Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

June 10, 2012, 6:05 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by jim2

$

0

0

Chief, I just like looking at the big picture. In hydroponics, nutrient availability tends to drive transpiration, not CO2. For plants in wild, hydrology would drive nutrient availability. CO2 is a likely an indicator not the cause of transpiration changes.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02595.x/full

Interestingly, plants sequester CO2 in the soil based on the overall growing conditions. You could theoretically modify plants or crops to increase CO2 sequestering for a variety of growing conditions. Which would mean that the huge change in agricultural in the past few hundred years could have a larger impact on atmospheric levels of CO2 than expected.

---

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

June 10, 2012, 6:06 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by Edim

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

$

0

0

After an abrupt U-turn in science in 1946, “scientists” following the trail of government research funds, then led society to George Orwell’s fascist state.

George Orwell recognized and wrote of the dangers of fascist socialism: http://www.george-orwell.org/l_biography.html

He died in Jan 1950, soon after “1984″ was published.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

Less than four years after an abrupt U-turn in science

a.) Disrupted 4 centuries of scientific advance (1946-1543 = 403 yrs)
b.) Deceived the public for the next 66 years (2012-1946 = 66 yrs) !

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

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

June 10, 2012, 6:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Tom

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

$

0

0

Yes, N2 and O2 have to transfer their energy (by collisions) to H2O and CO2 so it can be radiated to space. GHGs cool the atmosphere. The atmosphere has a cooling bottleneck, heat cannot be convected nor conducted away, only radiated.

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Tom

June 10, 2012, 6:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Erica

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by Edim

$

0

0

I once asked a known liar when he was drunk, the secret of his success. He told me: “It’s easy. All anyone needs to do is when someone asks you if you lied, hold the lie and never go back and admit that you lied. Just hang in there with the lie and in time, and it can be a long time, at some point they will tire of asking you, Then they just leave you alone.”

Free men seldom have an agenda.
Were it true for the whole world,

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Erica

June 10, 2012, 6:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Tom

$

0

0

<i>“Racial Socialism” ? Well I’ve never heard apartheid called that before.</i> Heavy state control with a racial bias. Perfectly obvious if not in common usage. <i>And democracy is totalitarian is it?</i> It need not be, but it can be. Depends how big the democratic state is. Today's totalitarian welfare states certainly are, Europe more so than the US. Democracy is important, but matters less and less the smaller the state is. Who cares if the King isn't elected, if there isn't much can do to you anyway ? <i>It sounds like you aren’t interested in liberty at all but you are interested in preserving your property rights.</i> Your property rights are obviously a very large part of your liberty. If only/mainly the state owns property, citizens can have little liberty. The fake libertarians are those who deny this. Feudalism has no bearing on this at all. Property rights that were seized rather than acquired through consent would not be recognized in a libertarian setup, and a court would revert them to the rightful owners.

Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by WebHubTelescope

June 10, 2012, 6:28 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by gbaikie

≪ Previous: Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Erica

$

0

0

Skippy does not want to learn. He has been on this combustion kick since I start contributing to this comment list last year.

The area of the earth is about 5e14 m^2, the number of seconds in a year is about 3e7 and so the thermal power emitted by combusting fossil fuels is 0.03 watts/m^2. This is a fraction of what the GHG effect is expected to be — so if people don’t believe that GHG can cause warming, then they certainly shouldn’t believe that plain combustion will cause significant warming.

We all pointed this out to him last year, but doesn’t seem to get it, whether it is just bullying or belligerence on his part, one can only imagine.

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

June 10, 2012, 6:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by omanuel

≪ Previous: Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

“lolwot | June 10, 2012 at 8:20 am |

Because I don’t have strong political or religious beliefs. Skeptics here evidentially do (strong political beliefs) and IMO have allowed this to bias their analysis of the science to the point that they make and defend very bad arguments on the issue.”

So you have weak political or religious beliefs?
What is the advantage, in your opinion, of having weaker political or religious beliefs?

It seems to me, that people with “strong” political or religious beliefs
are “overcompensating”. They are lacking in political or religious beliefs
and must show or demonstrate their political or religious beliefs.
And their weakness of their beliefs, makes them feel threaten by other beliefs.
It seems to me that a bible thumper, who knocks on your door, is at your door to strengthen his/her faith.
The bible thumpers always think they are there to get more people believing in their faith. But this is wrong, if that was purpose one have people who were more knowledgeable of the faith, the purpose is for them to test and learn more about their beliefs.
Though it also is useful as most advertizing is useful- brand recognition. Ads don’t sell, they familiarize people with a product- and if people remember something for any reason, it’s a plus.

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

June 10, 2012, 6:33 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by ozzieostrich

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by gbaikie

$

0

0

I suspect it is gone today. Honest Climate reports that Australian Prime Minister Gillard faces an economic revolt:

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/gillard-faces-revolt-on-economy/

The withdrawn paper by Gergis et al. and the economic revolt in Australia are encouraging signs of an awakening to the danger of government policies based on manipulated information.

