Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Victor Venema

$
0
0

stevenreincarnated, I agree that each of the 5 pieces of evidence that the tropical hotspot exist are not very strong. If you put them against the satellite evidence one by one it would be undecided.

However, with all five in combination, I see those 5 as stronger than the evidence that there is no tropical hotspot from the satellites and some radiosonde datasets. That is why I wrote it is “more likely than not that there is some problem with the satellite trends.” It is surely not final evidence. For that we need to understand the reasons.

There is a graph very popular at WUWT, comparing the satellite and radiosonde trends with the models for the tropic hotspot. (The two satellite and various radiosonde datasets are averaged so that you cannot see they do not agree amongst each other.) I would not see that absence of the tropic hotspot as a strong point for the satellite datasets.


Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by matthewrmarler

$
0
0
Jim D: <i>I quote Tol because skeptics listen to his kind of economics and when two skeptics disagree it is interesting to see which side the others take. </i> No, you did not quote Tol. You put a number by his name, with no quotation or citation. I have noticed before that you make up a lot of stuff. Did you make that up as well, or is there a citation?

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Canman

$
0
0

The authors of the PNAS paper include Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi who wrote the Scientific American piece on powering the whole planet with renewables and did the Stanford study to power the state of New York with renewables. They’re big on hydrogen for transportation. The words “crackpot” and “half-baked” come to mind.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/14/1716851/can-the-empire-state-go-green-new-study-says-new-york-state-can-be-100-renewable-by-2050/

Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by aneipris

$
0
0

“…and a petition to “world leaders” on protecting the “things we love” from “climate change””

The piety makes me gag.

Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Jim D

$
0
0

MM, OK, maybe you were not aware that I was referencing what Tol said in the BBC interview with Roger Harrabin, that Harrabin compared and contrasted with an assertion made by another skeptic.

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by ticketstopper

$
0
0

Your answer appears to be 20 years, albeit with a number of qualifications.
So, we’ll see in 2 more years.
In the meantime, should the massive changes engendered by a crash decarbonisation program be forced into society?
I’d also note that there are any number of fundamental problems inherent with the present models and the phenomenon being modeled – which combined with the high level of divergence vs. observations to date, in turn gives me very little confidence in said models.
Equally, the attempt to conflate observational error vs. model error is not a good one. Unlike the models, the observations arise from a tremendous variety of sources over a huge span of time; the possibility of a systemic bias in even a large portion of the record is, frankly, ridiculous.
For example, the ongoing attempts to prove the Medieval Warming Period wasn’t really warm. What a ridiculous waste of time.

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by David Springer

$
0
0

@Victor

We can’t trust the models or the data but we’re supposed to trust in actionable conclusions based upon them.

Does not compute.

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by ristvan

$
0
0

Essay Hydrogen Hype ran the actual numbers. Worse than half baked. Downright nonsensical.


Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Victor Venema

$
0
0

Ticketstopper: “the possibility of a systemic bias in even a large portion of the record is, frankly, ridiculous.

Thus it is not an empirical question whether urbanization has warmed the climate record, it is ridiculous to even see this as a theoretical possibility?

Thus the raw trend of the satellite temperatures, which is too small due to changes in the orbit, is better than the dataset produced by Chris Christy and Roy Spencer?

Thus the adjustments made by Leif Svalgaard to the historical sunspot datasets are ridiculous?

Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by ristvan

$
0
0

Prior to Nov 13, host country France had budgeted $189 million just for hosting (e.g. Security, translation services). That does not include delegate travel, room and board,

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by dpy6629

$
0
0

Victor, With regard to the hot spot, I have never understood the argument that wind speed was a better measure of temperature than the thermometer. I do know that the wind speed is very noisy with ground observations showing noise in many cases equal to 100% of the average value.

The issue of the theory of the hotspot I think depends on the lapse rate theory. But the tropics are dominated by convection, a notorious ill-posed problem. It seems to me quite possible that the theory may not capture all the effects due to precipitation, clouds, etc.

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Victor Venema

$
0
0

David Springer, whatever you decide, there is always uncertainty. Whether you marry someone or invade a foreign country, you never know the consequences exactly.

The discussion we are having here is about a few tenth of a degree Celsius, not about the existence of climate change. The large uncertainties are in the impacts, if only because it is nearly impossible to say how humans will react.

Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by David Wojick

$
0
0

Jim D, at the end you say “…to uptake the emissions…” but the emissions are already uptaken, in less than 5 years. You are still confusing two very different processes, as many do.

Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by superchillskeptic

$
0
0

I have two simple questions that will never be addressed by COP21. (1) What is the cost of activities intended to mitigate climate change. (2) What has been the benefit?

As far as the cost, I’ve seen estimates of almost $400 billion per year. Just US research on CAGW is twice what is spent on cancer research. There are probably other ways of looking at it, but it’s clear that the cost has been massive.

And what benefit has that massive effort produced? That question is easily answered by the CO2 data at Mauna Loa…there has been no detectable benefit. It’s like bullets bouncing off of Superman.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full

The profound stupidity of all this is astonishing.

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Victor Venema

$
0
0

dpy6629, I also did not claim that the evidence from the wind patterns for a hot spot is stronger by itself. Just that it is one of 5 different pieces of evidence in favour of a hotspot.

It could be that there is no tropical hotspot. In that case less heat radiation would disappear to space and the climate sensitivity would be higher.


Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by David Wojick

$
0
0

Jim D, you say “…half the amount emitted is still in the atmosphere…” This is incorrect. As a matter of arithmetic, the amount of the annual increase is about half of our emissions, but there is no “still in the atmosphere” to this fact. The molecules that make up the increase at any given time are not ours, so there is no “still in the atmosphere”. This is important.

In fact the increase in concentration is due to all of the changes in all of the sources and sinks, most of which are unknown. Arithmetic is not causation. We do not know why CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Arithmetic alone cannot answer this question.

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Don Monfort

$
0
0

That’s more BS, yimmy. We are not surprised. You didn’t attempt to answer any of my questions.

UAH is not the issue. The issue is that NOAA whistleblower SCIENTISTS have alleged to the appropriate Congressional oversight committee that something is fishy with Karl et al. You can whine all you want about Smith’s politics and his motives, but his investigation is well within his powers and responsibilities. NOAA is obligated to comply by the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions affirming broad Congressional oversight powers. Period.

Do you care about the Constitution, or don’t you? Have you ever whined about Democrat controlled committees looking into alleged misdeeds of Republican administrations? I freaking doubt it.

Who is going to keep checks and balances on the federal agencies if Congress doesn’t do it, yimmy. Your hero Obama has taken away the power of the federal agencies Inspector Generals to do their jobs. This crap is atrocious. This is from the New York Times. Not your favorite huffpo, but close:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/politics/tighter-lid-on-records-threatens-to-defang-government-watchdogs.html

“This is by far the most aggressive assault on the inspector general concept since the beginning,” said Paul Light, a New York University professor who has studied the system. “It’s the complete evisceration of the concept. You might as well fold them down. They’ve become defanged.”

“In a rare show of bipartisanship, the administration has drawn scorn from Democrats and Republicans. The Obama administration’s stance has “blocked what was once a free flow of information” to the watchdogs, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said at a hearing.”

Even lapdog Leahy sees the problem. Federal agencies under Obama’s rule have become essentially immune from oversight. The IRS clearly discriminates against a certain political class, shreds disk drives, can’t find backup tapes, takes the fifth and nothing happens, because the Justice Department turns a blind eye. Now we have an intelligence scandal with whistleblowers at CENTCOM alleging that intelligence on ISIL was doctored to fit Obama’s bogus narrative. A freaking Major General has blatantly deleted emails sought in the Pentagon IG’s investigation and he hasn’t been fired or put in jail. What are the chances that Hillarity will face any consequences for mishandling just about everything she has touched?

If this is allowed to go on, what will The Donald (or Ted Cruz) do when he takes over, yimmy? You will be screaming then.

Do you have any clue about the seriousness of this, yimmy? Or are you strictly a hardwired pre-programmed ideology directed drone?

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by David Springer

$
0
0

You wrote down a bunch of words that didn’t answer the question, Victor. Try again.

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by harrywr2

$
0
0

Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water and solar for all purpose

Yes…ice houses used to be a low cost form of air-conditioning. We probably could bring back horse drawn carriages with big burly men calling out …’ice…ice’.

Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by climatereason

$
0
0

Rud

Don’t forget the preparation of related reports by scientists, ngo’s and bureaucrats to coincide with Paris.

Tonyb

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images