Willard, . You conveniently ignored the positive things I said about her in order to draw your own narrow conclusion Why is that?
Comment on Open thread weekend by pokerguy
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
<blockquote>"The origin of a failure to comprehend the problem may go back to the mantra of the <b>Green movement</b> of “shortwave in, long wave out”. "</blockquote>
OK, Here is a question.
Since when has that bit of science been considered "Green"?
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by angech
R Gates wrote above that there is more energy entering than leaving each year. Perhaps others could remind him that it is energy in equals energy out always.
Whether the earth’s temperature is cooler or warmer from one year to the next depends on numerous factors. If AGW was occurring there would not be more heat in the system (the sun did not get hotter) , there would just be a hold up in the heat in the atmosphere . The energy that would gave gone straight back out from the earth’s surface (say no clouds or CO2) still goes straight back out. The temperature of the radiating layer in the way (the atmosphere) is higher but this does not imply any overall extra energy gain .
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by willard (@nevaudit)
How do you connect Russell’s comment on construction and eugenism, Doc? All I can find is this:
> Bertie was wrong on everything, consistently.
Speaking of which, do you think that Russell’s paradox is wrong too?
***
I’ll open a new thread to discuss Heathrow’s article.
Thank you for the cite.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by angech
R Gates “Volcanoes, rising greenhouse gases, increasing or decreasing solar output, Milankovitch cycles, would all be seen as external forcing to the climate system.”
? rising greenhouse gases do not produce energy. they cannot be an external forcing.
Volcanoes, yes. increasing and decreasing solar input, yes. Milankovitch
cycles , yes and your point?
we are talking about the energy in the system energy in + energy out .Greenhouse gases you know this.
There can be no extra retained heat .What comes in has to go out.
the distribution of the heat available varies in the different layer [temp] but the overall heat remains constant according to the energy put in.
You know this.
↧
↧
Comment on Pause tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling by captdallas 0.8 or less
James Cross, What do you know? About as much as everyone else. The actual “forcing” for ENSO is solar, but ENSO is a defined “oscillation” and any “oscillation” in a system can create or amplify other “oscillations” or more appropriately damped recurrent decay responses. Every wiggle has some “cause” and as long as you assume you know every cause you will never discover interesting new things. The problem is the ones that “know” everything.
Prior to 2000, solar was a more potent forcing than it is now. The ones that know everything now assumed the ones that knew everything then were wrong, now it is time for the roles to be reversed since the ones that knew everything then dealt with the actual surface and the ones that know everything now have created a fantasy “surface” where only radiant physics apply.
↧
Comment on Climate of failure(?) by Michael
JC,
Maybe….iIf virtually ignoring the biggest anthropogenic factor because it seems to be too hard, qualifies as “…protecting the environment from pollution or destruction”.
At best he seems to be an advocate for slowing down the rate as which we are increasing GHG emissions…….as long as it isn’t too difficult.
Some people might label him an ‘inactivist’, but I prefer ‘climate radical’. In the face of a massive uncontrolled experiment in altering the planets atmosphere, advocating extreme caution in acting to cease this, seems the radical option to me.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
Again angech, I would suggest you go forthwith to the business office of whatever the last school you went to and demand a refund for your education. Yes, of course increasing greenhouse gases is an external forcing. If you have read that it is not, please site your references, if you spend most of your time watching Faux News, then that would explain a great deal.
↧
Comment on Climate of failure(?) by Bad Andrew
“Anyone who denies a risk is a moron.”
Moron stepping forward here. I’m going to deny there is a risk until someone can define specifically what the risk is, and what conclusively established mechanism is going to be responsible. If you can’t get past generalizations or poetry, don’t bother responding to this comment.
Andrew
↧
↧
Comment on Climate of failure(?) by jim2
Cyanobacteria that can produce gasoline, diesel, and ethanol are already here.
↧
Comment on Climate of failure(?) by Jack Mclaughlin
To ROM….We need you here more often.
To Jim Cripwell….You are wise beyond your years and for a man of 87 that is saying something.
To Mosher…I have nothing but disdain. I hope I am within Judith`s boundaries.
↧
Comment on Professors, politics and public policy by omanuel
It took me a while to figure out that policy is a political decision and science is just the justification.
Here is a one-page synopsis of the process:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Synopsis.pdf
The story was first sent as messages to the Congressional Space Science & Technology Committee on 4 July 2013 – the 237th anniversary of the birth of our nation:
http://theinternetpost.net/2013/08/12/the-creator-destroyer-sustainer-of-life/
Happy Labor Day, Oliver K. Manuel Former NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo
Sent from my iPhone
↧
Comment on Professors, politics and public policy by A fan of *MORE* discourse
For sure, there’s no shortage of climate-change commentators whose professional credentials and cognition resemble those of Roger Pielke Jr:
FOMD posts “Roger Pielke Jr.’s climate-change analysis is mathematically rigid, scientifically (and affectively) stunted, and socially, morally, and economically puerile.
