Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147858 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Faustino

0
0

“kim makes people bitter and angry”?? What sort of warped people would they be? I would open my door to them only from compassion.


Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Faustino

0
0

“is kim a “he”?” I’m convinced he began as a street-urchin in Lahore about 130 years ago, his wit and wisdom have been accumulated over a long period.

Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Alexander Biggs

0
0

I think it is premature to declare a new epoch on such evidence. In
the geological sense there is little evidence in the rocks, compared with past epochs. By the time the rocks are affected there is likely to be standing room only in many parts of the planet. In fact it is likely to de an era when few people will be able to afford to have children.
t

Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Faustino

0
0

Well, now I’m 72, I would say that my life expectancy has decreased from what it was, say, 50 years ago.

Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Faustino

0
0

All words are made up.

Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by brent

Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by mosomoso

0
0

Things they neglect to mention:

The horror years of 1902-3 and 2002-3 in Oz were “weak” El Ninos. The whopper of 1997-8 was fairly benign. Then there is that long string of El Nino-free years from the mid 1920s to 1940…when ENSO forgot to read the rules and we had all that heat and drought. Eastern Australia’s lethal heat and fire of 1938-9 occurred in a La Nina season flanked by neutral years.

The trouble is that the climate is unqualified and, not only without peer review, but totally unpublished. It reads none of the literature and just does whatever.

Sack the climate.

Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Robert I Ellison

0
0

Me ‘At most we are talking about an anthropogenic flux of 3% of natural carbon dioxide flux. Half of the increase in the atmosphere is from warmth effects on vegetation and soils – warmth mostly unrelated to CO2 and likely to disappear just as quickly. Against a background of quite spectacular natural CO2 change. Minor anthropogenic changes horribly exaggerated for invidious political purpose.’

Randy ‘Despite your attempts to obfuscate the essential dynamics, the point remains that human activity is adding more net carbon to the atmosphere than any process since the PETM. You can arm wave all you want, but the process and scale of the HCV is quite clear. Oh, and of course, when you lack other ways to obfuscate the essential details, you launch your ad homs. All very much the pattern of Skippy Ellison.’

I guess that saying that it is wildly exaggerated and misdirected is an ad hom – and the retailing of any strange whine about ‘faux sceptics’, deniers, senile old white men, conspiracy-theorists, sinful, selfish corruptors of government, mad, etc. is fair dealing.

You reap what you sow. Deal with it. Just spare us the faux indignation.


Comment on Uneasy expertise by Arno Arrak

0
0

That’s a broad and diffuse field to get a grip on.I will just pick some aspects to comment on. The many categories involved are products of societal organization that confuse the situation thoroughly. In a way it boils down to IQ and development of individual interests. And that in turn involves curiosity and desire to learn more about a subject. It may lead to development of credentials or it may not. It is entirely possible for someone lacking any sort of credentials to become highly expert in a field that interests him, and this does not even require that he should have a track record. An example is a young patent office clerk who delved into completely new physics and published five world beating articles in one year. Journals were more inclined to look at the quality of work than credentials or track record then, but that was more than a hundred years ago. From what I see around me now this could not happen today because of the politicization and bureaucratizing of scientific publishing and the claimed monopoly of expertise by scientific institutions.

Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by popesclimatetheory

0
0

The Roman Warm time had an open Arctic.
The Medieval Warm time had an open Arctic.
The Chinese Mapped the Arctic in the 1400′s because it was open then.
The Vikings moved to Greenland because it was warm and ice free.
This modern Warm time is much like all the Warm times in the past ten thousand years and it will end and be followed by another little ice age.

Look at the actual data. What has happened in the past will happen in the future. With more CO2, we will have more green things growing to help us make it through the cold time that will come next.

Consensus Climate Theory and Models do not properly account for the Polar Ice Cycles. Mother Earth does. Watch the snow fall in the warm times when the Polar Waters are Warm and the Ice Thawed. That puts an upper bound on Temperature that will not be violated.

Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by popesclimatetheory

0
0

Look at the ice core data for the past ten thousand years. Earth Warms, Oceans warm, Sea Ice Thaws, Snowfall increases, Ice volume increases, Ice advances, Earth Cools, Oceans cool, Sea Ice freezes, Snowfall decreases, Ice volume and then ice extent decreases, Earth Warms. This cycle repeats, over and over and over.

