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

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by Jim D

0
0

As you said, they can buy second-hand cars from US owners. No need to be concerned for Tesla, Don. They’ll get by.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

Yes, it is encouraging that the developed countries are reducing emissions while GDP is increasing. This new trend of decoupling emissions from GDP growth should alleviate the main fear of the skeptics that the economy always has to go in the direction of CO2 emissions, and undermines one of their main talking points.

US per capita CO2 emissions have been falling for forty years, so it’s not anything new.

But it means the best thing for the environment is also the best thing for human beings – economic development.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

0
0

This is a game, tim. Some of us irritate intentionally, just to see who is intimidated and who is man enough to deal with it.

I come from the Detroit “yo momma is so ugly…” culture. The rough game. This here is strictly for laughs. Although, I must admit that Rud’s incessant hustling of those e-books is starting to get on my last nerve.

I don’t pass up an opportunity to mess with little scrawny Willis, because he denigrated and dishonored those who served in Vietnam to excuse his own shirking and malingering that he brags about shamelessly.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Vaughan Pratt

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

0
0

except when its not a game.
read harder..

opps.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
MF: <i>Your graph left out the four and a half billion years of cooling, </i> I can't tell whether you're confused about the Commonwealth nations or <a>the melting point of ice</a>, Mike. It's the Canadians that make hockey stick graphs, not the Australians. This is because ice only forms on neighbourhood ponds in Canada, not Australia. We stick to field hockey, the only Australian sport that men dare not play against women. (Well, half a century ago anyway, I can't speak for the present.)

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

0
0

RiHo08,

Maybe your chicken entrails are past their use by date. Did you recharge your runes before you cast them?

Why waste money on entrails or runes? Climatologists will provide an endless supply of incorrect predictions at no charge to you personally.

Courtesy of the Government. Here to help.

Cheers.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

0
0

Get back to us when you get on a computer and can give us something intelligible, Steven. We will be waiting.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by timg56

0
0

Ok,

I kind of get the Willis / Vietnam thing and how it can color one’s view. I was talked out of enlisting at 17 and after a half year in college was in boot camp when Saigon fell. Looking back I am thankful I didn’t end up in Vietnam lacking a HS degree.

I’m proud of my service and more so of the next generation of my family and all the other families whose sons and daughters have answered the call. Feel sorry for Willis, for he found avoidance the easier path. For ones conscious can can find other means. As an example one only has to see how Navy corpsmen are treated at a Marine Corps birthday ball.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Willis Eschenbach

0
0

timg56 | November 21, 2015 at 5:03 pm

Willis,

It isn’t Judith using the term. She doesn’t edit the articles she links to.

Hogwash. I quoted EXACTLY what she herself wrote, which was:

New research IDs ocean areas most vulnerable to ocean acidification

Then your fanboi leaps in before he looks …

Don Monfort | November 21, 2015 at 5:23 pm |

That makes him an even bigger jerk.

Actually, it makes you both fools that can’t seem to read something, not even when it is quoted exactly for you.

It’s amazing. You guys are so desperate for something to bust me for that you both are trashing your own reputation with your silly claims. Seriously, don’t you have better things to do than waste your lives whining about what I say and bitching about my perceived faults?

w.

Comment on Iatrogenic (?) climate policy by Don Monfort

0
0

I didn’t say anything about 2nd hand cars, yimmy. The reality is that only Danes with a lot more money than brains will buy Teslas, without hefty gubmint subsidies. There must be at least a dozen of those clowns.

Tesla loses $20,000 per car. They would be losing a lot more if not for gubmint subsidies and the sale of gubmint mandated BS zero-admission credits to other car companies that sell millions of real cars. Without a lot of gubmint help, Tesla is busted.

Can Tesla count on POTUS The Donald and the Republican Congress to keep pouring the gravy? Can little boutique Tesla compete with the shiny electric beauties coming from VW-Porsche-Audi, GM, BMW et al.? Will having a sliver of a small slice of the car market pie ever result in profit? Is there any way imaginable that Tesla is worth nearly 30 $BILLION$?

The short answer is: Short Tesla, yimmy!

