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

Comment on Climate for Corruption by mike

0
0

Michael,

Yr: “As eloquent as it is brief.”

A surprisingly snappy come-back, Michael! But, alas, a google-search reveals 7 verbatim previous examples of the phrase. So not original–but a good steal.


Comment on Climate for Corruption by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

The response of APS

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

Personally I don’t think that APS acted wisely when it published its statement

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm .

While the statement is basically correct. The need of commentary published more than two years later is evidence of that. APS is a strong scientific body but most physicists are not expert on climate. Such a body should not make declarations on a field of science insufficiently covered by its own membership.

Comment on Climate for Corruption by Michael

0
0

any port in a storm, huh?

Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Jim Cripwell

0
0

tempterrain, you write “So your argument is that we can never know for sure until the correct scientific method is followed. And the correct scientific method means experimentation? ”

You seem to have understood precisely what I say. Let me put it another way. In the whole history of physics, no law has ever been declared without defininitive proof based on hard, measured, independently replicated data. It has never happened in the whole annals of the history of physics. The proponents of CAGW have claimed that “the science is settled”, and there is virtually no measured data to support their position. What little hard data we have, in fact, indicates that CAGW is not, and never will be a problem.

Do you wonder that we empiricists are almost universally opposed to the idea that CAGW is real?

Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Pooh, Dixie

Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Pooh, Dixie

0
0

Re above: “JC note: note the difference here between postnormal and postmodern science.”, referring to Garth Paltridge’s description “Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.”

Drs. Curry and Paltridge are correct in their assessments. Regretfully, postnormal and postmodern science” are distinctions without a difference. The distinction may be called a fallacy: the use of one word or phrase in place of another having negative connotations.

“Postmodern science” is included within “Postnormal science” by Ravetz’s own discussion.

Ravetz, Ph.D., Jerome. “The Post-normal Science of Precaution.” Futures 36, no. 3 (2004): 347–357. http://www.iris.ufsc.br/projetopar/docs/RAVETZ.PDF

“Science now finds itself in a new and troubled situation. The traditional optimistic picture is problematic and compromised at every turn. The scientific system now faces a crisis of confidence, of legitimacy and ultimately of power. We can usefully distinguish two sorts of science. The ‘mainstream’ is reductionist in style, and increasingly linked to industry. By contrast, the ‘post-normal’ approach embodies the precautionary principle. It depends on public debate, and involves an essential role for the ‘extended peer community’. It is based on the recent recognition of the influence of values on all research, even including the basic statistical tests of significance. It is the appropriate methodology when either systems uncertainties or decision stakes are high; under those conditions the puzzle-solving approach of ‘normal science’ is obsolete. This is a drastic cultural change for science, which many scientists will difficult to accept. But there is no turning back; we can understand post-normal science as the extension of democracy appropriate to the conditions of our age.”

———. The Post-normal Science of Precaution [An Article from: Futures]. Elsevier, 2004. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000RR09RU

Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :)

Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :)

0
0
<b>cooling.</b> looks like it started the bold. <i> Italics would be better than bold.</i> a little low and higher or maybe <code>code would be nice</code>

Comment on Back to the Greenhouse Future by bob droege

0
0

What you are missing Latimer is that pH is only a measure of acidity.

If I have a liter of 6N sodium hydroxide solution and I add 2 liters of 6N hydrochloric acid to it, according to your reasoning I am only neutralizing it until pH of 7 is reached and then suddenly, magically I am now acidifying it, when I have been doing the same thing the whole time.

Adding acid to something is acidification.

What is the pH of neutral boiling pure water at atmospheric pressure?

If you don’t know it look it up. Then you might realize that you are being sloppy and I am being pendantic.

It’s a bollocks argument from delinquents normally found on wtfumb.

You can do better than that.

And I reject your two provisos, as number 1 is just flat out wrong, see here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/PACIFICA/

and number two I reject your attempts to stifle my superior chemistry knowledge.

