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

Comment on Cool first, warm later by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Beth mo bhanacharaid,

Sky eyes for wonder, sweet, fragrent, warm joy for nuzzling.

A friends toddler insisted on sitting on my knee recently. She was smelly, snotty and sticky – but they are all so beautiful. Such is life.

Have fun
Robert


Comment on Cool first, warm later by Sparks

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="http://thetempestspark.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/75/" rel="nofollow">Sparks ~Engineering and Science.</a> and commented: “I am not one of the sceptics,” insisted Mojib Latif even tho he predicts a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans.

Comment on Cool first, warm later by peterdavies252

0
0

Well done Beth, I understand and accept that people can be better than me at most things :) It never matters to me because I just don’t need to prove otherwise.

Comment on Cool first, warm later by peterdavies252

0
0

I dont believe this. The guy is trying to have his longer term predictions take precedence over his shorter term predictions when it is obvious that both time periods are way too short for any predictions at all.

Comment on PBS Ombudsman by Latimer Alder

0
0

@A Fan of John Sidles

Thank you for (correctly this time) drawing the readers attention to the egregious behaviour of ‘Professor’ Lewandowsky and his ridiculous paper

It is just like ‘Gergis et al’ deja vu all over again

http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/

…only this time its slower and Lewandowsky is prolonging the agony for himself. Perhaps its the recent cold winter that has chilled those Australian brains?

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/central-australias-frostiest-winter-in-a-decade-20120719-22c5a.html

On reflection, perhaps it would be better if I didn’t look too closely. I was never much of A Fan of seeing bear baiting or going to public hangings. so watching Lewandowsky’s career go down the pan in detail is maybe beyond my squeamish stomach.

But for those of a stronger constitution you must really go to the main man if you want to get the meat. Start here

http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/13/lewandowskys-fake-results/

Comment on PBS Ombudsman by Latimer Alder

0
0

If there is a problem with station siting data it won’t go away just because of what the Arctic does – or doesn’t – do.

And having seen some of the photos of station positioning, it is pretty clear that there has not been any effective attempt to ensure consistent measurement standards for many years.

And if you start with ‘bad’ data, no amount of post hoc rationalisation or ‘adjustment’ or tweaking will ever turn it into ‘good’ data.

You just have ‘adjusted bad’ data.

Comment on PBS Ombudsman by Peter Lang

0
0

Latimer Alder,

May I chime in with some support for your comments about sea level rise.

1. IPCC AR4 central estimate for sea level rise by 2100 is 0.38 m (from memory)

2. only 1% of global population and 1% of global production is below 1 m elevation.

Therefore, sea level rise is clearly not catastrophic. It is a cost. How much cost?

Answer negligible. Figure 8 here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/851112j434t26502/fulltext.pdf shows damage cost estiates at $200 billion for a 0.5 m sea level rise and about $1 trillion for a 1 m sea level rise to 2100. That is about 0.02% or 0.1% of projected global GDP to 2100. [of course the global GDP will be much less if the Greens and 'Progressives' can get their way].

So sea level rise is not catastrophic and sever weather events are not catastrophic, in fact their damage costs are negligible. But the damage costs of the mitigation policies proposed to try to prevent them are certainly far from negligible.

Next please?

Comment on Cool first, warm later by Max_OK

0
0

Bryan said in his post on September 23, 2012 at 6:55 pm

“Dr. Hansen’s prediction in 1988, now in 2012, 24 years later if true the sea level rise should be about halfway up the side of Manhattan Island by now.”
______

That was a “what if ” prediction, not an unconditional prediction. A writer asked Hansen how much the water woud rise if CO2 doubled in 40 years.

It would be kinda like you asking me how much $1,000 would be worth in 40 years if you could earn 10% per year by investing it. Just because I can give you an answer on the amount doesn’t mean I am predicting you will actually earn 10% per year.


Comment on PBS Ombudsman by SamNC

0
0

I visited WUWT blog about Dr Curry’s PBS Ombudsman and found their comments reasonable and very sound.

Comment on Cool first, warm later by andrew adams

0
0

To be fair to Judith she did link to the Things Break post which demonstrated that Latif’s views were misrepresented. She might want to note though that this is hardly the only case where this has happened, and consider that it might be easier to scientists to discuss the uncertainties in climate science honestly and openly if they did not worry about their words being pounced on and misrepresented in exactly the way that happend to Latif.

