Wolfowitz was mugged unfairly on the girlfriend thing, in my opinion. He disclosed everything himself at the outset and there wasn’t ever any evidence of improper influence, if I recall. But he had seriously ticked off many internal constituencies by trying to crack down on sweetheart loans to poorly performing national governments.
Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by stevepostrel
↧
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by jim2
The categorical difference between estimate and measurement is that measurement involves a measuring instrument whereas an estimate does not.
↧
Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by stevepostrel
R. Gates, how can you be ignorant of all the commentary here and elsewhere about how the latest IPCC report says that more research has led to wider uncertainty bounds as new uncertainties are discovered? This is not exactly a state secret.
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Ragnaar
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/solar-neutrinos.html
“Look, I saw that after this talk you were depressed, and I just wanted to tell you that I don’t think you have any reason to be depressed. We’ve heard what you did, and nobody’s found anything wrong with your calculations. I don’t know why Davis’s result doesn’t agree with your calculations, but you shouldn’t be discouraged, because maybe you’ve done something important, we don’t know. I don’t know what the explanation is, but you shouldn’t feel discouraged.”
For three decades people had been pointing at this guy and saying this is the guy who wrongly calculated the flux of neutrinos from the sun, and suddenly that wasn’t so. It was like a person who had been sentenced for some heinous crime, and then a DNA test is made and it’s found that he isn’t guilty. That’s exactly the way I felt.
So when the data doesn’t match, persecute?
↧
Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by Steven Mosher
“The largest error with the IPCC may not have been with radiative physics, climatology, oceanography, economics, but rather demographics.”
Yes.
Now scenarios are totally decoupled from population.
↧
↧
Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by Mike Jonas
OK, they highlighted Type B uncertainty. But they don’t actually believe in it because they then say “uncertainty is not a reason for inaction”. Strange logic indeed. It may well be logical to say “We are certain that Bad Things will happen if we don’t act, so we must act”, but it is surely illogical to the point of insanity to say “We don’t know whether Bad Things will happen if we don’t act, so we must act”.
↧
Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by Raving
The explanation of the population collapse (Generation Screwed)
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/content/analysis/thebottomline/generation_screwed.html
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Joshua
John -
I guess I think that you’re just describing a distinction without a difference. Advocating for no specific policy, in this context, is advocating for maintaining the policies that comprise the status quo.
Once again, I have no problem with Judith advocating for the status quo. I believe in the value of advocacy. My criticism is w/r/t her selective criticism of advocacy. When she agrees with the policies being advocated, she voices no objection. In fact, she advocates herself towards specific policy outcomes. When she disagrees with the policies being advocated, she doesn’t just leave it at that, but goes on to drama-queen about the great harm done by advocacy.
Judith says that she’s also advocating for scientific integrity. I think that’s great. But others, that she criticizes for being advocates, also say that they’re advocating for scientific integrity. They have just as much conviction in their beliefs as does Judith. They think that Judith is harming the integrity of “science” just as Judith thinks that they are harming the integrity of “science.” I think that they are all advocating for the integrity of “science” while simultaneously engaging in identity protective and identity aggressive behaviors (such as self-victimization and demonizing those they disagree with).
Anyway, I don’t agree with exploiting a positive – the right of advocacy – to score points in the climate wars. I think it is counterproductive.
↧
Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by AK
Sorry. Reply <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/06/world-bank-on-understanding-climate-uncertainty/#comment-588398" rel="nofollow">here.</a>
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Ragnaar
A Lacis:
Your figure 9 at your link above shows something similar to this:
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg
The CO2 bands at about 650 seems neutral below the horizontal line which is about 15 km. I do not know what to make of this? I hesitate to even bring it up as I suspect there’s a reasonable explanation. Maybe that it’s netting to zero while delaying upward heat movement.
↧
Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by Curious George
“Easily brought to maturity in 10-15 years.” May I borrow your crystal ball? Why that and not a tabletop fusion reactor?
↧
Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Nature (i.e. physics) is the one taking the action as it stands. When man depletes the fossil fuel reserves from beneath the surface of the earth, it takes action by replacing this store only slowly and at its own pace. And as a side effect, nature takes action by depositing the fossil fuel combustion remains as atmospheric CO2 and it only slowly and at its own pace sequesters this CO2 back in to the ground.
Man can take inaction to match nature’s agonizingly slow action, but we know the outcome of that, don’t we?
↧
Comment on Open thread by brent
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
SS – Note: Open Thread.
↧
Comment on Open thread by DocMartyn
A Lacis, why not just do something really simple.
Plot the temperature profile for the equatorial Pacific ocean starting at 100 m depth, all the way out to space, over 24 hours; show the math for 280 ppm and for 560 ppm CO2, and perhaps I will not laugh at your use of equilibrium.
Come now, you can do decades of global temperature change, so just do me 1 square meter of water and air, 70 kilometers long, over 24 hours.
I can wait.
↧
Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by AK
<blockquote>Why that and not a tabletop fusion reactor?</blockquote>It's a matter of what technology is already available, and estimating the level of "breakthrough" needed to bring any planned technology to maturity. How would a <i>"tabletop fusion reactor"</i> work?
↧
Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
This is the quality of RobbIE’s observations:
“Yes my point is that the QBO has pretty much the same shape as the MEI. “
Yet if we compare the shape of QBO and the shape pf MEI/ENSO, they are nowhere near the same over the last 60+ years:
This is what the QBO looks like since 1950:
http://www.jisao.washington.edu/datasets/qbo/qbo.gif
This is what an ENSO MEI index looks like over roughly the same period:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
So how do we get from one to the other?
watch this shot:
http://contextearth.com/2014/05/27/the-soim-differential-equation/
swish!
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Stephen Segrest
Dr. Curry’s Blog Rules (include) Don’t grind your personal axes by filling up the comments with extensive posts that are not deemed relevant or interesting in the context of blog objectives.
============
Many of us come to Dr. Curry’s blog to try and learn something (primarily science). With typically 400 to 600 responses this can be difficult scanning through what’s relevant and what’s not.
When about 10 people take up so much space ranting about Obama or Liberals this and that — the attempt to learn (time-wise) becomes hard wading through all this stuff. One can get frustrated in quickly scanning and miss posts that “ARE” meaningful.
If you have ideological or personal problems with Obama or Liberals, take it to another blog!
↧
Comment on Open thread by A Lacis
Ragnaar –
The CO2 spectral absorption coefficients are exceedingly large in the middle of the CO2 band near 650 nm. In the troposphere, the emitted radiation gets absorbed within inches so that exchange of radiation with neighboring layers is very limited leading to a small cooling rate. With height, the atmospheric density decreases, as does the pressure broadening. Above the tropopause, the CO2 line width decreases significantly, allowing emitted radiation from below to escape more directly to space – hence the increasing cooling rate with height in the stratosphere. At some point the CO2 line width becomes Doppler broadening limited, with the cooling rate then decreasing with height,
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
From the blog rules:
Objectionable posts will be rejected or snipped, and I will do my best to spot them in a timely manner.
And Dr. Curry is the moderator, in case you are suffering from delusions.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
