Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Bart R

$
0
0

blueice2hotsea | April 4, 2013 at 2:05 pm |

Flattery?

Perhaps you don’t understand the language of business. I doubt Rud Istvan took that harsh admonition as flattering. Being reminded that one was formerly better than one’s present behavior, that one is a giant in unrelated and distant fields and a peon in the one they currently thrash about senselessly out of their depth in.. how is that a flattering image?

There’s nothing obsequious in the patent reproval, and there is no proposal, only a double dare.


Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Bart R

$
0
0

Bad Andrew | April 5, 2013 at 10:39 am |

Sad when someone wastes so many shots, and keeps shooting further and further off target.

Perhaps consider changing your moniker to “Inaccurate Andrew”.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Bad Andrew

$
0
0

Bart,

I guess I don’t understand what you are saying.

Andrew

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Bart R

$
0
0

Bad Aim Andrew | April 5, 2013 at 10:45 am |

Read harder.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Bad Andrew

$
0
0

I did. You are still using words you haven’t clearly defined.

Andrew

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Bad Andrew

$
0
0

I guess (Tower of) Babel Bart is “at a loss for words”.

Oh hohoho! I kill me. ;)

Andrew

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

BREAKING NEWS:  In-depth analysis of Are We Scr*w*d?

Colin Goldblatt and Andrew Watson offer an in-depth hard-science analysis:


The Runaway Greenhouse:
implications for future climate change,
geoengineering and planetary atmospheres

(Accepted in Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond.)

We live in a time of rapid climate change. The warming that Earth is experiencing now due to emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning is unprecedented in human history, and the pace of the change is very rapid compared to most past climate change as deduced from palaeoclimate records.

It is natural to ask just how bad the problem could be: Could humanity’s collective failure to control our influence on climate lead to warming so cataclysmic as to render the planet uninhabitable?

Wide attention has recently been drawn to such a concern by one of our most eminent climate scientists, James Hansen: “… if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there’s a substantial chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome [the runaway greenhouse] is a dead certainty”.

In this paper, we begin by reviewing the physical basis of the runaway greenhouse in order to directly address this issue.

The good news is that almost all lines of evidence lead us to believe that is unlikely to be possible, even in principle, to trigger full a runaway greenhouse by addition of non-condensible greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

[However] nothing in this article should detract from the fact that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a major threat to global society and ecology. Whilst we make the technical point that these emissions are unlikely to cause a “runaway greenhouse”, very severe and dangerous climate change is a real possibility.

The imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions remains.
——————-
Appendix A. Technical Background  In this appendix, we summarise the background physics required to understand the runaway greenhouse, for the benefit of non-experts.

This terrific scientific article (the Technical Appendix in particular is an outstanding contribution) is highly recommended to all Climate Etc readers!

Well, that answers Judith Curry’s question, eh? Plausibly humanity is NOT scr*w*d … yet! … provided that humanity makes responsible, foresighted, non-carbon energy-economy choices! No wonder the Vatican has come to respect climate-change science so highly!

So it’s not complicated, eh skeptics?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by blueice2hotsea

$
0
0
Bart R - <blockquote>All I see is a propaganda campaign forming an attack on science by trumping up <strike>charges against</strike> <b>non-robust end-points in</b> a paper in Science.</blockquote> There. Fixed that for me. The problem here is that a large part of the paper's (non-scientific) value is tied to its flaws. Analogize a construction flaw which is "overlooked" by a housing appraiser, not mentioned by the Realtor and the later basis for rejection of unrelated valid insurance claims which combined with the "overlooked" flaws in credit-worthiness leads to default. All these flaws are part of a package deal from which which many profited including bankers, brokers and law-makers. What about home-owners and tax-payers? They got screwed!

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by climatereason

$
0
0

Fan your 11.16

Notwithstanding the fact that the climate has warmed as quickly as today even in the instrumental record, perhaps you can comment on Black Carbon? I first became interested in this when researching the massive arctic warming before the last one (the last one being 1920-1949 and the one before that 1819 to 1850.)

Looking at the journals of the first scientific Arctic explorer -Scoresby-he made comments about the amount of black soot lying on the ice/snow and melting it. (he also commented on the tropical heat of the sun)

Now back in the 1960′s my parents used to spread soot from the fire along the icy paths leading to our house and it soon melted. Recently the BBC had a fascinating programme on the Arctic and the thing that struck me most was the amount of black carbon coating the landscape. You can see it here in the third photo down

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/03/greenland-ground-zero-for-global-soot-warming/

In the 1820′s episode it was blamed on the Burgeoning American economy, no doubt now the Indians and Chinese will get the blame.

Theres no doubt black soot melts ice and that it might be a considerable factor in the episodes of arctic melt over the centuries. I am not aware of the situation with the South Pole-presumably it is slightly more insulated from industrial side effects.

I just wondered about your thoughts on this subject. Yes, you can even quote a Dr Hansen paper, as I am sure he must have commented on it at some point.
PS Are we on for the Vatican conference in 2014?
tonyb

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by blueice2hotsea

$
0
0
I had my fill reading vile <strike>opinions of</strike> <b>attacks on</b> Freeman Dyson (and Judith Curry, etc)

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by climatereason

$
0
0

Fan your 11.16

No wonder you linked to the abstract and not the full article. Here it is.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1593v1.pdf

They consider the possibility of geo engineering then go into all sorts of familiar fantasies (one of the Authors is from CRU) then say in the conclusions.

