“31C limit on tropical sea surface temp” – jim
Huh?
Comment on Open thread weekend by Michael
↧
↧
Comment on Ringing out 2013 by dennis adams
Fan-
Only when Hansen begins to unveil the unknown unknowns of the as yet to be tested nearly infinite homeostatic mechanisms of Mother Earth will he be sinking his teeth into the “best available climate science”. Until he does, he will be spinning his wheels on the iced- over roads outside our house.
↧
Comment on Ringing out 2013 by Don B
Obama does not want oil from our friend Canada, so it will be sold to China.
“After approval stalled in Washington for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would link the oil sands to the United States Gulf Coast, the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, which would cost about 7.9 billion Canadian dollars, or about $7.4 billion, became Canada’s backup plan for increasing oil sands production.
“The current federal government in particular hopes to add Asian markets to the oil sands’ list of customers. The United States has long been Canada’s only significant export market for both oil and natural gas. ”
↧
Comment on Polyclimate by Tom
Time might help those who want to tell us all, the tail…
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-21/us-sailors-assisting-fukushima-clean-crippled-cancer
when we know that will fall off too, one day.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by jobs on fishing boats in florida
I know this website offers quality dependent articles and extra
stuff, is there any other site which gives these stuff in quality?
↧
↧
Comment on Ringing out 2013 by Lauri
I savor, result in I discovered exactly what I was looking for.
You’ve ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man.
Have a great day. Bye
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2
Michael – this effect is well known. It will be great if you learn something new today … not being snarky, I mean it.
See …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/08/upwelling-longwave-over-the-ocean/
and scientists have found the same relationship before Willis …
see here …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/citizen-scientist-willis-and-the-cloud-radiative-effect/
and here …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Stephens-review-of-cloud-feedback.pdf
↧
Comment on Ringing out 2013 by AK
<blockquote>Strong programming skills in any (or all) of the following languages: Java, Python, Ruby, or Clojure </blockquote>Notice the specific lack of <b>ForTran?</b>
I'm disappointed that I need to waste time pointing out something somebody else should have noticed (Latimer)
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by David Springer
+1 for Bart
My sediments exactly. Well not exactamundo but pretty close.
↧
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by David Springer
andrew adams | December 23, 2013 at 7:14 am |
“it’s totally uncontroversial from a scientific viewpoint that to prevent AGW from ocurring it is necessary to reduce emissions”
That’s wrong on more than one level. First of all there are many geo- engineering options on the table that don’t involve reducing emissions. They are generally either removing CO2 after the fact (which I believe is inevitable as soon as the technology to build durable goods out of atmospheric carbon via synthetic biology matures) or reflecting enough sunlight away from the surface to negate whatever amount of GHG effect is desired. Second it may simply be wrong that anthropogenic CO2 emission has any detectable “climate change” effect at all.
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by michael hart
“Go ugly. Go early.” appears to be the predominant ethos in climate-change advocacy.
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by Walter J Horsting
When the earth cools people die from crop failure driven famines like 25% of all Scots in the 1680s. It seems clear to me sun cycle 24′s impact is a colder planet and I do fear cycle 25′s effect on crops. As an advocate for Thorium Molten Salt Reactors I am amazed by green energy advocacy for wind power. For the people living near this net CO2 bird blenders, there is rising tide of global protest to the unsightly, intrusions of nature. For the $1B a day spent of the “climate change” and green energy efforts can build 600 MWs of Th-MSRs daily of CO2 free energy at $.03 per kWh. The US navy just ordered $8b in wind mills, madness!
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by steven
What I like best about his statement on the video is the reference to models and observations. Let me paraphrase. We had observations. We tuned the models (our hypothese) to fit the observations. That the models (hypotheses) fit the observations proves we are correct.
His statement is clearly advocating a position. You can argue that it isn’t based upon the text but any rational human watching the video would come to the same conclusion. Body language and voice inflections do count.
↧
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by David Springer
Geo-engineering climate is at least as feasible as getting enough world-wide cooperation to limit CO2 emission enough to make a whit of difference. You don’t seem to grok the political reality on the ground. It isn’t politically possible to limit CO2 emission enough to make a difference. The only way to accomplish that is through science and engineering. A more economical source of energy that is carbon-neutral to keep civilization’s critical infrastructure running and growing will have no problem gaining universal acceptance as a replacement for fossil fuels. A less economical replacement won’t happen until there is no other choice and as long as there is more in the ground to harvest there will remain a choice. Get the political reality of the situation assimilated into your world view fercrisakes.
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by Edim
David Springer, how do you remove atmospheric CO2? The atmosphere is in direct contact with the oceans and any reduction in atmospheric CO2 would create a pCO2 gradient at the water/air interface. The oceans would simply outgas any removed CO2 from the atmosphere.
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by andrew adams
David Springer,
The kind of geoengineering solutions you mention are years, decades even, away even if they are feasible at all. If we want to prevent AGW from occuring as far as possible then currently emissions reductions are the only option on the table. And even if the lowest credible estimates of climate sensitivity are correct there will still be a detectable influence on the climate. Whether people want to do something about that or not is another question, the point is what are the options <i>if</i> they do.
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by Ron C.
It seems to me that the environmental movement has long been anti-science, witnessed by positions on genetically modified food, nuclear power, insecticides, etc. How strange now their undying faith in computer models with sciencey assumptions.
↧
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by Pekka Pirilä
Andrew,
There are several issues to consider:
- What’s ethically and morally right taking into account various aspects of ethics and moral?
- How the scientist should take into account the possibility that her message may be factually erroneous or widely interpreted in a way that’s erroneous?
- How a scientist can be most influential in getting her message trough?
- How the behavior of one scientist affects the status of science and the influence science has on decision-making?
One important point is that the “scientization” of policy discourse that Gavin criticizes is often presented using formally correct statements about scientific knowledge but with the deliberate aim of misleading the audience. That a statement is formally correct does not imply that it’s generally interpreted correctly or that’s even the purpose that it’s interpreted correctly.
The statement of Stocker is factually correct, formally it does not advocate for any specific policy, but to me it appears clear that most who watch that video interpret it as advocating for mitigation, and that this is probably also the message what both Stocker and the authors of the video wished to deliver.
I don’t think that this is stealth advocacy that should be condemned. making that statement is not ethically or morally wrong. IPCC authors can certainly by policy advocates at this level. Whether presenting that statement is good or bad for the status and influence of science is another question, probably it has practically no effect on that.
My main concern is that denying that this kind of comments contain policy advocacy works against success in reaching as well as possible all the positive goals that scientists should have. The statement is not really misleading, but thinking that it’s not advocacy is misleading to the people who think that way.
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by Bob Ludwick
@ kim
“Remember, Tom, humanity includes those with self-loathing of humanity.”
Would those folks include the ‘Sustainablists’ who demand that the population of the earth be reduced to somewhere between .5 and 1.5 billion. Sooner rather than later? And who seem to be joined at the hip with ‘Climate Science’?
And would that explain efforts like the following?:
↧
Comment on Rethinking climate advocacy by kim
Hah, Pekka, but don’t you love the ones trying to twist themselves into sounding persuasive that it is not advocacy? Better than slapstick.
===================
↧
