Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on California drought in context by eadler2

0
0

RichardLH | March 12, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
“Well I would have thought that an observation that the sea ice had returned to within 2 SD having been outside of that range for quite a few years and the appearance of a possible downward trend in the temperature data says otherwise. Sure the two together could be co-incidence but the other alternative is what I suggested. Time alone will tell which view is correct.”

Saying that a downward movement in Arctic Sea Ice is possible, is a different thing from saying the data indicates a trend. Looking at the UAH and the Sea Ice, you see that single year increases of the same magnitude as 2013 over 2012, have occurred while the overall downward trend has continued.


Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by pokerguy (aka al neipris)

0
0

Hi Gary,
I was referring to the effort to keep “unfriendly” papers out of science journals, something which really did involve an explicit conspiracy of sorts. Semantics I guess.

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Joseph

0
0

“The trouble with climate scientists is they have begun to see themselves as heroes. Of course they tend toward alarmism. Nothing could be more natural. The more apocalyptic the message, the more frightening the possibilities, the greater is their own personal glory. ”

This is another example of a speculative evidence free assertion that only a “skeptic” could dream up.

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by manacker

0
0

Stephen Segrest

Amen! (To what Senator Toomey has said.)

This is very much in line with what our hostess here has testified before Congress (for which she was branded a “heretic” and traitor”).

The key statements (from her testimony to the Baird committee in the fall of 2010) bear repeating here:

Anthropogenic climate change is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain.

The threat from global climate change does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century even in its most alarming incarnation.

It seems more important that robust policy responses be formulated rather than to respond urgently with policies that may fail to address the problem and whose unintended consequences have not been adequately explored.

If every Senator talked like that we would not have had the all-night climate change blabathon orchestrated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Max

Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part I by Jenny

0
0

that you roll in the hay to mete out you the about out
of the bind, soupy respect as fountainhead as you hoped, or it doesn’t proceeds selfsame abbreviated punctuation of
meter to piece of music the adult female of these sample codes when you go to the chief result
is batter-fried plenty. A Beats By Dre Canada Goose (Jenny) Canada
Goose Bergen Canada Goose Jakke Canada Goose Tilbud (Jenny) Beats By Dr Dre Canada
Goose Jassen Canada Goose Jackets Canada Goose Oslo Canada
Goose outlet – Jenny – Canada Goose Kensington Parka canada goose nederland,
Jenny, Canada Goose Jakke Dame Canada Goose outlet performer.
organism fit to do with the lengthiest of resumes seek unfixed.
But with preparation, you’ll see statesman approximately bid strategies earlier deed started.

Before buying a event from a size be of research and legwork to chance
cracking coupons for forphysical locations. Try responsibility an eye

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Joseph

0
0

It seems more important that robust policy responses be formulated

Do you see Republicans suggesting any “robust policy responses?” All I see from them is to advocate for doing “nothing,” because they think it isn’t and never will be a problem.

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Joseph

0
0

oops wrong thread..

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Joseph

0
0

It seems more important that robust policy responses be formulated

Do you see Republicans suggesting any “robust policy responses?” All I see from them is to advocate for doing “nothing,” because they think it isn’t and never will be a problem.


Comment on California drought in context by Robert I Ellison

0
0

Wow – what a long thread. You know of course that the trend from 2002 is very different to the trend from 1976 to 1998 and this is the result of a climate shift in the Pacific?

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Robert I Ellison

0
0

It is expected that global energy content is at a 1000 year. Most of the early century was entirely natural – at least some of the warming later in the century was natural and this has since turned around with changes in Pacific conditions.

If you exclude the 1976/77 and 1997/98 El Ninos – and subtract the intervening ENSO influence – we know that ENSO added to warming in the period – the residual warming is some 0.2 degrees C.

That the world is warm seems not the point – attribution is with all that implies for future trajectories. .

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Robert I Ellison

0
0

damn – 1000 year high…

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by ROM

0
0

Science politics, not political politics although they also often appear to have a significant role, with it’s advocacy for the implementation of certain policies regardless of the unpredicted and unforeseen consequences, dominates some prominent science subjects such as climate science in the Old World northern hemisphere peak science organisations.
Just as it has done in the Australian climate science scene although that is now starting to change and fast as the economies that went all out towards the limiting of energy on the advice and advocacy of climate scientists leads to a point where an economy starts to disintegrate as appears to be happening in the likes of Germany if the climate science news from over the last few weeks is correct.
Now Germany looks like it is on the cusp of doing a very rapid switch back towards growth strategies and policies and the restriction and perhaps even abolition of most of the support for the economically and socially unsustainable renewable energy regimes which were put in place on the advice and through the advocacy of the peak European science organisations.