Comment on Back to the Greenhouse Future by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

0
0

Alexander MacDonald’s “Black Swan” comment is certain to get the attention of many, especially those who may not understand his long-held contention that anthropogenic climate change cannot be expected to be a nice gradual warm up, whereby we slowly adapt to a few tenth’s of a degree per decade, but rather, more likely to happen in sudden “black swan” event shifts whereby we find ourselves in a new and quite different climate. This article he wrote way back in 2001 give a nice background on the reasoning behind his position:

http://www.issues.org/17.4/macdonald.htm

Now, it is interesting to note (and I certainly have noted it) that MacDonald wrote the above article 6 years prior to the rather dramatic loss of summer sea ice in 2007. The summer of 2007 has been studied because of this dramatic loss, and it certainly could be noted as a “black swan” event for the Arctic, as it certainly was a dramatic change of course from even all the model predictions of a gradual reduction in sea ice. What we now know are three very important things:

1) 2007 was no outlier event in the sense of being a “fluke”, but rather did represent a regime change for the entire Arctic. This regime change or “black swan’ event has been hard for even some supposed “experts” to even accept, as it was outside of all models.

Which brings up the second important thing we know:

2) All “black swan” events are outside of models by definition, but by studying them (as Nassim Taleb and others have done) we can learn something about their general nature, and the conditions that might affect the probability of a black swan event occuring.

It is here that MacDonald might be on to somethings. Poke a stick in hornet’s nest (which is a complex dynamical system) frequently enough, and you certainly increase your chances of getting stung. You can’t predict where you might get stung, or how many times you might get stung, or whether you’ll fall off the ladder that you used to climb up to the hornet’s nest, or if you’ll break you leg in the fall…but in general, if you disturb a complex system enough, the probability of a black swan event increases. In terms of Earth system and a black swan event happening…it all comes back to the old question of how sensitive that system is to the poking of the collective human stick.

Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Joshua

0
0

Whoa!

Missed this from a couple of days ago, Willis.

Thanks for adding more “maturity” and “balance” to the debate. I’m sure that Paul will appreciate it greatly. :-)

And Willis, I have to say it is also unfortunately typical of your analysis to construct some causal relationship between the use of last names on blog comments and the attribute of maturity. It is a causal attribution that is easily proven false, even in fact by the very post where you make the ridiculous connection. It is exactly that kind of facile reasoning that makes me think that your scientific contributions may often be influenced by the same sort of self-serving, and crippling biases.

One sign of maturity, Willis, is understanding the relative nature of what we encounter in life. It is a basic developmental feature that usually accompanies growth as one exits adolescence.

That doesn’t mean that maturity requires someone to be silent in the face of developments they disagree with. It also doesn’t mean not calling people on actions you don’t approve of. Maturity doesn’t mean that you don’t voice the opinion that someone’s actions are reprehensible. Maturity doesn’t mean that you necessarily have to be civil. Unfortunately, it seems that in your haste to deny your own, obvious, lack of balance and maturity, you have relied upon reasoning founded on a series of false dichotomies.

One sign of a lack of maturity is the need to create false arguments on the part of those you disagree with, or attribute to them beliefs that they don’t actually have – in order to build what you think is a “mature” or “balanced” perspective. Here, allow me to provide you with an example:

As a result of the AGW establishment by and large following your advice to ignore bad actions and bad actors, …

You will never see me, ever, offering any such “advise” to anyone, anywhere.

There is an ever-increasingly long list of occasions when you have done that, Willis. You do it in virtually every post you’ve ever written in response to one of my posts. My particular favorite was when you constructed a belief that I think that you’re an “evil man.” I don’t think you’re an “evil man,” Willis. I think that you are vulnerable to the very same pitfalls that we’re all vulnerable to.

