There is also the fear of the policy not being accepted. Without climate policy there is less climate employment, both right now and in the future. There are very few applications of this field that don’t require some kind of legal mandate or threat of one.
Comment on Just the facts, please by karl
↧
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by thisisnotgoodtogo
would his handlers allow him to find out about the stink from the previous load he’d been fed ?
↧
Comment on Explaining (?) extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective by Faustino
Shame on you, Peter! I’ve seen claims that Australia’s world-leading anti-emissions policies will lead to 2100 global average temperature being 0.0038C lower than would otherwise be the case! Surely any cost is worth such a fine achievement, for the sake of our grandchildren?
↧
Comment on Explaining (?) extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective by Faustino
Actually, tt, the so-called conscious, rational brain, is only a tiny part of the whole. The so-called subconscious or unconscious brain (which is in fact always conscious) is where the serious action takes place, which is why following “gut feelings” is generally a superior strategy. The minor part of our brain to which you refer is very good at post facto rationalisation of decisions made in the deeper part of the brain.
↧
Comment on Explaining (?) extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective by Faustino
Are you explaining your untidy hair?
↧
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by Jacob
Advice to scientists: if you want to be taken seriously stop advocating unrealistic solutions, things that don’t work on engineering level. Stop advocating ridiculously expensive and inefficient wind mills and solar panels. Stop causing society to spend tons of money for no discernible benefit. Stop fighting every power plant, and condemning society to power outages.
Your policy advice might be taken seriously if it is sound and feasible.
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by Faustino
I nearly got to Tibet. In 1972 I rode a motorbike to the Nepal-Tibet border, almost crossed a bridge which – unknown to me – was the border, Nepali troops who ran to stop me said I would have gone straight to gaol. In 1975 I tried to get in via a smugglers’ trail, but was blocked by landslides and didn’t have equipment or food to go by the alternative route, at 17,000 feet. Just sayin’.
↧
Comment on Explaining (?) extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective by hro001
Thank you, Hector … my comment actually got posted prematurely because I had intended to look up the facts, first – and modify accordingly.
But I blame it on my cat … she and I had a slight altercation over the position of my mouse (resting on mousepad, my preference, or whipped to the floor – i.e. her preference). During the ensuing battle, one of us “clicked” – without noticing where mouse was pointed … and then life intervened, so I didn’t have a chance to follow-up 
[The International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS)] is, quite appropriately, a very conservative group operating by strict rules. “Anthropocene” will not pass muster. The name implies series/epoch (tens of millions of years), so we will have to wait a little while yet. Complex business stratigraphy, best left to the stratigraphers.
Ah! So we can rest assured that – unlike the IPCC, for example – there is some oversight to ensure that these rules are always followed.
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by Steven Mosher
Ya, I’ve said this over on keith Kloors and gotten booed out of the room.
Opemheimer at AGU 2010 broached this subject, but then really screwed it up. Essentially, he was suggesting various ways scientists could handle the public relations issue. ( in the context of CP snow as I recall. arrg memory )
One option he suggested was that scientists should just stick to the facts.
His reason for rejecting that was that someone somewhere who had nothing to do with climategate got dragged into the fight.
↧
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by Girma
…we can just present facts, and let the power of those facts do their magic.
AGW does not have any facts
IPCC projections => http://bit.ly/zA0a2j (0.2 deg C per decade warming)
Observed global warming pause =>http://bit.ly/wvqJti
Warming was occurring in the 19th century
Sea level was rising in the 19th century
It is just recovery from the Little Ice age => http://bit.ly/Aei4Nd
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by gbaikie
“he’s probably a very nice person
his worst sin was reincarnating
thinking he could do some good
after reaching buddhahood”
“Once you cross the river, don’t try to carry the raft with you on your back.”
His problem is he doing religion.
If chooses to do religion, why is he “at war” with China.
If he follows tradition, why does he think there is a country called Tibet?
