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

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Hi David,

I have been meaning to say hello. I have been amused by your dealings with webby and blah blah.

To what I knew would be my regret I looked at webby’s latest effort – http://theoilconundrum.com/

We start with the well known relatinship.

T=To+αlog(C/Co) – OK – a bit limited as we have to derive α empirically.

But apparently C/Co is mostly water vapour (not carbon doxide) which is caused by evaporation with an activation energy of -

H=0.42eV=4873Kelvins

OK – it is usualy expressed as Joules/mol or kg. eV has units of Joules and is supposedly the enthalpy of vaporisation of a single molecule – I haven’t checked the number but I am clueless as to why it is equal to Kelvins but let’s move on.

Then without explanation we get to –

C/C0=βe^−H/T

At this stage I get vertigo and fall over. But I did notice that you and I starred in the extracuricular ruminations of blah blah and webnutcolonoscope. How sweet – it is so nice to be cared about.

I am in fact going back to help out help out webbies traffic – it is a bit sad when there is only blah blah and webby on their own – and leave a message. I implore you all to likewise leave messages of hope and cheer.

I think there are quite a few denizens with actual intellect – and you are one of them.

Cheers


Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

temps an urban hipster – he is in favour.

Comment on New perspectives on climate sensitivity by Skippy

0
0

Well here’s he pot calling the kettle black. What we have is a monumental waste of time and space with his appalling pretensions, silliness, maladroopism – defined as a cross between malapropism and OMG not him again – and infinitely teased out bad faith.

Comment on New perspectives on climate sensitivity by manacker

0
0

Bart R

Jim Cripwell is correct is saying that the only question that is interesting in a practical sense is whether or not humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere in the past (for example, since Mauna Loa measurements have given us a representative estimate of atmospheric CO2 concentrations) has caused a perceptible rise in globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature, as measured at both the surface and in the troposphere.

Hypothetical deliberations of how much theoretical warming might have been caused by the first 20 ppmv or the estimated pre-industrial 280 ppmv have no practical importance (getting into the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” category).

And to determine the impact of human CO2 one has to be sure that all the natural forcing mechanisms and variabilities (as well as any other anthropogenic forcing factors other than CO2) have been taken into consideration. An therein lies the great uncertainty, as our hostess has pointed out.

Recent studies have been made, based on the past CO2 and temperature record, to estimate the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity at equilibrium in degrees C. These indicate that 2xCO2 ECS is very likely to be around 1,6C (or around half the previous model-predicted mean value cited by IPCC).

But even these estimates had to rely on “guess-timates” for the impact of natural forcing and variability, and by considering direct solar irradiance as the only estimated solar forcing, have very likely underestimated natural forcing and, thus, overestimated the 2xCO2 ECS.

But they are the best estimates we have to date (until we can get better empirical data for the various natural factors involved).

Max

.

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Memphis

0
0

@Fan

Absurd ongoing denial[s] that government-funded climate alarmism is neither corrupt nor even has any motive to be corrupt.

Fan sensibly offers no opposition here, seemingly differing with these deniers, so both recognizing and understanding the widespread corruption that characterizes government climate “science”.
sfsg.

The two key questions, Memphis, is whether James Hansen’s scientific worldview is factually correct and whether it is morally sound.

But we see here, that for Fan, facts are not enough. They must first and foremost support political correctness (which is his ruinously impoverished notion of being “morality sound”).

And seems too, though, he’s a Hansen groupie, as he regularly tries to settle his two question by urging all to do as he does, and
- embrace the willful ignorance which is the creed of of the CAGW truebeilever
- insist on ideological purity / political correctness
- deny or ignore the the obvious bias and political advocacy of Hansen and others

Isn’t that correct Fan?

Because Nature has the final say, eh Memphis?

Hence the rush to get alarmism legislated for asap, as Nature too increasingly seems to be showing herself to be a skeptic. Everyone knows that once taxes and bureaucracies are enacted, and governments and their totalitarian-leaning Fans become addicted to them, it is nigh impossible to get rid of them, no matter how bogus their underlying rationale.