Comment on Cool first, warm later by Latimer Alder

0
0

@Max_OK

Viner has had over ten years to object to the content of the article and has not chosen to do so. Neither have any of the ‘great and the good’ of the climate establishment.

And it seems a trifle over the top to try to blame ‘denier’ blogs for the simple fact that a leading light (from the ‘Unversity’ of East Anglia – quelle surprise) was talking total bollocks. His mouth, his words, his crap.

Comment on Cool first, warm later by andrew adams

0
0

Judith,

Regardless of whether you or Latif are correct on this question I think this demonstrates that your above claim that “on issues of climate projection for the next few decades and late 20th century attribution, I suspect that there is little that Latif and I would disagree on” is not really correct.

Comment on PBS Ombudsman by climatereason

0
0

Latimer

I would put the Aussie cold winter down to the unusually high levels of Antarctic ice. Obviously though it is nowhere near as relevant as Arctic ice.
tonyb

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Peter Lang

0
0

Mx,

That comment should put that issue to bed :)

Assuming the CAGW alarmists can accept what they don’t want to accept – i.e. it was IPCC and the climate scientists like James Hansen who argue that AGW is likely to be catastrophic – if not treated with their potion.

Comment on U.S. climate change policy news by gbaikie

0
0

“Q. The climate issue is barely registering in this election. Why has this issue fallen off the Democratic agenda?

A. For several reasons. No. 1, because huge amounts of money were spent to purposely discredit the facts. Some of the coal industry, some of your old power-plant owners, put money into branding cap-and-trade as cap-and-tax. ”

What get from Kerry is he misdirecting the question away from Kerry’s failure pass legislation, by blaming it on other factors.
But other then steering away from any details of how he was a complete failure, what he seems to be say is:
Starting from the assumption that lefty think or claim that republicans are already bought tools big coal or oil Or Wallstreet. Or other dark and sinister forces- nor were Republican votes needed. This means the Republicans aren’t the ones being bought, but rather Kerry is suggesting his fellow dems are being influenced by huge amount money.
Also it seems to suggest in an indirect way that if supporter of Dem pols would given enough money then there would less effect from the “huge amounts of money”.

So due to Dems who were influenced by money, Kerry was unable to pass legislation.
So not Kerry’s fault [and keep in mind Kerry is very rich and in safe seat]; and if the public had provided more money/support to dem senator pols, he could have passed the legislation.


Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Spence_UK

0
0

Willard, Tomas has made a number of statements that are scientifically accurate and have certain consequences.

If you search for “toy model” down this thread, you will see WHT demanding a toy model which demonstrates things that are not logical consequences of what Tomas has claimed. This is a simple strawman.

WHT latest post shows this. Tomas already addressed this point in his comment above. But if you don’t understand the physics behind what Tomas is saying you may not realise it has already been addressed. As I said upthread, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think.

Comment on PBS Ombudsman by Michael

0
0

“‘Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change….”

Well, he doesn’t need to be puzzled by the surface temp record anymore – I guess there’ll be an apology for all those claims of fraud and scientific misconduct……when hell freezes over.

Comment on PBS Ombudsman by gbaikie

0
0

“However, gbaikie mis-represents Anthony Watts. He certainly works hard and does a good job of digging and presenting. But he obviously has his personal political views, as do most climate alarmists. Hint: Mr. Watts is not a neo-Marxist as a huge proportion of climate alarmists are (such as David Suzuki, and Andrew Weaver who is a candidate for one of the neo-marxist parties he flirted with earlier – Green/NDP”

How has this have anything to do with me mis-representing Anthony Watts.

I don’t recall saying that Anthony Watts doesn’t have personal political views.
If I said at anytime that anyone didn’t have personal political views, I was mistaken- as everyone vaguely conscious has some view on the matter.

I was recently listening the clip of Howard Stern:
http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/24/howard_stern_interviews_obama_supporters_2012.html
[Linked from Drudge]

And even those people interviewed have personal political views- though they seem to have near zero comprehension of what is occurring in politics- except know that they are supporters of president Obama [or at least enough to say yes to the question].

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Mike K.

0
0

Look at all the stations, you will find the same thing.

Comment on U.S. climate change policy news by SamNC

0
0

Green energy policy deprived of the poors’ last bit of their money (equale to freedom) to spend.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images