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

Comment on Climate adaptation – Bangladesh style by GaryM

0
0

“Bangladesh’s problem is primarily one of population….”

No, Bangladesh’s primary problem is its economic system.

According to the above, the centrally planned operations of the “elite” are as likely to do more harm than good. The term unintended consequences comes to mind. Yet the adaptation on a local basis is surprisingly (to central planners) successful.

Imagine what the people of Bangladesh could accomplish in adapting to weather and climate if their economy ranked better than 196th on the world.


Comment on Climate adaptation – Bangladesh style by Faustino

0
0

The Adaptation excerpts show the capacity of people on the ground to work with their situation. No central planning or GHG emissions reductions needed, thank you. This is normal human beings, doing what normal human beings do: adapt, improvise, address the issues of their particular situation. The external assistance was very closely targeted to specific local issues, not derived from large-scale remote strategizing. I’m sure there are lessons here for those who would heed them, but they would not be in the interests of those who favour large-/global-scale externally devised megaplans.

Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

So now the deniers are out in force with the “equilibrium” sledge hammer.
That’s a good one … as all semiconductor engineers learn equilibrium statistical mechanics so they can apply it to the highly non-equilibrium regime of device operation. Same goes for every other discipline that uses thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. The usage of the term equilibrium is a crutch because you have nothing else to argue with.

BTW, sokkkpuppy coyote is actually the chief skippy dingo-boy.. Sad that he has to use handle #67 of his multiple identities to garner grass-roots support for his demented mewlings.

Comment on Climate adaptation – Bangladesh style by Michael

0
0

“In terms of ‘bang per buck’, I suspect that that the adaptation funding, if wisely used, is money that is much better spent.” – JC

In the short-term possibly….but if then further adaption is reuqired…. and then further…

Ever heard of this little phrase?- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Comment on Climate data and financial data: Part I by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

Got nothing TJA, eh?

Thought so.

Comment on Climate data and financial data: Part I by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

In summary, of course one can fit any set of curves to data, but to do that within the constraints of physical laws that must be obeyed makes the “elephant trunk” saying irrelevant.

For example, take an electronic circuit with a bunch of unknown values for circuit components. Given inputs and outputs, I could typically figure out a valid equivalent circuit configuration. This happens All The Time in the real world. If you told some engineer that they were simply fitting an elephants trunk, they would roll their eyes and tell you to get lost.

The problem with deniers is that that have a stick up their butt and they refuse to believe that science can make any progress. That’s why I refer to them as neo-Luddites.

Again, I am doing the equivalent of homework problems. This is basic thermo and that stick up your butt must be getting real uncomfotable.

Comment on Climate adaptation – Bangladesh style by naq

0
0

A stitch in time, saves nine.

Comment on Climate data and financial data: Part I by Wile E. Coyote

0
0

The example par excellence of an angry and crazed gerbil with whom any reasonable discourse has never been possible.

He is wrong of course because he has failed to understand reality and has substituted his own. Any correction to the sad little leaping long haired Laplace’s gnome is met with rage and denunciation.

Stick this up your bum webby.

‘An increase in the circulation of the South Pacific Ocean subtropical gyre, extending from the sea surface to middepth, is observed over 12 years. Datasets used to quantify the decadal gyre spinup include satellite altimetric height, the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) hydrographic and float survey of the South Pacific, a repeated hydrographic transect along 170°W, and profiling float data from the global Argo array. The signal in sea surface height is a 12-cm increase between 1993 and 2004, on large spatial scale centered at about 40°S, 170°W. The subsurface datasets show that this signal is predominantly due to density variations in the water column, that is, to deepening of isopycnal surfaces, extending to depths of at least 1800 m. The maximum increase in dynamic height is collocated with the deep center of the subtropical gyre, and the signal represents an increase in the total counterclockwise geostrophic circulation of the gyre, by at least 20% at 1000 m. A comparison of WOCE and Argo float trajectories at 1000 m confirms the gyre spinup during the 1990s. The signals in sea surface height, dynamic height, and velocity all peaked around 2003 and subsequently began to decline. The 1990s increase in wind-driven circulation resulted from decadal intensification of wind stress curl east of New Zealand—variability associated with an increase in the atmosphere’s Southern Hemisphere annular mode. It is suggested (based on altimetric height) that midlatitude gyres in all of the oceans have been affected by variability in the atmospheric annular modes on decadal time scales.’

