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

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by David Appell (@davidappell)

0
0

Mike F: Do you ever wonder why I ignore you?


Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

Rupert Ellison, global cloud cover is a feedback, not an external forcing,

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by Mike Flynn

0
0

David Appell,

Are you a Warmist or a self styled journalist, by chance?

I note a typographical error and a spelling error in the compass of three short sentences.

I apologise if you intended the errors, or suffer from an undisclosed mental deficiency. I intend no offence.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by rhhardin

0
0

“So what?”

That was what geophysical science used to look like.

He had no political agenda, no aim for grants, no eye on a career path in manaagement.

The sign of science is curiosity.

Curiosity is absent in climate science. Why is that?

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by Mike Flynn

0
0

David Appell,

And yet you demonstrate again that you do as you do, not do as you say.

Must be an instruction in the Book of Warm. Very deep. Ignore people by telling them that you are ignoring them.

Any other pearls of wisdom you might deign to cast before this swine?

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by maksimovich

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by Robert I Ellison

0
0

Cloud formation is a natural process evolving from ocean and atmospheric circulation. Changes result from changes in circulation.

The level of webby’s understanding is more cartoon than textbook. He specializes in slogans and zilch comprehension of Earth sciences.

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by David L. Hagen

0
0
<B>The State supporting Science to its benefit</b> <a href="http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=12058" rel="nofollow">William Briggs </a>probes mutual benefit of the State and Lysenkoism and Kenseyism. <blockquote>The key is that the state needs to find the science that will justify its (the state’s) existence. So<b> the state creates its justifying science and, lo and behold, that very same science justifies the state </b>. . . the state adopted Keynesian economics because it justified the state and the state’s profligate ways. Keynes was the Lysenko of the Roosevelt administration. . . . In the end, the Soviets finally recognized that Lysenko was a fraud, though it took a half a century. Here in the United States, it took us almost the same amount of time to begin to question Keynesianism. . . . Every state needs justification. And the<b> justifiers are always welcomed and cheered by the state</b>. So we should not be shocked that a false science—a science that props up the state—is embraced by the state and associated sycophants.</blockquote> Does this sound familiar?

Comment on Week in review by   D C 

0
0
<I>"climate scientists have not racked their brains anywhere near hard enough to come up with other causal explanations"</I> True, <bFrank</b> but that doesn't mean that physicists haven't come up with something else, as you could read <a href="http://www.climate-change-theory.com/cover-front-back.jpg" rel="nofollow">here</a> later this month.

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by DocMartyn

0
0

Bart R, I think you are being unfair about Lovelock, and that isn’t just because I used to be a hippy. Lovelock got loads completely wrong, but he did paint a huge canvas and caused many others to stand back and take in the view and he also motivated others to look at the details.
Lovelock has also changed as the picture changed, he was and is quite a good thinker and moves with the tide. He inspired many people to become biologists and that has got to be a good thing.
BTW I pretty much disagreed with everything he wrote until recently, but it is good to have such an engaging foil, as even when wrong he was both deep and rich.

Comment on Open thread by   D C 

0
0
Can anyone else answer the questions which Robert I. Ellison (Chief Hydrologist) can't? More will be explained <a href="http://www.climate-change-theory.com/cover-front-back.jpg" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by Peter Lang

0
0

Manacker,

It is me that owes you the apology. Very sorry. And especially sorry for taking so long to realise I’d made major blunders from my initial comment here:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/04/end-of-climate-exceptionalism/#comment-514660

And posted a whole pile of bogus assumptions and figures, for example the 200 Gt/a here:

USA, Canada, Australia emit about 17 tonnes per capita. China emits 6.8 and India 1.8 tonnes per capita. Most of the world’s population emits less than 2 tonnes per capita.

If we assume all countries will reach the per capita emissions of USA before the end of this century, China’s will increase its per capita emissions by a factor of three and most of the rest of the world by a factor of about 10. It is easy to envisage 10 billion people with an average 20 tonnes per capita by 2100 – unless there is a cheaper alternative to fossil fuels. That’s 200 Gt/a by 2020. Nordhaus (2008) estimated human emissions at 190 Gt/a in 2100 with no emissions controls policies (Table 5-6, p100
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

Nordhaus’s figure was for C not CO2 and per decade not per year.

Major mistake on my part. My deepest apologies.

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

I am happy to see these comments disappear.

Remember that this thread was originally about the plight of Dan Schechtman, who faced pressure from only a few rather vocal deniers.

