Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Beyond smoke and mirrors: the middle ground by P.E.

0
0

I don’t think that helped your case.


Comment on Year in review: 2011 by Jeff Id

0
0

Heck, I was just hoping for some realistic discussion. It is very difficult to do the sophisticated math of a project like BEST without any issues. The CI calcs are a big one though. I would have preferred a much simpler amalgamation process because it is less possible to screw up. That is just the engineer in me though. Fancy stuff (like step detection or Jackknife w/reweighting) is not often required and when it is believed required, it should always be compared to simple stuff to make sure that it didn’t incorrectly skew the result.

The problem I found won’t change the trend but it does represent a factual error in the math. Big deal! Figure it out, fix it and move on. Or tell me my mistake. I just like good math. Unfortunately, it appears that I may be relegated to troll status here which is not my intent at all. Data is data, math is math and we cannot change either of those.

Comment on Beyond smoke and mirrors: the middle ground by P.E.

0
0

Oh, and Hunter – First rule of Nostradumbasses: don’t make a prediction about anything that will happen within your lifetime.

Although Ehrlich seems to have gotten a free pass on that one for some reason.

Comment on Beyond smoke and mirrors: the middle ground by Doug Badgero

0
0

Nat gas is only cheaper than coal for new generation and then only if you assume nat gas will stay cheap. It would not be “cheaper” to trash many billions of dollars in invested capital in current coal fired generation and then spend billions more to build replacement NG plants. To add insult to economic injury these NG plants would still have a higher variable operating cost than coal plants even at today’s “cheap” NG prices.

Comment on Beyond smoke and mirrors: the middle ground by cui bono

0
0

Mr Mosher, stop googling lesbians on the internet and get back to work! :-)

Comment on Beyond smoke and mirrors: the middle ground by cui bono

0
0

I’ve been a fan of Professor Richter since the 70s. Unfortunately he is essentially a technological optimist trying to engage with Malthusians.

Julian Simon and Herman Khan both said that cleaning up pollution as we get richer was a good idea, but this wasn’t enough to make them popular figures with the Greens who groove on doom.

Richter will get some plaudits from environmentalists who favour nuclear power, but otherwise the message will fall on deaf ears. Again.

Comment on Evaluative premises by ferd berple

0
0

Clearly Hansen doesn’t agree with you. What both Hansen and I found is that to within something like 1/100th of a degree there has been no change in ocean temperatures over the past 7 years.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf

As far as statistical significance goes, a trend of 7 years as I’ve shown is 1/2 as reliable as a trend of 49 years. Trends don’t have a magical threshold, where they are insignificant one year and significant a year later. A trend of 17 years is significantly less than twice as reliable as a trend of 7 years.

Comment on Beyond smoke and mirrors: the middle ground by Simpat88 in Oz

0
0

Yes, I read the book about a year ago. It is more pragmatic than many books on climate change and thechnical issues to do with mitigation. I come from a radiation health perspective so had no trouble with the presentation on nuclear issues. The environmental health aspects e.g. the switch from coal to natural gas, do make sense.


Comment on Looking ahead to 2012 by stefanthedenier

0
0

Agnostic, interesting how one can massage the truth. You present as if Julia Gillard was PUSHED into carbon tax. It takes lots of pushing to make cat to eat a sardine. Obama and his advisers have much more brains than Gillard and her advisers. They can orchestrate to be FORCED into carbon tax; only if he wins second therm / he will not need to worry about third therm… If socialist can keep his / her word – they wouldn’t be socialist in the first place. Socialist religion is; if you can prostitute your integrity. See on this blog, people as WebHub, Robert and Joshua; what they say; they wouldn’t believe it, if somebody said it to them, they are targeting the ignorant. Socialist religion is: praying on the ignorant.

Comment on Discussion with Rich Muller by mattgenton

0
0

hi to all at judithcurry.com i thought i had sent this newyears eve but it didnt send so i have sent it again all the best for new year to all of you
– matt

Comment on The real holes in climate science by hunter

0
0

cnp,
When you claim, “One of the main things that differentiates scientific results from other claims of fact, is that we generally have some idea of HOW uncertain we are.”
You hoist most of the AGW consensus claims up in the air explosively and toss the remains under a bus.
Thank you very much.

Comment on Beyond smoke and mirrors: the middle ground by WebHubTelescope

0
0

Foolish statement. Pennsylvania hit peak anthracite coal long ago, and the production is in the diminishing returns regime now. Google images for peak coal and you will find graphs of coal production.

Comment on The real holes in climate science by MattStat

0
0

Frank: It doesn’t make sense to hope for non-linearity over a 1-2% change in degK without a good reason for expecting non-linearity

At a base temperature of 288K, a 1% increase in temperature (2.88K) produces a 4% increase in T^4. Thus, even for what seem like small changes in T, the nonlinearity in the Stefan-Boltzman equation produce non-negligible nonlinearities in the expected radiative heat transfer.

Ice melt changes and water vaporization changes are proportional to temperature changes, but the convective and advective heat transfer process are probably non-linear.

Over the range of climate changes expected by the AGW theory consequent upon a change of CO2 concentration, the non-linearities are not negligible.

Comment on The real holes in climate science by MattStat

0
0

Martha,

Would you like to comment on the real holes in the climate science?

Comment on The real holes in climate science by WebHubTelescope

0
0

Ludecke has a model?

At best he has heuristic fits to some empirical data.
Which was the most recent paper discussed here.


Comment on The real holes in climate science by Tom

Comment on On the dangerous(?) naivete of uncritical acceptance of scientific consensus by WebHubTelescope

0
0

You mean you don’t have the discriminatory skill to be able to pick out a whack model, say by Harry Dale Hoffman (another one to add.to the list)?

Is that not skepticism, but pure gullibility?
Wow, I thought that was part of the intellectual challenge, being talented enough to dismiss the crackpots quickly.

Comment on The real holes in climate science by Tom

Comment on The real holes in climate science by cwon14

0
0

What does Gavin Schmidt have to whine about here? On his own partisan blog he simply deletes any voice that distracts from the Real Climate AGW propaganda machine. It doesn’t fall under the definition of “fraud” but is it any less short of vices? As I said elsewhere “fraud” as a summary statement about AGW activism is both saying too much and TOO LITTLE at the same time. Fraud just doesn’t cover all the human failings of the AGW movement.

Comment on The real holes in climate science by randomengineer

0
0

If you want to veer from observations of left/right divide on socioeconomic issues and dive into cheap shots, they could at least be funny.

Democrat: “Two dozen Saudis perpetrated a horrible crime.”
Republican: “Hey, I know. Let’s invade Iraq, a country who had nothing to do with it.”

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images