With that logic you could make a case for holding your breath because each breath you take could be your last. You’re turning the precautionary principle on its head.
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Wagathon
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Faustino
Stephen, if you have something important to say then say it — but the sheer volume and number of your postings, Jeeez.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Faustino
This has relevance to the (in my view wrong) argument for applying lower discount rates to very long term assessments of costs and benefits on the grounds of intergenerational equity, whatever that might be.
↧
Comment on Week in review by GaryM
“I don’t like the Tea Party which is highly comprised of Ideologues….”
I don’t like ideologues, meaning those holding opinions contrary to my own ideology.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by cwon14
Steven Mosher on October 5, 2014 at 10:30 pm
pokerguy.
“I dont much care for the policy debate. has little to do with science.”
Neither does the policy of course. It is the forced rationing, socialistic policy that kills and destroys economic-social freedom as well as dragging the concept of “science” into Orwellian meaning and word destruction. It’s the policy that invented climate science not the other way around.
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by PA
What is happening is very odd. The kelvin waves keep delivering warm western water to the east. The cold southern water and lack of a break in Hadley circulation chews up the warm water. El Nino conditions with no El Nino.
Since what was predicted to be a strong El Nino has been defused… Is there going to be a strong La Nina?
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by DocMartyn
The use of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ with respect to ‘forcings’ makes as much sense as applying ‘Organic’ to foodstuffs.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by PA
Mr. Mosher does make some interesting statements.
It seems that people that are really interested in the policy – when told it doesn’t look like the warming is going occur respond, “Well, it doesn’t matter, we have to fix it anyway.”
This puzzles me, this whole fascination with fixing non-problems.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
That’s about local policy, not science. It’s very different, although blurred for some. I expect he has not denied the science that humans are causing global warming.
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by jim2
Policy will probably be the only thing that ends up having an impact on our lives in the US. Global warming? Probably not. Policy will ultimately be the problem.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by PA
Well…
Only top 30 feet of earth really change much (I understand that 100 feet is sort of the zero change point). 30 feet of earth is equal to about 12 feet of sea water (20 feet/8 feet has the thermal capacity of the entire atmosphere).
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html
“The average depth of the ocean is about 14000 feet (4267 m).”
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Cooling/EarthTemperatures.htm
“At soil depths greater than 30 feet below the surface, the soil temperature is relatively constant”
I suppose you could go around sticking probes in 30 feet holes and actually measure if the earth is warming or cooling.
As far as the whole thermodynamics thing… Temperature at a surface is the result of thermal exchange with the underlying material, net incident/emitted radiation, and conduction/convection/evaporation to the atmosphere. The ocean is special because UV penetrates to 200 meters and thermal radiation only penetrates nanometers.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by ocenoaker
It wasn’t logic, it was a comment about understanding the dynamical system in question. Statements of catastrophe are questionable and so are statements about systems going back to equilibrium. You can’t talk about the behaviour in future unless you understand the dynamics. The analogy I made was one of principle, and not one of scale, so nice work attacking the analogy instead of the point.
In any case, the precautionary principle is nonsensical, and so are concerns for the future of the world or whatever.
Unfortunately that statement by David Evans is still irrlevant.
↧
Comment on Week in review by David L. Hagen
McKitrick’s evidence indicates that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than IPCC’s models. Consequently, the benefits of rising CO2 will extend much longer beyond 2070. That also indicates that the projected harm will likely be much lower, later, – and more uncertain.
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rob Ellison
They measure temperature from some 30m to 300m – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZVqUU_R9Vc
The global reconstruction look good – but if you look at the individual boreholes it is all over the place. A case of bad data aggregating into good? Perhaps not.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rob Ellison
Didn’t mean to post the youtube – http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
↧
Comment on Week in review by PA
I’m basically a Libertarian. Living the DC area – it is pretty obvious that government is the problem and neither party seems horribly interested in downsizing it.
I’m fine with an politician who wants to downsize the non-constitutionally-mandated parts of government.
Huntsman is sort of moderate. I could see where a more liberal Republican would like him. Some of his positions give me heartburn but he is vastly better than a failed community organizer.
Most people that get involved in politics are ideologues of some flavor.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rud Istvan
Robert, to answer your question, yes.
There are at least two issues. One, the purported changes in SLR are within the measurement error. As Judith would say, uncertainty monster. Two, the purported physical explanations for the perceived difference are frankly ridiculous.
See my essay Pseudo-precision in the very soon forthcoming ebook Blowing Smoke: Essays on Energy and Climate. Foreward from Judith Curry herself.
Perhaps with her permission, I will post parts of that essay here later. Better, get the whole inexpensive book on iBooks, Amazon Kindle, Google Books, B&N Nook, … Not a commercial. Blogs offer limited scope. Ebooks offer unlimited scope, plus unlimited footnotes. Judith already understands this. Hence her gracious foreward.
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rob Ellison
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rob Ellison
Again – your map – upside down is.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Wagathon
You can’t talk about the behavior in the future unless you understand the dynamics, you say.
If David Evans says climate will change no matter what we do, then he must understand the dynamics of climate. It’s only logical, or principled, or the point of the debate or… whatever but hardly irrelevant.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