Roemmich, D., J. Gilson, R. Davis, P. Sutton, S. Wijffels, S. Riser, 2007: Decadal Spinup of the South Pacific Subtropical Gyre. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 37, 162–173.


Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Joshua

0
0

==> “Yes, not so much “horrified” as expected from the Hayward political types. It would be surprising if he said anything else, in fact.”

Of course it’s expected, not the least, because we’ve been seeing it for years – which is why it’s so odd that Judith said that there’s something new about “climate cultist.”

The only thing that I can see that’s different, really, is Judith’s increasing enmeshment in the political foodfight. I don’t know if she is investing less energy on the scientific side, but she’s clearly stepped up the activism and the embrace of tribalism and vitriol, and clearly walked further into the hard core Jell-O flinging zone.

Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by David Young

0
0

Josh, Why has climate policy been a manifest failure? Those who are its advocates must surely bear some responsibility for this.

Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Joseph

0
0

Yes we all know Judith hates and seems somewhat obsessed with Michael Mann.

Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Mickey Mouse

Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Ragnaar

0
0

David Young | June 13, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
…If a policy push is a manifest failure it does naturally lead to the question of why.

It was the skeptics fault.

Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by mosomoso

0
0

“The right conceptual understanding of the problem is that we need large-scale low- and non-carbon energy sources that are cheaper than hydrocarbon energy.”

No we don’t. You just bought into the warmie message. If someone comes up with the means to store masses of energy then low/non-carbon will likely be cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels and nukes. Centuries supply of lovely coal will be left lying in the ground. We’ll likely need solar and wind – but they won’t be the solar and wind we’ve been frittering billions on lately.

The answer is to make what works (that’s coal!) even better so you have lots of yummy money to buy into something better still when it comes along (that’s storage!) White elephants are actually killing alternative technology, including the wind and solar which might actually prove useful when their output can be stored.

Say no to a white elephant today. Modernise your coal power. And do remember about the Middle East and Venezuela etc before making any decisions about energy. We live in a world, not a model.

Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Donald Duck

0
0

‘If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades. Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

1. The duration of such shifts over 1000 years – 20 to 40 years.
2. It may be more speculative to imagine that the hiatus will finish early – or that it will necessarily shift to yet warmer.
3. It may be superimp0osed but how big are the multi-decadal shifts?
4. The failure to entertain the possibility is the defining characteristic of the Borg collective cult of AGW groupthink space cadets.

It is why they have lost the game and the plot.


Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Jim D

0
0

In suggesting adaptive resiliency, at least Hayward is ahead of several US state houses (e.g., NC, NJ, FL) where any kind of thought about high future sea levels is not allowed to enter into planning as a casualty of their Republican principles. Perhaps Hayward can start by trying to talk to those people about his adaptive resiliency ideas, and see how his brand of conservatism gets treated there.

Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Joshua

0
0

Sheece – another comment tripped by the moderation filter? Ok. Let me find the offending words by breaking it up into parts:

David -

==> “Why has climate policy been a manifest failure?”

I’m not sure how you define manifest failure.

Climate change has become a deeply polarized issue for a variety of reasons, and addressing that polarization is not well-served by simplistic cause-and-effect attribution that isn’t well supported by data, and that not coincidentally aligns with partisan orientation.

Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Matthew R Marler

0
0
Jim D: <i> the mean profile of the dynamics is the lapse rate. The lapse rate is governed by the surface temperature and water vapor over oceans. Water vapor there itself depends on the temperature and cannot be taken as an independent variable, which looks like the mistake you are making. </i> You are missing the thunderclouds for the vapor. The lapse rate is the mean profile of the statics.

Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Joshua

0
0

Both sides claim that the root of the problem lies in the vitriol from the other side. Maybe that should tell you something.

Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Joshua

0
0

In such a context, I don’t view a lack of clear direction to be a failure, but to be a natural outgrowth of the complexity of the issues within a society that is strongly divided along ideological lines..

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images