Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by Wagathon

$
0
0

Fear of future climate rubs all of our collective noses in society’s lack of will to discriminate between good and bad of today. It deprives us of the opportunity to reward excellence and personal achievement and draw a praiseworthy distinction between honor-earned through personal dedication and sacrifice versus drawing a needed lesson about a future-denied resulting from self-destruction and self-defeating nihilism.

If you don’t believe global warming alarmism is destroying Western civilization then answer six questions (see, Paul Driessen, et al., Cause for alarm, 23-May-10). They are as follows:

■Why do scientists and news stories blame everything on global warming?

■Why is warming always framed as bad news?

■Why does so much ‘research’ claim a warmer planet ‘may’ lead to more diarrhea, acne and childhood insomnia, more juvenile delinquency, war, violent crime and prostitution, death of the Loch Ness Monster – and even more Mongolian cows dying from cold weather?

■Why is it a bad thing that more CO2 helps plants tolerate droughts better and re-vegetate deserts?

■Why do ‘error corrections’ always seem to result in more warming than originally predicted, instead of less?

■And why do taxpayers have to shell out Big Bucks on this stuff?


Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by David Springer

$
0
0

Climate boffins didn’t predict global cooling as Arctic sea ice decreases but there it is. Anyone paying attention to me knows why. It’s simple. Arctic sea ice is analogous to the thermostat in an automotive water cooling system. When the engine gets warmer the thermostat opens up farther. When the thermostat opens up farther the engine becomes cooler and the radiator becomes warmer. In this case the lower latitudes are the engine, the Arctic ocean is the radiator, and sea ice is the thermostat. It’s not rocket science. Some things about the climate are complicated but this isn’t one of them.

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by Herman Alexander Pope

$
0
0

I am going to venture a guess that one or more Climate Scientists have already put this more snowfall when the Arctic is open and less snowfall when the Arctic is closed into some of their climate models and have started writing papers that will support Pope’s Climate Theory. Such a climate model could run for ten thousand years and never get out of bounds, much like Mother Earth has done.

Comment on Climate change and U.S. presidential politics by Tucci78

$
0
0

At 10:32 AM on 9 September, manacker had observed of the EPA:

“The fish always starts stinking at the head”

A new administration would urgently need to change EPA management, throughout the organization, but starting at the top.

Then delete CO2 from its brief.

Then make sure any operatives who want to “crucify” any industry are fired.

Then, as a longer term measure, get Paul Ryan involved in looking at ways the agency can be streamlined and its budget cut in half.

Better yet, go with Ron Paul’s proposal and abolish the EPA (yet another one of Richard Milhous Nixon’s hideous creations) to roll its very few legitimate functions over to other departments of the Executive Branch. I’d figure the Department of the Interior for almost all of it.

The adage about rotting fish puts proper emphasis on the costs of administration as well. The waste involved in the growth and preservation of bureaucratic empires is not to be dismissed, and is too commonly underestimated.

A clean scour of the EPA – a complete “zeroing out” – would serve both to debride the regulatory burden this ‘viro satrapy imposes upon the productive sector of American society and at the same time help to knock down federal expenditures generally.

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

$
0
0

P.E. but if you want the private sector to do some of this research, patent law needs to be modified, so that they can sit on their patents until somebody actually uses the invention.

I don’t see that as a big problem, because there is a drought somewhere in the U.S. almost every year. Large areas that use irrigation would benefit every year from crops that need less water.

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by David Springer

$
0
0

Louise, don’t be such an ignorant dufus. Sea ice extent is generally given as the area where ice is greater than 15% of the surface. Once the surface water reaches freezing temperature it rapidly grows from 0% ice to 15%. When it reaches 15% it shows up on ice extent reports. Bastardi’s link shows vast areas of open water right at 0C. Ice is rapidly growing in those areas and in 10 days will go over the 15% mark. Moron.

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by Girma

$
0
0

So, 40 years from now, will climate projections fall on the ‘failed’ or ‘successful’ side of the ledger?

The have failed now!

Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014
7:00PM BST 09 Aug 2007

Here is the climate forecast for the next decade; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014.

This is the prediction of the first computer model of the global climate designed to make forecasts over a timescale of around a decade, developed by scientists at the Met Office.

The new model developed at the Met’s Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record.

Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004.
http://tgr.ph/wPxcZ8

Look at what the data shows since 2004
http://bit.ly/zhfjrp

Met Office => Warming trend (Blue Line)
Observation => Cooling trend (Green Line)

JC we don’t need to wait 40 year to find out. They are wrong now.

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by kim

$
0
0

All plausible, but is it so?
I guess we’ll soon know.
=========


Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by Girma

$
0
0

The team can be confident in its work because they tested it on past cases- hindcasts – over two previous decades it provides a more accurate predictions of global surface temperature The model successfully predicted the warming of El Niño, for example, and the effect of unusually warm or cold waters around the world.

