Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148402 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by DocMartyn

$
0
0

Cancer patients are routinely screened, to the DNA methylation epigenetic level, so as to estimate the best drug combination.
Here is a nice review chapter which shows the use of genechips in the treatment of breast cancer. Such information does give physicians the ability to pick the optimal combination of drugs, prior to treatment. This is have a big difference to treatment, with better longevity in the pipe (as the five year mark is the gold standard).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK38451/

I am astonished that this statement

““genetic medicine,” which absorbed nearly a hundred billion dollars over several decades and achieved little beyond what was known at the beginning’”

could have got past any reviewer.


Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by gbaikie

$
0
0

A summary of “Climate Change” or Global Warming is policies adopted have failed and will continue to fail. IPCC effort has not useful for governments trying to plan for future changes in climate.
IPCC has been largely about promoting Kyoto treaty solution, and this is going nowhere. It not building public support, rather it is losing and has lost public support.
So, stop digging the hole should be the first action.
What IPCC should doing if wants to regain any relevance, is do things which useful for governments in regards to future climate conditions.

In addition it could examine lesson learned regarding “alternative energy”. also farming practices which have effect upon climate and are responsive to changing climate.
It also seems that IPCC should face the technology that would do the most to reduce CO2 emission, it should examine nuclear power. And how nuclear power could be best used to reduce global human CO2 emission.

Another thing IPCC could do is examine unrealistic climate models. IPCC has always had fairly moderate climate prediction. I might do IPCC well politically to distance itself, by describing can’t happen in the future.
10 meter sea rise within a century, for example.
This could part of stop digging the hole. But also useful to look at what not likely or unrealistic.

Comment on Cato’s Impact Assessment by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

$
0
0

Temp, “You say “It is not ‘scientists’ ” That somehow they are reporting their findings correctly but their message is being distorted?”

Their message can be distorted and their biases can distort their findings. Just look at the constant accusations of cherry picking. If anything is a complex chaotic system, the human brain qualifies. Initial impressions or predispositions will influence your thought process. It is human nature. Maybe they are devious and cherry pick, maybe they just let their notions get in the way, I don’t care, I just double check. When I find things that don’t add up, I dig deeper.

Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by Chris Colose

$
0
0

This is crap. Show how you did you work, including where you got the data from. There’s absolutely no way that the differences between the same GISS indices in different years are that strong.

Comment on Cato’s Impact Assessment by DocMartyn

$
0
0

” Joshua
As usual, doc, an interesting post. I had no idea of the derivation of the term. And as usual, the post misses the obvious point.”

You should have written

“As usual, doc, an interesting post. I had no idea of the derivation of the term, as usual.”

The thing is Josh, you have form. You use words and don’t know what they mean; you are not so much a troll as a Magpie. You come across an impressive sounding word and then throw it into a rebuttal. The problem is that you are out of your depth, not only don’t you know what you are writing, you don’t understand the meaning of the post you reply to.

Now Mosher and I have been quite well behaved up until now, mostly because neither of us gets into a battle of wits with an unarmed civilian. However, Josh please don’t push it. Mosh and I know all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and… satire. We are vicious.

Comment on Cato’s Impact Assessment by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

$
0
0
Chris Colose: <i> Clouds aren’t water vapor.</i> Good thing we clarified that. If the water vapor rises, cools, condenses to clouds, and then <i>the clouds reflect sunlight</i>, then it isn't the water vapor <i>qua water vapor</i> that is involved in the negative feedback loop.

Comment on Cato’s Impact Assessment by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

$
0
0
Chris Coiose: <i>Moreover, there are many things that experts know through experience, their handling of the data, or exposure to unpublished work that may not be found in a convenient way in a published article. </i> That is such stuff as dreams are made on.

Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by David L. Hagen

$
0
0
lolwot re "predicted by models" Whose? References? The IPCC’s mean trend of 0.2 C/decade is now 2 sigma hotter than the last 32 years mean satellite global temperature trend<a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/june-uah-0-369-c-hot-hot-africa-hot/" / rel="nofollow"> 0.138 C/decade [0.083, 0.194 ] for Jan 1980-Jun 2012 – Lucia Liljegren at The Blackboard.</a> <blockquote> “If we model the residuals from a linear fit as “red noise”, this trend inconsistent with a nominal trend of 0.2C/decade;”</blockquote> <a href="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/astronomical_harmonics_testing.html?Itemid=0" rel="nofollow">Nicola Scafetta's models appear to be more accurate than the IPCC's since 2000.</a>

Comment on Cato’s Impact Assessment by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

$
0
0

MattStat, If the water vapor rises, cools, condenses then freezes, does that go under albedo too?

Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by Dave Springer

$
0
0

PDA (short for PDA’s Dada Acronym) | July 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Reply

“Do you have an alarm that notifies you the moment a new post goes up?”

Of course he does. U can has alarmz 2

http://judithcurry.com/feed/

Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by Dave Springer

$
0
0

We need a new category of post-normal science.

Manufactured post-normal science.

This is normal science that is sexed up by unscrupulous means into post-normal science so that the funding behind it grows proportionately with its perceived import.

I submit that climate change is manufactured post-normal science.

Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by Dave Springer

Comment on Cato’s Impact Assessment by Chief Hydrologist

Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by Dave Springer

$
0
0

Don’t be such a drama queen, Willis. Those jungles would have been given over to farms no matter what the crop that replaced them. How many people did the jungle employ and how many does the farm employ?

Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by Joe's World

$
0
0

Dave,

Only to the DESIRED conclusion the scientist want to achieve.
I have seen manufactured mathematical formulas bending science to the desired achievement the scientist is trying to generate.
No matter what integrated other areas that HAVE to be in consideration, which are ignored or NEVER considered.


Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by Dave Springer

$
0
0

Willis writes:

“But for the poor of the world, for those living on the edge, expensive energy can be a grave danger at best and a death sentence at worst.”

Really? Which poor would that be? China and India aren’t taking part in this charade. They’re exempt from Kyoto. I doubt the price of dung for cookfires has gone up in Africa. So exactly who are you talking about?

Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by Dave Springer

Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by Dave Springer

Comment on Cato’s Impact Assessment by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

‘What is included in these sea level numbers?
‘Let us have a look at how these numbers were derived. They are made up of four components: thermal expansion, glaciers and ice caps (those exclude the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets), ice sheet surface mass balance, and ice sheet dynamical imbalance.

1. Thermal expansion (warmer ocean water takes up more space) is computed from coupled climate models. These include ocean circulation models and can thus estimate where and how fast the surface warming penetrates into the ocean depths.

2. The contribution from glaciers and ice caps (not including Greenland and Antarctica), on the other hand, is computed from a simple empirical formula linking global mean temperature to mass loss (equivalent to a rate of sea level rise), based on observed data from 1963 to 2003. This takes into account that glaciers slowly disappear and therefore stop contributing – the total amount of glacier ice left is actually only enough to raise sea level by 15-37 cm.

3. The contribution from the two major ice sheets is split into two parts. What is called surface mass balance refers simply to snowfall minus surface ablation (ablation is melting plus sublimation). This is computed from an ice sheet surface mass balance model, with the snowfall amounts and temperatures derived from a high-resolution atmospheric circulation model. This is not the same as the coupled models used for the IPCC temperature projections, so results from this model are scaled to mimic different coupled models and different climate scenarios. (A fine point: this surface mass balance does include some “slow” changes in ice flow, but this is a minor contribution.)

4. Finally, there is another way how ice sheets can contribute to sea level rise: rather than melting at the surface, they can start to flow more rapidly. This is in fact increasingly observed around the edges of Greenland and Antarctica in recent years: outlet glaciers and ice streams that drain the ice sheets have greatly accelerated their flow. Numerous processes contribute to this, including the removal of buttressing ice shelves (i.e., ice tongues floating on water but in places anchored on islands or underwater rocks) or the lubrication of the ice sheet base by meltwater trickling down from the surface through cracks. These processes cannot yet be properly modelled, but observations suggest that they have contributed 0 – 0.7 mm/year to sea level rise during the period 1993-2003. The projections in the table given above assume that this contribution simply remains constant until the end of this century.’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/

Comment on Cato’s Impact Assessment by Steve Milesworthy

$
0
0

OK – you use your definition of a heat wave, I’ll use mine.

So is the solution to heat waves in London to redefine the heat wave as being 3 days at around 30C?!

That would certainly be the cheap option and cheer up the families of the 600 Londoners who died as a result of the 2003 heat wave (11 straight days warmer than yesterday – according to wunderground, including a night time minimum of 27C on 10th August!).

I’m just amazed that people managed even to survive in Africa for 100,000 years

I think you’ll find most Africans from the last 100000 are dead, and some of them will have died of the effects of heat and drought, particularly when climate change resulted the Sahara desert.

Viewing all 148402 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images