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

Comment on Open thread weekend by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

> Ever thought about that while you contemplate your navel and ponder “uncertainty”?

After playing CAGW and CS, now MiniMax plays AdHominem, or perhaps in this case AbdHominem.

As if searching for resources and sharing them amounted to navel gazing.

Readers should wonder what pontificating around a few pet cards sounds like, then.


Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker

0
0

Modern Science Ideas

Nice that you are using several “disciplines” to tell you what the future will look like.

Are you making any wagers?

Your 20C warming from human CO2 is so far off the wall that you should be able to get a lot of people to bet against it, and thereby make a fortune when it happens.

What’s going to happen in the next two years as this runaway warming gets rolling?

0.2C warming per year? (To get to 20C by 2100 you’ll need things to warm up pretty soon.)

Sounds frightening.

Max

Comment on Open thread weekend by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Clicking on MiniMax’ name still brings me bad luck.

Here was the response above:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-290389

Here it is again:

> Ever thought about that while you contemplate your navel and ponder “uncertainty”?

After playing CAGW and CS, now MiniMax plays AdHominem, or perhaps in this case AbdHominem.

As if searching for resources and sharing them amounted to navel gazing.

Readers should wonder what pontificating around a few pet cards sounds like, then.

Let’s hope Big Dave will bring me luck again.

Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker

0
0

Willard

“Readers” have observed that you wilt when it comes to discussing specifics, but enjoy general waffles and navel-gazing.

So be it.

But, hey, what do you think about all those studies, which show much lower ECS than previously estimated by the models?

Interesting, huh?

Max

Comment on Open thread weekend by gbaikie

0
0

I am using multiple disciplines, including Engineering, Physics and “Geology in order to determine how our climate works. I find expected warming caused primarily by human CO2 emissions will approach 20 degrees C and threaten the extinction of most of life on Earth. ”

Mars has many time more CO2 in it’s atmosphere than Earth does.
Mars has very thin atmosphere but 95% CO2. Earth has 100 times more
atmosphere but has .04 % CO2.
Earth atmosphere has couple trillion tonnes of CO2
Mars atmosphere is about 2.5 x 10^16 kg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
Or 25 trillion tonnes of 95% CO2 atmosphere on a much smaller
planet.
So Mars has about 4 doublings of CO2 as compared to Earth.
No one imagines Mars has 20 C of warming from a Greenhouse Effect- instead it’s thought to be some single digit number.

Comment on Open thread weekend by DCA

Comment on Open thread weekend by Robert I Ellison

0
0

wee willie linked to a couple of articles recently – one was discussing war and famine and other dire outcomes of global warming and the other using weather related disasters to create a revolution in society. It seems disingenuous in the extreme to then quibble about CAWG.

Neither of these articles has any relevant science but are simply the usual litany of catastrophe from cult of AGW millennialist space cadets. Neither of them is worth a second glance.

Climate sensitivity is of course variable both spatially and temporally – and actual warming from CO2 seems quite minimal. This is not is not to say that abrupt and nonlinear is not potentially an issue. But the politics of carbon mitigation is problematic – principally as the world is not warming for a decade or three more at least. Just so long as the space cadets hold on to their agenda to use wether disaster and ever wilder declarations of dire futures – documented in the Jacobin article – to create a social and economic revolution will be just as long as practical responses elude us.

Comment on Open thread weekend by oneuniverse

0
0

I have no idea what difference you think there is between the two

For me, “to deceive” is more negative and more strongly implies an intent to do wrong than “to mislead”. The adjectives “deceptive” and “misleading” are perhaps closer in meaning. I admit this is a subjective view.

What is your point?

My point was that Wegman didn’t flip, so it’s not correct to say that Nick has changed methodology by not flipping.

Wegman used MM’s code which included a selection criteria. That’s what I’m referring to. That selection criteria was based on a “hockey stick index.” That is what was limited to a positive range.

The only use of selection by sorted HSI in MM05 is to choose a hockeystick to plot alongside the MBH PC1 in MM05′s fig.1. No such selection is used in their analysis of the biased nature of MBH’s decentered PCA compared to centered PCA.

