Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on John Kerry’s remarks on climate change by Robert I Ellison

0
0

Even then I replied to the wrong email.


Comment on UK-US Workshop Part IV: Limits of climate models for adaptation decision making by RichardLH

0
0

“The point was the OP has no idea whatthe difference between a model and a simulation is”

I did rather get that. My point was that the model graduation was frightening coarse.

Comment on John Kerry’s remarks on climate change by Stephen Rasey

0
0

Keystone XL Nebraska leg back in legal limbo:
“Lancaster County Judge Stephanie Stacy issued a ruling that invalidated Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman’s approval of the route. Stacy agreed with opponents’ arguments that law passed in 2011 improperly delegated the decision-making power to Heineman to give the company eminent domain powers within the state. Stacy said the decision should have been made by the Nebraska Public Service Commission, which regulates pipelines and other utilities.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/19/judge-strikes-down-nebraska-law-that-allowed-keystone-pipeline-to-proceed/

Comment on John Kerry’s remarks on climate change by kim

0
0

If there is no distinction, I’ll go with your spelling. It is much more easily understood, and it is more prevalent. A sign of language to come.
==========

Comment on John Kerry’s remarks on climate change by kim

0
0

Many citizens wished we’d elected the Obama they voted for.
==============

Comment on John Kerry’s remarks on climate change by pokerguy (aka al neipris)

0
0

“But I did enjoy Mike Roddy blaming an Indian Ocean tsunami on Pacific Ocean warming.”

Oh God, did you see that too (pg asks rhetorically). That guy is the quintessential warmist on steroids. Fairly salivating with angry contempt in proportion to his utter cluelessness. I read a comment by him a few years ago in which he claimed that he had special knowledge that the establishment climate scientists were convinced the situation was much worse than they were saying publicly.

Revkin whom I have some respect for, just doesn’t seem to evolve much.

Comment on John Kerry’s remarks on climate change by kim

0
0

Mike Roddy might have been one of the bitter ones in 2008, when I drank heavily at Andy’s Saloon, who called his place dot.kim. Nobody’s called Judy’s Salon kim etc. yet.
=====================

Comment on John Kerry’s remarks on climate change by Bob Ludwick

0
0

@ Walt Allensworth

Q. E. D.

Concise, accurate summation of the Progressive_politician/Green/Climate_science complex in action since it burst on the scene with the (accurate) announcement that ‘The science is settled.’. Everything since has been a drive for power using a combination of the ‘Seven Rules of Bureaucracy’ and Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’, mixed and matched as needed to crush all opposition and advance the cause most effectively. Actual science, as practiced (somewhat timorously but with growing courage) by Dr. Curry, need not apply.


Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Joshua

0
0

It boggles my mind. What could explain it?

Incredulity just doesn’t get old, does it?

Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by phatboy

0
0

You sound like you’re opposed to adaptation.
What are your arguments?

Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by maksimovich

0
0

DR. COLLINS: The asymptote.
DR. SANTER: Hiatus.

The Asymptote is a significant constraint on various assumptions in CS,I suspect that Collins is not aware of either the literature or the discussions arising ( a good answer for how much mathematical knowledge Physicists require, is more )

KAM theory (a counter intuitive theory ) suggests that a large number of physically significant dynamic systems may behave asymptotically rather then periodically the theorem (as Hamiltonian) dependent on the hidden symplectic symmetry between the kinetic and potential energy (Gromov)

The Proposition (Rulle) is that systems being far from equilibrium,may exhibit historical behaviour rather then being recurrent.

Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Steven Mosher

0
0

Jesus the stupid is deep today

“Criterion 1 We get a strong El Nino in 2014-2015 but no new surface temperature records in either year. Again, this would also assume no large volcanoes going off.”

If there is an el nino but no record, the claim will be “its not strong”
here they define strong as big enough to set the record.
This is not CLEARLY SPECIFYING CONDITIONS.

############################
Criterion 2 Arctic sea ice actually makes a strong, real multi-year recovery in area, extent, and volume. (A 5-year sustained recovery)

1. define strong
2. Define sustained. if yearly gains go 1,0,2,0,4 is that sustained?
is 1,2,3,5,4 sustained? is 0 0 0 1 2 sustained?
if area and volume go up and extent is mixed, then what?

