<blockquote>Thankfully we have the blog scientists to rescue us from this sad state of affairs with their ever-so professional comments.</blockquote>
Speak for yourself, Michael.
Comment on Tracking the line between treatment and diagnosis by manacker
↧
↧
Comment on Property Rights and Climate Change by manacker
Fred Moolten
I have to agree with David [with this slight addition] that
There is no cumulative weight or consilience of evidence in favor of [potentially catastrophic] AGW.
This sort of makes the rest of Adler’s op-ed [regarding what to do about it] rather superfluous.
I know you will most likely disagree, but that’s what this ongoing scientific and policy debate on AGW is all about, i.e. the science is NOT settled [that there is a problem at all].
Max
↧
Comment on Tracking the line between treatment and diagnosis by Beth Cooper
Kim at 1.09 am:
‘A yellow crocus bloomed and cast a shadow,except
when a cloud passed.’
‘I think I never heard so loud
The silent message in a cloud.’
Or in a crocus either, ‘ O sun flower!’
↧
Comment on Tracking the line between treatment and diagnosis by Baa Humbug
@Latimer
climatology and climatologits
My fine pommy friend, let me correct your typo. Ergo..
CLIMATOLO-GITS
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Vaughan Pratt
<i>I’ve said this to you before, Kim: this is delusional.</i>
When two people each think the other is delusional, is the one who is less sure about that more or less likely to be the one who actually is delusional?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Vaughan Pratt
As far as predicting what will happen in 2050, more skill needs to be shown on shorter time frames first.
I believe you have that backwards. If you could show any degree of skill at all on a one-month time frame you could base a profitable company on that ability.
It’s the long-term predictions that we have a better chance with. I can predict July will be warmer than February for Northern California with my eyes closed, but I can’t predict whether next week will be warmer than this week without at least a little extispicy.
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Vaughan Pratt
Hey, pick on someone your own size.
↧
Comment on Property Rights and Climate Change by manacker
Jeffrey
Yeah. Parts of Europe are cleaner/dirtier than parts of the USA.
Extremes (like sections of Detroit) are hard to find in western Europe.
And it’s probably true that the infrastructure is generally in better shape in Europe.
Plus there is usually better public transportation. Higher population density has probably helped but there another key factor: the populations in Europe expect their government to provide this service, which is partially covered by taxpayer funding. In the USA the federal and state governments provide a network of highways but do not get involved in other means of public transportation.
However, living in Switzerland, which is arguably one of the better maintained spots on this planet, I am always hit with three initial positive impressions when I visit USA: the size and scale of everything, the limitless availability of products and services and how things generally work well.
But the question remains: is the USA in a state of terminal decline or will it reinvent itself (as it has done in the past)?
I’m betting on the latter.
Max
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Vaughan Pratt
There is plenty of evidence to suggest experts’ predictions of the future are no better than that of monkeys throwing darts.
For those whose working definition of “expert” is someone who has reliable opinions on the subject in question, your “plenty of evidence” is pure BS. And since you haven’t offered your own definition of “expert” you’re at a disadvantage here. May I suggest for you “x the unknown quantity and spurt a drip under pressure?” It’s about your speed.
I suppose you picture Warren Buffett as a dart-throwing monkey.
↧
↧
Comment on Tracking the line between treatment and diagnosis by GerryM
Josh”:IMO, the thing that is most sorely lacking in the “climate debate” is comprehensive cost/analysis of future conditions likely resulting from present-day policies.”
Isn’t that what the original 16 were doing using the comprehensive cost analysis of future conditions resulting from present day policies. They were accused by Professor Nordhaus of misrepresenting his work and replied as follows (from WUWT):
“We have accurately represented Professor Nordhaus’s findings in our Wall Street Journal editorial of 01-27-12, while making and intending no statement regarding his policy beliefs and advocacy. In his 2008 book, A Question of Balance, Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies, Professor Nordhaus provided the computed discounted costs and benefits for a variety of policies, assuming the IPCC central value for warming due to increased atmospheric CO2 (3 degrees C for doubling of CO2).
He finds (Table 5.3 of the book) that a policy of delaying greenhouse gas controls for 50 years gives a benefit-to-cost ratio just slightly less than his “optimum” policy. The optimum policy is a universal harmonized carbon tax, which Professor Nordhaus advocates. It starts small and is increased gradually over decades. In terms of net benefits, the 50-year-delay policy is far better than more aggressive policies that would severely limit atmospheric concentrations of CO2 or model-calculated global temperature rises.
Both the 50-year-delay policy and the optimum policy allow world economies to continue to develop with relatively little disruption. Aggressive policies considered in the book do not have this characteristic and display sharply higher abatement costs and lower benefit-to-cost ratios.
As we note in the Wall Street Journal editorial, several more aggressive policies are negative return propositions.