As I said, I do see your point about flipping, but prefer the unflipped random samples as providing a truer representation of the algorithm’s behaviour : the algorithm does create both negative and positive hockey sticks (depending on the course of the random data).


Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim Cripwell

Comment on Open thread weekend by R. Gates

0
0

Robert I Ellison said:

“…the future is created with love and joy – hope is the last human attribute to perish – freedom is the unquenchable fire within.”

______
All very noble and poetic but only half the story. History is a process whereby creation and destruction exist side by side. Yin/Yang, love/hate, joy/sorrow, and all the rest exist in eternal conflict and balance. The lion kills the gazelle so that both species might go on. Life and death exist as a partnership as it were, and the times of destruction, death, and chaos can be equally as long as the times of love and joy and sunshine in the meadows. The wolf comes calling and will have his due.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Joshua

0
0

tim -

While it may be true that the majority of people considering themselves to be Progressive do not hold with such views, a large number do.

What is a “large number?”

I know many people who self-identify as progressives, and no doubt, quite a few of them believe that over-population represents a potential problem. I would say, however, that nary a one would agree with the statement that humans are “a plague on this planet.”

I tend to doubt that the sample of people I know who self-identify as “progressives” is a particularly un-representative sample, and indeed I do not see in (at least some of) those quotes you offered, support for the contention that all those quoted see humans as “a plague on this planet.”

I mean, seriously, you go from this:

”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

…to “humans are a plague on this planet?”

Really?

And let’s look at this statement of yours…

…the belief, clearly held by people for whom Progressive would be an apt descriptor, that human beings are a plague on this planet and the world would be a much better place with far fewer of us.

I don’t agree that the first belief (that you assume) is a prerequisite for the second belief. I.e., I might think that the world is better off with fewer people without thinking that humans are a “plague on this planet.”

Further, many of those statements of belief seem to be w/r/t “far fewer” than there may potentially be with uncontrolled growth, as opposed to “far fewer” than currently exist.

Finally, even if I did think that “humans are a plague on the planet,” it is simply a belief. It does not necessarily mean that I would advocate any particular policy. I.e., it might mean that I would advocate for greater access to birth control, or more efforts to education poor woman (because that drives down rates of population growth).

My personal opinion is that when discussing crimes against humanity, the individuals quoted above should be included in the discussion.

Really? So let’s look at that for a second. Let’s take one of the more extreme statements (that of Ted Turner). Now I’d say that follow-on clarification he offered is relevant – in that what he said he was advocating was a voluntary pledge to limit their families to one or two children. Now independently of how we judge the wisdom of that advocacy, I’d say that it is a bit of a stretch to view advocating such a belief as being on the same level as committing crimes against humanity. I mean, really, you are saying that expressing a belief that there should be a voluntary effort to limit family sizes is the equivalent of:

atrocity (as extermination or enslavement) that is directed especially against an entire population or part of a population on specious grounds and without regard to individual guilt or responsibility even on such grounds </blockquote

Dude!

Comment on Open thread weekend by gbaikie

0
0

“Robert I Ellison said:

“…the future is created with love and joy – hope is the last human attribute to perish – freedom is the unquenchable fire within.”

______
All very noble and poetic but only half the story. History is a process whereby creation and destruction exist side by side. Yin/Yang, love/hate, joy/sorrow, and all the rest exist in eternal conflict and balance. The lion kills the gazelle so that both species might go on. Life and death exist as a partnership as it were, and the times of destruction, death, and chaos can be equally as long as the times of love and joy and sunshine in the meadows. The wolf comes calling and will have his due.”

Destruction may be inevitable, but this does not mean it is something one should seek. The gazelle should run from the lion. The gazelle *should* “obey” and seek “the unquenchable fire within”. As should the lion.

And history is not up and down, there are seasons and eons. It is a dance
and song.

