Fantastic Post, I was just wondering that where do you get such awesome content from? I have my own blog, but I still fail to understand that what our viewers are interested in. Any help would be immensely appreciated.
Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Oswal Dobrown
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 12/15/12 by Aaron Lewis
Thanks for sharing these resources. I have checked them all and they are quite helpful.
↧
Comment on Reactions to President Obama’s Climate Change Policy by Bart R
And, for the convenience of Foreignland visitors to the issue of what the USA does, a link to some other Foreignland reaction. It’s about something Australian, so I didn’t actually listen to it, and don’t care, but I’m sure it fascinates some of you.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-26/federal-government-seizes-on-obamas-climate-speech/4782418
↧
Comment on Reactions to President Obama’s Climate Change Policy by Bart R
..and a British reaction:
I admit, since it’s British, I tried to read it. Seemed to be what any voter might say about US domestic policy.
If, y’know, they were a voter, and thus had any say in the matter.
↧
Comment on How should we interpret an ensemble of models? Part I: Weather models by Chief Hydrologist
Prattling and preening again I see.
Geopotential is a function of air temperature – which is largely due to natural factors. So what you are saying is that temperature increased. Duh.
In the short term most global temperature change it is due to ENSO – which is chaotic in itself – and on decadal scales (and much longer) it is changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation which is most certainly chaotic with multi-decadal changes obvious in the behavior of these systems. To understand the Earth system you need to understand this. But you can’t for some weirdness of your own. I suppose it is tantamount to admitting that you have wasted your entire freaking life.
The graph is utter nonsense – doesn’t even have the units right – temperature did not increase in the last decade – the geopotential height along with cloud height decreased because of cooling sea surface temps. The latter is certainly chaotic – but you remain utterly clueless about even the basics of oceanography.
And what the hell is this?
dT(k)/dh(m) = 29.4 (g/mol)/ 8.3144621(J/K.mol)
Somehow the surface temperature is at all meaningful in the upper atmosphere and the change in temp over the change in geopotential equals a constant that is mysteriously derived from the average molar mas of air and the gas constant? Notwithstanding that the units are nonsensical.
You are a freaking idiot who is destined to remain utterly clueless.
↧
↧
Comment on How should we interpret an ensemble of models? Part I: Weather models by Gary Moran
JimD said
Absolutely not!
Weather and climate are both boundary value problems, patently!
The disagreement between us is your assertion is that climate is only a boundary conditions problem, not an initial values problem, that over time the noise will even out and that will be left is the effects of the forcing. This is where I disagree, I believe climate is also sensitive to initial conditions, that internal variability is a manifestation of that, and that while forcings of course play their part, they are not the only story.
↧
Comment on Reactions to President Obama’s Climate Change Policy by mosomoso
What about that creepy bureaucratese? A centralized “toolkit”. Leverages new opportunities. Pilots innovative strategies. Delivering tailored, science-based knowledge. Gag.
This sort of verbiage is always a sign of the absence of thought. That’s how you get Solyndras and acres of pitiful whirlygigs. There is a certain low cunning displayed at times: useless tech is associated with useful hydro on the grounds that they are all “renewable”; so put up the panels and whirlygigs because Norway and BC have great hydro. Cunning…but a sign of real intelligence? Nah.
No, by and large there is no thought at all. Nary a thought in their desolate noodles.
↧
Comment on Reactions to President Obama’s Climate Change Policy by Chief Hydrologist
Here I was ignoring the ‘policy’ entirely. A lamearse President going a trillion dollars more in debt every year, keeping the economy afloat only by printing gazillions of dollars and whose only intent is to wedge dumbarse Republicans.
Why would anyone give a rat’s arse?
↧
Comment on Reactions to President Obama’s Climate Change Policy by Chief Hydrologist
Too silly – didn’t bother – tsdb
↧
↧
Comment on Reactions to President Obama’s Climate Change Policy by Faustino
Meanwhile down-under, Gillard has lost an ALP ballot and is no longer Prime Minister. She will not contest the election. Former PM Kevin Rudd is party leader, and will seek appointment as PM from the Governor-General. Rumour that the election will be on 24/8 rather than 18/9.
So we can’t give Gillard a good kicking at the election.
↧
Comment on Reactions to President Obama’s Climate Change Policy by Faustino
Bart, the government is no longer, the PM, her deputy and other senior ministers have resigned. Their reaction to Obama is irrelevant, and does not represent the views of the electorate. Polling 29 per cent weeks out from an election in which they will get hammered, they were already irrelevant.
↧
Comment on Reactions to President Obama’s Climate Change Policy by Faustino
The Guardian is about as irrelevant as the Gillard ex-government.
↧
Comment on How should we interpret an ensemble of models? Part I: Weather models by steven
Jim, if they are real or not doesn’t matter for this point. The point is the models make them. When they do a model run how do they manage to not start the run at different parts of the oscillation if they use random initial conditions?
