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 Generalissimo Skippy

$
0
0

It is a dream of a bridge then is it bart? I recall one of my very first engineering lectures – eager little things we were with the world opening before us – that anyone could build a bridge. Engineers can do it cost-effectively. The sole function is minimising materials and maximising efficiency.

So if you build a bridge I would no doubt load test it first – but otherwise have no problem at all. A party of politicians in Humvees should do the trick. We had a Minister of the Crown long ago who was 7ft tall and 400lbs. He had a penchant for cutting ribbons. So we would get him to load test just about everything. Stand over there while we take a photo.

But the idea of an economist with a slide rule is a vision of hilarity. Are you really an economist or are you just joshing us? And what makes you think that the Reserve Bank needs my help setting interest rates. I had nothing to do with setting the system up. Although this was Hayek’s central economic concern. In more than 20 years of growth – this is a bridge crossed many times.

http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2010/images/sp-dg-200810-graph1.gif

So in just what manner would you exercise your economist slide rule? I know – you want your money. I am sure that I don’t have it – but if I see it lying around I will be sure to let you know. But then again I am sure from my immense breadth of reading and experience – of engineering, environmental science, economics, philosophy and the many other areas – that there are much more effective, pragmatic and practical measures to mitigate carbon emissions. Trust me I’m a professional environmental scientist.


Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Ferenc M. Miskolczi

$
0
0

R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist, etc. | April 30, 2013 at 2:47 pm |

“… Really?! Might as well just throw out all the physics textbooks from the past hundred years then, right?!….”

No. You should keep the physics textbooks and distribute among the interested climatologists. But there are lot of things in the radiation physics to throw away, especially from K. Schwarzschid’s presentation at the Berlin Academy of Science in 1914.

And BTW I am listening. I know where the te=255 K comes from, but you tell me why it is not 245 or 265 K and why the surface ts is about ts= 288 K and not 278 or 298 K?

Ferenc

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

$
0
0

willard (@nevaudit) | May 2, 2013 at 2:11 pm |

You’re unlikely to see me do maths much here.

However, I’ve noticed you don’t expend the best wordsmithing in your inventory here, either, so I’d say we’re even.

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

Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Ferenc M. Miskolczi

$
0
0

Climatereason | April 30, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Reply
“….change your mind about the likely co2 sensitivity, which I believe you thought was about 0.8C?…..”

Tonyb, I do not really know what kind of co2 sensitivity do you mean. I used to quaote my computations as co2 doubling causes 0.024 absolute increase in the no-feedback flux optical depth . In my 2007 paper I give a 0.24 K (no feedback) increase in surface temperature. (page 22.) .
To claryfy the details please send me an e-mail to fmiskolczi@cox.net.
Thanks,

Ferenc

Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Ferenc M. Miskolczi

$
0
0

WebHubTelescope (@whut) | April 30, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Reply
“…..Ferenc, I think it is you that can not explain the 33C discrepancy. The rest of the climate scientists can….”

Why do not you try to explain me (use first principles only)….Definition is not good enough – leave that to Pachurin and the IPCC.
Ferenc

Comment on Is there any good news for the environment among Evangelicals? by ergonomics chair

$
0
0

Hi there, I discovered your blog by means of Google even
as searching for a comparable subject, your site came
up, it looks great. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
Hi there, just was aware of your weblog via Google, and found that it is really informative. I’m gonna
watch out for brussels. I will be grateful should you continue this
in future. Numerous other folks might be benefited out of your writing.
Cheers!

Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Jim D

$
0
0

OK, the surface emits at 288 K which is 390 W/m2. The top of atmosphere emits at 255 K which is 240 W/m2. The ratio of top/surface is about 0.62, and ln(0.62) is -0.49, so the optical depth is 0.49. Your definition of optical depth neglects any IR emitted by the atmosphere in its calculation, which is why it is so much higher than 0.49, but unfortunately the part you neglected is where the CO2 effect is.