Criterion 3 Ocean Heat Content takes a multi-year decline. (Again, a 5-year sustained decline would do the trick)

decline? decline from current rate? decline from current value?
and what does sustained mean.

There is a reason why people dont give clearly specified conditions under which they would change their minds

That reason is ( on both sides) that their belief is UNDERDETERMINED by the measured evidence. They hold the beliefs they do for more reasons than they can articulate, therefore when it comes to articulating the evidence required to “undo” their beliefs they must of course be less than specific. In other words if their belief were determined by the evidence it would be a simple logical affair to specify the conditions. The lack of specificity in stipulations about when folks will change opinions is due to the very structure of their reasoning about why they believe what the believe in the first place.

For me, the ice can do whatever it wants in the next 5 years. I dont beleive in AGW because of what the ice is doing or because of what OHC is doing.

Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by La ciencia “establecida” del calentamiento global acojonante, en la APS. | PlazaMoyua.com

0
0

[…] APS reviews its Climate Change Statement […]

Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Joshua

0
0

hmmmm.

The lack of specificity in stipulations about when folks will change opinions is due to the very structure of their reasoning about why they believe what the believe in the first place.

This leaves one to wonder what stipulations would be required to define “global warming?” Would such a definition stipulate that OHC be excluded from such a definition? Or would the oceans increasing in heat content be stipulated as a sign of global warming?

What do you think, Steven?

And depending on your answer, what would you think about a scientist testifying before Congress and repeating statements about a “hiatus in global warming,” w/o considering uncertainty about ocean heat content?

I agree with the basic thesis of your comment. Are you willing to apply that thesis on a uniform basis?

Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Robert I Ellison

0
0

‘As we discussed earlier in this class, a key feature of thick atmospheres (where thick means atmospheres with pressures greater than 100-200 mb) is temperature decreases with increasing altitude at higher pressures defining the troposphere of these planets. We want to understand why tropospheric temperatures systematically decrease with altitude and what the rate of decrease is. The first order explanation is the dry adiabatic lapse rate. An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process. For this to be the case, the process must be “fast” so that no heat is exchanged with the environment. So in the first law of thermodynamics, we can anticipate that we will set the dQ term equal to zero.’

This doesn’t come with a download link in my browser – but can be found as the first item in the Google list.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dry+adiabatic+lapse+rate+Arizona+course+notes&l=1

The derivation dry adiabatic lapse rate involves both the hydrostatic and the thermodynamic components.

In the troposphere I would pretty much assume that g is constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erdgvarp.png

It explains nothing at all excepts perhaps for indicating whether real air columns are stable or unstable by comparing with data on actual lapse rates.


Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Michael

0
0

“Of course you know the answer as well as I do, they’re afraid of results that might weaken their status as climate priests. Many climate scientists see themselves, or at least want the world to see them, as having a profound understanding beyond that of mere mortals, that is positively oracular in nature. ” – pokerguy

There are meds for this kind of delusional paranoia.

Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Robert I Ellison

0
0

No – Michael – that was Mark Twain who suggested not arguing with a fool. Perfectly correct as far as I can see.

Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Michael

0
0

“Al,

I dont know why they are not.
They know the uncertainty is greatest there.
They planned a mission to help resolve it.
It failed. they made a few squeaks, then nothing.

It boggles my mind. What could explain it?

1. they think observations are not important
2. they think other stuff is more important” – mosher

Jeez,
The stupid runs really deep today.

Or maybe there are other launches scheduled and budgets allocated already up to 2020, and a preceeding crash in 2009 has really scr*wed the pooch in terms of timetable and $$, while at the sametime congress wants to cut NASA budgets and there are even questions as to why NASA is doing ANY earth obs.

Meanwhile, in magical-fairy-mosher-land, everyone has a pony.

Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Matthew R Marler

0
0
Steven Mosher: <i>That reason is ( on both sides) that their belief is UNDERDETERMINED by the measured evidence. </i> Well said.

Comment on APS reviews its Climate Change Statement by Paul S

0
0

Steven,

It boggles my mind. What could explain it?

1. they think observations are not important
2. they think other stuff is more important
3. they see no hope of getting it done.

4. The spy network you’ve setup to simultaneously track the activities of all climate scientists at all times has been hacked and you’re getting false feeds.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images