↧
↧
Comment on Reactions to President Obama’s Climate Change Policy by Peter Lang
But we can give Rudd-a-dud a good kicking instead. He’s at least as culpable as Gillard for 6 years of the worst government the country has had.
↧
Comment on How should we interpret an ensemble of models? Part I: Weather models by steven
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2012_jclim_karnauskasetal.pdf
These oscillations, Jim.
↧
Comment on Reactions to President Obama’s Climate Change Policy by Faustino
Bart, we are generous-spirited, we are happy to share our wisdom for the benefit of US citizens. I’m sure that all people of goodwill in the US will appreciate our concerned input.
(Or not, as the case may be.)
↧
Comment on Reactions to President Obama’s Climate Change Policy by David Springer
Your breath is a pollutant that’s for sure.
↧
↧
Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Joshua
<blockquote>My criticisms have focused on scientists with positions of authority in universities, professional societies, and organizations such as the IPCC.</blockquote>
Well, I think the target of your criticisms has been a bit more broad than that (scientists with not much authority, non-scientists, etc. on the "realist" side) - but still that is basically my point. Your <strong><i>criticisms </strong> </i> have been quite selective. Whether it is only towards scientists in position of power as you say, or somewhat more broadly than that as I would say, the criticism is basically only targeted to one side of the battleline. The problem there, Judith, is that you (IMO) with such an approach your input will inevitably be lost in the crossfire between tribes because you will blend into the troops on the "skeptical" side. Your uniform is too much the same color as theirs.
↧
Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Chief Hydrologist
glyph-enchanted?
I’m certainly on Hilary’s team if she will have me.
What prompted this latest bizarre and incoherent rant?
webby persists in ‘solving’ climate with a line of simple algebra. He then insists that no one understands it. It is unutterably bizarre. Well beyond incompetent – it is almost certainly a sign of monomania.
As are the musings about oil. There are increasing supplies of liquid fuels for decades yet. There are almost endless supplies potentially of coal to liquids at about $70 a barrel – if it comes to that.
But I say forget it – we need to aim for even cheaper energy to meet the energy needs of the world. This requires investments in basic research.
I understand that he has wasted his life on nonsense and this must rankle – I can’t help that. The least he can do however is to go away and stop wasting everyone else’s time.
↧
Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by GaryM
“-Republicans have shifted to a more rational stance on climate change as reflected in Rep. Lamar Smith’s recent op-ed;
-The common ground seems to be that everyone wants clean, abundant, inexpensive energy and nobody wants to destroy the economy
-The political battlefield can now shift to energy economics, which is where the battle belongs (not over the science), and maybe we can come up with some cost effective, technically feasible, and politically viable solutions”
The naivete would be endearing if it weren’t so dangerous.
You “lukewarmers” just don’t get it. Your middle of the roadism is never going to be the end policy result of the climate debate. No matter how often you wish everyone would “just get along.”
“Republicans have shifted to a more rational stance?” Which Republicans were irrational? Which ones wanted dirty energy? Dr. Curry is edging into Keith Kloor, Steven Mosher country lately.
“The common ground is that…nobody wants to destroy the economy?” A major part of progressive leadership across the western hemisphere, including the president of the United States, finds capitalism and the free market a system that must be radically remade. Obamacare is specifically designed to destroy the health insurance industry. Obama has expressly declared war on the coal industry. He has explicitly stated his intent to make energy prices sky rocket to decrease demand. The private market for higher education funding (student loans) is already gone. The religions that have been running hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, adoption agencies and other charitable efforts, are being driven out of those areas by government diktats that they provide “services” that are anathema to their faith.
You lukewarmers, moderates and independents keep on ignoring what Obama and other progressives say; or tell yourselves they don’t really mean it. And vote accordingly. It’s OK, when the 16 trillion in current debt and approximately 80 trillion in unfunded liabilities come due, you can join the progressives you have voted for and blame it on Bush.
The battle can shift to economics? Have you not been paying attention? The debate has been about economics, through politics, all along. This seriously is the most naive statement I have seen by the hostess of this blog. Shift to economics? What precisely does anyone think decarbonization is? A physics class? Maybe a chem lab?
The progressives who are really running the CAGW movement know full well the economic effect of what they propose. That is why they are proposing it. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent already. Control of trillions are at stake, and have been for decades. The reason you don’t see any cost benefit analyses from the wizards of smart trying to deconstruct the world economy is that it is irrelevant to them. They are the elite. Of course the economy will crash when they get a hold of it. Then they can rebuild it “for the children.”
But by all means. Let’s all sing kumbaya and make smores around the campfire while those leading the governments in the world we actually live in drive our economies inexorably over a cliff.
Don’t worry, they will just print tons of worthless money to pay for it all. Just ask lolwot.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
