Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148372 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Paris: impacts? by cwon14

$
0
0

George Klein,

What could have seemed more “toothless” then small groups of largely easily identifiable leftist fringe academics babbling about carbon regulations to “save the environment” and organize “Earth Day”??

Now they are appendages of almost every government system in the world. The mix of totalitarian planning and tools associated to Paris dwarf anything they could ever imagined as a practical goal. Since they largely view themselves as justified authoritarians with a “cause” and part of large complicated social groups (the “Tribe” being one descriptive) Paris is far more then the “camels nose” under the tent.

The predictable whine from the full moon sect that “it doesn’t go far enough” will play out for decades further. Those fighting for individual rights against statist aggression can only play defensively against even greater odds as there is little interest in rooting out stealth arm-chair Marxism which is what the core of climate activism is in the West. The same sort of apathy that tolerated the Bolsheviks in Moscow in 1918 or Hitlers rise in the 30’s.

Paris is billions of current expropriation and crony enabling but the ground work for trillions and more important the total social destruction (transformation) of science reasoning (science method with objective proofs and verification) is now well in place. The Mayans or Carthaginians only killed a small handful of their populations based on superstition with political supports. The Eco-left is in the millions dead already with dreams of totally indoctrinated populations on a global scale.

The supportive media arm will likely back shelve the agenda for a time, use the structure to marginalize any dissent since so many countries “agreed”. Just as state run monetary mismanagement is accepted everyday of the week the new climate (and thereby deciders of what “science” is) authority looks permanently funded. Expect fear based copycat junk science to expand ever further through this century.


Comment on Paris: impacts? by knutesea

$
0
0

Sorry Judy, I know you don’t like encouraging certain behaviors here, but Don was pretty damn funny +1

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Willard

$
0
0

> Your boss is really struggling here, willy. I am sure he will appreciate it in the morning, if you drive him home.

Anything remotely like what you “don’t approve,” RickA?

Also, you forgot to link to the thread:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/honesty-and-hypocrisy/#comment-66166

In a comment thread of an episode that starts with PaulM calling AT “dishonest and a hypocrite.”

You just can’t make this up.

I don’t see where AT “rejects” your disapproval, BTW.

Got a quote?

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Don Monfort

$
0
0

I don’t know what you are yammering about, willy. Just get kenny home safely. Give him a glass of warm beer and tuck him in. His little teddy bear is in the clothes dryer.

Comment on Paris: impacts? by Don Monfort

$
0
0

yo, knute
Ask yimmy to get video for us, if he hooks up with PETA. He is still mad at me.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by willb01

$
0
0

If both models and observations are to follow the same trend line over the 30-year period starting 15 years ago, and “Climate models projected stronger warming over the past 15 years than has been seen in observations”, then during the next 15 years climate models will have to project less warming than will be seen in the observations. Otherwise, their thirty-year trend lines won’t match for the thirty-year period starting 15 years ago.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

$
0
0

You can see that if you start the trend at the 1998 peak, the line’s trend is faster. You can also see the bigger picture and why the trend starting in 1998 is not typical of the real long-term trend, but that is the game they play with 1998, so don’t fall for it.


Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Ron Graf

$
0
0

I have to admit when I originally decided to read a post on RCP8.5 it was not due to the sexy title. Editor Larry has done a magnificent job in composing and moderating and I have to apologize for not reading all his reference material from the top.

What got me away from my day job today is watching ATTP attempt to say that it does not matter whether RCP8.5 is realistic or not as long as it cannot be plausibly denied there could be such a scenario. And, as I understand his logic, if there is a real possibility, no matter how small, hapless mankind is just bound to find it (doing their “business as usual,”) the drunken sailors that we all are.

If I am not way off by now, the next step in ATTP et al’s logic is that the above being the case, it gives “science reporters” defensible cover to cite the projected effects of RCP8.5 as what will happen if immediate coordinated world government action is not taken. Actually, it is already too late, some are lamenting. Urgent! Urgent! that we take action they say. And, although I’m sure the IPCC executive committee might have put a tad of pressure on authors to inflate the RCP8.5 (the conservative scientists they are) and the temperature effects of such forcing, much the same way they put pressure on Mann to solve his MBH98 presentation cosmetics, the “science writers” are unaware of this and fret they did not do their part. It is too important a thing to be underestimated. Mankind is on the line. They inflate the scientifically peer reviewed numbers just a notch for public consumption (just in case). Ken and Willy ATTP et al when presented evidence of this by informed analysis here resort to the “do you want to be called a denier” game. Or it reminds them of the to ask you if you know who the latest merchant of doubt is. You see this guy took gas money to appear at a senate hearing. I want you to go to my link and read all about it. It’s really relevant. (This is because this is their evidence of conspiracy.)

But wait, it’s already been scientifically decided (peer reviewed) that only conservatives can be afflicted with conspiracy ideology.

Just a suggestion.
I say we all pitch in and hire Mark Steyn to recap each of these blog posts.
I’m serious. -Ron

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by PA

$
0
0

Imagine if every country was as denialist, coal-happy and burn-baby-burn as the current US Republicans and the majority of denizens here, then it could happen out of continued ignorance in policy in the face of mounting evidence

This statement is simply incorrect. Emissions will decline before 2050 even if “everyone was denialist, coal-happy and burn-baby-burn as the current US Republicans and the majority of denizens here.”

