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

Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by David Springer

0
0

DocMartyn

http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/RbS/cv.html

Huntsville/NASA physicist. Literal rocket scientist.

Head down toward the bottom of the list of publications. Lot of chemistry on comets and there’s an unbelievably large number of them. When two stars get within about a light year of each other they exchange material in their Oort clouds.

I haven’t read any of Rob’s papers since

R. B. Sheldon and R. B. Hoover, “Cosmological Evolution: Spatial Relativity and the Speed of Life” in Instruments, Methods, and Missions for Astrobiology XI, Hoover, Levin, Rosanov eds. Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7097 (Bellingham, WA) pp 7097-41, 2008

but it looks like he’s been busy the last 5 years. He also writes for Town Hall and, last I knew, works down the hall from John Christy and Roy Spencer at University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Don’t discount panspermia out of hand. There’s more to heaven and earth, Horatio…


Comment on Scenarios: 2010-2030: Part II by online form builder

0
0

However, there are several online interfaces available where one needs to click on different
types of options to send HTML code in email or to generate HTML code.
It’s a good idea to have separate email promotions for prospects and customers, too, because you typically need to send different information to the different groups. Therefore it’s better to always do the
intelligent point and take these tips.

Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by omanuel

0
0

Global collapse can be avoided if, and only if, two post-1945 falsehoods are removed from the foundation of modern science:

1. Hydrogen is made and discarded by stars.

2. Neutron repulsion is the source of energy locked in cores of atoms, planets, stars, and galaxies.

Sent from my iPhone

Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by David Springer

0
0

Less of corrupt government.

Corrupt goverment may be redundant.

Comment on FT on the IPCC by Girma

0
0

May be, the pause is going to be acknowledged (finally) by the IPCC:

“there is also no question that it would appear that the rate of change in the last decade or so is definitely slower than the previous two decades.”
“The IPCC must address this because the climate deniers are linking on to this as a reason to say we’ve got all the science wrong. So I think one of the very most important issues is indeed for them to address this issue absolutely head on.”

“The extent of this slowdown depends on how one measures it. Each of the past three decades has been warmer than the previous one and the long-term trend since the 1850s clearly shows a steady temperature rise. However, the average rate of warming was 0.17C per decade between 1970 and 1998 and just 0.04C per decade from 1998 to 2012, according to one of the main global temperature data sets.”

Comment on FT on the IPCC by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

Nabil, I went through your online book and find that you have a problem with articulating your premise, your scientific argument, and your conclusions. That is batting 0 for 3, which is not so good for baseball.

From what you are saying here, I can almost infer that you are arguing for a strong negative lapse rate feedback. In other words, the energy imbalance is going into changing the slope of temperature gradient with altitude. Since you are obviously an engineer with some scientific skills (unlike McIntyre), why don’t you apply your hypothesis to some data. Please take a look at this analysis I did recently on how excess heat plays with expansion in the atmosphere and ocean:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/07/expansion-of-atmosphere-and-ocean.html

You may be tantalizing close to a full understanding but what you really have to do is relate your hypothesis to some empirical relationships.

Comment on FT on the IPCC by DocMartyn

Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by David Springer

0
0

You say Erlich is and was wrong but as far as I can determine from your view of the limits to planetary primary productivity I infer that Ehrlich was correct in principle and only wrong on timing and absolute number of maximum sustainable human population.

I believe you err in the same way as Ehrlich; discounting the capacity of technology to extend and enhance primary productivity. Natural primary production converts such a small fraction of sunlight to life energy it approaches 0%. We can do better. Far, far better. And that’s staying within the confines of the earth. The exploitable resources in the inner solar system are many orders of maganitude greater than what’s on the earth alone. We shall not drown in our own excement. The future is as vast and bright as the Milky Way itself.


Comment on Tamsin on scientists and policy advocacy by Michael Larkin

0
0

Dang, but what is the official message of the climate science orthodoxy? Does it or does it not agree with the “c” in cAGW? Is it disagreement with the “c” that makes for a “denier”? Do some climate scientists keep a low profile because in fact they’re lukewarmers not wanting to jeopardise their jobs? I’m all for climate scientists stating their actual position on the issue: then we might actually know what it is. The IPCC reports are no help, really, because I’m pretty sure that the spin they put on things has a vested interest in the “c”.

Comment on FT on the IPCC by Girma

0
0

JC

It was only a year ago that David Rose and I were widely chastised in the blogosphere for talking about the pause.

That proves the alarmists are not about the match between theory and observation, or the science.

Comment on FT on the IPCC by rogercaiazza

0
0

In addition to the crony capitalists quite rightly called out by Mead, there is another crony crowd of folks who have a stake in a particular action or policy. I submit that the “60-person Federal Advisory Committee (The “National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee” or NCADAC)” is comprised almost entirely that type of person, hereinafter the crony bureaucrats and academics (CBA). Very few if any of the members on the NCADAC have any reason to suggest that there might not be anything but catastrophe looming and the report reflects that bias. Sorry while it may explain where the POTUS talking points came from labeling any CAB product as fact is a stretch.

