v. 2
Warm is good.
Cold is bad.
CO2 is good.
Too bad you’ve been had.
=============
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by kim
↧
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Anteros
Rob Starkey -
I’m not sure the population growth idea is a serious problem. Surely an agreement would just pick an appropriate population level and fix per capita emissions at that number.
You may see no reason for US taxpayers to pay any other countries anything, but do you think US citizens are entitled to have higher emissions than anyone else? [assuming, obviously, that such things are definitely a 'problem'] Surely if it is a question of entitlement, everybody’s is the same? If so, there must be some point of convergence to aim at? I know it doesn’t sound good to American ears, but what other reasonable way is there to look at it?
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Paul S
I have more interesting things on my reading list at the moment so I probably won't get around to it to be honest. However, McKitrick's argument is based on Laframboise's work in this area and I've been dealing with his summary.
To McKitrick's credit he doesn't use inflammatory terms like 'infiltration', instead arguing that there is evidence scientists are more likely to be selected for participation in the IPCC process if they have had prior involvement with environmental organisations. The cited evidence is a <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/about_cw/cwscientists/" rel="nofollow">list of scientists on a WWF advisory panel</a> cross-checked against lists of authors for AR4 <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annexessannex-ii.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/annexessannex-ii.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/annex3sannex-iii.html#contributors-to" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
I've checked this evidence and found the following:
- Of 619 authors involved with AR4 WGI, 10 are on the WWF scientific advisory panel (SAP) list
- Of 380 authors involved with AR4 WGII, 52 are on the SAP list
- Of 270 authors involved with AR4 WGIII, 3 are on the SAP list
Clearly the numbers in WGI and WGIII are negligible but there is prima facie evidence of a possible selection bias for WGII. The circumstances would need to be investigated further though. It could be that the large presence is a function of the type of scientists involved in WGII - biologists, ecologists, anthropologists, social scientists and environmental scientists - who are more likely to engage with groups like WWF regardless of the IPCC.
↧
Comment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by Peter317
Joel, I don’t think people are confused by the concept that, given the same amount of heating, things which are already warm get hotter than things which were colder.
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by kim
v. 3
Warm is good.
Cold is bad.
CO2 is food.
Too bad you’ve been had.
===========
↧
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by M. carey
manaker,
I believe the hacker is likely a thief with an agenda rather than, as you prefer to believe, likely a whistleblower motivated by moral duty. Perhaps you can address the following questions:
If your “whistleblower” has done nothing illegal why is he hiding?
If your “whistleblower” has done nothing illegal, why are the police looking for him?
If your “whistleblower” is an honest person who believes in telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, why is he releasing selected emails in stages, rather than releasing all of the e-mails at one time?
↧
Comment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by gbaikie
“The accounting is pretty straightforward: Of the ~341 W/m^2 of incoming radiation, about 79 W/m^2 is reflected by clouds or other elements of the atmosphere, 23 W/m^2 is reflected by the earth’s surface, and 78 W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere.”
If one using such an averaged number as 341 W/m^2, then I was saying
about 1/2 or more is absorbed or reflected by atmosphere. Not including any affects from the clouds. So compare +170 of ~341 W/m^2 from just atmosphere. To 79 + 78 W/m^2 [157 W/m^2] caused by atmosphere and clouds.
Said this way, suppose you had random locations of earth, discarded any which had clouds, the average should be more than 170 w/m^2 absorb or reflected by the atmosphere. If you than added back in locations with clouds it would increase this 170 number.
They say the total is less. And because there is this difference is reason I mention it.
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Anteros
Kim –
Don’t worry!
I’m doing an ‘OK, lets make the assumption that Co2 does naughty things and see how the world looks. I believe the assumption is reversible – otherwise I’m f*cked 
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by kim
OK, Anteros, it’s ok to think that way, just so long as we don’t act that way until we are a little less ignorant.
============
↧
↧
Comment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by Peter317
Ken Coffman:
The so-called GHGs can delay energy’s escape to space by a few milliseconds
You keep saying that, yet you offer little by way of an explanation of the mechanics thereof.
Why not give a blow-by-blow account of the passage of a single photon, or perhaps a single joule, from the surface to space?
↧
Comment on Emails by Jacob
“In terms of the science nothing much will actually change just its perception. ”
We learned from the mails that many of the authors hockey stick papers believe it to be “crap”.
So, indeed, nothing changes, not even the perception. We knew all along that they were … hm… economical with the truth …
And then there was the withewsh of the academic “investigations”.