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Joseph

0
0
<blockquote>If the IPCC conclusion were that there is no threat to humanity from human-induced climate change, IPCC would cease to have a reason to exist. IOW the CAGW premise is of existential importance to IPCC.</blockquote> The IPCC is made up of individual volunteers. No one is forcing anyone to draw any conclusions. Do you have any evidence that they are? <blockquote>Don’t be naïve, Joseph. It is quite clear that the concrete UNFCCC/IPCC goal is to drastically reduce human CO2 emissions by getting all nations to agree to top-down emission limits and levying a direct or indirect global tax on carbon and hence world-wide energy.</blockquote> Why would they want to do that? What you are suggesting makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe to some black helicopter conspiracy nut, but not to any sane person.

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by AK

0
0

@manacker…

In addition to the capital investment, one also needs to compare [...]

I included a link to the original report. And mentioned all the questionable assumptions. The quotes were almost just teasers.

Solar and wind also have low running costs (free energy source!) but a very low on-line factor (normally around 25%) requiring a back-up power source.

The exercise I’m engaged in is trying to estimate the costs for such systems with storage included. So I can compare it to my (preferred) bio-methane approach. This was just an intermittent post for anybody who might appreciate it.

At first glance, concentrating solar PV with “isothermal” compressed air storage (probably really “pseudo-adiabatic”, IMO) might turn out to be very competitive as prices for solar drop. Problem is, to project very competitive prices I have to make assumptions about technology development, which is time consuming. (Or at least justifying them is.)

Comment on Positioning skeptics by Mark Silbert

0
0

http://cdn.cato.org/archive-2013/cpf-11-13-13.mp4

Richard Lindzen gave this talk in January. The length of the video is about an hour and a half. If you are interested in an advocate that is brave enough to point out the nonsense that is produced in the name of the scientific consensus, you will enjoy watching it.

I am a fan of Dr. Lindzen. I was surprised (I don’t know why) by the skill with which he answered audience questions after his talk.

Dr. LIndzen is affiliated with both CATO and GWPF.


Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by beththeserf

0
0

Questioning the official line, consensus raised to
the ‘Not-ter-be-challenged. Thank goodness fer
the internet (DS) and outposts of free enquiry like
Climate Etc. (JC)
A serf.

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by k scott denison

0
0

Steven Mosher says: “I’ll put it this way. Suppose a monk said it was dry and a tree said it was wet.”

Please, can you enlighten me to how a tree tells me it was wet, how the tree was calibrated, where it was calibrated, under what conditions, etc? Because, I don’t believe a tree can tell me it was wet. Or hot. Or cold. Or dry. Or sunny. Or…

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by beththeserf

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Danley Wolfe

0
0

A somewhat different topic, question for Judith Curry. AAAS / Science magazine has been publishing weekly briefs starting in January 2014 under the subject heading “Challenges to Climate Science.” These would appear to be from the climate consensus / community many if not all are IPCC assessment contributors/reviewers. Most are interesting for what they say but do not go to what many of us feel are the core issues which have been discussing i.e., attribution, “the uncertainty monster” and related to the hiatus. These are not peer reviewed and appear to be generally opinion pieces… something like brand / image marketing and support for the AR5-WG1 report to further the storyline. I am interested in hearing others opinions. Here are the pieces so far:
Rosenfeld, Daniel, Steven Sherwood and Robert Wood, Leo Donner, “Climate Effects of Aerosol-Cloud Interactions,” Science 343: pp 379-380, January 24, 2014
Nisbet, Euan G., Edward J. Dlugokencky and Philllippe Bousquet, “Methane on the Rise – Again,” Science 343: pp. 494-495, January 31, 2014
Vecchi, Gavriel A. and Babriele Villanni, “Next Season’s Hurricanes,” Science 343: pp 618-619, February 7, 2014
Sherwood Steven and Qiang Fu, “A Drier Future,” Science 343: pp. 737-739, February 14, 2014
Hegerl, Gabi and Peter Stott, “From Past to Future Warming,” Science 343: pp. 844-845, February 21, 2014
Clement, Amy and Pedro DiNezio “The Tropical Pacific Ocean – Back in the Driver’s Seat,” Science 343: pp. 976-978, February 28, 2014
Isaac Held, “Simplicity Amid Complexity,” Science 343: pp 1206-1207, March 14, 2014

-also-
Wallace, John M., Isaac M. Held, David W.J. Thompson, Kevin Trenberth, John E. Walsh, “Global Warming and Winter Weather, Science 343 [Letters-Commentary]: pp 729-730, February 14, 2014

Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by kim

0
0

Ah, J, progress. So you agree that would be a foolish thing for the IPCC to encourage?
=========

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images