Comment on Climate change and U.S. presidential politics by Tucci78

$
0
0
At 11:36 AM on 9 September, <b>willard (@nevaudit)</b> laments: <blockquote>I do not have the chance to be a non-aggressive libertarian Sicilian.</blockquote> True, true. Heritage is everything, I suppose. <blockquote>"What could I tell you?" <i> [recurring response to the police in Jimmy Breslin's</i> The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight <i>(1969)]</i></blockquote>

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by John Carpenter

$
0
0

I dont really see an answer to my question. You are predicting massive snowfalls in the NH. How do you define ‘massive’? What is the threshold metric and where is it measured? How are you able to predict this year opposed to the following or last year? I don’t see anything more here than guesswork.

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by David Springer

$
0
0

Bastardi undoubtedly keeps an eye on this too.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Mean temperature north of the 80th parallel is well below 0C. It fell below 0C about 10 days ago and is now right at freezing point. At this point latent heat of fusion is being shed as seawater at -2C becomes ice at -2C. I don’t know enough of the climatology of ice growth to know the typical delays in this process but I’d bet my bottom dollar Joe Bastardi does and I know for sure Curry does and she concurs with Bastardi. Ice is rapidly growing on open Arctic ocean as we speak and will begin crossing over the 15% threshold where it is considered sea ice instead of open water.

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by Wagathon

$
0
0

If there was a study I suspect we’d see that your chances of being involved a car accident sometime in your life are much greater the younger you are but even if the chances are 100% that doesn’t mean when it happens you caused it.

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by kim

$
0
0

More open water, more clouds, slower heat loss, as we see; stat-o-therm right there.
======

Comment on Too much advocacy? by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0
What is entirely missing from this post and comments is the fact that Fleishman's ouster has been highly controversial within the Society of Conservation Biology itself. A dozen board members have resigned in protest, included the scientist who originally founded the journal in 1987, which today has an impact factor of 4.9. More on this <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/society-for-conservation-biology.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. From time to time some academic department or society finds itself badly split on some issue or other, like Stanford's Anthropology Department for example which ended up as two departments, sort of like separatism in Quebec or Scotland, just on a smaller scale. In this case the rationale for firing Fleishman seems to have boiled down to friction between her and some of the other governors during recent months, with the complaints about being asked to indicate opinions as such being perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back, or perhaps just a convenient excuse. If the latter it's a pathetic excuse: scientists should not be abusing their status to browbeat their audience with opinions masquerading as science, and Fleishman as editor is absolutely within her rights to counsel authors not to do so. You can see her speaking <a href="http://www.uidaho.edu/cnr/fishwild/seminar501series/erica%20fleishman%20promo/ericfleishmanlecture" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Great speaker. And you can see her in this <a href="http://www.conbio.org/about-scb/staff-board" rel="nofollow">photo of the board of governors</a>, with her name still in the caption but removed from the list of governors below.

Comment on Too much advocacy? by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Latimer Alder,

I enjoy reading your posts. Yours are some of the most sensible, balanced, rational and grounded in reality of all the comments. I like it that your comments are based on a great deal of real world experience. That’s valuable and should be welcomed by all.

Comment on Too much advocacy? by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

Comment on Too much advocacy? by DocMartyn

$
0
0

Capt, scientific research is a very human process and scientists are not unemotional androids. Scientists are people and are intrinsically biased. The bias is not the problem, indeed, the bias can be good as you can get obsessed with something that finally pays off. The actual problem is being biased and not recognizing you are biased and not designing your experimental studies and data mining/analysis to get around your bias.

I have 50 mice, five groups of 10, who had injections of brain cancer three weeks ago.
There are four treatment groups and one control; the mice are assessed every 1-2 days.
The person doing the drug injections and monitoring has no idea what drug combinations are in A,B,C,D and E.
A,B,C,D and E are the same color and volume.

The identities of A,B,C,D and E are described in my Lab book and are counter signed by an independent witness.
The mice assessments are entered in a different lab book, signed and photographed, every 1-2 days.

If the trial is successful, and we actual have a cancer treatment for humans, then one day the two lab books may be presented in court and both are legal documents.
I have a dog in this fight. I potentially could end up rich and Nobeled; so I know I am VERY BIASED.
You get that captain? I have a vested interest for 10 mice to survive and all the rest to die. However, not only will I be virtuous, I will damn well be seen to be virtuous. Not because I am particularly honorable, but because this is the way you do it, and this is the way you demand everyone else does it.

Comment on The weatherman is not a moron by tempterrain

$
0
0

I’m sure that Phil Jones has learnt an important lesson over this. His original remark, made a couple of years ago was concerning statistical significance which he assessed, at the time, at less than the usual benchmark of 90%. He is now saying that the extra data obtained since has taken it over the threshold.

Of course, the word ‘insignificant’ , in common parlance doesn’t convey the message that it may initially have only been 85% , it conveys the message that the warming was too small to be considered important. Climate skeptic/deniers made the most of this.

Any climate contrarian with any real level of intelligence, which I admit is probably only a small percentage of the overall number, will have known this. Their representation, or misrepresentation, of Phil Jones’ original remarks is now shown to be totally dishonest.

Comment on Too much advocacy? by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images