Furthermore, in Chapters I and VI, Professor Nordhaus takes pains to explain that the requirement of universality of policy application is critical; regional, national, or group participation differences can be expected to lower policy effectiveness, perhaps substantially: “… there are substantial excess costs if the preponderance of sectors and countries are not fully included. We preliminarily estimate that a participation rate of 50 percent, as compared with 100 percent, will impose an abatement-cost penalty of 250 percent.” (Chapter 1, p.19). Therefore the optimum policy should be considered an ideal upper limit that may not be achieved in real world application.
We wish to emphasize once again that the above assumes that the IPCC climate results are correct and that significant environmental damage would result, both of which we strongly dispute. The statements made in the Wall Street Journal editorial report Professor Nordhaus’s findings accurately and do not bear on his policy advocacy.”
Hasn’t climate science come to a pretty pass when a scientist declares he’s been misrepresented and then is shown not to have been. What could Prof Nordhaus’ motive be?
:
↧
Comment on Tracking the line between treatment and diagnosis by steven
Kim, one would hope you have taken your diagnosis as far as you can before doing diagnostic treatment. This doesn’t change the fact that sometimes treatment is used as a diagnostic tool. it wasn’t so long ago that even major procedures were fairly common as a diagnostic tool. Exploratory surgery has that odd name for a reason. I would love to stay and argue about this further but my flight awaits and my understanding is there is no internet in Timbuktoo, or where I’m going either.
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Vaughan Pratt
<i>Indirect (non TSI) solar forcing is the developing area of climate science that will I think, be understood during the weak solar grand minimum we have already entered.</i>
I suspect it <i>won't</i> be understood, for the simple reason that no one is paying attention to the orientation of the magnetic field in the solar wind. For those who take the trouble to look, it clearly dwarfs the other effects you have in mind here.
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by maksimovich
<i>I suppose you picture Warren Buffett as a dart-throwing monkey.</i>
Lost half a billion in the Christchurch earthquake,Coincidently a city where Popper in hIs enforced sojurn in WW2,that not all swans were white ,
↧
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Vaughan Pratt
Physics is the ONLY thing that can give us an estimate for that number.
Why physics and not simple observation?
If you were a 19th century physicist contemplating emission lines from a star, you could observe and record them in detail. But without an understanding of how molecular bonds absorb quanta, much of which gradually accumulated during the first half of the 20th century, your 19th century physics would be dead in the water trying to estimate the locations and strengths of those lines.
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Vaughan Pratt
Since the emissivity of the earth with the greenhouse effect is reduced more than the absorptivity is reduced, the equilibrium temperature increases.
Without a definition of the vague notion “the equilibrium temperature” I’m afraid I’m unable to agree with this. Please either cite the page number where this term is defined or give your own definition.
As it stands it could mean anything, and with some of those meanings your claim about it is wildly inaccurate.
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Vaughan Pratt
I would have to divide the responsibility for this disagreement between Dolphinhead and Judith. Dolphinhead is wrong for thinking that temperature itself matters, and I think Judith could have been clearer about why it doesn’t.
Temperature doesn’t matter because whatever it is, we’ve learned to live with it.
What matters is temperature variation. If it varies only a little we can probably live with that too. It’s when it varies a lot that it becomes problematic.
Dolphinhead criticized Argo as follows:
For Argo buoys, we have ocean water. That’s a little bit better. But we still have surface evaporation (so that temperature does not serve as a good proxy for heat at the surface as some left via evaporation),
This is a reasonable criticism if the goal is to measure temperature. But if the goal is to measure temperature variation it is not, since the heat leaving via evaporation is about the same this week as it was a billion weeks ago.
One measurement suffices when measuring temperature. But if you want to know about temperature variation you can’t get by with fewer than two measurements.
The fact that HADCRUT and GISTEMP give only anomalies should be a big hint that temperature is irrelevant and only its variation matters.
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by maksimovich
But if you want to know about temperature variation you can’t get by with fewer than two measurements.
The fact that HADCRUT and GISTEMP give only anomalies should be a big hint that temperature is irrelevant and only its variation matters.
Anomalus variations are indeed the matter.eg (adding to the “Pratt” model.)
↧
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Vaughan Pratt
Then the Earth’s gravitation could not pull the molecules back to Earth….
Venus has 100X the mass of Earth’s atmosphere but less than its gravity. How do you explain that Venus’s weaker gravitation is able to pull the molecules of its atmosphere back to Venus?
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Vaughan Pratt
<i>All goes to underscore the most inconvenient truth of all…Beware simplistic arguments.</i>
Which are you offering? A more complicated argument, or nihilism?
↧
Comment on Climate scenarios: 2015-2050 by Vaughan Pratt
<i>What then is modal falsification?</i>
I was wondering the same thing. Looking forward to the answer.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