Comment on Climate culture by Michael Scott

0
0

Andy not really sure that this came essentially out of academia. Academia is always full of ideas of all stripes. When it is not, then almost certainly someone is effectively pushing an agenda from inside and out. So what gets picked up and run with is the question. In Europe Margaret Thatcher certainly had a big effect in popularizing it. It fit in with a style of millennial movements that sees itself struggling to save the world. Certainly the perils of overpopulation was a precursor. No doubt the more radical brands of Environmentalism found it to be a useful illustrative meme. It is, as is so often noted, a “Noble Cause”. It is an easy condemnation of industrialization and its organization foundation in Capitalism. I think that Global Warming was a useful and fruitful fact that provided a lot of congruence for a lot of dissatisfied and alienated individuals. These individuals came together in hopes of proving their social critique correct and of overwhelming importance. And in point of fact, there was and is enough “truth” in these critiques that they have the ability to move large groups of people, unfortunately, heretofore not to action.
It has moved past that to what you so capable discuss as Culture. It is now a signifier of your membership in a group who is good, noble and trying to save mankind in contrast to those who are opposed for purely selfish reasons.
I do find your analysis of culture rather value free. It has always seemed to me that while social organizations may flounder around, ultimately they must in the long run have social utility. I would propose that the Climate wars do to, but no one is willing to fight over the real issues. They are much too real. See my comment about Townsend’s anecdote 4:10 pm

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Kevin Cowtan

0
0

Sorry, the ‘significantly higher’ line slipped by me in proofreading. I have not done any significance tests. I would rather invert the statement and say that the buoy trends give us no reason to doubt the ERSSTv4 trends.

Doing a significance test is not as simple as looking at the error bars on the trends (whether OLS or ARMA). To illustrate: while the difference in the trends between buoys and v3 (using ARMA) is much less than the uncertainty in the trends, the trend in the difference series is much greater than the uncertainty in the trend in the difference series. But I’d need to think about the sources of correlation more carefully before drawing a conclusion. If you want to take a go, the data are in the file ‘all.temp’ in the zip file (data, v3masked, v4masked, buoy).

Sorry, got to go to bed now.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

Whether or not there’s a pause is not material.

CO2 should tend toward warming.

But, that facts that:
the longer term warming is less than low end projections,
rates of radiaitve forcing have declined since peaking in 1979,
emissions were flat in 2014,
rising temperatures should lead to less intense storminess,
etc. etc. are reasons to reject the exaggerations and ulterior motives of ‘climate change’.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Bob Tisdale

0
0

Kevin Cowtan writes: “I’ve done some preliminary analysis on the homogeneity of the buoy records by comparing buoys within 25km. For most buoys the differences are 0.1-0.2K…”

Isn’t that greater than the buoy bias adjustment?


Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Joseph

0
0

What are you talking about? The IPCC only reviews the existing scientific literature. They don’t do any original research or “rush” anything..

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

They don’t do any original research or “rush” anything.

Some times they rush to accept things like this:

and then embarrassingly never mention again.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Mike Flynn

0
0

Kevin Cowtan,

Just as a matter of interest, you wrote –

“Sorry, the ‘significantly higher’ line slipped by me in proofreading.” This doesn’t inspire confidence, that you apparently proof read only once. Did the error slip by your co-author as well?
Yes, I’m picky, it’s supposed to be science.

But thanks for the response. What sort of sea surface temperature are you talking about? What sort of sensors, and where were they placed?

A few things seem to slip by NOAA from time to time, so I’d be less than inclined to take everything NOAA says as gospel. As you point out, their data series purporting to represent SST depend on your definition of SST. If they choose to define an apple as an orange coloured citrus fruit, you might leap to an incorrect conclusion.

What is your work supposed to achieve? To show that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere created warming? This would seem to contradict the obvious fact that the Earth has cooled since its creation, regardless of atmospheric composition. As to thermometers showing increased temperatures in various places, maybe an examination of the sources of heat that cause this might be worthwhile. Or maybe not.

So far, a waste of time and effort, without a bit more effort into demonstrating you have examined the assumptions, premises, methodology and the equipment which were involved in the numbers you so blithely accept as meaningful.

That’s all part of the scientific method.

Cheers.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Joseph

0
0

TE, you doubt that humans through CO2 emission have no effect on climate? Are you a greenhouse effect denier?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Geoff Sherrington

0
0

Steven M,
Science does not advance via counting personal beliefs.
Science advances from postulates, measurements, data, interpretation etc.
At present, there is no known hard science way to differentiate overall anthropogenic from natural effects.
Judith gave a conversational opinion in the context of enhancing her blog, a task at which, in my opinion, she performs magnificently. My opinion does not matter.

If you seek a global summary statement, it should be like “There is no known, accurate way to differentiate the main parts of global warming hypotheses into anthropogenic and natural portions.”

Of course, many are reluctant to make this assertion because the development of global warming hypotheses was predicated on being able to differentiate. If my statement is correct, there is no reason to go to Paris this month.

Can you prove me wrong by giving a couple of examples where you believe this differentiation is proved? And, I mean much better than the customary “Read AR5”.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images