“Conclusion

Following this theory, we are not near the threshold of a runaway greenhouse. However, the behaviour of hot, water vapour rich, atmospheres is poorly understood and much more study of these is necessary.”

Where do you find these papers? More importantly why do you believe the most alarmist bits of them so implicitly ?
tonyb

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by climatereason

$
0
0

Fan

Through your last post I was able at last to access the Vatican web site and read some of the material we will be asked to consider when we visit the Vatican conference in 2014.

Is this the document you have been trying to link to?
http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/es35.pdf

Here is an extract;

“If the current increase in global emissions of greenhouse gases continues, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere could reach as much as four times their present level by 2100, and worldwide temperatures could increase by 1.1-6.4˚C during that period of time.”

So that we all know if you stand shoulder to shoulder with the Vatican can you confirm that you expect total co2 concetrations to be around 1600ppm by 2100?

Here are the IPCC estimates

http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html

tonyb

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by WebHubTelescope

$
0
0

Tamino is right. That Chylek analysis of the Dye3 Greenland ice core data is stupendously misguided. They are looking at white noise and extracting phantoms out of the data set. I just tried it myself, looking at Fourier and autocorrelation and perhaps see at most a 2 year correlation wrt brown noise.
But it is so weak and the overwhelming picture is of a flat white noise spectrum.
Did Chylek ever respond to Tamino or was he too embarrassed?
Everything Chylek says or does is now suspect.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Matthew R Marler

$
0
0
willard(@nevaudit): <i>Do you notice how “20th portion” now becomes “the whole reconstruction”, MattStat? </i> You made that up. McKitrick focused on the 20th century portion, which was the portion that Marcotte et al highlighted in their public comments.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

ClimateReason asks “Where do you find these papers? More importantly why do you believe the most alarmist bits of them so implicitly?”

TonyB, your questions are either naive or rhetorical!

• The arxiv server is an indispensable, searchable, free-as-in-freedom resource for every kind of scientific and mathematical research! If you did not know about the arxiv server before, TonyB … well you know about it now!

My Climate Etc excerpt of the Goldblatt and Watson article took care to represent that article’s conclusions fully, fairly, and verbatim … as Climate Etc readers are invited to verify for themselves in the full PDF text!

As for journeying to the 2014 Pontifical Conference Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature, I’ll let you know as soon as I receive my invitation from the Vatican (which must’ve got lost in the mail!)

So it’s pretty simple, eh skeptics?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}


Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by WebHubTelescope

$
0
0

pg,
what we do is the equivalent of dunking the ball over someone’s head. The retaliation should be that the embarrassed party to try to dunk over my head, and not to continuously toss up air-balls.

All they can get Tamino on is plagiarism. That’s pretty rich.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by climatereason

$
0
0

Fan

Thanks. I have used the Arxiv server to find stuff for my own articles.
I’m just off for my tea then its the Simpsons-I watch it for the science content of course.

When I return I look forward to reading your replies about my other queries on Black Soot and likely co2 concentrations by 2100.
tonyb

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Wagathon

$
0
0
Two celebrated standard bearers of scientific skepticism today, Freeman Dyson and William Happer, weighed-in giving their views about the motives and plain ignorance of global warming alarmists. “There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves,” Happer observed. “Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous.” Going to the matter of competence, Dyson was no less sparing of <em>brainwashed</em> climate scientists. “The models are extremely oversimplified,” says Dyson. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.” (<a href="http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html" rel="nofollow">See--e.g., Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor</a>) Dyson worked with Einstein -- he replaced Einstein -- and knows a little something about what we do and do not understand. Dyson just does not believe climatologists "understand the climate," and says, "their computer models are full of fudge factors." Dyson also says, "I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic." "It was similar in the Soviet Union," Dyson observed. "Who could doubt Marxist economics was the future?"

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Rud Istvan

$
0
0

There is little (IMO zero) chance of either internal or magnetic confinement fusion. It is possible that true LENR (weak force Widom Larsen theory) might offer something in the future. Grossly under researched because of the cold fusion taint.
Folks will get over fear of nuclear when the lights start going out in about one generation. So that gives the lead time to come up with better designs that don’t take 10 years to construct. You are correct that the present industry really is not viable. The book advocates the engineering R&D to change that, rather than waste it on hot fusion.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Skiphil

$
0
0

Johanna and Willis,

Well said, both of you. I don’t plan on addressing Valley Girl anymore, but for anyone who does I recommend the following:

for so long as “Fan” insists upon barraging the conversation with such streams of !!!!! smilie smilie heart heart and endless unexplained spammy links, invective, loud harangues, and similar failures of discourse, just refer to him/her/it as the

Valley Girl

(H/t Willis)

It may be impossible to get Fan to care about improving his reasoning and communication skills, but at least others can have some fun reflecting all the mockery back upon the Valley Girl.

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images