Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Professors, politics and public policy by Jim Cripwell

$
0
0

From Richard French’s paper “The idea is that policy addresses states of the world and that EMPIRICAL research identifies causal relationships which can alter states of the world.” (My capitals).

All I can say is “Precisely”. If CAGW was based on empirical research, then maybe, just maybe, political action might be required. But since the hypothesis of CAGW has absolutely no empirical data whatsoever to support any value for climate sensitivity, politicians should take no notice of what the activist scientists are urging them to do; namely “decarbonize” our economies.


Comment on Pause politics by Mi Cro

$
0
0

Jim D,
You might want to look at the historical Ice maps here: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic/rediscover/dmi_sea_ice_maps
Since they’re not taken by satellite they don’t include extents, and there are areas that were not surveyed, but over various years most of the ice in the Northwest Passage is gone, and there are years when most of the Russian coast is ice free.

Comment on Professors, politics and public policy by DocMartyn

$
0
0

“A second tradition assumes that policy makers need guidance as to the ethical status of various policies, typically as measured against some single overriding value such as justice, virtue or liberty
Or improving the ‘genetic stock’, many scientists and philosophers were convinced that, the good and the great (i.e. them) had ‘good’ genes and the Blacks, Jews, Romi and other ‘lesser races’ had poor ones. Additionally, even the ‘good’ genetic pool had a shallow end and so this was to be drained by forced sterilization of ‘undesirables’; for the good of future generations.
Scientific based societies arose in Germany, where it was state policy to purify the genetic pool as quickly and as economically as possible. Pol Pot took a similar view on Cambodia and was intent on destroying social classes which were parasitic on the body civic.
Technocrats, due to their higher intelligence in their individual fields, quite obviously make good moralists.

Comment on Professors, politics and public policy by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0

> Holding a D.Phil. from Oxford University, which he attended as a Rhodes Scholar, he taught at McGill University before entering provincial politics in Quebec, which lead him to serve as a Member of the National Assembly as well as Minister of Communications.

Indeed, Richard French was Robert Bourassa’s minister. He rode in the riding of Westmount, where one could elect a Liberal dog.

But uncertainty.

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by bit chilly

$
0
0

i would not worry about it rud,you made the correction.i am more worried about the people on this thread placing faith in GRACE measurements of sea level,and ocean temps measured by argo.both of which suggest the recorded figures are outwith the capability of the intsrument carrying out the measurement.
suppose these guys have to have faith in something.

Comment on Professors, politics and public policy by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Judith Curry asserts (anhistorically)  “All we can do [as scientists] is be as objective as we can about the evidence and help the politicians evaluate proposed solutions”

To the degree that scientists are bold enough to embrace the science of denialist cognition — as scientists are professionally obligated to do, of course! — then it’s evident that the 21st century climate-change science community will end by embracing the scientific conclusions of James Hansen, as assessed in the societal context of Wendell Berry, thereby honoring the historical tradition of radical scientists like Franklin, Priestley, and Jefferson.

Needless to say, not every 21st century scientist will be bold enough, or creative enough, for brave enough, to follow this path. But the scientists who follow it — the young scientists especially — will be the scientists who matter.

Isn’t that plain common sense, Judith Curry?

\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 Climate of failure(?) by RiHo08

$
0
0

AK

I’m afraid you are a day late and a dollar short. The nuclear gene was let out of the bottle by spies working at Los Alamos during WWII per VERONA inquiry and project. A similar the CO2 meme viewed the US as bad and gave USSR nuclear information to serve as a counter weight to US dominance.

Today, we have Pakistan, Israel, India, Russia, North Korea, Japan, South Korea, China, USA, France, Great Britain and coming on line, Iran, countries with nuclear power plants and/or weapons. And like most nuclear families, some have paranoid and disruptive members. Which terrorist organization are you seeking to limit access?

Thorium reactors have a certain pizzaz now that they have been discovered by the media, precisely because they are inherently safer and even harder to weaponize than conventional Boiling Water Reactors’ fuel.

A little circumspect on your part will unveil that there is a cheap way to terrorize, say with Sarin gas, or cheaper still, and readily available on many dry goat skins, anthrax spores.

Systems can and more likely than not will be put in place to address Thorium power or any number of its derivatives from being readily available for terrorism, just like TSA is in place to reduce the likelihood of another 9/11/2001 terror attack. TSA around the world. Pretty effective so far and they deal with millions of passengers every day.

IMO nuclear energy is the logical progression to inexpensive global energy needs whether or not atmospheric CO2 concentrations constitute a real or trace concern.

Comment on Open thread weekend by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

$
0
0

angech,

Anything that alters the total energy of the system is an external forcing. More energy is stored in the system as greenhouse gases increase, just as less energy is stored when a large volcano erupts. If you can accept that a volcano can be an external forcing but not greenhouse gases, then I would suggest that you have some extreme bias.


Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Its like the guy on the street corner preaching that Jesus Saves.
No point in talking to him since he refuses to acknowledge his own asssumptions and construes all objections to his position as a pathology.

Dr. syndrome

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by curryja

$
0
0

The issue is the multitude of different time scales of natural internal variability, many important modes have longer time scales than the 1-3 decades that are the focus of pause and AGW attribution analyses. The other issue is the focal interest on surface temperature, which allows for a lot of redistribution of heat in the atmosphere and ocean while still conserving energy.

Comment on Professors, politics and public policy by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Thanks miker.

There was a lot in the video and in this guys other work that I would take issue with.. but sometimes it helps to look at things from a different perspective.. taking away what you can agree with and just leaving the other stuff.. But this is the internet and you must disgree

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by jim2

$
0
0

Could you supply a link? I would like to read the paper(s).

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by Beth Cooper

$
0
0

ENZO the sea – change whose time has come.
Read the best seller by Bob Tisdale, ‘Who
Turned on the Heat?’

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by steven

$
0
0

I’m afraid the conservation of energy law can’t be applied to an open system. You have to include the possibilities that energy is added or subtracted to the system.

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by J.Seifert

$
0
0

The external cycle is the 61 year Scafetta cycle, which produces, …or
named “is tied to…”, a PDO cycle. The PDO is only a product or effect and does not “cause” a warming/cooling period. Everyone can download the Allan GISP2 2000 Greenland temps, stretch the graph horizontally at any point of the Holocene and will be able to see those 61 year upticks or downticks for the past 10,000 years. The 61 year PDO is just superimposed upon the general temp trendline, which is governed by five external forcings:
http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/eoo_paper.html Cheers JS


Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by Beth Cooper

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by jim2

$
0
0

I don’t see that “internal variability” must cancel over the long term. These variations are driven by, most likely, the interaction of humidity, clouds, the Sun, and large scale wind – along with continental topography, our position in the Galaxy, the long term trend of the Sun, which change over the very long term. We have probably never had constant conditions. If you believe these variations to be chaotic, there is no a priori reason to believe they will cancel out on any given time frame. Chaotic isn’t the same as random. A driven chaotic system conserves energy just like any other.

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by sunshinehours1

$
0
0

Just because the Holocene has been warming naturally for 20,000 years doesn’t mean energy is being created. It just means the cycles are really, really long.

(Of course energy from the sun can be captured when it would not normally be if the albedo is darker and energy can be lost if the albedo is brighter. And then there is the waste heat from 7,000,000 people and their industry)

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by sunshinehours1

$
0
0

… waste heat from 7,000,000,000 people

Comment on Natural internal variability: sensitivity and attribution by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Yes, the multiple time scales complicates the problem, as does only having one time series to look at. But if folks want to argue that internal variation can actually create energy, they need to do something other than merely assert it

Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images