Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by mosomoso

$
0
0

You know, Max, not being much of a libertarian I believe in heavy regulation re sanitation, pollution. China’s real pollution is excused too readily, and the Chinese are experts in patiently evading regulation, delaying response etc. This kind of quiet, sly defiance is almost a matter of pride with them. (I worked in the Sydney restaurant game years ago.)

It’s appalling to witness the intelligentsia’s discovery of “markets” as the latest Big Lever of government. If CAGW was real, sane people would act ruthlessly and fast through government, as in war. When France was faced with ruin through energy poverty, Messmer and the ailing Pompidou acted with extraordinary speed and decision to make France nuclear. You don’t cant about “markets” when faced with a real national or global threat.

There again, the climate is just the climate, capricious and often hostile, like always. You can tell by the hopelessly frivolous “solutions” offered that there is no new climate threat. Still, the loftily-concerned will always have memories of those magnificent jet trails they made to Cancun and Rio. They had their shining moment of sexiness mixed with moral hauteur.


Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Max_OK

$
0
0

Well, just send Waggy to Somalia. That’s about as close as he’ll get today to no government.

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by mosomoso

$
0
0

Ah, the Big T. My favourite rogue! Now there was an adviser to government. Take bribes from everyone, but only give back to the more reasonable.

Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by captdallas 0.8 or less

$
0
0

What happen Web? Still don’t get it? Water evaporates and produces about 85Wm-2 of latent cooling. Clouds form creating a reflective surface that reflects about 85 Wm-2 from a higher colder place. That is about 170Wm-2, no well mixed greenhouse gases yet. With a surface temperature of about 289K (~399Wm-2), water vapor depresses surface temperature relative to a “true” black body by about 20 C degrees. How cold is that higher colder place that the clouds form? Does that water vapor “envelope” cover the entire surface of the Earth?

Think hard now.

Now the lapse rate above that higher colder space is “fixed” by the requirement of 50% entropy. That “fixes” the lapse rate at ~6.5K/km in the dry air portion of the atmosphere. Warmer surface temperatures just expands the water vapor envelope. Since the surface area per degree latitude expansion decreases as you approach the poles, what happens to the rate of warming?

Back to your standard atmosphere, there is a Cp term. Which dry WMGHG has the largest change in Cp with temperature and pressure? Yes, that would be your buddy, your pal, carbon dioxide. Manabe had it right.

Comment on Congressional hearing rescheduled by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0

A clarification:

When I said “nice”, I was referring to Tar Baby’s comment, which I enjoyed reading.

We thank Tar Baby for the best villainous monologue in a long time.

Comment on AMS Statement on Climate Change by car

$
0
0

You are in point of fact a good webmaster. The website loading speed is incredible. It sort of feels that you are doing any unique trick. Moreover, The contents are masterpiece. you have done a fantastic task on this topic!

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Joshua

$
0
0

IMO the problem today (in all countries) is that we have a trend toward too much (well-meaning but misplaced) government control and regulation of everything, too much wasteful bureaucracy and (as a result) taxes that are increasing to the point that they become oppressive.

Fascinating.

In many countries today, by-and-large those with the proportionally biggest, most complex, and most extensive governments, large %’s of the population enjoy more civil rights, more freedoms, and greater economic prosperity than all but tiny minorities have enjoyed throughout the entire history of civilization.

Not a panacea, but any stretch. We still have too many in poverty, too high an incarceration rate, too much crime, too many children who don’t get quality education, too much inequality, etc.

And certainly, there is no direct function that dictates that more government = better lives.

But neither is there some direct function that more government = worse. The operative variable is the quality of government and the measure of balance – on many levels.

Your “(in all countries) …trend towards too much…. government control and regulation…” is associated, if not necessarily causal, with more good for more people. That doesn’t prove causality in either direction, but it certainly does suggest that for all those who prefer “socialist” Europe, South Asia, the US, Canada, etc. over “smaller government’ states like Somalia, paleo-libertarian utopianism is probably not the best ideology.

And please, the drama queenism and hand-wringing about your “oppress[ion]” is laughable. Your “oppress[ion]” is living high on the hog, not only relative to most people alive today, but to the vast, vast, vast majority of humans who have ever lived.

