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

Comment on The Economist on The New Republic on the ‘pause’ by Bart R

0
0

Wagathon | June 22, 2013 at 3:37 pm |

What the heck are you talking about? Whose numbers claim 25 times as many polar bears as there were a century ago? Link? Reference? Cite?

If you’re claiming there were only 1,000 polar bears alive a century ago, you’ve got some explaining to do, because hunts were reporting 600-6,000 polar bears taken between 1916-1967 annually. Polar bear litters are one to three a year — three being extremely rare — and polar bears survive to adulthood in the wild about 1 in four times. Your claim is simply staggeringly unbelievable.

timg56 | June 22, 2013 at 11:25 pm |

Most accounts? Most accounts of whom? Susan Crockford, the arctic canine specialist? Literally laughed out of the room last I heard of her attempting to give a lecture to grad students. Iain from U of A in the 1990s? Taylor? That’s three accounts. Dubious and with inflated levels of certainty not backed by evidence.

Are polar bear populations currently plummetting at the same rate as they had between 100 and 50 years ago? No. Is that ‘doing fine’?

The treaty agreed to restore the numbers, and maintain a census.

Do you see a valid census?

I don’t.

Is 25,000 greater than 100,000?

No.

I’m not about the cute cuddly wuddly bears. The cuddly wuddly bears are a ton of razor-blade-tipped muscle with a land speed of 40 mph and the ability to track tirelessly for three days. They’re dangerous, unpredictable and best kept well away from.

This is not about sentiment or some sense of alarm that they’re verging on extinction.

This is about utter failure of a 40-year-old treaty, and its implication for commercial properties that were intended to be recovered to the level for sustaining a harvest and maintaining healthy levels to among other things control seal populations — which in case you haven’t been keeping track, are out of control.

One of the quickest ways to establish that you’ve lost sight of your own interests is to make excuses for trade partners to let down their end of a bargain. Why you don’t care about your own interests is not my problem. My problem is, if you can’t trust these guys in something small like polar bears, how can you trust them for anything?


Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by Barry Elledge

0
0

R Gates,

I think Chief Hydrologist’s comment at 2 am is on point. Climate change often occurs in ways that suggest a regime change, and that may have a sudden onset. The special case of volcanic eruptions is pretty well understood, and the change in forcing can be measured independently of its effect on global T. Whether volcanic eruptions have a chaotic pattern or are simply random I don’t know (but it is an interesting test case:any math wizards have an answer?).

Other forcings do seem to have chaotic qualities. Whatever changes in forcings drove the MWP and LIA have some of the hallmarks of chaotic changes: the world moved between colder and warmer states, but within those states T varied considerably. My point here is that we don’t know what those changes in forcings were. The forcings embedded in current GCMs accommodate changes in aerosols (including volcanism) and small changes in total solar irradiation TSI, but other forcings are nearly constant or are slowly and regularly changing like CO2 . Nothing in the current forcings as embedded in GCMs seems to vary enough to account for these observed past climate changes.

I conclude the current forcings models are inadequate to explain past variation. Whatever process happened a thousand years ago in the MWP and 400-150 years ago in the LIA may well explain the current lapse in warming. And given the magnitude of the swings in T between MWP and LIA, these unaccounted forcings may well dwarf the effect of CO2.

Comment on The coming Arctic boom by Chief Hydrologist

Comment on Argument and authority in the climate fight by graphiste Morteau

0
0

What’s Going down i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I have discovered It positively helpful and it has helped me out loads. I am hoping to contribute & aid other customers like its helped me. Great job.

Comment on The coming Arctic boom by climatereason

0
0

Chief

Thanks for the IPCC soot reference.

Presumably at times the soot incidence is worse than at others. I have never seen a study that definitively correlates known incidence of soot through the ages with known incidence of ice melt through the ages.

. Perhaps there is one or perhaps one needs to be done. Whether it is ultimately a major source of melting depends on the findings. All I know is that when I was a child soot was in great demand to melt snow and ice on paths and it worked a treat.
tonyb.

Comment on The Economist on The New Republic on the ‘pause’ by Bart R

0
0

Chief Hydrologist | June 22, 2013 at 3:29 pm |

You just circled around nonresponsively repeating the same bogus argument.

The 2007 peak could not plausibly have happened under your hypothesis.

The failure of any year since 2001 to dip below the highest year before 1998 despite La Nina’s and high altitude volcanic eruptions could not plausibly happen under your hypothesis.

These are insurmountable objections to your claims.

Your argument is a stuck record repeating the same worn out track that wasn’t worth listening to in the first place.

Move past it.