Many problems has he, if he is a buddha 
↧
Comment on Explaining (?) extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective by Beth Cooper
Peter Lang read yr latest figures and estimations on Oz Carbon Tax and ETS which is set to cost at least $10 fer every $1 of projected benefit, but the actual cost will be much higher. After the honeymoon rate, Treasury assumption $13,000 per person, (even little kids, ) the top 500 emitters morphs into “everybody pays.” Phrases from Leonard Cohen songs keep runnin’ through me brain… I sufffer from ‘Cracked Brain’ syndrome, yer know. Robert told me so.
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by Ron Manley
Successive surveys by the Brooking Institution have found that people’s views on climate change are based more on experience than science. In the fall 2011 survey the three most important factors influencing opinion were: declining glaciers and polar ice (56%), declining polar bears (46%) and extreme weather events (43%). Computer models (18%) and IPCC reports (13%) were least important. In the Spring 2012 survey those who believed temperatures were increasing put warmer temperatures observed (21%), weather changes observed (20%) and glaciers melting (15%) above scientific research (11%). Among those who did not believe temperatures were rising views were influenced by similar considerations with “evidence disproves” at 10% being similar to the 11% for science.
The Fall 2011 survey also found that those with a college degree were less likely to believe there was solid evidence for climate change than those without a degree (60% v 66%). A Yale study in 2011 found something similar.
In short, science has little impact on the public’s view on climate change but among those best able to understand it it tends to increase scepticism.
↧
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Pekka Pirilä
Capt.Dallas
I’m getting confused again. I a message a little higher up you tell that the “emissivity of air on average at the surface is about 0.825″. What is that supposed to mean. The emissivity of gas is not a dimensionless number while the emissivity of a surface is.
In this message you mention again the number 0.825, but now it’s, indeed, that of the surface. To add to the confusion you tell that the emissivity of the surface is also “nearly 1″ continuing that the surface only emits about 86% of the energy.
It’s seems clear that your set of confusing numbers has something to do with the fact that both air and water is transparent although the water is almost fully opaque for IR and significantly transparent only for the SW radiation from sun.
You must present your comments much more precisely before they make any sense to me – and I suspect – to most of the others. When you formulate your ideas more precisely they can be either understood and accepted or rejected based on concrete arguments. Presently they are just sentences with no obvious content.
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by kim
Since natural cooling is far more likely than natural warming, the only way to pull off the CO2 demonization, and the guilting of human progress, will be to conceive of CO2 as a cooling agent. I’ve been waiting for that step.
After all, in the paleo record, temperature always falls some time after CO2 rises. Send me the money, I’ll propose a grant.
=============
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by Jim D
I don’t think anyone expects that to happen. It is about adaptation at this point, being a realist.
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by gbaikie
“CO2 reduces outgoing IR. The earth has to warm somewhere to counteract this. ”
It doesn’t actually, it may, but it is not required.
And get to question how much.
“At the moment the Arctic and land areas are warming fastest, 0.3 degrees per decade for the last 30 years in land areas.”
Arctic have warmed and cooled in last century. Any region has some kind warming or cooling trend over some period of time.
“I am not sure there is any cause for comfort that the tropics are not warming so quickly, unless you live there.”
You seem to be missing my point, the tropics can’t significantly warm, as it is already warmed.
↧
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by manacker
Yeah.
With or without the “effects of increasing greenhouse gases in the troposphere”, the extreme cold waves of 2009 and 2012 were a bit of a nuisance here in Switzerland, as well..
Not that we haven’t had this sort of thing in the past, before there were any “effects of increasing greenhouse gases in the troposphere”, mind you.
As the headline states, “just the facts, ma’am…”
Max
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by Jim D
It is very easy to verify radiative transfer models against spectroscopic measurements, so these are the best validated models out there.
↧
Comment on Just the facts, please by climatereason
R Gates
I’m reading Hubert Lambs 2 volume book ‘Climate present, past and future’ at this very moment. Its full of Rossby waves and the sort of things you talk about. Theyve been going on for years. Whats odd about them?
tonyb
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