That said, I think that non-extremist libertarianism is a useful construct for creating a well-balanced society. To bad it is such a rare commodity.

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Generalissimo Skippy

$
0
0

Congratulations Comrade Max – you have won an all expenses one way trip to UNtopia Minnesota for your services to trivial distraction from rational discourse. The last thing the comrades need is rational discussion. Pack warm and remember those who have gone before. Stevie Nicks, Steve Miller, Stevie Wonder and Stevanopolous the Wonder Dog. You may be only 15 – but we can see you going far. Further. No further.


Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Bart R

$
0
0

Having said what I believe Dr. Hansen hasn’t said, I ought perhaps clarify what I believe Dr. Hansen has said.

While he uses a graph that extends to 2100 showing 5m rise, which he bases on the more moderate of two fitted exponential curves derived from actual sea level data, Dr. Hansen in his narrative also states clearly that exponential sea level rise cannot go on forever.

Dr. Hansen seems to imply that either 2065 or 1.4m is the limit before such a trend will break and enter a new climate state due the significant changes in the ocean resulting from the melting of so much ice in so short a time. And after? I don’t know if Dr. Hansen contemplates one can say much more about ‘after’ a shift to such a dramatically different climate state in the short term.

In the long term, Dr. Hansen’s references to Pliocene CO2 levels (that is, identical to or slightly less than current CO2 levels), to deep ocean warming and clathrate leaching, to historic sea level rises at 250MA and 55MA that show precedence for oddness such that 5m/decade sea level rise in unusual circumstances is not out of the question, and to 25+/-10m sea level rise in the long (perhaps millennial) run is plausible because it happened in the Pliocene at or near 400 ppmv CO2, as well as that his triple-inertia of ocean, ice, etc. systems implies the belief that no matter what we do going forward, much of that sea level rise is locked in, but that a separate and distinct tipping point of no return is also a concern as early as 2030.

That’s what I believe Dr. Hansen has said, more or less.

None of which to me means so much ‘catastrophic’ as ‘costly’, risky, waste of resources I have as much common claim to as anyone, and which I am being denied by those who feel entitled to piss in the common well.

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Beth Cooper

$
0
0

One wonders why yer neighbour went away,
Max_who _*knows* _ he’s_oh_kay!
Bts

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Max_OK

$
0
0

General Skippy, you ole peanutter, see if this story sticks to your mouth.

Ron Paul slams Boston police. Has he gone too far?
Asks an article in today’s Yahoo.com

Some excerpts from the article:

In a post on the website of libertarian activist Lew Rockwell, Mr. Paul said Monday that the governmental reaction to the tragic explosions was worse than the attack itself.

“The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city,” according to Paul

“But Paul’s contrarian take perhaps should not be surprising. After all, he’s a committed libertarian who at one point in the GOP presidential debates said that the border fence with Mexico might at some point be used to keep US citizens penned in.”

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-slams-boston-police-gone-too-far-170321289.html
________

Libertarians are wacky but entertaining. Who could forget Rand Paul’s speech about his toilet.

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Max_OK

$
0
0

The entire neighborhood was glad he left. So I guess the problem was us, not him. HA HA !

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Joshua

$
0
0

Max -

This one’s my favorite example of extremist libertarian ideology – from the most powerful and influential libertarian leader in the country, probably the world?

Ron Paul: Korea Conflict May Be Orchestrated Crisis To Boost Dollar

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
November 23, 2010

Congressman Ron Paul speculated on the Alex Jones Show today that the war footing between North and South Korea could be an orchestrated crisis to boost the dollar and reverse the US economy, paralleling the RAND Corporation’s call two years ago for the United States to become embroiled in a major war as a means of preventing a double dip recession.

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-korea-conflict-may-be-orchestrated-crisis-to-boost-dollar/

I mean seriously, you just have to love that!

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Bart R

$
0
0

Some random thoughts about the latest hearing.

There were so many gaffes, from a smart-alec CO2 plays jazz (immediately apologized for and forgiven) to Lomborg flat-out trying to misleading the committee through his teeth, to Judith informing sitting members of Congress that she had discovered how people manipulate facts, like a four-year old child running up to a group of hookers on a street corner announcing, “I know where babies come from!”