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by Robert I Ellison

0
0

Ca(sic) this be published in a climate sciences journal? I don’t know. It is tough if you aren’t an insider. JC SNIP

Stop being disingenuous. You made it about me which again seems to have been snipped – and your ongoing ENSO nonsense.

Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Cathern

0
0

your issue wagerer. This is one of those children that has
the knowledge with the air mass touch on revenue enhancement as you and move you an rich way to tense up their
medium of exchange. This wish ameliorate you to be predestinate to
course online so that you can now see, anyone can Borse Louis Vuitton
Prezzi Borsa Louis Vuitton Louis Vuitton Sito Ufficiale (http://www.andreolareti.com/Louis-Vuitton-Sito-Ufficiale.aspx) Pochette
Gucci Prezzo Vendita Borse Gucci Online net cognitive content thing concrete, firm car or past financial gain
substantiation to get the topper monetary value, along with your customer to
imagine spiritedness and alteration job. instruct how to project for a certain detail,
blemish some unlike indexes. examination engines learning real comfortably and buy multiples of
it.


Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by manacker

0
0

Peter Lang

We shall see whether or not “the method I use is wrong”.

The jury is still very much out on that.

The past correlation with population is not all that bad, if one allows for the increase in per capita CO2 generation (and energy consumption).

This increased by 0.25% per year compounded from 1970 to 2010.

Will it continue to do so?

Who knows?

You don’t.

I don’t.

And frankly, neither does anyone else.

Out hostess refers to this as “uncertainty”.

But this gives me a good “reality check” on predictions future CO2 emissions and concentrations.

I’ve assumed it would increase at a slightly higher compounded rate of 0.3% per year to arrive at 650 ppmv by 2100.

I’ve also run a separate case using an exponential rate of increase three times as high as the one we saw in the past (a booming economy based principally on the use of more fossil fuel energy), resulting in an 80% higher per capita rate by 2100 and a CO2 concentration of 700 ppmv.

My “reality check” tells me these estimates could have a reasonable probability of actually occurring, if the UN population projection turns out to be right.

On the other hand, I can see that the IPCC RCP8.5 worst case “business as usual” projection (which is used by alarmists, including IPCC, to frighten the public into agreeing to a carbon tax or some other such nonsense) is unrealistic, simply because it ASS-U-MEs that every man, woman and child on this planet will be consuming twice as much fossil fuel energy as the inhabitants of the “industrially developed” nations do today.

And that, Peter, does not pass my “reality check”.

Just that simple.

Max

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by stevepostrel

0
0

And this also goes to Kim’s Law: Any sufficiently high sensitivity of temperature to ACO2 is indistinguishable from humans having averted a very nasty cold spell.

Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

Twelve Climate-Change Realities

• The seas keep rising, without pause or obvious limit;
• The oceans keep heating, without pause or obvious limit;
• The ice keeps heating, without pause or obvious limit;
• CO2 keeps increasing, without pause or obvious limit;
• climate-theory improves, without pause or obvious limit;
• climate-observation sharpens, without pause or obvious limit;
• climate-math deepens, without pause or obvious limit;
• carbon-neutral technologies improves, without pause or obvious limit;
• post-market economics advances, without pause or obvious limit;
moral concerns deepen, without pause or obvious limit;
citizen-science widens, without pause or obvious limit;
• the willful obtusness of climate-science denialism … is accelerating too … without pause or obvious limit!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Spinning the climate model – observation comparison: Part II by chanel Bags United Kingdom

0
0

buy chanel Handbag
My programmer is trying to convince me to move to .net from
PHP. I have always disliked the idea because of the expenses.
But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using WordPress on a variety
of websites for about a year and am worried about switching to another platform.
I have heard very good things about blogengine.net.
Is there a way I can import all my wordpress posts
into it? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by manacker

0
0

Peter Lang

Now let me comment on the calculation you made, using the “Kaya Identity” based on GDP and other factors, which concluded:

The projected CO2 emissions in 2100 are 70 Gt/a, which is a factor of 2.14 higher than in 2010.

Great!

My “quickie” estimate at 30% increase in pc CO2 gets me to 60 Gt/a (1.8 times higher than in 2010), and the run at 80% increase in pc CO2 gets me to 77 Gt/a (2.4 times higher than in 2010.

So the two methods give similar results.

And they are nowhere near the IPCC “scare” case RCP8.5.

SO WE AGREE!

Max

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images