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

Comment on Climate policy discussion thread by Robert

0
0

Improving education and providing easy access to contraception are not “authoritarian action.”

Nor is choosing to pollute less.


Comment on Climate policy discussion thread by Robert

0
0

“I think it has been amply demonstrated that prosperity brought about by cheap energy dense sources of power is quite naturally lowering birth rates in the developed world . . .”

No, you haven’t demonstrated anything of the kind. Please do so.

Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by peteridley

0
0

Hi Doug, you really are getting confused aren’t you, possibly because it is 45 years since you had physics teachers help you to understand physics. I fully appreciate how difficult it can be trying to teach yourself because it is so easy to mislead yourself down a blind alley.

On 4th March at 5:39 pm. you claimed that “ .. within a couple of days .. my 10 page peer-reviewed Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be published .. my paper may be published any moment, as it has already passed peer-review .. ”. Then at 11:58 pm you say “ .. I am also planning to email quite a few professors of physics post-publication, for their comments. I’m very willing to discuss the content with anyone, publicly or privately, but only when I am satisfied that they have studied all ten pages thereof. The same applies for anyone wishing to debate it in forums such as this, though I will probably have to restrict discussion to one particular forum – probably on WUWT .. ”

I gather from this that when you say that your paper has already been peer-reviewed you mean not by recognised physicists but by others with as poor an understanding of the physics as yourself. I also understand that the article (I doubt that it will be recognisable as a peer-reviewed paper) will not be appearing in any respected physics journal. I suspect that Anthony Watts will choose to ignore your pleas for him to have it debated on his blog as he will not want his reputation destroyed.

Sorry to burst your balloon Doug but stick to the day-job(sssss) because you aren’t going to win any part of that Nobel Prize-money that Professor Claes Johnson seems to have his eye on (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/about/amounts.html).

Maybe you should stop pretending to be a physicist and go back to those teaching, software, photographic, “snake-oil” remedy, etc. business ventures of yours – see my comment on 20th February at 4:38 pm.

BTW, how’s your sexy under-ware venture going (http://www.tradinglot.com/en/html/20091012/2009101242834140.html ; http://www.nite-fash.com ; )? (Anyone puzzled by the connection between nite-fasion.com and Doug can find it at http://www.ozbargains.com/ where, surprise surprise, we have Doug advertising his ozmaths.com business, offering “ .. HIGHLY EFFECTIVE MATHS SOFTWARE & PRIVATE MATHS TUITION .. This MATHS SOFTWARE is now on eBay for around $20! .. Private tuition $48 an hour .. I believe that I can claim to be one of the most experienced Maths tutors in Australia, .. I have had many years’ experience as a specialist Maths tutor who first tutored in the 1970′s after majoring in Pure Mathematics at Sydney University. I have been a Principal of a large Coaching College and I have written extensive notes on maths and, more recently, my maths software which has been used by hundreds of students throughout Australia .. Doug Cotton, B.Sc (Math), B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin. Phone: 98733300 .. Location for lessons at 6 Duncan Place (off Baden Powell Place), North Rocks. .. ”).

Do you wonder that I am not prepared to waste my time reading your pseudo-scientific writings?

As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to de is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Doug Cotton | March 4, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Reply
Well, Pete, you are of course entitled to your opinions and suspicions about people and organisation, and perhaps you can find fault in the somewhat complex computations which Claes has published, though I find them correct. But none of the above successfully refutes the actual cogent physics argument which I put forward and which is supported by experiments, observations and climate records (including 1000 year solar cycles – see WUWT today) all tying together with what I am saying.

So maybe you could draft out your own paper explaining some alternate reason why a warm gas does not absorb radiation from a cooler emitter.

Below is my argument which you need to refute …

The warmer gas does not absorb and then re-emit. Re-emission in all directions would not fill in the absorption lines observed by the spectrometer because it would not compare in intensity with direct radiation from the source. The radiation from the emitter forms standing waves which run along the same paths as the incident rays, and can thus interfere with them before any absorption takes place.

This has to be the case. Consider a ray of backradiation penetrating a small distance into the ocean. If it were to get converted to thermal energy by absorption, the energy will not be re-emitted straight away via radiation from a few cm/inches under the surface of the ocean. Instead, the warmer water will rise to the surface by convection and at least some of it will evaporate and only some be radiated. There would have been a “completed (macro) transaction” in which that.radiation (from lots of molecules in a cooler atmosphere) warmed (a layer of) water below the surface of the ocean. This clearly would violate the 2nd Law.

Now do you see the difference between this and a standing wave? If there is conversion to thermal energy then there has to have been a violation of the Second Law.

Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by peteridley

0
0

If there are any other readers out there apart from Doug then I’m sorry that I inadvertently repeated Doug’s nonsense at the end of my own comment. Please ignore not only my repeat of “Doug Cotton March 4, 2012 at 7:08 pm but also the original

Comment on Week in review 3/2/12 by A physicist

0
0
Punksta, for PIK's dozens of verifiably scientific research studies, you are substituting seven words from a blog post. This is called "synecdochic rhetoric", and such rhetoric is one of the Trish Roberts-Miller's defining "characteristics of demagoguery." Therefore, please let me commend to you <a href="http://www.pik-potsdam.de/sealevel/en/animations.html" rel="nofollow">the PIK institute's publications</a>.

Comment on Lindzen’s Seminar at the House of Commons by ilma630

0
0

Prof Lindzen was speaking within the walls of the UK legislature, so he has to distil the message to that audience (not that there were many MPs in attendance – sadly – I was there), but I understand he met privately with a cabinet minister afterwards.

On you closing remarks.

1. “Lindzen’s persona and appearance, that reeks of scientific gravitas”
It doesn’t matter one hoot what he looks like, if what he is presenting is rational argument based on observation, then he could be humpty dumpty for all I care. What is good though is that he knows that facts and science will speak for itself and doesn’t need the huffing and blowing that we see from Mr. Mann, Gore or Monbiot. Which reminds me, Al has been very, very quiet recently. I wonder why?

2. “His argument in the first half of the talk is very effective, taking down the public statements by the NAS folk.”
Presenting reasoned science and rational argument is the most effective, but you still have to tailor your talk to the intended audience, which in this case, was one looking for political change.

3. “His scientific argument in the second half of the talk is appealing in that it relies on data and theory (rather than models).”
All scientists should rely on the data. Questioning must be to examine whether the methods of collecting the data and the interpretation of it is flawed and needs improving to strengthen the data. This is because the interpretation is often coloured by preconceptions, whether from training or experience, and that’s to be expected, even from Prof Lindzen. He does have appealing reasoned argument, but like all scientists, his argument must be continually tested against the data.

4. “Keeping policy and politics out of his scientific argument”
In one sense, yes, of course, but we have to remember here that the whole purpose of his visit was to inject science INTO politics. His scientific argument must therefore necessarily be targeted at the politicians and political policies that have been enacted in response to the AGW claims, which means framing the science to address and counter unsound science and the consequential political interpretation.

In many senses, the AGW debate is past science and now mostly political, but we should never stop striving to (i) improve the science with new discovery, which is why the latest work of Henrik Svensmark and his colleagues in the Danish National Space Institute is so important, (ii) do everything we can to make sure good science achieved by the proper scientific method is heard and understood by the politicians, and (iii) expose bad science and those who would demean science by ‘attacking the messenger’ to disguise their lack of observational data and a reasoned argument such that politicians cannot be comfortable using them as electoral tickets.

Comment on Week in review 3/2/12 by A physicist

0
0

Pekka Pirilä says History been rather smooth with a certain typical range of variability for long …

… and yet, the present combination of secular solar warming on a scale of 10^8 years, accompanied by unprecedented human-caused jumps in CO2 levels, is taking us far outside the physics regime where history is a reliable guide to climate.

About these two facts, there is no controversy, eh?

Comment on Week in review 3/2/12 by Punksta

0
0

Physicist
Let me commend to you the notions of
- not writing sweeping nonsense claims
- when you have, and this is pointed out, facing up to it honestly (rather than suggesting the pointing out thereof is demagoguery)

Is any of the above in the little Ethics for Alarmists paper (by Trish Glieck or somebody) you’re plugging ? If not, hopefully it’s printed on soft enough paper for use in the bathroom.


Comment on Climate policy discussion thread by Peter Davies

0
0

No-one has any licence to do off-topic rants and if they do the rest of us will either ignore them or take them up on it. There’s nothing political in it at all.

While I believe that CK’s science is top notch and that I have learned more about climate science from him than all other contributors combined, I can accept that not everyone will agree with me.

By the same token, if CK does go off topic, I have the choice to ignore him or to use the moment as an opportunity to learn. In this context, the statements by IB do not interest me, not because of my political persuasion, but simply because I distrust people who use emotive language to put their point across.

While I am still not clear as to how the Russian situation is closely related to US environmental policy (it was in fact related to the possibility of Democrats being elected) I would be pleased if you could elaborate further on this issue but understand that the other visitors to this blog may wonder what is going on.

Comment on Climate policy discussion thread by Robert

0
0

Richard, I don’t know if you’re new to the Internets, or what, but this is how it works:

“derailer” = somebody the speaker disagrees with
“troll” = somebody the speaker disagrees with
“sock puppet” = somebody the speaker disagrees with

I suggest growing a slightly thicker skin. Nobody here other than Dr. Curry has any moderating authority at all, despite what they may pretend. And Dr. Curry moderates with a very light hand.

Make your points and don’t mind the monkey poop.

Comment on Week in review 3/2/12 by Punksta

0
0

Oh, and in case in you’ve ