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

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by cwon14

0
0

“Just because skeptics often come to their view starting with politics does not mean that is how scientists come to their view.”

Common grade b dogma of the warming community who wish to avoid political examination……..in the broad context that is required. Climate science is a subset of “enviornmental studies” and as far as the nucleus of leaders an enclave of the hard eco-left following in the traditions Paul Ehrlich and others.

I’m pointing out your delusion Jim D, not endorsing what you are responding to. When there are millions involved of course there are people who approach the topic from many views. Nothing is absolute but argument of a science high ground without politics is a joke.


Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by steven mosher

0
0

yes.

Mann’s first sentence of the prologue is factually incorrect. His reconstruction of Nov 17th to Nov 19th of 2009, is wrong.

His command of the facts surrounding climategate is appalling.

There is not much science in the book.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Joshua

0
0

Latimer (that was you, wasn’t it Latimer? -

Had he meant to say something different he was perfectly at liberty to do so. But he didn’t.

That’s quite a duck we have there.

Here is what is clear, we have some smart people who are interpreting (or at least claiming to interpret) his statement in different ways. You are entirely correct that English is a flexible language – and that is precisely why it become relevant how we honestly think he intended his statement to be interpreted.

Now – your interpretation of his intended meaning could, I suppose, be correct. However, if your interpretation was correct, it would mean one or both of the following:

1) As suggested by the article Judith linked, his statement was, apparently, a refutation of what he has stated in the past. That it would be in contrast to earlier statements of his is reflected in his earlier comment that:

“If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming.”

2) As suggested by the article Judith linked, he didn’t “realize” what he was saying.

Now the article indicated that both (1) and (2) are true. It seems highly unlikely to me that (1) would be true and absolutely ridiculous that (2) is true. So, that’s the reason for my question. My guess is that you’ll duck once again, but I’ll still ask again.

I know how you want to interpret his meaning (because of your partisan outlook on the climate debate), but you must have some opinion on whether your interpretation is really in line with how he views the science of the matter.

Which is it? Do you believe that your interpretation of his freakin’ words is in line with his view of the science, or not?

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck, Latimer.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by John from CA

0
0

Great comment Louise!
“one in three lucky guess” is a great way to look at all the model rule sets given a climate system that is so poorly understood.

The reason I give credence to the notion the system is poorly understood is the number of 2011 research proposals focused on “a better understanding” of the water cycle, carbon cycle, the role of salinity in the various cycles, AR5 inclusion of formerly undefined aspects like clouds, etc…

Scafetta’s rule set includes natural cycles and places the deviations in context thus giving a more accurate representation of the induced impact of AGW. It’s very logical from my perspective and gives a cleaner view of the AGW implications within a chaotic system that seeks but will thankfully never achieve equilibrium.

The implication of the new monthly update on WUWT presents the IPCC projects as a run away projection which may no longer be true. In fact, it may have never been the case?

Comment on Climate change & war by Beesaman

0
0

So a hypothesis that is not supported by evidence. Quick send it to the IPCC, they seem to have folk who can ‘find’ evidence!

Comment on Climate change & war by vukcevic

0
0

Hi Holly
Only holly I know is a prickly sort of bush loves loads of CO2, deprived of it would be dead, as the rest of us too; the CO2 is life giving very rare commodity (only 300 ppm) and as such should be celebrated.
I wonder is there something in the psychological make up of the ‘AGW people’ that makes them so doom laden and deprived of the precious god’s gift called ‘the sense of hummer’.

Comment on Nullius in Verba by dennis adams

0
0

Real Climate Scientists? After reading hundreds of indictments of the climate establishment, I doubt such a thing exists. But if it keeps you happy…….

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by blouis79

0
0

@Webhubtelescope “The skeptical view that what early scientists such as Arrhenius and Tyndall said is somehow gospel frankly astonishes me.”
Nobody said it was gospel. But there are a lot of people who think CO2 absorbs IR to cause warming, without experimental demonstration of such significant effect.

Judith has said here she bases her belief in CO2′s warming effect on the incontrovertibility of the “Tyndall Effect”.


