Steve and Pekka, well said.
Comment on A standard for policy-relevant science by Faustino
↧
↧
Comment on A standard for policy-relevant science by jim2
Hmmmm … I hope these guys implement quality control for whatever they produce. Smart people come to dumb conclusions. It happens way too often.
“Intelligent technology: A network of computers could develop a mind of its own. Machines could direct resources towards their own goals at the expense of human needs such as food and threaten mankind.
Cyber attacks: Power grids, air traffic control, banking and communications rely on interconnected computer systems. If these networks collapse due to action by enemy nations or terrorists, the paralysis could result in society breaking down.
Engineered infection:A man-made super virus or bacteria with no antidote escapes the lab or is released by terrorists. Millions die.
Food supply sabotage:Efficient distribution networks mean many Western nations have only 48 hours worth of food stockpiled. Any disruption would result in panic buying and riots.
Extreme weather: As the Earth continues to warm a tipping point is reached and the process snowballs, resulting in irreversible and worsening natural disasters.
Fast-spreading pandemic: International travel means a new killer virus, mutated from animals, could travel the globe in days, wiping out millions before a vaccine can be developed.
War:Growing populations put a strain on water and food resources. Nations will go to war to protect or capture these precious supplies.
Nuclear apocalypse: Nations with atom bombs launch targeted strikes leading to all-out warfare and global loss of life. Also fears nuclear warheads could fall into terrorist hands.
Asteroid impact: A giant asteroid is believed to have killed off the dinosaurs. Some fear a similar impact could do the same for mankind.
”
↧
Comment on A standard for policy-relevant science by willard (@nevaudit)
↧
Comment on A standard for policy-relevant science by willard (@nevaudit)
↧
Comment on A standard for policy-relevant science by willard (@nevaudit)
OK, I’ll bite. This:
> Now researchers have other non-researcher constituencies who can provide important rewards, including money, power, status, fame, etc. for reasons only loosely correlated with the scientific merit of the researcher’s work.
works like magic to me.
I’d like to see how we could falsify such claim.
↧
↧
Comment on A standard for policy-relevant science by R. Gates the Skeptical Warmist
Chief Hydro amazingly said:
“CO2 doesn’t warm in the atmosphere – it cools.”
____
Vous êtes juste statuant crazy d’attirer l’attention.
↧
Comment on Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise by timg56
Josh,
I simply provided actual comments from people. I didn’t state any conclusions. If you have a problem with the comments, perhaps you should take them up with the people who made them. If you believe that the comments do not provide supporting evidence or are even relevant to Chief’s comment, show us why.
As for saving children, has there been any evidence presented here by fan that he cares (or does not care) about children? He talks about caring for non-existent children – ie future generations. But that kind of talk is cheap. Meanwhile there is a long history of people claiming the planet is overpopulated, that the carrying capacity of the planet is far below population levels of today, that resources will run out any minute and that if we don’t do something (drastic) about it right away, we are all doomed. If you have a different interpretation of the quotes above, feel free to share it.
Are you going to deny that efforts to provide clean water, energy, transportation, efforts to combat malaria or improve land use practices do little to raise the quality of life for the billions of people currently around the subsistence level? You know Josh, real people. The kind that actually exist. Please explain why the welfare of these people should get a lower priority over the “children” fan is apparently so caring of.
↧
Comment on Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise by Peter Davies
Thanks for responding Faustino. I guess the world we live in (the “real” world) would be characterised by not often offering clear black and white choices but most often in numerous shades of grey.
The point I was trying to make is that our perceptions colour our reality and the distinction between truth and fiction becomes difficult to comprehend but would be more noticeable to an outside observer.
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by Pierre-Normand
No, I don’t make this assumption. Judith Curry doesn’t make any assumption either about the length of the ongoing PDO cool phase. She speaks of the “near term” effects of the cold phase of the PDO and forthcoming La Nina events. I just don’t see how temporary dumps of precipitations on land will have any lasting effect that might *override* the positive effect of the cool phase of the PDO on ocean heat content increase. While the 2011 La Nina caused a sudden drop in sea levels below the tend line, the levels immediately shot back above it over the next year (and currently seem to have fallen back on the trend line).
↧
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by Wagathon
Dr. Will Happer’s testimony before the U.S. Senate established that, “the planet is currently starved of CO2, and has been so starved for several million years.”
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by DocMartyn
Can someone go through my math?
The worlds oceans deposit between 15 to 30 billion tons of sediment into the oceans every years, call it 23 billion tons.
(The amount depends on land use, precipitation and who guess).
If we assume that the sediment has a density of 2.3, it has a volume equal to 10 billion tons of water.
10 billion tons of water is 10^13 liters.
Now the surface area of the oceans is 3.61*10^14 m2.
The height of displacement, hence sea rise, is 1/36= 0.0277 +/- 0.0092 mm/year.
Is that right or have I muffed a decimal place?
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by pokerguy
Exactly. So, I would ask you, which group evinces the greater certainty, warmists or skeptics? Which of course is another way of asking, which group appears immune to cognitive dissonance?
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by Chief Hydrologist
Clouds are net cooling. The climate shift in 1998/2001 is seen in the increase in cloud at the end of the last century.
The climate shift in 1998/2001 was captured in a couple of ways.
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
In the CERES/MODIS record a modest decrease in cloud dominated the energy dynamic.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS-1.gif.html?sort=3&o=94
In the decadal timeframe cooling is indeed quite likely.
In the longer term an open Arctic may indeed lead to a slowdown in MOC and the spread of icesheets.
↧
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by Pierre-Normand
I agree, Stee. I said that I expect the Planck response to offset the precipitation rate effect, and you say that the precipitation rate effect (together with other things) must compensate for the Plank response and account for the observed lack of correlation. So, we’re basically saying the same thing.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by IPMeng
Poor Humberto. Gore had high hopes for him.
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by R. Gates the Skeptical Warmist
“Clouds increase in cool PDO…”
___
Interesting then that ocean heat content has also increased during the current cool PDO. Somethings not adding up.
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by R. Gates the Skeptical Warmist
“Ocean heat is rising in ARGO…”
“Clouds increase in cool PDO…”
_____
Ocean heat content rising while clouds increasing? Hmmm….
↧
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by Joshua
So, I would ask you, which group evinces the greater certainty, warmists or skeptics?
Which “skeptic” here strikes you as being anything less than certain?
Remember, PG, selective reasoning is selective.
↧
Comment on PDO, ENSO and sea level rise by Jeffn
Yeah! Cause everyone knows the oil ran out in the 70s. If you’re driving a car now or booking a flight (God forbid) then you are living in the Matrix. A make believe word. Only cranks doubt this.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by R. Gates the Skeptical Warmist
This new study related to “tiny” plankton and their effects on the climate merits your consideration. Tiny plankton can influence the climate but 7+ Billion humans dumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere 24 hours a day for several centuries can’t? Unlikely:
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-tiny-plankton-big-impact-climate.html
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
