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

Comment on Week in review by markus

0
0

Reality: There is a consensus among climate science experts that man is the primary driver of global warming.

Fantasy: if we allow anyone with a science degree, irrespective of their expertise, to sign a piece of paper and get 30,000 signatures , even though there must be at least one million people in the US who have a science degree in the US, then we can pretend there isn’t a consensus among actual experts. That’s how desperate we are to deny reality.


Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison

0
0

Molecular dynamics is right – random thought experiments not so much.

Comment on Week in review by omanuel

0
0
Sorry, Marcus, the real problem is the 1945 decision to hide <b>"THE FORCE"</b>. The third and probably final chapter of my autobiography will be entitled <b>"THE FORCE"</b> - that powers the cosmos and sustains our lives. CHAOS in late Aug 1945 and FEAR of nuclear annihilation convinced world leaders to forbid public knowledge of <b>"THE FORCE!"</b>

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by dynam01

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="http://ididntasktobeblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/myths-and-realities-of-renewable-energy/" rel="nofollow">I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog</a> and commented: "This “confusion” between cost and reliability allows it to be technically true that renewables do not necessarily degrade the system. But in practice they do, or they pass high costs on to others."

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison

0
0

‘According to the equipartition principle the total energy of a mole of water vapor is

Utotal = Utrans + Urot + Uvib = 3/2 RT + 3/2 RT + 3RT = 6RT.

It is important to recognize that the equipartition principle is a classical idea that fails to correctly account for the true quantum energies of molecules, with particularly poor applicability to vibrations.’

http://www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/chemistry/courses/physical_chemistry_i1/lectures/equipartition_6542.asp

No – I am suggesting that you make cr@p up.

Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by dynam01

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="http://ididntasktobeblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/back-from-the-twitter-twilight-zone-responses-to-my-wsj-op-ed/" rel="nofollow">I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog</a> and commented: "We have very little justification (and no demonstrated skill so far) for predicting the climate of the 21st century."

Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by dynam01

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="http://ididntasktobeblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/root-cause-analysis-of-the-modern-warming/" rel="nofollow">I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog</a>.

Comment on Week in review by willb

0
0

Off topic, but if I apply the equipartition principle to Dominic Ford’s bouncing balls simulation, I end up with a gravito-thermal effect.


Comment on Week in review by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

Dr. Curry
in light of the new and exciting science of climate change denial
and since we now know that climate change causes violence
I think the only responsible thing for you to do is to provide a listing of climate change denier support groups on Climate Etc., at least in the US
perhaps Tonyb can provide a list for the UK and Faustino for Downunder

“hi, my name is John and I deny climate change”

Kim, I think, is too far gone and requires individual managed care

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

0
0

“Fernando Leanme | October 26, 2014 at 7:21 am |
Gates, was it you who claimed the surface temperature was increasing at 0.1 degrees per decade since 1998?”
——-
Nope.

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

0
0

Another nice job of fear-mongering by Mr. Rose. He’s very good at it, and of course sets up the GWPF as the little chap battling the vast Green Blog. Quite a good bit of fiction.

Comment on Week in review by Alexej Buergin

0
0

According to Wikipedia, 30% of the UAE-population are Indians, 21 % Pakistani.
But my own sample of about half a dozen taxi-drivers around the old part of Dubai was 100% Pakistani.

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand

0
0

“‘KEavg only makes up 3/5 of Uavg, since the other 2/3 is rotational.’

So 60% is translational and 66% is rotational?”

I meant 3/5 and 2/5, obviously. Sorry for the typo.

You earlier had written:

“Two gas cylinders at different pressures at thermal equilibrium with the surroundings will have the same thermal energy. The average will be less – you get that by dividing by N.”

So, in the case that I described, assuming a monatomic gas such as helium for simplicity, such that Uavg = EKavg, with two cylinders of equal volume C1 and C2, and with one mole of helium in C1 (N=1), and two moles of helium in C2 (N=2), You are saying that:

C1: EKavg1 per mole = (3/2)RT

C2: EKavg2 per mole = (3/2)RT/2 ?