Comment on Climate change & war by Oliver K. Manuel

0
0

I appreciate your humor, Vukcevic. Before government funds appeared on the scene, honest science had shown that:

a.) Sunlight + CO2 + Plants => Food for Animals

Beneath the opaque photosphere (the source of sunlight) we now know that:

b.) Neutrons => Atoms (H, He, etc) => Photosphere

The chronological order in the conversion of nuclear rest mass into life:

b.) Neutrons evolved into atoms on one side of the opaque photosphere.
a.) Atoms evolved into plant life that supports animal life – like you and me -on the other side of the photosphere.

Those processes continue today and cause continuous changes in Earth’s climate and also the continuous evolution of life.

Big Brother tried to avoid reality by hiding experimental data for the last four decades (1971-2011), as shown above. Big Brother has little or no sense of humor about being caught.

Comment on Climate change & war by Mark F

0
0

I agree that the price of fuel has a huge impact on standards of living in all regions of the world, and that IF there were a dramatic rise in energy prices, we would see more conflict.
I doubt, however, that this will happen except under artificially contrived shortage conditions – a FORCED abandonment of fossil fuels, coupled with continued fearmongering and resulting avoidance of nuclear solutions.

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

Great re-rendering, CH. Two very minor picky points.

You were ok with my humdrum aabbcc rhyming scheme but for some ridiculous reason (to which however I’ve no desire to be disloyal) you felt obliged to replace my unconventional tpptpp scansion scheme with the even more humdrum tttttt scansion scheme beloved of fifth grade teachers. To your rhythmic da-da da-da da-da da-da I can only say tpptpp.

Your replacement of “throng” by “thong” is more Jake Gyllenhaal than Johnny Depp. Google for
“no desire to be disloyal” “common throng”

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

The fundamental equations describing weather and climate are the Navier-Stokes partial differential equations of fluid motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations

These are solved in computer models over a finite grid by approximate numerical methods. The equations are non-linear. Small changes in initial conditions cause the solution to diverge. Changes in boundary conditions change the probability distributions – the probability of the occurrence of one state or another – they shift either metrically or topologically. The numerical values change or the shape of the distribution changes.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=sensitivedependence.gif

On the left hand side the solutions diverge exponentially to the limits of intrinsic variability. On the right hand side the metrical and topological changes in frequency distribution are shown.

Fluid motion – both atmosphere and oceans – is the essence of weather and climate. There are 2 great systems driving both weather and climate. The first is at the polar vortices pushing turbulent eddies in atmosphere and ocean into lower latitudes. The second involves the upwelling of cold water in the eastern Pacific and the resultant feedback in wind, currents and cloud.

Perhaps as interesting in the longer term is the dynamics governing thermohaline circulation and the potential for runaway ice and snow feedbacks. We have a few very theoretical ideas for what has driven the glaciations of the past 2.58 million years – but are worryingly clueless as to what might cause the next and when it will be.

Comment on Climate change & war by Eric Gisin

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Bruce

Comment on Nullius in Verba by blouis79

0
0

“Makes one wonder what sort of people work for these societies and organizations.”

It is self evident that the “chiefs” of organizations/governments/etc enjoy the power that comes with the job/title.

The beauty of the internet is that the power of so-called democratic bodies can be returned to the underlings.


Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

But there are a lot of people who think CO2 absorbs IR to cause warming, without experimental demonstration of such significant effect.

It’s incredible that this kind of total crap is repeated forever.

There is an infinity od strong experimental evidence for the warming effect. It has been collected following same kind of methodes and approaches that are used in essentially all experimental physics. It’s so clear and extensive that it’s by now difficult to even say, where to start. Only thing that’s needed is a little basic understanding of physics and how empirical evidence is collected in physics.

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

Forgot two things: this link (apropos of peer review), and that “ridiculous reason” is apropos of the current month. :)

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Bruce

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Bruce

0
0

Pekka: “There is an infinity od strong experimental evidence for the warming effect. ”

Which papers test CO2 warming on a large scale?

Two huge jars. One with 290ppm one with 390ppm. Show the difference.

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

0
0

No, I can’t do that; because I am not an economist or a policy maker. What I know about is the subject of scientific investigation of climate — which is also the topic of this blog post.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images