We will continue and refuse to believe in anything uttered by these individuals and institutions.
Nice acheivement, climate, scientists.
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by rustneversleeps
yes, and further to m.carey’s points, why did the perpetrator hack into RealClimate’s website? Doesn’t sound very whistleblower-like.
By the way, what was the topic of this thread again?
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by vukcevic
Equally I would not consider this as a prediction, it is again extrapolation of an equation which may (or may not) be a reasonable representation of the natural variability.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
Details on line soon.
↧
↧
Comment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by gbaikie
“Joel, I don’t think people are confused by the concept that, given the same amount of heating, things which are already warm get hotter than things which were colder.”
I am.
If one had no or 1/2 greenhouse affect how cold would a nite be?
That is one question. Next question is concerning ground temperature.
Take sand, grass, dirt, water, whatever, and use measure of there temperature as being the temperature [normally temperature on earth is air temperature in the shade, but air temperature is meaningless on the Moon. And want to compare the moon [has zero greenhouse affect] with earth. So second question is what would surface temperature on earth at nite be if no greenhouse effect.
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by manacker
Anteros
You write:
Surely there is a per capita emissions level that everybody should be heading towards – with some adjustments for the ‘sins’ of history
I would agree with the direction, but would modify that slightly.
Rather than a “per capita emission level” as a target, I would suggest a ”carbon efficiency” level.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5011/5500972088_54742f12be_b.jpg
This is defined as the wealth generated by an economy (GDP in $) divided by the CO2 emitted by that economy (in metric tons).
This indicator would reflect the desire for all nations to improve the standard of living of their populations, at the same time using a minimum of fossil fuels to do so.
As you can see, the industrially developed economies (EU, USA, Japan, etc.) have a considerably higher “carbon efficiency” than the developing ones (China, India, Brazil, Russia, etc.).
It is interesting that this indicator has increased for most nations over time, and it is reasonable to assume that it will continue to do so, particularly as fossil fuels become more costly and new cost-effective energy sources, not dependent on fossil fuels, are developed.
As for “the sins of history”: I’d say that the availability of low cost energy (based primarily on fossil fuels) has been a major factor in the improvement of the human condition in a good part of the world, so this should not be classified as a “sin of history”.
We should just make sure that we do not commit the “sin” of blocking the populations of the underdeveloped economies from having the same access to low-cost fossil fuel based energy as we had, by arbitrarily tying them to carbon caps or enforcing draconian taxes on carbon.
Max
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by VeryTallGuy
“The scientists that prepared this report for the UN are liars,and I don’t need a degree in science to know that.”
As ClimateEtc has been “pondering how to best teach research ethics”, anyone like to comment on the ethics of a blog run by a scientist that allows such casual smears of their peers to routinely pass unremarked?
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by P.E.
Here’s the problem. You can’t rule out significant issues completely. It’s entirely reasonable, in and if itself, for an international agency to monitor the science, and based on an honest assessment of the science, possibly recommend policy.
The problem is, any institution eventually becomes a solution in search of a problem, and isn’t content to merely monitor the situation. If you create an international agency to monitor space invaders, they’ll eventually develop a consensus that there’s a high probability that they’re out there, and very dangerous, and that we must build a $37 trillion laser weapon just in case.
The problem is how to create such an agency for the purpose of monitoring and honestly reporting science, without it becoming captive to it’s own ambitions. I don’t know how to do that. I don’t know if anybody does.
↧
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by GaryM
Hey, telling Dr. Curry how to run her blog is Joshua’s job!
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by tonyb
Max
In reply to M Carey, the reason why the ‘whistleblower’ is keeping a low profile is that they know they will be persecuted, as blaming the whilstleblowers rather than the wrong doer is firmly entrenched in European culture as witnessed in the Marta Andreason case and her battle against corruption in the EU
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3742148.stm
tonyb
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Martha
I can help you.
kim is male.
That is easy to see from his behaviour on this and any other thread.
But here is a clear example to illustrate:
“Heh, Joshua stamps his pretty little foot, andrew adams whines, tempterrain picks punctuation buggers out of his nose and Robert sleeps off a comment binge. I think it’s gonna be a pretty good day” kim
To be clear, homophobic put-downs, and frequent references to snot and booze, are really not typical of female interactions; but not uncommon for adolescent boys.
Of course, it is possible that some adult males get stuck, developmentally.
cheers
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