Is that how one must interpret your claim about total and average energy? Else, what do you mean by “you get that by dividing by N”?

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by popesclimatetheory

0
0

When Ice Extent on Earth is low, when the oceans are warm, when Polar Oceans are thawed, much more water is exposed to the fierce Polar Winds and becomes available for clouds, rain and snow.

When fierce winds make the water surface turbulent, the effective water surface area exposed to the atmosphere is multiplied many times. The snowfall and the ice accumulation is huge in these times. Ice advances after this and this increasing Albedo does cool the Earth.

When the oceans are cold and Polar Oceans are covered with ice, much less water is exposed to the fierce Polar Winds and does not become available for clouds, rain and snow. The snowfall in these times does not replace the ice that is melted by the sun in every warm season. Ice retreats after this and this decreasing Albedo does warm the Earth.

This simple explanation shows why temperature has been tightly bound in the same bounds for ten thousand years and why A Roman Warm Period was followed by a cold period and why that was followed by the Medieval Warm Period and why that was followed by the Little Ice Age and why that was followed by this Modern Warm Period and why this warm period will be followed by another cold period. This cycle is between 800 to 1000 years and has repeated for ten thousand years in the same bounds.

This is what the data does show did happen before and is happening now.

The oceans are warm, the Polar Regions did open, and the snow has started falling. This increased snowfall will continue until the oceans cool and the Polar Oceans do freeze and turn off the increased snowfall.

You should not look at and curve fit a century of data and use that to predict a climate that has a thousand year cycle that you ignore.
A lot of effort has gone into identifying the cycles of sixty years and less.
Very little effort has gone into identifying the cycles of more than sixty years.

The Little Ice Age Happened after the Medieval Warm Period. The sun did not change that much. The CO2 did not Change much. Ice Extent changed a lot. It did not get cold and start snowing. It started snowing when it was and because it was warm and Polar Oceans were thawed.

It did get cold after that snow piled up and advanced.

It really is that simple.

Comment on Week in review by climatereason

0
0

jim2

In 2009 I wrote this artr8cle which looked at the UK politics of climate change

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/#comments

Roses’ article mirrors my comments about the close involvement of the Greens and how they had access to every level of Government.

As it is five years old no doubt some of the links wont be working, but I cite Parliamentary Committees that they had direct access to and they also had links into the BBC.

It was Tony Blair who really set about making a name for himself as the climate saviour of the West backed up by his DECC secretary Ed Milliband now leader of the Opposition.

David Cameron took up the green mantle and only 3 or 4 MP’s voted against the climate change Act.

Yes, our fuel has become very expensive to the detriment of individuals and business. Yes, our power supplies are precarious due to our obsession with barely useable renewables. Solar farms in the UK? Come off it, how mad is that?

As for ‘shadowy figures It seems to me this has been a quite open attempt by the Greens to impose their views.

If I spotted it and wrote on it five years ago its hardly shadowy albeit a bit frightening how such people can seize the levers of power despite having a tiny share of the popular vote

tonyb


Comment on Week in review by climatereason

0
0

Rgates

Fiction in what way? I have been offering to swap energy bills with you for two years.

tonyb

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by R. Gates

0
0

Unfortunately there seems be no role for external forcing in your beloved Pope’s Climate Theory, and as such, it becomes impossibly inadequate to explain the evolution of Earth’s climate.

Comment on Week in review by jim2

0
0

It is well known in the US that corporations and the rich lobby politicians by taking them to outings, wining and dining them, and paying for their campaigns.

But why do British politicians do what these rich people and groups want? Do the British really want high energy bills?

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison

0
0

The energy partitioning is still wrong.

Comment on Week in review by jim2

0
0

Thanks for that commentary, Tony. I fear the same is happening now in the US.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images