Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Matthew Hincman

$
0
0

An excerpt :

“Rollo May (1977) stated that totalitarianism “may be viewed as serving a purpose on a cultural scale parallel to that in which a neurotic symptom protects an individual from a situation of unbearable anxiety” (p. 12). His further statement that “people grasp at political authoritarianism in the desperate need for relief from anxiety” (May, 1977, p. 12) suggests that perhaps, in the end, it is precisely our resistance to chaos and uncertainty and our almost pathological need to impose order where there may, in fact, be none at all, that is the cause of so much of our dis-ease. I am reminded of the words of systems theorist Kenneth Boulding, who warned that we always “run into the temptation of imposing an order on the universe which may not really be there” (Stamps, 1980, p. i).”


Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Jim D

$
0
0

Unfortunately for Pielke, the radiative feedback, the way he defines it is usually opposite to forcing, so yes it is negative, and yes it is the well known Planck response that is supposed to be negative otherwise we would all be in trouble. He made a statement of the obvious, but his feedback is not the more commonly used definition.

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change: Part II by omanuel

$
0
0

There will always be catastrophes, kim, and charlatan “scientists” and/or “religionists” on hand to claim that the catastrophe proves their dogma.

The love of money separated “scientists” from reality in 1946, as surely as it separated “religionists” from God throughout recorded history.

http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-105

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change: Part II by Max_OK

$
0
0

“Profit is about doing something more efficiently.”

That’s one way to make a profit. Other ways are to collude with your competitors or have a monopoly.

Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by Scott

$
0
0

Now your being funny. Too bad we won’t be here when fusion starts but by 2015 we will get breakeven! Then it is a matter of engineering and cost. How much fun that will be. PE, if you are a PE we can do this.

I hope we have the fusion plants on the coast with desaliniation to revlieve the pressure on the poor rivers in California. Let the rivers run unvexed to the sea. Conservatives can be environmentalists, just not politically correct. Technology and wealth creation are the way out.

Kim, I agree about the carbon dioxide but as long as the ruling class wants somethng done with it we may as well do it smartly.

Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

The logic of the doomsday paradox would predict, from any example of a positive integer however large, that with probability 1 there can be only finitely many positive integers. Since there are infinitely many positive integers the logic must be wrong.

The doomsday paradox is the sort of reasoning about population dynamics one might expect out of the philosophy department. In the biology department the reasoning is more along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_dynamics, with the Lotka-Volterra equation playing an important role.

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change: Part II by jim2

$
0
0

Even though I know charcoal smoke is toxic, I continue to bathe my food in it and even breathe it in. The point is, it’s not a huge problem for me. Maybe someone who lives with a chain smoker and both refuse to go outside, it might be a problem. Don’t you “get” that some things are problematic, but not to the point that we need the government, with it’s big (literal) guns, to come in with with the Swat team?

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change: Part II by jim2

$
0
0

Actually, Fan of More BS, your appear to me to be some sort of Drama Queen.


Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

Essentially all energy absorbed by CO2 molecules in troposphere is very rapidly released as heat of atmosphere. Conversely heat of atmosphere maintains continuously so many CO2 molecules in excited state that these molecules emit approximately as energy as CO2 absorbs. The small difference between absorbed and emitted energy heats or cools atmosphere at that point. Throughout the troposphere the emitted energy is slightly higher than the absorbed energy, because convection provides part of the incoming energy.

The difference between emitted and absorbed energy is highest at low altitudes and goes down to zero at tropopause. This condition determines the altitude of the troposphere.

Answering your questions:

(1) most of radiation out to space is from troposphere and a large part of that is from the uppermost part of troposphere not far from tropopause.
(2) no, if you refer to thermal expansion of air. The main change is that a larger part of air will be part of troposphere rather than stratosphere.
(3) the above answers that as well
(4) here we come back to the issues discussed in the first and second paragraph above. More CO2 makes the difference between emitted and absorbed radiation larger at low altitudes. Therefore a larger vertical distance is needed to reach zero difference. The temperature is lower there, because the altitude is higher and the lapse rate has a longer distance to make temperature lower.
(5) that means, indeed, that there’s less cooling radiation until the surface and the atmosphere has warmed up enough to compensate for nearly effect, which continues for several decades and even longer at some level. (After this warming the total amount is the same as before, but it’s composition is different.)