Like many folks, I had not realized that Roger Pielke Jr. has neither formal scientific training nor formal economic training.
Instead, Pielke Jr’s training is in “political science”. Maybe that’s why Pielke Jr’s writings are devoid of any but the most banal scientific and economic insights? The absence of terms like “moral” and “responsible” and “sustainable” and “environmental” and “Nature” from Pielke Jr.’s work is pathognomonic.
Like quite a few commenters here on Climate Etc — Rud Istvan comes to mind! — Roger Pielke Jr. needs to “shrug off Atlas,” if he (and thinkers like him) are going to contribute anything substantial to the climate-change debate.
Conclusion Embrace modern science and broad-based economics!
![\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}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffeecc&fg=0033ff&s=2 "\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 Open thread weekend by angech
Jim D “angech, CO2 restricts the energy leaving the atmosphere towards space. It has a forcing effect through that”
R Gates and I are debating external forcing ie Turn the solar input up and we all get hotter.
CO2 merely transfers the heat that is waiting to go back into space, having radiated down, from the land and sea and ice surfaces to the atmosphere to radiate out. The atmosphere is warmer because of that.
But there is no more energy in the system.
There is no extra stored energy in the system.
What comes in has to go out
You can see that.
↧
Comment on Climate of failure(?) by Jim Cripwell
Walter, you write “do you still not want to consider CO2 more causation than correlation??”
Absolutely not. I rely on what I learned in Physics 101. Until the value of climate sensitivity has been measured, CAGW remains a hypothesis; no matter how many books are written and how many peer reviewed papers are published. And I am dead against politicians trying to ruin my very comfortable lifestyle, based largely on the consumption of fossil fuels, because there are a bunch of activists who are trying to “decarbonize” the world.
↧
Comment on Climate of failure(?) by AK
<blockquote>The article is pure wishful thinking. Wishing for technologies does not make them apear.</blockquote>New technologies are appearing every day. Denial just makes you look silly.
Of course, predicting the <b>precise</b> course of technological development is impossible, at least until proof-of-concept exists. But refusing to admit that many new technologies will appear is pure wishful thinking/denial.
And, of course, while the course of technological development can't be precisely predicted, it can be steered, by continually pointing out opportunities so the awareness of them spreads.
It can also be steered by continually <b>denying</b> opportunities. Is this what you're up to? Why? What agenda are you pursuing?
↧
Comment on Climate of failure(?) by Bad Andrew
Jim, Mosher hasn’t posted anything worth reading, ever, that I can tell. The fact that you got his attention just means you’ve offended his delicate tribal sensitivities. Don’t let him bother you. He’s a blot on the rear end of mankind.
Andrew
↧
↧
Comment on Climate of failure(?) by Jack Mclaughlin
P.S. To Pielke Jr……Get in touch with ROM!!!!1
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by willard (@nevaudit)
> This is all wrong physically and historically. Galileo investigated ‘acceleration’ and not ‘speed’.
Very good, Doc!
Now, please quote the relevant bit from Galileo, and show us what difference it makes to the presentation of the encyclopedia entry I cited. Then we’ll see what difference it makes as an example of a thought experiment Brown calls platonic, i.e. something that can both be destructive and constructive at the same time. To help you out in your constructive quest, and to try to be constructive myself, here are two papers you could use.
The first one my help you get up to speed in Galileo’s relevant text (note the quote at the beginning):
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2524/1/Galileo_vs_Aristotle_on_Free_Falling_Bodies.pdf
The second one is a recent paper that shows how one could improve on Brown’s typology of thought experiments:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-011-0008-4
Best of luck!
***
I should warn you, Doc, that citing these two papers does not amount to an endorsement. (The usual caveat about tweets, BTW.) It is not impossible to show appreciation and remain critical at the same time. In fact, this is a skill professional philosophers must learn to read harder.
I hope this responds to your jab about worship.
↧
Comment on Climate of failure(?) by John Carpenter
Well I would say you cant take the ‘all or none’ approach to this issue. I don’t think the reason behind the idea is it’s too hard…. it’s impossible. If carbon forcings are the only ones to be addressed because they are the biggest, but also the most contentious, then the progress will be a standstill compared to working on the ones where agreement is more mutual. I would be cautious about advocating for no progress vs some progress. Baby steps lead to bigger steps. Carbon based energy is in our future for a long time to come.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
