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

Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by Captain Kangaroo

0
0

Well if you can’t be smart – blueice – I suggest discretion.


Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Wagathon

0
0

That’s beautiful… Ioannidois would give the ‘hockey stick’ an “A” for accurately measuring prevaling bias while give Global Warming an “F”

Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Peter Davies

0
0

I doubt if any of the regulars/denizens worries too much about the use of titles on this blog. Least of all Judith if my perception of her personality is correct. I certainly do not support Matthew Marler’s POV that professors should always be addressed as such, especially on a blog, where informality is the norm. Most people address her as Judith (Judy is too familiar I think) but the lack of other comments seem to indicate that this issue is not of much consequence.

Comment on Hiding the Decline by racessgungon

Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by Steven Mosher

0
0

Hehe nice willard..

Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by vrpratt

0
0

There were 57 signatories to the Apr 8, 2006 open letter to Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper cited above by Wagathon.

@DW: But then Richard [Courtney] and I are certainly both experts on climate science.

If you set the bar for “expert on climate science” to “can’t see anything wrong with Miskolczi’s work” then 57 signatories way underestimates the number of “experts on climate science” that could have signed that open letter.

Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@DLH (quoting Joe Nocera, "How Not to Fix Climate Change"): <i>Can environmental groups expect to win a series of fights for decades to come, when the economic forces are aligned very strongly against them in each round? The answer is obvious: no. If the U.S. stopped consuming so much of the world’s oil, the economic need for the tar sands would evaporate.</i> @Peter Lang: <i> I find it amazing why so many people on the ideological left, especially the CAGW activists, don’t understand it. Why don’t they understand it?</i> Great example of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question" rel="nofollow">petitio principii</a> (begging the question), Peter. They <i>do</i> understand it. Where have you been lately? Please stop advocating increased consumption of the world's oil (and coal). Apparently this is less obvious to you than to Joe Nocera.

Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@DLH: Hansen now wants to form a league of infamy by adding $ trillions in CO2 taxes.

Looking forward to seeing this typo corrected (missing number between $ and trillions).

Also looking forward to less hysteria in your comments. (Just kidding—you didn’t really think you were being hysterical, did you?)


Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

Ah, kim is a conspiracy theorist. (Not that I didn’t already know that.)

Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Accepted at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after nearly two and half years : eloquentscience.com

0
0

[...] Chemistry and Physics (Discussion) and the tremendous discussions within the blogosphere (e.g., here) means that the work was already available for comment. One thing is for certain: the authors are [...]

Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@DS: <i>Without government bankrolling certain directions with subsidies, grants, and low-interest sub-prime business loans (cough cough Solyndra cough cough) no sane private equity is going to get anywhere near it.</i> With all that coughing DS would seem to have succumbed to tobacco. Only so long before he succumbs to CO2.

Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@pokerguy: <i>How do you adapt to something that might well not even exist, or if it does exist the properties of which remain unknown and at this point, unknowable.</i> pokerguy being a case in point.

Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@DB: Planning beyond a few years is pointless and wasteful.

For business, certainly. Businessmen move far too fast for that.

But would you then infer that planning for what nature has in store for the planet in the next few decades is just as pointless and wasteful as planning how to respond to the businesses competing with you?

And if so, why?

Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@pottereaton: Otoh, if I were taking a class with Judith, I would refer to her as “Dr. Curry.” That’s why they call it “formal education.”

Not if you were at Harvard. Professor John Smith for example would be called “Mr. Smith.”

Comment on Open thread weekend by Doug Cotton

0
0

Many thanks, Tony – much appreciated.


Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Doug Cotton

0
0
If it's carbon (C) you wish to mitigate, <b>Captain</b>, you'll have a tough time. But if it happens to be that small portion of the clean, tasteless, colourless and odourless carbon dioxide (CO2) that constitutes 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere, then your mitigation may lead to a minuscule amount of warming - which of course may be appreciated in a couple of hundred years from now when the world cools once again. Evidence <a href="http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-COTTON_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Climate Researcher and Science Author from Kangaroo Land

Comment on Spinning the climate model – observation comparison by manacker

0
0

Mosh

Either the aerosol knob or the tooth fairy.

Or, hey, maybe it’s one of your unicorns!

Max

Comment on Spinning the climate model – observation comparison by manacker

0
0

Steven Mosher

You say we “know” the current lack of warming (i.e. slight cooling) was caused by

What “caused” the pause. There are only a few options.
1. Changes in inputs ( solar )
2. Changes in other forcings
3. Internal unforced variation.
4. Some combination of the three

Your logic is impeccable, Mosh.

Problem is, we are unable to figure out which of the above and to what extent.

In addition, “other forcings” might include things we haven’t even yet considered in the models, such as natural forcings by clouds with some as yet undefined solar mechanism (cosmic rays?), solar forcing of ocean current oscillations, longer-term cyclical variability, etc.. The distinction between “internal unforced variation” and “natural forcing” is a theoretical one, which doesn’t make much difference in actual fact. And the “combination” is the best of all.

Conclusion: we (think we) can name (some of) the things that (might have) caused the past slight cooling despite unabated human GHG emissions, but in actual fact, we have no Earthly notion what caused this lack of warming or how long it will last.

Right?

Max

Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Captain Kangaroo

0
0

‘After reviewing evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and the longest instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised picture is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each multidecadal episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.’

So we will expect that 0.08 degrees C/decade to continue into the future? I think it is probably overstated. But still – plenty of time for responses on things we should be doing anyway – innovation, heath, education, development – rather than worrying about a maybe problem sometime in the future. 1.5 degrees C by the end of the century is looking quite dodgy.

The world is not warming for a decade or so. But the important thing is – you lose.

Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Captain Kangaroo

0
0

Oh – I’m not a sceptic – but you are a space cadet. You are fighting battles against some declared enemy but lack the inclination to seek truth or the ability to process it when you get hit over the head with it time and time again. Odd is it not?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images