You’ve studied psychology, and I think that you must know that the characteristics I just described are common among people who are less developmentally mature. There are very few among us here, Willis, who serve as good examples of “balance” and “maturity.” Billc comes to mind – can’t think of too many others. But I can think of many who serve as excellent examples of those who are certainly not shining examples of those attributes – and you are certainly a member of that group.

Comment on Back to the Greenhouse Future by hunter

0
0

We do not know that 2007 was an Arctic ice regime change.
why do AGW extremists always pretend, if they can claim somethign supports them, that it is *proof*?
How many times do we have to watch them either brazen it out later and lie that they ever claimed their latest failed prediciton was a prediction, or rationlize it away as correct, even when it was no such thing?

Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Jim Cripwell

0
0

capt, you write “You could actually do an experiment at home and come up with the natural log relationship.”

I have no objection to the log relationship. I object to the number 5.35. I can find no “solid science” to support this number.

Comment on Back to the Greenhouse Future by Latimer Alder

0
0

@bob droege

Your argument in daft…by focussing on the action, not the result. If you take it to its logical extreme, then If i take a very concentrated alkaline solution (I beliee in the us its called ‘lye’ but let’s think of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) pH about 14.) and add a drop of lemon juice (citric acid) to it, then I am ‘acidifying the NaOH.

But what is the result? Does the resulting NaOH have any ‘acidic’ properties? Will it turn litmus red? Does it indulge in any ‘acidic’ chemistry. like reacting with bases to form salts?

No indeed. It has not been ‘acidified’ in any way. The result is still fimly alkaline and still shows alkaline chemistry. All that has happened is that some of the hydroxyl ions have been neutralised by the addition of the acid. And it is on;y when you have added enough citric acid (which will be an awful lot in this case) to completely neutralise all the hydroxyl ions that the resulting solution will show those acidic properties.

As to the pH of water at STP, I have no immediate memory. But if it is open to the atmosphere it will have a lot of dissolved gases in it, so your measurement will be the pH of the resulting solution not of ‘pure water’. So your question is irrelevant to this discussion.

Comment on Back to the Greenhouse Future by Rob Starkey

0
0

You will note I didn’t write anything negative about him in the comment.


Comment on Back to the Greenhouse Future by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

0
0

Excellent article on Black Swans vs. Dragon Kings.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.4290.pdf

No doubt most of you knew this already, but a great learning bit for me.

So question: In light of the continued decline in seasonal Arctic Sea ice, was 2007 a:

1) Likely a Black Swan event for Arctic sea ice
2) Likely a Dragon King event for Arctic sea ice
3) Likely neither
4) Too early to tell

Comment on Back to the Greenhouse Future by Captain Kangaroo

0
0

‘In the Earth’s history, periods of relatively stable climate have often been interrupted by sharp transitions to a contrasting state. One explanation for such events of abrupt change is that they happened when the earth system reached a critical tipping point. However, this remains hard to prove for events in the remote past, and it is even more difficult to predict if and when we might reach a tipping point for abrupt climate change in the future. Here, we analyze eight ancient abrupt climate shifts and show that they were all preceded by a characteristic slowing down of the fluctuations starting well before the actual shift. Such slowing down, measured as increased autocorrelation, can be mathematically shown to be a hallmark of tipping points. Therefore, our results imply independent empirical evidence for the idea that past abrupt shifts were associated with the passing of critical thresholds. Because the mechanism causing slowing down is fundamentally
inherent to tipping points, it follows that our way to detect slowing down might be used as a universal early warning signal for upcoming catastrophic change. Because tipping points in ecosystems and other complex systems are notoriously hard to predict in other ways, this is a promising perspective.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14308.full.pdf

There is a pattern of decreasing variability culminating in an abrupt shift to a new state. The shift itself is a period of extreme variability which is the dragon-king. A term first used in this context by Sornette 2009. http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4290/

Climate shifts were identified by Tsonis and colleagues around 1910, the mid 1940′s, the late 1970′s and 1998/2001 using a network analysis of ocean and atmospheric indices – ENSO, PDO, PNA and NAO. Thus it may be possible to classify varaibilty in ENSO in 1976/77 and 1998/2001 as ENSO dragon-kings. Extreme variability at a tipping point followed by a shift to another state. La Niña dominant to the 1977, El Niño dominant to 1998 and La Niña again since. Compare this to the PDO temporal signature.