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Il ritorno dell’Hockey Stick | Climatemonitor

0
0

[...] notoriamente scettica sull’argomento AGW. La prima critica consistente la ritroviamo sul blog di Judith Curry, dove viene ospitato un post che mette in risalto il fatto che con una oculata scelta dei dati di [...]

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by manacker

0
0

Skippy and Beth

Don’t know how things work in your country, but such a state censorship of the free press to only allow the “PC party line” would not fly here in Switzerland.

In the USA it would even be outlawed by the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press.

Do you not have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press in Australia?

Max

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Monk

0
0

The big issue in Mann’s HS “science”, was his deliberately fraudulent DIY statistical techniques.


Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by manacker

0
0

lolwot

The result is that the data suggests the present day world, which I have described as +0.4C warmer than it was in 1961-1990, is warmer than the average of the MWP. Quite a bit warmer.

There is no just basis to the claim the MWP was warmer than present.

Wrong conclusion, lolwot, for the following reasons (which have been pointed out).

You are comparing “apples” (reconstructed averages over longer-term periods) with “orange”s (observed globally and seasonally averaged land and sea surface temperatures over the 30-year period 1961-1990, as the study cites, or the even shorter “blip” of the past 20 years, as you recommend).

The MWP “apple” shows a tad more warming than the current “orange” (the first one cited).

But if you extend the current “orange” back from today to 1850, you will see that the MWP is significantly warmer than the past 150 years.

But, lolwot, even then it’s an “apples and oranges” comparison (i.e. next to worthless).

So to rephrase your statement:

There is no just basis to the claim the MWP was NOT warmer than present

Max

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Edim

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Skippy

0
0

oh different your – you’re an idiot for making anything of a simple typo. Why don’t you lift your game instead.

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Steady Eddie

0
0

To my -> “There will be massive political action on AGW regardless of what Nature has to say”,
Fan responds merely with –> “Your post is wrong-on-the-facts”,

but offers ZERO such counter-facts of support for his view, hastily diverting the discussion into his usual credulous and blinkered CAGW truebeliever catechism chants.

The truth remains that, as uncertainty about cagw rises, even among climate “scientists” employed by governments, governments are steadily enacting more and more law and taxes despite the support for it being on the wane.

The point is governments only care about the climate, to the extent they can use it to justify extra taxes and powers.

Hence : There will be massive political action on AGW regardless of what Nature has to say.

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Steady Eddie

0
0

Fan says : The Hockey Stick ain’t going away.

Yes, political expansionism has far too much invested in it to admit it has failed.

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by tempterrain

0
0

There seems to be widespread criticism that scientists have actually used thermometers to measure temperature. The word “spliced” seems to crop up a lot.

I don’t know about anyone else, but if I want to know the temperature then a thermometer would be the instrument of choice.

Unfortunately, for anyone wanting to reconstruct a long term temperature record, the thermometer measured record only goes back about 150 years. Before that proxy records in the form of tree ring widths have to be used. So if anything is “spliced” it would have to be these proxies which don’t have the same degree of precision as a more direct instrumental measurement. And no-one is saying they do.

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Beth Cooper


Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Skippy

0
0

The newspapers will certainly challenge in the courts if it gets that far – still very unlikely to get that far in my view. Although one theory has it that the government might pursue it out of sheer bloody mindedness before going down in a screaming heap in an election in which everything is going against them.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Wagathon

0
0

In the revealing 13-March-2013 Email to skeptical bloggers on the internet, self-named Mr. FOIA (the still anonymous whistleblower who released foi2009.pdf on the eve of the corrupt proceedings in Copenhagen that detailed all of the CRUgate shenanigans) said, “It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods… We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else… Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far… Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of. Over and out. Mr. FOIA”

Comment on Open thread weekend by sunshinehours1

Comment on Open thread weekend by sunshinehours1

Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by phatboy

0
0

Jim D, please stop trying to put your (imagined) version of ‘sceptic logic’ into my mouth.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images