venus? There is no reason. It’s the end of the world, with some lucky soul perked on Antarctic sweating in the heat.

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Max_OK

0
0

No, it’s expressing my experience with people too self-centered to give a damn about how their behavior effects anyone else.

Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Herman Alexander Pope

0
0

You should get used to the idea that what happens in the future will be bounded by the same limits of what has happened during the past ten thousand years, again and again and again and again. There were times of more and less hurricanes. This will continue. There will be times of more and less hurricanes. There were times of a little warmer than now and of a lot cooler than now. That will happen again.

Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Herman Alexander Pope

0
0

and again and again and again……….

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images