Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Himalayan melt impacts by Theo Goodwin

$
0
0

In the past, some researchers have written about rivers as if they work in the same way that a faucet works; that is, researchers assume that the river is determined by its source. Then they worry that problems found in the source will cause problems for the entire length of the river. But the vast majority of rivers are determined by the many watersheds through which they flow. The Nile might be a notable exception because it flows through various degrees of desert for most of its length. By contrast, the Mississippi River flows through varied but rich watersheds for its entire length. If the Mississippi River were obstructed by a dam at Minneapolis the long term impact would not be noticed at St. Louis and would be undetectable at New Orleans.

I hope that the relative importance of watersheds and the relative unimportance of the source have been taken into account by the modelers. I hope that the old error has been fully expunged from today’s research. I regret that I do not have time to do the checking myself.


Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Marlowe Johnson

$
0
0

It seems to me that Pielke is being a stealth advocate, but of course I must be wrong…he wouldn’t do that.

Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Max_OK

$
0
0

Re post by timg56 | August 8, 2013 at 2:07 pm

timg56 said: “I would point out that your having put your own self interest first, being critical of others who would act in their own self interest is hypocritical.”

My reply: Not if the self-interests of some others are against the self-interests of a lot of others.

timg56 said: “I would also ask, if you had to choose, whom would it be between helping current & future generations?

My reply: I would choose to help future generations since they likely will be larger in population than the current generation. Helping more people is better than helping fewer people.

Comment on Himalayan melt impacts by tonyb

$
0
0

Jim

There is a Moroccan proverb which I think sums up the deafening silence from many in the climate science community who seem in awe of the reputation and work of others and perhaps did not speak out as they should; It can be applied especially to the proxy reconstructions by Dr Mann

. It is this;
“if at noon he says it is night, will you say; behold, the stars?’
tonyb

Comment on Himalayan melt impacts by John

$
0
0

I’m still looking for the journal articles, but I did find this quote, apparently from a presenation at the AGU a few years back:

“As we have calculated, melting glaciers (specifically, negative mass balance components of the melt) contribute an estimated 1.2% (perhaps factor of 2 uncertain) of total runoff of three of the most important drainages, the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra combined. The seasonal flow regulation influences and the negative mass balance is more important in local drainages close to the glacier sources, where glaciers can dominate the hydrology in arid regions, but on the scale of the subcontinent, glaciers are secondary players in looming hydrologic problems, which stem more from population growth and inefficiency of water resource distribution and application.”

Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Marlowe Johnson

$
0
0

I’m still wondering why Moshpit is so certain that the social cost of carbon is $3/tCO2e. Come on down from the mountain Steve and share your precious intellect with us mortals…

Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Bob says “I searched that ref and found nothing from your quote. Your [sic] a phony, in denial about real science, and will never prevail. Get a shot of testosterone and go away pissant.”

Bob, thank your for providing yet another example of abusive denialist cognition! The passage in question (by President Eisenhower to his nephew Edgar Eisenhower) reads as follows:

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

Eisenhower Presidential Library
Document #1147; November 8, 1954
Letter to Edgar Newton Eisenhower

Nowadays the foresighted but ideologue-outraging social security, unemployment insurance, and farm programs of the 1950s have become the foresighted but ideologue-outraging Clinton/Romney/Obamacare and climate-conservation programs of the 21st century … ain’t that right Bob?

Summary  Now as in the 1950s, denialist ideologies stand on the wrong side of history, economics, science, and rationality … and that is why denialist ideologies are doomed to fail.

Which is good, eh Bob?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by captdallas 0.8 or less

$
0
0

And you don’t wonder why David Appell is so sure it is $36/ton.


Comment on (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists by David Young

$
0
0

Just listened to the YouTube video. As usual Schmidt was the defender of the faith and a little pushy. Has Gavin ever really entertained doubt about anything important?

Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Rob Starkey

$
0
0

Fan

If your conclusion is correct then you should be quite happy and the US will soon be implementing a fossil fuel tax and fining people for emitting co2. Perhaps you are incorrect and on the wrong side of history if those things in fact do not come to pass. Care to wager?

Comment on Himalayan melt impacts by John

$
0
0

Theo, a copy and paste from above:

———-

I’m still looking for the journal articles, but I did find this quote, apparently from a presenation at the AGU a few years back:

“As we have calculated, melting glaciers (specifically, negative mass balance components of the melt) contribute an estimated 1.2% (perhaps factor of 2 uncertain) of total runoff of three of the most important drainages, the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra combined. The seasonal flow regulation influences and the negative mass balance is more important in local drainages close to the glacier sources, where glaciers can dominate the hydrology in arid regions, but on the scale of the subcontinent, glaciers are secondary players in looming hydrologic problems, which stem more from population growth and inefficiency of water resource distribution and application.”

Comment on (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists by JCH

Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Marlowe Johnson

$
0
0

au contraire el capitan. i wonder why anyone is so sure when it comes to any estimate of SCC.

Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Marlowe Johnson

$
0
0

but in the absence of relevant expertise the central estimate is a more defensible position for one to adopt than one of the tails n’est-ce pas? otherwise one might reasonably expect to be accused of letting one’s ideological biases determine what one believes. and i mean c’mon, moshpit is, if nothing else, an ‘independent thinker’, much like our wonderful host.

Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

An Inconvenient Political Fact  The document A Republican Case for Climate Action (by William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman) foreshadows the coming reality of carbon credits as plainly as RomneyCare foreshadowed the present-day reality that is ObamaCare.

Because inflexible ideology-driven “bubble” politics invariably loses to the inexorable force of rationality science, economics, and history.

Ain’t that a common-sense modern political reality, Rob Starkey?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}


Comment on Himalayan melt impacts by Jim Cripwell

$
0
0

Pekka, you write “The data alone is just a meaningless set of numbers. ”

Garbage. When you do a controlled experiment in physics you know EXACTLY what the numbers mean. When the experiment is replicated, and the values agree with each other within the error limits, then you know precisely what you have got. A consensus in physics is absolutely meaningless. How many examples do you want of past consensuses which turned out to be wrong?

Comment on Himalayan melt impacts by TerryMN

$
0
0

Bartringoism (n): The failure of a neologism to be adopted by anyone, despite its authors repeated, annoying use.

Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by Bart R

$
0
0

Steven Mosher | August 9, 2013 at 1:41 pm |

You assert liberal.

Defend the assertion.

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Tonyb

$
0
0

JimD
By way of background for those in the US it’s a good rule of thumb to ignore anything written in The Guardian. It is highly partisan.

Tonyb

Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0

John Carpenter,

You’re appealing to pride to get information out of an anonymous commenter while using one of David Appel’s most favourite lines of argument.

I find it uncool.

***

Suppose I say this:

> Nobody cares about “dirty laundry” concern-trolling, “politically incorrect thoughts”, or (gasp!) “disagreeing with the majority opinion of peers” except drama-queens and people who think that blog posts are science.

Let’s also suppose that I say this:

> It’s all rhetoric – and if that’s all you’ve got, you’re in no position to lecture others in the scientific academy.

Would you try to dismiss these claims by attacking my anonymity?

***

Now, I’m not saying I endorse all of this. I just want to make a point.

If you have to remember one thing, it is that one does not simply dismiss a point about identity politics with ad hominems.

We can talk about identity politics if you wish.

Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images