Comment on The Economist on The New Republic on the ‘pause’ by Popsical

Comment on The Economist on The New Republic on the ‘pause’ by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Bart,

I always try to mix it up – quote some science – link to papers and reputable sites – that sort of thing. The problem is that the same old – same old – stream of consciousness, pull it out of your arse, post-normal science keeps coming back around like some horrible nightmare where you run faster and faster and never get anywhere.

You are especially adept at stream of consciousness, pull it out of your arse, post-normal science. Honed to garrulous perfection, almost rising to coherence, rabid, laced with subtle and not so subtle sleights.

I would suggest you actually reference some old fashioned science but that would detract from the perfection of – for instance – 100,000 polar bears in 1900AD.


Comment on The coming Arctic boom by justsomeguy31167

0
0

The temp of the rest of the planet is rising? Really? Then why do GISS and UAH temp sets both disagree with you. The rise has stopped and a slight cooling has set in.

What did I say about the troposphere?

Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by David Springer

0
0

Any surface heat going into the deep ocean is no longer effective at surface heating. The law of entropy precludes heat diluted into the bulk of the ocean basin from concentrating on the surface again.

Assuming the 0.5W/m2 imbalance is correct that’s enough to warm the ocean basin less than 0.2C in 100 years. Thereafter it cannot raise the temperature of the atmosphere more than 0.2C.

This is an incontrovertable (unless you’re physically illiterate and do not understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Both Judith Curry and Gaven Schmidt have confirmed it. If both those cats plus me agree on something you can take it to the bank.

Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by David Springer

0
0

Contrary to what Gates wants you to think about ARGO’s spatial coverage the fact of the matter remains that ARGO dives to a maximum of 2000 meters. The average depth of the ocean is 4000 meters. ARGO does measure the temperature of the lower half of the ocean. ARGO also misses any ocean covered by sea ice as well as some other large expanses of ocean. For all we know for every Joule ARGO finds accumulating between 700 and 2000 meters there’s a Joule gone missing between 2000 and 4000 meters depth.

Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by phatboy

0
0

David Springer:

Thereafter it cannot raise the temperature of the atmosphere more than 0.2C

Wrong. It can raise the temperature of the atmosphere by any amount, provided the atmosphere is at a lower temperature.
If the ocean surface was, say, 10 degrees and the atmosphere was -10 degrees, the ocean would warm the atmosphere by 20 degrees – regardless of how little or much temperature it had previously gained.

Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by tempterrain

0
0

“…. in America as science literacy scores increase concern diminishes.”

Well that might depend on how ‘science literacy’ is defined.

I’ve always argued that many of a right wing political persuasion have, when first hearing about the adverse effects of increasing CO2 emissions, come to to an instinctive snap decision that it must be some sort of left-wing hoax or conspiracy. They’ve subsequently looked into the scientific evidence, not to learn in an impartial way, but merely to bolster their own initial prejudice.

Are you including these as being scientifically literate?

Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by David Springer

0
0

As usual Mosher just ignores the pointed questions such as two people asking for precisely what he found wrong with Rob Brown’s missive. It appears that all we get on that score is just an empty assertion that RGB is wrong. Par for the course. Mosher is an empty vessel for the most part and shallow for the remainder.

Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by David Springer

0
0

Bob Droege | June 22, 2013 at 5:07 pm |

“Don’t forget, I am the 2012 average ice extent for september prediction champion. Nobody beat me.”

Perhaps you mean to say “nobody [sic] I know of beat me”?

This begs the question of how inclusive was the canvass. There are 7 billion people in the world. How many of those submitted a guess in the contest?


Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by tempterrain

0
0

Peter Lang,

Can you explain why it’s necessary to express any opinion on why , say, ‘equality between men and women’ is more important than action on climate change?

How does action on one adversely affect the other?

Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by David Springer

0
0

As far as I know I invented “Delusions of Adequacy”. It’s the obvious play on “Delusions of Grandeur” to make it more of an insult. The urban dictionary entry may be there because of me.

Comment on CFC climate bomb (?) by Eyal Porat

0
0

I stopped reading after this sentence:
“extremely high concentrations of >300 ppm…”
What is so extrememe about it?

Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by tempterrain

0
0

GaryM,

Are taking me to task for saying that Creationists mentioned in the poll (the sort who think humans are part of a 10, 000 year old creation) don’t think the Universe and humans in their present form were created simultaneously?

Yes you are quite right about that – and I should have been more precise. There is a six day difference between the two, as I understand their ‘theory’.

Comment on Week in review 6/22/13 by tempterrain

0
0

In the above, I think that should be “Are taking me to task for failing to say…..”

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images