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

$
0
0

-IMO you’re being very pessimistic, but…-

I have been somewhat interested is space “development” for
about 15 years. I am very optimistic and also pessimistic.

Generally whenever a NASA administer says stuff, it’s a
cause for pessimistic- their apparent depth of ignorance
is quite astonishing.

“But there are other benefits to space solar power, that make it worth the investment: it doesn’t muck up the surface of the Earth the way earth-bound solar power (or windmills!) do. And progress can be made exponential, once the technology is mature. ”

Yes.
It really is only path of the green’s deepest desires.
Though most greens are anti-science, therefore
it is a very difficult concept for most of them.

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

$
0
0

Of course it is like being an officer and a gentleman. If the things falls down you are handed a pistol and expected to do the right thing. Still up for it Bart? No? I guess that’s why economists are held in such high regard.

Comment on PBS Ombudsman by Eva

$
0
0

ło o owo, %Article_Title% by ponęta Eva poruszała się chociaż
nieznacznie. Smoki przedtem odkąd wyprzedziła przestały się bałamucić na nieruchome kukły.
Nieświadomość tegoż epizodu kosztowała uprzednio byt
mnóstwa szewczyków, smoczek,

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

$
0
0

The worst thing about Google “economics paleo Hermann” is Hans-Hermann Hoppe comes up.

I will likely have to go back and re-read all of Held, now. To be brief, Hermann Held’s work though elegant and in many ways exciting would be greatly simplified by considering Forcing, or TOA Imbalance, or total energy sensitivity instead of Warming as a focus. The risk analysis is a substantial advancement over previous attempts, but still deeply flawed in a few ways we can help with.

Warming is the uncertain middle. It has uncertain from above and below; uncertain how it forms, and uncertain how it affects what comes after, and uncertain how much is happening besides, and uncertain if it is lagged or contemporaneous or unreliable.

Warming might as well be removed, and more straightforward metrics used in its place, or better, demoted to rank among all the other outcomes rather than as their cause or their uniting principle. As it isn’t. Of course, Held very nearly achieves this in effect, but he goes the long way around to get there.

The right question to ask isn’t p[2C]0.75; it’s the probability of returning the climate to the point natural forcings are not overwhelmed by the signal of CO2E. That last happened in the 1950′s, at just over 310 ppmv, but we have no guarantee that’s the target now. Which is bad news, given what Held’s analyses tell us about hitting the 350 ppmv target of 1990.

Also, Held’s concern for CS of 4.5 vs. 3.0 leaves out the chance that it’s both; he fails to scale his results temporal resolution to the temporal resolution of CS. If Held’s results are based on 20-year measures, then 2.9 +/- 0.1 is likely; if Held’s looking at century scale measures, then CS 4.5 is entirely also possible, because attractors are strange like that.

In the video from the Isaac Newton Institute, one of the audience accidentally almost asks an intelligent questio about removing first order uncertainties. And Held oversimplified, but he gave a useful answer too.

Another question is whether Held would sign off on a guarantee of less than 2% cost to the economy.

I’d like to compare that to a promise that opening bandwidths to mobile phone auctions would cost the economy less than 2%.

You innovate this way, the economy booms.

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

$
0
0

There is no uncertainty here. 450ppm. No fossil fuel investment after 2015. $700 billion/year and growing for ‘renewables.’

It’s a psychopathology. Insane groupthink on a scale allowed by the internet. This must be the first global millennialist pandemic complete with high priests and magical solutions. The circus goes on an on. There seems not the least hint of recognition that this is horrendously bonkers. Don’t go to Held expecting any thing remotely connected to people or the real world. Don’t go looking for rational ways forward at all. Go for a laugh – if you must – at some ivory tower bozo who fondly imagines that this spaghetti chart is going to convince a politician to turn the world on its arse.

It is so outstandingly bonkers that – just when I was contemplating retirement again – I shall have to saddle up my poor old Shibboleth once more and ride out again to battle the sillinesses of the climate war. You know – don’t you – that he is 102 years old? Shame – shame – shame.