Comment on Open thread weekend by JCH

0
0

From a comment on the work of Tsonis and Swanson:

…I think the interesting question raised (though not definitively answered) by this line of work is the extent to which some of the pause in warming mid-century might have been more due to decadal ocean variability rather than aerosols than is commonly thought. If that is the case, then a pause or temporary reduction in warming rate could recur even if aerosols are unchanged. Learning how to detect and interpret such things is important, lest a temporary pause be confused with evidence for low climate sensitivity. – Raymond T. Pierrehumbert

Comment on Open thread weekend by verytallguy

0
0

David Springer:

The point you seem unable or unwilling to grasp is that violence against blacks didn’t diminish with abolition. Instead of a black overseer’s whip in southern slave states it’s a black gang banger’s gun now in every state and the problem is arguably worse…

(my emphasis)

The reality of slavery:

Derby’s dose was a form of torture used in Jamaica to punish slaves who attempted to escape or committed other offenses like stealing food. According to Malcolm Gladwell in his 2008 book Outliers, “The runaway would be beaten, and salt pickle, lime juice, and bird pepper would be rubbed into his or her open wounds. Another slave would defecate into the mouth of the miscreant, who would then be gagged for four to five hours.”[1] The punishment was invented by Thomas Thistlewood

(my emphasis)
David, I’d beg you to reconsider what you wrote and withdraw it. Once you have, I’d beg everyone else to leave the subject alone.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Rob Starkey


Comment on Open thread weekend by steven

0
0

It is important to keep this in mind lest the warming of the past few decades be confused with evidence for a high climate sensitivity. There, I fixed it for him.

Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Peter Lang

Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by steven mosher

0
0

I think Eli made the best point the other day. Who in their right mind would review again for this journal?
For the most part i think most scientists will just ignore the work, but the reviewers are the ones who have been ‘harmed’ here.

Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Douglas in Australia

0
0

Nick
I agree the editor’s message is unusual and the delay was atypical — but it does look like the peer review process did what it was meant to do. It gathered feedback including significant criticisms from acknowledged experts. We (the authors) responded in detail to each and revised (i.e. improved) the paper to reflect all the inputs. Then the editor made a judgement. They were asking themselves if there was sufficient grounds to reject the paper: it appears they were unconvinced. I presume they weighed all the reviews, replies and changes — then they took the decision that is theirs to take. That all seems normal.

You are a publishing scientist right? I’m sure you acknowledge that papers that are eventually accepted often receive harsh harsh criticisms at some stage in the review process? That is normal. The authors can then defend, adapt the paper, and/or appeal. That is all quite normal. In our case this is all online so you can of course form your own opinions. But the editor is the final judge — they are not required to write a detailed assessment. That too is normal.

What is unusual is the fact that this time the editor offered any explanation at all. I don’t think I have ever seen that before.

Here is a fun blog here you might enjoy (a contrasting view): http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/01/28/richard-smith-the-editor-thinks-your-paper-is-nonsense-but-will-publish-anyway/

Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by HR

0
0

From the EGU.eu website
” after having passed a rapid access peer review process manuscripts submitted to EGU two-stage-journals will be published first of all in the “Discussions” part of the website of that journal being then subject to interactive public discussions initiated by alerting the corresponding scientific community. The results of the public peer-review and of the interactive public discussions are then used for the final evaluation of the manuscript by the Editor and, eventually, for its publication on the website of the actual journal.”

Nick it’s not just the reviews but the whole ‘discussion’ that the editor takes into account when deciding whether to publish. Presumably the editor believed the responses the author gave to the criticisms had some merit. And just like an author knows that their work may be deemed to have merit or not surely a reviewer also knows that their criticisms and recommendations may be deemed to be strong enough to block publication or not. A reviewer is not given absolute power in these situations. From my reading of the rules the reviewers comments (and the wider discussion) are a tools to be used by the editor, who has the final say. I’m sure in most cases editors give great weight to reviewers words and they know they are risking antagonizing them if they don’t, so I guess the decision isn’t taken lightly.Isaac Held from what I’ve seen from his blog responses seems like a fairly level headed person, I’m sure he can shrug off this ever so slight prick to his ego. BTW the editor doesn’t seem like some idiot him self (http://nenes.eas.gatech.edu/CV.pdf).

Nick I think you’re being too prescriptive,

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images