It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

The Pacific climate states persist for 20 to 40 years before shifting again. In the near term the current cool mode sems likely to intensify for a decade or 3 more. Beyond that there be dragons.

Comment on Back to the Greenhouse Future by Bart R

0
0

WebHubTelescope | June 29, 2012 at 7:53 am |

I’ve lived and worked in Minnesota, WHT. Never Montana, though. Which thinks National Geographics standards have slipped (www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/news-promo/2012/06/28/hutterite-fight-national-geographic-over-reality-show/) since their takeover by News of the World. ..Hutterite bishops wrote a letter of complaint to National Geographic in which they say they’ve been “deceived and exploited”.

It seems this is a common theme where Australians become involved in things. Which is sad. Some of my best friends are from New Zealand.

But to address the Australian falsehoods about Washington State’s northern neighbor;

1. the article fails to point out that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (note the editorial slippage: NatG’s former policy was to use local spelling of proper names; Canadians spell ‘Center’ scrambled up) is a rabidly socialist organization that owes more to collectivism than Economic truth.

2. The Cement Association is a rent-seeking oligopolistic trust bent on extorting taxpayer money at every turn for their operations, but at least they aren’t as corrupt as operations back East that are so mobbed up every time a rebar bridge or roof crumbles people bet on whether it’s Hoffa. They could easily shift to beetle-killed biofuel, urban waste or salt-based cement manufacturing for a lower cost, but instead want to score political points on the backs of their customers.

3. The greenhouse growers and other exemptees from the Carbon Tax, or who otherwise get grants to offset their Carbon Tax, are leeches parasitizing not just the due owners of dividends from Carbon Cycle fees, but also protectionists skewing prices across international borders in unfair trade practices.

That said, not everything in the article is wrong, and the BC Carbon Tax, while it’s the best fee and dividend system in the world and it disproves the myths that Carbon Pricing doesn’t work and that Carbon Pricing hurts an economy, is not the way I would have done it myself.

Comment on Back to the Greenhouse Future by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Carbon is of course involved in many chemical and biological transformations. I remember systematically working my way through a carbon model for Chesapeake Bay many years ago. Got to the end of the paper – relieved to have understood it – to learn that they required a few dozen more trophic pathways.

Comment on Week in review 6/29/12 by manacker

0
0

Fan

I know the strengths and weaknesses of the Swiss healthcare system first hand – you don’t.

It works but it’s expensive. It has not gotten less expensive since it was made mandatory a few years back. On the contrary.

But Switzerland is not the USA.

First of all, it is tiny in comparison.

Then the Swiss voter has the right to call for a referendum on any decisions by the parliament or executive branch at the federal, cantonal or communal level; this “direct democracy” right does not exist in most other representative republics, including the USA (with some minor exceptions, such as CA at the state level).

And it is a “bottom up” system, where the highest percentage of the income tax revenues goes to the community, a slightly smaller percentage (on average) to the cantons and the smallest percentage to the federal government.

As far as health care is concerned, Switzerland never had employers providing health care insurance for their employees, as is common in the USA. Switzerland has also avoided the “one size fits all” rationed healthcare system of the UK or some other European countries.

So it is very difficult to compare Switzerland with the USA as far as healthcare systems are concerned.

Max

PS As far as “moving forward” regarding the CAGW “consensus” premise of IPCC, I think there are still way too many uncertainties regarding the science behind the premise itself to even consider implementing any mitigating actions whose unintended consequences we also do not yet know. Don’t you agree?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images