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

$
0
0

manacker | May 2, 2013 at 9:09 pm |

You ask an intelligent question.

One first asked a generation ago, and negotiated, and haggled over, and determined in what is called under treaty the Carbon Inventory of nations.

Of course, it’s not perfect.

For example, the much vaunted US figures for reduced carbon emissions are.. well.. possibly overstated due “outdated and inaccurate formulas to estimate levels of air pollution“.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Environmental-groups-sue-EPA-over-refinery-4484297.php

But the treaty makes allowances for improving calculation of Carbon Inventories; isn’t the humility to acknowledge there’s room for improvement refreshing?

Sad, that it takes litigation against the foot-dragging government to force it to do its job, sometimes, but refreshing that science marches forward toward more parsimonious, simple, universal, accurate truths.

And let’s face it, the whole carbon efficiency shell game is a pointless exercise in boasting about who has the biggest one. If it ever gets useful in some way, be sure to let us know.

Comment on The Myth(?) of Easter Island’s Ecocide by Property Management In Long Beach

$
0
0

Do they handle reservation fees as a flat rate or percentage.
For example, some companies wait for a certain
amount to be in your account before mailing out a payment or require that you always have an available
balance with them for potential use on emergency repairs.
This can be major savings when water heaters or appliances
in the property need repair or need to be replaced.


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

$
0
0

.. who broke the Great Barrier Reef.

We all have to learn to distrust each other a little more. More formally. More skeptically. More earnestly. With better fact checking and statistical analyses and effort to bring value to the table.

Imagine what might have happened if, a quarter century ago all the plumbers in Australia got together and scrutinized their plans with decent skeptics and biologists and mathematicians and if maybe, just maybe, one of them said — Hey! Hold up. We have a little problem about 35 km out of the outflows if we go on this way.

Comment on Pierrehumbert on infrared radiation and planetary temperatures by stretch mark removal and home remedy

$
0
0

Link exchange is nothing else but it is just placing
the other person’s web site link on your page at suitable place and other person will also do same in favor of you.

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

$
0
0

Joshua, I’m not holding my breath until GaryM admits he was wrong. I didn’t follow his posts about the polling, but he wasn’t alone in believing Romney would win despite what the polls were showing on the eve of the election.
I don’t recall which polling organization did best, but I doubt it was Rasmussen, the GOP’s favorite.

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

$
0
0

” AK | May 3, 2013 at 11:36 pm |

@gbaikie…

What we need for to lower costs of everything in space is rocket fuel depots.

I certainly wouldn’t invest, or advise anybody else to invest, in anything having to do with rocket fuel.”

Might look into SpaceX:
” Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) — Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., wants the private rocket-launch business to have an initial public offering in 2013, the entrepreneur’s third such sale in about three years.

“There’s a good chance that SpaceX goes public next year,” Musk, 40, said yesterday in an interview at the company’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California, without elaborating.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-10/elon-musk-anticipates-third-ipo-in-three-years-with-spacex.html

Other launch companies {such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin] would be more of a buy into defense spending in general, which may or may not be desirable considering political climatic and US budget in regard to defense spending.

So launch companies would be about only thing you could invest in which would related to rocket fuel depots.

But what I suggesting in regard to fuel depots in space is something that NASA should develop- that NASA can do things, as did things help commercial satellite market develop.
So there is no market at the moment to invest in, so you can’t invest directly into it [so only indirectly by investing in launch companies].

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

$
0
0

An outlook on the world can be positive or negative and both still may be wrong. We see that in the example of the connection of sorts between seers like rainmakers and global warming alarmists.

Each has a particular outlook based on their views about how the world works. And, a negative outlook — like for example that of the warm-stoppers — is especially destructive.

Sacrificing fattened children to bring about change is an example of a negative outlook with horrible consequences on the business of living, whether it is done by Incas on the summit of Llullaillaco or by Leftists and liberal Utopians in Western classrooms.

Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images