Peter,
People may take the dog-AGW comment in a way unflattering to you.
Comment on Open thread weekend by Michael
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Peter Lang
Chief,
I just watched the Red Dog audition. Fantastic. Thanks.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Peter Lang
Michael,
Yea, I recognise waht you say is true. They are the wowsers with no sense of humour. Like you and your leftie mates who want to dictate what everyone should think, say, do and eat. Oh yea, and breathe. :)
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Sigmundb
Before the technical and tactical/strategical military developments made them obsolete cities around the world made huge Investments in city walls and fortifications. For instance I’ve been told every citizen of Lübeck (major medieval city on the north coast of Germany) had to work 100 days every year on its fortifications in the 13. Century. Yet it was not besieged for hundreds of years. Even cities that regularly needed their walls had to continue their upkeep for decades or hundreds of peaceful years with no imminent threat.
So if the threat is percieved to a) Be very menacing and b) Likely to arrive with full force on very short notice, mitigation, even extremely costly and not cost-efficient, is an accepted policy. Japans tsunami walls comes to mind as a modern example.
AGW is just not up there with the assyrians, mongols or earthquakes yet and most of us feel we can wait for better estimates on the size and timescale of this threat.
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by captdallas 0.8 or less
Johanna, ” Look at W.Churchill, who was a great wartime leader, and certainly an overconfident one in objective terms. His wartime decisionmaking was not exactly scientific or based on playing the odds – but it worked.”
Churchill was the political leader, Montgomery was his battlefield commander. Both had to appear confident, a requirement for leadership, but neither acted until they had the best opportunity given the circumstances. Behind the scenes each had dozens of advisers including scientists.
Hitler tried to be both, dumb move, and used tricks, the blitz, to take regions he could never defend. Hitler had only plan A. He had hundreds of advisers that tried to figure out what he wanted to hear, including scientists.
That is the great thing about a republic/democracy, you tend to get more honest advice, typically from people you didn’t hire to advise.
↧
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Jim Cripwell
I have enormous difficulty with the subject of this thread as it applies to physics. Surely, in physics, we rely on measured, empirical data. When we have measured data we know what is happening. When we dont have measured data, we, with a slight exaggeration, are just guessing.
↧
Comment on Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways? by mosomoso
Is there a “normal” way to water and add nitrogen to a cricket pitch? It would appear not.
↧
Comment on Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways? by Peter Davies
That’s better than 1st prize, which entitles you to a 5 day residential seminar on on climate change hosted by Al Gore.
↧
Comment on Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways? by Peter Davies
Thanx Beth. What’s your score? I looked but couldn’t find them!
↧
↧
Comment on Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways? by captdallas 0.8 or less
Fan, I guess you classify yourself as being “regular”? I don’t want to sound judgmental, but that is not exactly the first thing that pops into my mind when I think Fan of More Discourse.
I can relate to Monckton though. He made a good deal of money with a couple of puzzles and uses a bit of an over the top persona to sell his wares. One of his critiques of Climate Science was actually spot on, that silly Planck Response thing where he said Trenberth’s budget even indicated that CO2 “sensitivity” was 0.8 C. I don’t know if he came up with that himself or stole that from Kimoto, but energy is fungible only the work done is not. Eventually, this CO2 forcing thing will end up being a bathtub fart instead of a volcano, but “averaging” forcing is incorrect, averaging responses, work, is more correct. You will never get 100% efficiency converting energy into work.
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by DocMartyn
Here is Trenberth’s 2013 heat content figure:-
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/btk13fig1.jpg
As you can see he plots upper 300m, upper 700m and total. So I blew up the latter part of the graph and measured it, as he did not include a txt file.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/deepoceanJPEG_zpsc6585990.jpg
Now the total change at 0-300m is 3 units, 0-700m is 7,5 units and so 300-700m is 4.5 units. Thus, the rates of change in heat is greater between 300-700m (4.5U/400m) than it is between 0-300m (3U/300m).
Alas, this movement of energy is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
That is the only way one can find the ‘missing’ heat.
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Anteros
Web -
“Everyone knows we are transitioning off of fossil fuels and on to other energy sources,”
Your expectations about what is likely to happen in the future lead you to make statements about what is happening NOW that are false.
We are most certainly not transitioning off of fossil fuels. The proportion of the world’s energy that is derived from fossil fuels has remained at 87 % for two decades. And of course, that 87% is of an ever larger total amount – we’re using more fossil fuels, not less.
Incidentally, what are these other energy sources? Wind and Solar combined, to the nearest one per cent provide how much of the world’s energy? Zero.
Anybody rolling out new nuclear? Thought not. New hydro? Ditto.
…
Do you want to have a stab at a date for peak carbon? People have been doing that every day since 1860 and have been wrong for the same reasons every single time.
Yep, one day we’ll hit a peak and thereafter…… a decline! But it isn’t going to be anytime soon..
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by DocMartyn
GaryM, is the ‘Brown’ acid that gives you a bad trip, you should be OK with purple acid.
And here’s this crystal city
That is mapped out like the stars
She’s been waiting there for ages
For us to give her force
Some call her Ynnis Glytrr
Crystal Isle to you or me
So full of glowing emanations
That you don’t need eyes to see
So here inside these valleys
That are so full of energy
We’ll build a New Jerusalem
With Love from You to Me
I so miss being a hippie.
↧
↧
Comment on Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways? by captdallas 0.8 or less
tonyb, actually there is a crap load of us that are “normal”. Most of the ones that didn’t take the survey are “normal”. I think I am regular because I didn’t answer one of the sillier questions :)
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by curryja
Agnostic, agreed that this is an excellent book, i have flagged this topic for a future post long ago and it got buried. I will try to unbury at some point, agreed that this is worth a post
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Chief says:
“Gatesy’s 0.8 W/m2 is entirely imaginary. “
It is likely real, as it explains much more than it conflicts. Look at the OHC measurements and the direction that is going for example.
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Anteros
Covering similar ground is Dan Gardner’s ‘Future Babble’ – on why ‘experts’ have such a lousy record of predicting the future and why we, regardless, continue (and will contine!) to hold them in such high esteem.
↧
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by Michael
“I was interested to note that the author went out of his way to conduct research and publish papers with other scientists who disagreed with him. Wouldn’t that be an amazing thing to see a paper published by Trenberth and Lindzen, or Steig ad McIntyre?” – agnostic
How about seeking out not just those who merely disagreed, but alleged he was engaged in deliberate academic fraud???
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by RC Saumarez
FOMBS
This is a classic example of post-normal reasoning.
Stupid boy/girl! Why not just go away and think for a while?
↧
Comment on I know I’m right (?) by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Anteros ignorantly asserts:
”
We are most certainly not transitioning off of fossil fuels. “
What we have is a double-play or a two-fer. Science has got it right when it comes to modeling the global warming signal and they have it right when they can predict that fossil fuels are a finite resource.
The latter is more of a no-brainer which is evidenced by the growing use of solar and other non-renewable energy sources around the world. The complete transition will not happen overnight but it will eventually happen, impediments in the road such as Anteros notwithstanding.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