The claim that we have to take action is misinformed or deliberately misleading. The statements that disaster will happen except for wise green governmental hugely expensive intervention are simply false.

There isn’t even a case for moderate warming (2+ °C) without extreme and unrealistic assumptions.

Attacking anyone who is honest and realistic as “denialist, coal-happy and burn-baby-burn” says more about global warmers than the people they are attacking.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by ...and Then There's Physics

$
0
0

Ron,

If I am not way off by now, the next step in ATTP et al’s logic is that the above being the case, it gives “science reporters” defensible cover to cite the projected effects of RCP8.5 as what will happen if immediate coordinated world government action is not taken.

Ummm, no. I don’t think I’ve said anything about “coordinated world government” (I thought you – unlike Fabius – were at least able to not make things up about what I’ve said). RCP8.5 simply gives us information as to what would happen if we were to follow such a pathway. That’s really all. There are also a range of RCPs from one where the change in forcing in 2100 is low (possible unrealistically so now) to one where it is high (also possibly unrealistically). It’s probably now clear that we will not follow an RCP8.5 pathway, but one reason for that is probably because people have highlighted what might happen if we did.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Peter Lang

$
0
0

The reason the CAGW alarmists are not persuading me there is a serious problem with GHG emissions is that they have not been able to provide a persuasive case of the damages. That is the real issue. Temperature change is not a measure of damage.

We know that mitigation policies would be damaging to the global economy and therefore to human well being. However, we don’t know that the proposed mitigation policies would deliver any significant benefits in terms of reduced damages. That’s the reason the CAGW alarmists are failing to make their case. It’s not about physics; it’s about costs and benefits and the human consequences.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Don Monfort

$
0
0

So Peter, are you saying that it is supposed to get colder from now until whenever, so we don’t have to worry about warming caused by ACO2? Let’s pull yimmy’s 4C out of a hat. If they are right and the failure of Paree results in at least 4C being added by ACO2 by 2100, would that be a problem?

Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Mike Jonas

$
0
0

Maybe I have too simple a mind, but when people start averaging multiple models and saying things like ““No one model can adequately represent the forced signal”, I’m thinking : BS, all you need is one model that gets it right. Averaging wrong models will never work.

Comment on Paris: impacts? by Barnes

$
0
0

Exactly correct. As I commented on the data vs dogma thread, the only way this paradigm changes is to elect a republican who understands the depth of dishonesty of the climatariate, which includes the msm, and has the courage to take the necessary steps to either eliminate agencies like the EPA, or seriously reduce their power. That person will not only have to have courage, but the wherewithal to take on the green mobblob like the Sierra club, greenpeace, wwf, the msm and others. That person will also need the backing of a congress willing to fight the war that has been declared by the climatariate and not be intimidated into taking half measures that will enable this farce to continue. To obliterate the climatariate will require strong and fearless political leadership, something the us has not seen in a long time.


Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by JCH

$
0
0

A climate that is sensitive to natural variability could also be sensitive to radiative forcing, which means the cooling phase of natural variation gets erased and the warming phase enhanced, or what is otherwise know as our recent climatic reality. The up and down trends in the GMST pretty much llne up with changes in the the trend of the PDO… until 1985. And then a very significant thing did not happen; it did not get colder.

Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Burl Henry

$
0
0

Mike:

“Take your pick”

The answer is none of the above.

Climate change is far simpler than anyone on this blog is willing to admit.

All warming from 1972 – present has been due to the removal of anthropogenic SO2 emissions due to Clean Air efforts. There has been NO warming due to greenhouse gasses.

Temperature projections from 1975-2015, based solely upon the amount of reduction in SO2 emissions, are accurate to within a tenth of a degree C., or less. (no room for any additional warming due to CO2).

The slowdown in warming was simply due to the rise in Eastern SO2 emissions roughly offsetting the decrease in Western emissions, thus slowing down the rate of warming.

The above facts need to be accepted and acted upon.

The Climate Sensitivity factor for the removal of SO2 aerosols is approx. .02 deg. C. of temp. rise for each net Megatonne of reduction in global emissions (currently around 2 Megatonnes per year, but this is expected to increase).

The more that we clean the air, the hotter it will get. This is an unfortunate reality.

(Regretfully, not my first attempt to inject some sanity into this blog)

This reality needs to be accepted and acted upon

Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by popesclimatetheory

$
0
0

When all the model output does not match and real data, the only thing you can do to improve the models is to throw them away or fix the reason they do not match. If they fix the models to match real data, the emergency to fix something goes away. They cannot and will not do that. If they throw the models away and use real data that does fix the problem, but they cannot and will not do that.

Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Burl Henry,

I agree. I’d assumed that I’d included your obvious injection of sanity under “normal physics”. Something like putting up a sunshade of crap filled air, and then being surprised at getting warmer when you get rid of the sunshade.

Oh dear. Not as clear as I intended. No harm done, still no CO2 induced warming!

Cheers.

Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Jim D

$
0
0

Don, there were several large El Ninos including 1998, and so there was a lot of natural variability in 1975-2000. The warming exceeded the models in the second half of that period. That was natural variability too. Not sure where your question was going.

Viewing all 148372 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images