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by jim2

$
0
0

Pekka – I really liked the way you explained the lapse rate without saying lapse rate.

Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0
Imagine an American visiting England for the first time who takes a bus to an interesting part of the countryside and decides to hire a car, the better to sightsee. He sets out along an empty two-lane highway, and after ten minutes of driving rounds a bend only to find a car coming the other way <i>in his lane</i>, within two seconds of a collision! Predict the outcome. Prediction 1. Since he's been in that lane for 600 seconds, the probability he will remain in the lane for the next two seconds is (n+1)/(n+2) = 301/302 where n = 600/2. Hence the probability of collision is 99.7%. Prediction 2. Since he's a defensive driver with excellent reflexes he waits one second to see if the other driver is going to get out of his way, then swerves out of the way of this madman. Probability of collision: less than 50%, unless the other driver has equally good reflexes. (This actually happened to me in 1975 on a country road in Massachusetts shortly after returning from a three-month trip to Scotland. Fortunately I had the second outcome, but thinking about it even today sets my teeth on edge. The "madman" and I stared at each other for a while until I realized my mistake. A <i>really</i> good thing his reflexes were a lot slower than mine.)

Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by steven mosher

Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

$
0
0

Let me simplify the envelop paradox. Someone gives you an envelop with money in it… You take it.

Monty Hall, You have two out of three chances of getting a goat. Switch doors and fire up the barbecue :)

Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by hunter

$
0
0

Scott,
If we do solar and wind as you claim to wish, we will be too broke to do nuke.Carbon sequestration is a bs idea that is insanely expensive and will not work.
Fusion has been just a few years away for over 50 years.
Additionally, since there is no actual evidence that 2.0C is likely, much less a problem, your motives are based on fantasy.
Why do you claim to be optimisitc?

Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by hunter

$
0
0

Jacob,
The rational bet is to always bet against the malthusians, despite their always claiming to be the intellectual cutting edge. In reality Malthusians, from Malthus to Ehrlich and gang to our dear Web Hub telescope, are always wrong.


Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by hunter

Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by lolwot

Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by hunter

$
0
0

lolwot,
Lewandowsky is no cliamte scientists. He is no more qualified to his opinion than you or I. You just happen to like his opinion and so are ignoring the prepostrous nature of his infantile reasoning.

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change: Part II by johanna

$
0
0

Even if autism rates have increased to the extent that you claim (and there is plenty of ground for dispute in that regard) it doesn’t detract from my point. You have said that “very likely something like BPA or some other nasty compound is at work here”, just like the CO2 alarmists argument runs – first something bad without precedent is happening (disputable) and second, we know what the cause is (a massive leap of faith). Claiming to know how to fix it puts us all into unicorn territory.

The commonality is that it is all allegedly due to human evildoing, and that if only we all lived right these bad things would not happen. So, in your post you casually claim that ‘very possibly something like BPA or some other nasty compound is at work here’, which just about sums up the insulation from logic and superstitious thinking of most environmentalists from wealthy countries.

Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Pekka Pirila,

Nordhaus is a scientist and the paper is published in a scientific journal. Under those conditions the paper should be taken literally, i.e. one should not try to read between lines something that’s not written explicitly. Neither should the model calculations be taken as anything more than they are built to be. On that basis you cannot use the paper to support your conclusions.

If that were true then we’d take no notice of any of the climate science papers either.

By the way, I am not reading his conclusion between the lines. I am using what he has written explicitly.

There may be better work or more appropriate work but, if so, where is it?

To get such support additional research would be needed – and the results might give such support or fail to give that.

We’ve already spent $100 billion and counting, and still don’t have the relevant information. Sorry; that sounds like a researcher speaking. It also is in direct conflict with what you said in your comment at 6:50 am. We need to make decisions on the best information we have, and the best information we have says don’t waste your wealth on unidentified, low probability, hypothetical catastrophes.

I think we agree that we’ve not applied proper risk management processes to identify, analyse, evaluate and treat the significant risks facing us, of which climate change is just one, and probably not the worst.

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images