Comment on FT on the IPCC by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

“Balderdash”

Cappy, You are always so full of it. Of course “SST and OH uptake correlate quite well”. The problem is that correlation does not say anything about the numerical VALUES of the effect.

For example, the temperature of the desert correlates exceedingly well with the position of the sun in the sky. When it is high it his most hot and when it is nigh time it is the coolest. But this correlation alone does not predict the VALUES of the extremes.

If you actually could do some science that is anything other than massive amounts of gobbledy-gook, perhaps someone would pay attention to it, but as it stands your idea of “redneck physics” has to be some sort of joke. You have been out in the sun waaaay too long.

Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by David Springer

0
0

Population control, or not, will happen one way or another regardless of planned intervention. In the meantime technology continues to outpace population growth. Nattering nabobs of negativity bore me.

Comment on FT on the IPCC by Nabil Swedan

0
0

Thank you Web for the review and comments. The book is just a procedure to calculate global warming, and the projection since 2007 has been on track as you will find. Have you read Solving the mystery of stratospheric cooling or The law of conservation posted under articles? There is no disagreement with your work. Your work is only one scenario of the global picture that I explored.

Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by jim2

0
0

Here’s a problem that has already raised its ugly head. Economic stagnation due to socialism in the US:

“When the payroll report was released last month, the world finally noticed what we had been saying for nearly three years: that the US was slowly being converted to a part-time worker society. This slow conversion accelerated drastically in the last few months, and especially in June, when part time jobs exploded higher by 360K while full time jobs dropped by 240K. In July we are sad to report that America’s conversation to a part-time worker society is not “tapering”: according to the Household Survey, of the 266K jobs created (note this number differs from the establishment survey), only 35% of jobs, or 92K, were full time. The rest were… not.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time


Comment on FT on the IPCC by rpielke

0
0

Hi Judy

The IPCC has also been neglecting other human climate forcings as well as not considering other climate assessment metrics; e. g. see

Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/r-354.pdf

National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/

Best Regards

Roger Sr.

Comment on FT on the IPCC by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

You are all missing the point. The trend toward increasing use of ethanol can not be blamed on AGW mitigation. It started long ago during the energy crisis of the 1970′s, when the world started to realize that liquid fossil fuels were a finite resource. Ethanol and biofuels were known in the early 1900′s to be compatible with ICE vehicles, so the use of ethanol started to pick up steam in the last couple of decades as crude oil production plateaued.

I grant you that a fraction of the rationale of going to ethanol can be apportioned to AGW mitigation (since ethanol is more carbon neutral than crude oil, but not quite completely carbon neutral because it has a bad EROEI). But I would really like to see you give a numerical fraction for the trend to ethanol based on liquid fossil fuel depletion and that due to AGW mitigation. For example, is it 90% based on liquid hydrocarbon shortfall and 10% based on AGW mitigation? No one knows. In the USA, if it wasn’t for the temporary uptick of crude due to the Bakken, the ethanol backlash would not be as strong.

And I am not an advocate of ethanol either. It has an EROEI that may in fact be less than unity, which means we are just wasting more fossil fuel (especially natural gas used to create fertilizer) while needlessly depleting the nutrients in our agricultural lands, and not producing food.

A crisis leads to questionable decisions, but these decisions can hypothetically get worked out.

Comment on FT on the IPCC by rogercaiazza

0
0

Let me clarify what I was trying to say. The 60 person NCADAC committee developed a document that I believe is the opposite of what Walter Mead suggested. He said “There are lots of ways this basic understanding still needs to be fleshed out, and it should be fleshed out in an environment of open, vigorous and contentious debate among scientists, without one side trying to throttle the others. The tendency in any establishment to suppress or marginalize dissent needs to be resisted.”

The NCADC document does not acknowledge Mead’s “fiddly bits” and their uncertainty so I believe that the document is an inappropriate policy document to accept as the final word on the subject. Not because the numbers and facts are necessarily wrong but because there are other aspects that were not included, there are other interpretations for the same observations, and because some of the projections are based on unverifiable modeling results that I believe can be tweaked to provide different outcomes. In order to develop this policy correctly those possibilities have to be acknowledged.

In response BartR said “So when you question Barack Obama on Unnatural Climate Kinetics due Forcing by human industry, you’re questioning, in a literal sense, the USA.” That argument had a familiar ring to it and then it hit me. “But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg – isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! [Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner], Animal House (1978) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/quotes.

Comment on FT on the IPCC by kim

0
0

Heh, fat ego, drunk on IPCC Kool-Aid, and stupid about policy. C’est la vie!
==========

Comment on FT on the IPCC by kim

0
0

Ah, speak to me of profit and earning’s ratios from on high. We need to understand this market thingie.
==============

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images