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

Comment on Heartland by Dave Springer

0
0

Hey Fred, it was a short comment. We don’t need to take it offline.

Just tell me what part you don’t agree with.

A smoldering supervolcano under Yellowstone?

The Holocene Interglacial?

The Pleistocene Ice Age?

Volcanic winter?

That about covers it. Which one don’t you understand?


Comment on Heartland by David Young

0
0

I am a little annoyed that this thread is attracting so much comment compared to the much more important post on ergodicity. My reaction is a big yawn. You know its no different than what happens at thousands of interest groups every day. Planned Parenthood employees actually violate the criminal law and it raises no alarms. Please, forget this revelation of the obvious and common and get on with the important stuff.

Comment on Ergodicity by Chief Hydrologist

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

0
0

Steve: “Bruce, El Nino is not a pivot point.”

The change to El Nino and La Nina conditions has a tremendous short term affect on climate. Temperature can go up and down as much as 1C.

Your recommendation of only studying climate data using 5 year smoothing would rob us of understanding the natural variations in climate — which I guess is your point.

Comment on Heartland by Doug Badgero

0
0

Agreed, people can learn something at the ergo thread.

Comment on Heartland by David Young

0
0

I really wonder Fred if this subject is a proper subject for study in high school. It is really advanced science more properly taught as undergraduate physics. We don’t do special lectures to high school students about medical research unless there is a direct issue for them, such as smoking education for example. We teach biology and elementary physics. Perhaps high school students have enough on their plate given the enormous expansion of knowledge and the seeming removal of rigor from science education.

Maybe I’m wrong, just asking. I’m sure your lectures Fred are very good.

Comment on Heartland by Bruce

0
0

“Greenpeace commissioned one of the world’s leading reef biologists to find out what caused the dramatic coral decay.”

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s34128.htm

I think all researchers who took money from Greenpeace, WWF, Tides, Sierra Club and their lilk should give it to charity, rescind their papers and resign from the IPCC.

Comment on Climate change & war by John Carpenter

0
0

“Or did you just make that up?”

HS, no I didn’t make it up. Judith made a comment about Climategate 2.0 emails here:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/29/discussion-thread-durban-emails/#comment-144440

You responded here:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/29/discussion-thread-durban-emails/#comment-144447

Your response infers you would not read ‘stolen’ emails as you took a very condescending tone with Judith in your comment.

I responded here:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/29/discussion-thread-durban-emails/#comment-144663

You never replied to my comment.

You have not responded to my query above either. I’ll ask for a third time. Is it now ok for someone to steal information to further a cause be it UEA emails or Heartland? Simple answer, yes or no?


Comment on Heartland by Fred Moolten

0
0

Dave – You’ll have to forgive my somewhat abrupt earlier reply, but your comments didn’t suggest that you were someone who wanted to improve your knowledge. ‘As I said, it’s late, and if you email me, I can start you off with some useful references on the mechanisms responsible of interglacial termination. Just briefly, the 5C descent into the last glacial maximum occurred gradually over tens of thousands of years, with little change in the early centuries. Much of it was driven by a reduction in atmospheric CO2 as an amplification mechanism for the weak orbital forcing. Current estimates differ, with some predictions of the gradual start of another glaciation as early as 5000 years in the future, but with a preponderance of evidence indicating this would occur closer to 30,000 to 40,000 years from now. There is no hint of evidence for the beginning of a glaciation any time in the next several hundred or even a few thousand years.

My own view is that you come across as foolish with taunts about going “toe to toe” with me, or that I “don’t stand a chance”. Even if this was a subject that you knew well, and it’s clear you don’t, those comments would look juvenile, particularly since you have no idea how much I do or don’t know about the subject. In any case, if you’d like to learn more, feel free to email me, or wait for a thread devoted to that particular topic (this thread is about something else).

Comment on Heartland by Giga2

0
0

Nah. No-one living in the Western world in the last 5 years can fail to have noticed the *massive* media campaign promoting CAGW theory, and fail to notice that it didn’t work. Why (this was the question remember not the science which has been done to death already)? IMO it is because people started to question just a little and then had an easy way to investigate and even express their findings, the internet. Of course this is an exponential problem for a propagandist. As more people start to ask questions pretty soon they are expressing misgivings to friends relatives etc. Some of these start to question and investigate themselves and the cycle accelerates. This cycle was always going to start given access to information, would always be exponential and therefore would always have exposed the many weaknesses and flaws in CAGW theory. Think tanks and very active sceptics may have made it happen a bit faster but it seems the age of people just trusting dubious proclamations from authority figures is over because they can investigate themselves and together.

Comment on Heartland by Latimer Alder's Twin Brother Cranmer

0
0

Surely a mispront

‘disgruntled middle-aged loser’ is better.

Comment on Heartland by Latimer Alder's Twin Brother Cranmer

0
0

I suffer badly with old joke syndrome. I’m a martyr to it.

Comment on Heartland by Giga2

0
0

Hi Doug,
Personally I didn’t really want to get into the science debate again. It seems to me that sceptics have won that in the sense that very few people would dare to say ‘the science is settled’ these days and even fewer would believe them. There are certainly many weaknesses in CAGW theory and hopefully these will be resolved one way or the other. It seems to me that the world is waiting and watching. No warming for 15 years or so, no answers to many of the questions sceptics have raised, few CAGW believers willing to enter into open and honest debate, every propaganda trick used and failed even calls for an end to democracy from some CAGW supporters like Al Gore to ‘save the planet’. It is a wait-and-see time it seems with research being done, propaganda campaigns being halted and reality stubbornly doing its own thing. The evidence is not there to support CAGW IMO and I doubt there was ever much substance to it or ever will be, but we shall see hopefully.

Comment on Heartland by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

G’day Beth,

I’ve been over at the Ergodic Ranch and French Patisserie all this time rustlin’ up stochasticities and dynamical complexities. Now there are some you say that a cowboy has no place even sayin’ such things – but I have it on good authority that lonesome is just part of the iconic nature of being a cowboy – and that a cowboy can say any damn thing they like if’n it expresses the untold vicissitudes of their soul.

I rode into town on my blue horse /a> – Fakegate out of Climategate – and you caught my eye straight away and I asks myself what’s a strong cowgirl like that doin’ in a place like this? ;-)

There seems to be a hell of a ruckus goin’ on at this here corral/brasserie. Who’s winnin’ do you know? Is anyone keeping score? Does anyone outside of the circle jerk care?

If’n you don’t mind – I might just pull up a chair, line up the Jack Daniel’s sippin’ whiskey and sing you a maudlin cowboy love song.

Eyes like the morning star, cheeks like the rose
Beth was a pretty girl, God Almighty knows

Chorus:
Weep all ye little rains, wail, winds, wail
All along, along, along the Colorado Trail

Beth was a laughing girl, joyful all the day
Beth was a darling girl, now she’s gone away

Chorus:

Bright all the lonely night, bright all the day
Keep the herd a’rollin’ on, rollin’ on its way

Chorus:

I hope you don’t think I’m forward or nothin’ – but perhaps you’d care to come out ridin’ with me come Sunday after church. You can have my spare horse – you just have to be careful ‘round pissant progressives so’s you don’t get splashed.

Until Sunday then.

Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist

Comment on Heartland by Giga2

0
0

Of course we all have support for one side of the debate or the other and therefore support for one group of campaigners or the other. Personally I would like to see more commitment to truth rather than sides of the debate because it is that which will bring us all the results we want, an improved lot for ourselves and other people.


Comment on Heartland by Michael

0
0

OK.

My poor eyeballs are screaming from having to read dim-witted dross like this;

“Worst of all, it hasn’t warmed in 11 (or 15) years, despite CO2 rising to record levels, with CAGW pundits scrambling for rationalizations.”

Comment on Winter Weather by dkv private krankenversicherung

0
0

You are actually a just right webmaster. The website loading speed is incredible. It seems that you’re doing any distinctive trick. Also, The contents are masterpiece. you’ve done a excellent task in this subject!

Comment on Ergodicity by Brian H

0
0

Vaughn;
Yes, you Pratt. They have done so repeatedly. And they have the “money trail” leading to their door. In the million$ and billion$, not paltry thousands.

Warmistas are Out To Save The World, on their own terms, and anything goes in the Cause.

Spit.

Comment on Ergodicity by Tomas Milanovic

0
0

Pekka

My origins are similar to yours. I also began with theoretical physics with major in QM.
That’s why I mostly agree with what you write even if I find that you stay too often only on the surface without wanting to understand whether the foundations of this or that belief are sound and consistent.
This post was initially a comment in another thread and Judith must have thought that it could interest more people so she put it apart.
I have written it because it was irritating to see in this other thread that some people were referring to ergodicity when they obviously ignored what it was.
It was not irritating because people ignore ergodic theory – after all statistically there are many more who ignore it than those who know it.
But it was irritating because those of the readers who come here to learn something, would come home with completely wrong ideas.

My purpose is not to start a philosophical discussion as interesting as it may be whether physics is just applied mathematics or whether mathematics are just idealised irrealistic approximation of physics.
I stick to the topic which is ergodicity for this thread.
And here, you have clearly misinterpreted this issue by statements like “all of physics is statistics”, “ergodicity is just some irrealistic mathematical invention” and you even side tracked the discussion by qualifying fundamental issues as “merely semantics”.

The truth is opposite.
The origin of the ergodic theory is purely physical – I gave a short list of names of physicists who contributed decisively to what is really an important progress in understanding of physics.
The mathematics came only much later – Boltzmann&Co didn’t come to ergodicity through the theory of measurable sets – it was not sufficiently developped at their time.
But today the ergodic theory is here to stay and it is a foundational element of all studies of dynamical systems – be it the motion of planets (links above) or predictability of chaotic systems.
The ergodic theorem which also came much later is what allows to know when a time average along an orbit can be taken equal to the phase space average and more importantly when it can NOT be taken equal.

On another thread somebody asked what was the point of all this.
Well very concretely in the climate case the point are “ensemble averages”.
Among others ergodicity would give the answer whether they are relevant to the dynamics of the system or not.

So you see, all this is physics and I would add very relevant physics.
Of course the mathematics play also a important role (and I spared the readers sigma algebras and Banach spaces and thus sinned against scientific rigor :) ) as they should.
Considering like you too often do that everything is simple statistics and nobody actually needs some “confusing mathematics” doesn’t apply to this domain and to many others.

Comment on Heartland by Latimer Alder

0
0

@steve m

And I’ve just been trying to find out a little about how Greenpeace operates. It may possibly have started as a grass roots organisation, but it sure as hell isn’t now.

The nearest analogy I can come up with is that it is a partially decentralised multinational corporation, with country specific bodies, but a centralised strategy and control function. The grass roots are there purely to pony up the cash and to carry out the campaigns.

How then does the central committee in each country gain its control? In part it is licensed by Greenpeace International to use the logo. But the Greenpeace UK website is remarkably coy about the UK structure. Beyond the statement that

‘The Chair of Board in the UK is Sue Mayer, and the Executive Director is John Sauven.’

there is no discussion of how a grass roots activist can influence policy, no general meetings announced. Not even an organisation chart or staff list. The usual ‘who we are’ link does not exist on the GP UK website.

So the Greenpeace organisation at least appears to be no more transparent and democratic than does the Heartland one. It gains no moral brownie points on this score from me.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images