This is what has happened and what will happen again and again.

You will never know what will happen if you do not study what has happened.

Comment on Uneasy expertise by beththeserf

0
0

So where’s the acknowledgement by those climate experts that
those climate model projection scribbly graphs failed to conform
to reality ? Mann et Al, like other experts of failed predictions,
Erlich, Stiglitz etc continue their expert pronouncements
unabashed. A study on experts’ records of prediction in their
field, by Philip Tetlock,* indicates that experts are not significantly
more reliable than those of non-experts and Tetlock’s experts
are no different from the rest of us when it comes to learning
from their mistakes.

Hmm, guess with the high stakes ‘n all, not too many experts
are wiling terl do an Einstein and bend over backwards to
subject their hypotheses ter rigorous testing.

* http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7959.html

Comment on Uneasy expertise by beththeserf

0
0

Freudian slip or typo, a displaced ‘l’ – not ‘wiling’ but ‘willing.’

Comment on Open thread by Alistair Riddoch

0
0

Read this article about an ancient forest unearthed by storms and waves on a beach in Britain. Talks about how they were first submerged 5000 years ago, then again 3000 years ago. Then goes on to talk about how they are now being revealed again, because of man-caused climate change. Here’s the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/science/a-sunken-kingdom-re-emerges.html?ref=earth&_r=1

It’s the New York Times, so it is a newspaper with influence.

But I fail to see the logic…
5000 years ago, a condition existed. Without our help.
3000 years ago the same condition existed. Without our help.
0 years, the same condition exists, to a much smaller degree, and we are the cause??

I just don’t get it. How do people make that leap, within the context of a single article, and not realize the idiocy of their statements?

Help me out??

Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by phatboy

0
0

Also, as counter-intuitive as it seems, pigs really can fly


Comment on Open thread by Matt

0
0

“Giant of Geology/Glaciology Christian Schluchter Refutes CO2 Theory… Feature Interview Throws Climate Science Into Disarry” (yet again)

http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/09/giant-of-geologyglaciology-christian-schluechter-refutes-co2-feature-interview-throws-climate-science-into-disarray/

“The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

Comment on Uneasy expertise by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

Comment on Uneasy expertise by Michael

0
0

“In any even, anyone who self-characterizes or is characterized by others as an expert needs to accept that their claims to knowledge and authority will always and everywhere be contested.” – JC

When wasn’t it??

The whole thing smacks of historical delusionalism.

Comment on Uneasy expertise by beththeserf

Comment on Uneasy expertise by Fernando Leanme

0
0

Alistair, I haven’t studied the process in detail, but i spent a few hours thinking about it, and it seems quite natural to see how they work.

The key is to think about the problem considering pressures, temperatures, the physical properties as a function of temperature and pressure and chemistry, and the system dynamics.

The physical properties which (intuitively) ought to influence how this works are the density, viscosity and the melting points.

I’m a bit fuzzy about the early phase dynamics, but it’s fairly easy to visualize a hot molten mass rising above a boundary (to make it look simple think of the earth as if it were an onion). Once a molten mass rises the pressure inside the mass will be slightly higher than the pressure in the surrounding mass (this is all supposed to very viscous molten rock). The higher pressure is caused by the slightly lower density due to the higher temperature.

So now we have established a mass of molten material with lower viscosity, higher temperature, and higher pressure in the “next shallower layer”. This process must be made a bit more complex by the slight mixing going on at the boundary.

However, I think the combination of lower density and lower viscosity allows this mass to rise, and on and on. The trick is to allow this to emerge as a column of hot, low density and low viscosity material. Once it gets to the solid crust it just melts it and breaks through. Once the material is ejected it loses pressure, then it begins a buildup, the top moves a bit and eventually it reconnects and blows through again. It wouldn’t surprise me if these things would stay in place for over 100 million years.

Anyway, that’s the way I see it. I didn’t read it anywhere, but it just makes sense that’s the way it ought to work.

Viewing all 147858 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images