An abrupt U-turn in science in 1946:
a.) Disrupted centuries of advance (1946-1543 = 403 yrs)
b.) Deceived the public for 66 years (2012-1946 = 66 yrs)
c.) Guided scientists along a well-funded path to fascism

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

George Orwell recognized and wrote of the danger of fascist socialism: http://www.george-orwell.org/l_biography.html

He died in Jan 1950, soon after “1984″ was published.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

Less than four years after the abrupt U-turn in science in 1946

---

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

June 10, 2012, 6:42 am

≫ Next: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by omanuel

$

0

0

gbaikie,

Yes they do, assuming they are above absolute zero, and depending on the mass. All matter above absolute zero emits EMR, at intensities dependent upon temperature. You have indicated far more willingness than I to perform the necessary calculations. “Significance” is obviously relative. Compared with what?

I leave it to you.

As to “heat” remaining in the system – nonsense (with respect). Heat, unlike electrical charge, cannot be stored. EMR takes place whether you like it or not, until the matter stops emitting EMR. Absolute zero results in a theoretically perfect situation. In the case of the Earth, we have a wonderful thing called “night”. It seems to get rid of all the insolation from the previous day. Cool, eh?

GHGs do not “trap” or “retain” heat, in any useful sense. As with all matter, they can be heated, and they cool if they are surrounded by matter at a lower temperature, or a vacuum.

gbaikie, please take no offence. I am endeavouring to point out basic details to other readers without getting into too much detail.

If people want to believe that it is possible to raise the surface temperature of a molten blob of rock by surrounding it with CO2, then I wish them a happy life.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

June 10, 2012, 8:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Captain Kangaroo

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by ozzieostrich

$

0

0

The term that twanged me was “webs”. Are these acausal webs? What are their strands? Or are they illusions of a hyper-active pattern-recognition facility of the human brain?

The author seems quite certain in his views of uncertainty. There’s a certain recursion issue here …

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Captain Kangaroo

June 10, 2012, 8:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

≪ Previous: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

$

0

0

That’s OK – I’m sure there is room on the blog for the chronically maliganant with the schoolboy debating points. You might ask Webby – he knows the drill. Ignore anything of any depth and inteject with one or to two line trivialities. I would suggest that you construct a relevant argument that is on the point and references substantive sources. I would suggest using the post by Diogenes as a model as this is well beyond webby.

Although – as I ocassionaly point out – dissing someone who calls themselves Captain Kangaroo by calling them Skippy is not the pinnacle of acumen. So I suspect it is beyond you as well.

Best Regards
Skippy

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

June 10, 2012, 8:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by ferd berple

≪ Previous: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Captain Kangaroo

$

0

0

Enjoy? They’re evidently wallowing in enough on their own, thanks. Do any of them doubt the others’ sincerity? “I can out-grieve you!” showboating …

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by ferd berple

June 10, 2012, 8:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

$

0

0

In theory you can solve any problems with an infinitely fast computer and infinitely precise measurements.

Round off error in our instruments alone prevents solving the equations, even before you consider the computational limitation inherent in exponential problem size.

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Joshua

June 10, 2012, 8:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

≪ Previous: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by ferd berple

$

0

0

That’s OK – I’m sure there is room on the blog for the chronically maliganant with the schoolboy debating points.

Well, well, I haven’t been around for a while, but I see that irony hasn’t gone out of style – even with contributors that weren’t here when I was last around.

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

June 10, 2012, 8:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

≪ Previous: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Joshua

$

0

0

the so called tradgey of the commons.

Aside from the tragic misspelling of “tragedy”, your post is, as far as it goes, reasonably balanced. I suggest you might find common ground with Wag if you emphasize the true “tragedy of the commons” lesson: that there should be no commons, that private ownership leads to wise stewardship.

Or is that not what you mean?

---

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

June 10, 2012, 8:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by NW

≪ Previous: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

$

0

0

Prove it. With appropriate confidence levels.

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by NW

June 10, 2012, 8:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Michael

≪ Previous: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Brian H

$

0

0

Perhaps reality is a crutch for those who can’t handle uncertainty.

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Michael

June 10, 2012, 8:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by NW

$

0

0

Not surprisingly, the larger point eludes you skip.

Judith appears not to get the rather ironic situation of slagging off the ‘consensus’ (well, a parody of it) while wanting to convince others of the correctness of her perspective.

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Wagathon

June 10, 2012, 8:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Bart R

≪ Previous: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Michael

$

0

0

…common ground, maybe except that these socialists (like Sartre too) were there to see for themselves — in real time — the failure of communism and went to their graves being appologists for it in their minds’ eye. And, of course, America’s Leftists also seem to prefer their visions of liberal Utopia to reality.

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Bart R

June 10, 2012, 9:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Science is not about certainty by Chad Wozniak

≪ Previous: Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Wagathon

$

0

0

DocMartyn | June 10, 2012 at 10:28 pm |

Have you ever seen a cite for that attribution? Do you know the context?

Rather than look for it, I look to the man’s work. For example:

http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~majge/he85.pdf

The actual experiments of Ernest Rutherford tell a very different tale.
The man was utterly precise and fanatical in the use of error bars and the best statisitical methods of his day.

And he also is known to have pronounced “You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 1012 to 1.” 1000:3 is approximately the confidence generated by BEST (pending review) of global land warming from the middle of the last century to the end of the BEST data.

Of course, he also famously said, “Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of the atom is talking moonshine.”