They know, Dr. Curry. They know. Better than you, or any of us, or even than Dr. Lomborg with his PhD in the science of Danish politics.

They also have interests of their own, limited time and resources, and very important jobs. An exercise like this ought not be treated as an opportunity to show off for cameras or plug one’s books or blogs. It was inexcusable that not once, not twice, but more than that questions which the experts ought have been amply prepared for they answered with waffle or “I don’t know,” or “I heard nothing I disagree with.”

That was a pathetic, and shameful show. Members of Congress on this issue feel the fetid breath of eight kinds of monsters breathing down their necks. They have a great deal of pressure on them, need the best the experts they call on for guidance can offer, and will pay for their choices right or wrong. Congress has a hard job, and this was time wasted.

If you’re ever called on to be a witness, begin by finding out who you are called before. Their district, their voting record, their interests and stated positions. Find out if they care about Texas electricity rates or Chinese investment in research or jazz music, or not. Prepare as if preparing for an oral defense of a PhD paper, only with mean people who will walk into the heat of battle for their political lives with only what you hand them as your panel.

Show that those vaunted credentials of yours mean something. And move the committee forward by your testimony.

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Wagathon

$
0
0

 

Mistakes are common in science and they can take a long time to correct, sometimes many generations. It is important that misguided political decisions do not block science’s capacity for self correction, especially in this instance when incorrect science is being used to threaten our liberties and wellbeing.

 
~Dr. William Happer


Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Joshua

$
0
0
Say, WHT - Check this out! <blockquote> Paul Joseph Watson </i>[see my comment immediately above]<i> is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and <strong>Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.</strong> Spectacular.

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Peter Lang

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“Again with the search for a deductive argument. There are other effective ways to construct arguments than building deductive ones.”

yes, appeals to authority, chewbacca, black hat marketing, many ways to create effective arguments, arguments that work, but are deductively bogus.

The sweet 16. Easily dismantled. N’s goal, can be done rather easily. The bigger task is to take down fools without making your own mistakes… like comparing all of exxons spending ( 16Mlillion) to the spending at Yale (14 million) when in fact One university ( Yale) and one researcher ( Mann 2 million) got as much money as all of Exxons shills combined. When winning the argument against your opponents is easy, its best not to hit a shot OB. Why? because then a black hat guy will focus on the mistake you made rather than tap in putt you sunk.

Put another way, when you take down idiots dont step on your own junk, and dont make stupid economic comparisons when you are an economist. Hopefully I’ll get to ask him about this. I’ll let you know.

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Beth Cooper

$
0
0

WHT it’s always wise
ter remember that
black swans abound,
not jest above but
also below ground.

Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

I have quoted S&T so often – I think everyone should know what it is.

Thus – as in the penultimate paragraph to this paper – there are risks of climate surprises at both extreme ends of the warming/cooling spectrum. The very use of the term ‘global warming’ shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the system.

The feedbacks are multiple – negative and positive – and the control variables may be such things as solar UV or orbital eccentricities. The impacts of CO2 relies of inference and models. Neither is reliable. The only direct evidence in satellite radiant flux shows cloud cover dominating recent warming – and more recent non warming – with changing ocean and atmospheric patterns.

‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC 3.4.4.1

The patterns are real and associated cloud changes equally so. See Clement et al 2009 – ‘Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback’ – for instance.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Clementetal2009.png.html?sort=3&o=38

There is little to demonstrate that CO2 has been more than a bit player in changes of the past 150 years. Nonetheless – it is certain that climate will shift by the nature of non-linear systems and that the shifts are quite unpredictable at present. We may be changing elements of the system in ways that increase the potential for instability in ways, at times and to an extent that we cannot possibly know beforehand.

This argues strongly that perhaps we should be a little more cautious and do what we can reasonably do to reign in some of the more problematical behaviours. What can we do? I was reading a report from Western Australia that suggested that carbon sequestration in agricultural soils would cost $80/tonne. The report went on the say that there were many ways to improve soil carbon but that these were normal conservation measures and did come under the additional carbon sequestration above and beyond BAU rule. For God’s sake – let’s do what we can to conserve soil and water, build productivity, protect downstream environments and sequester 500 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Worse than misleading – global warming is a madness that has derailed environmental progress for a generation.

Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images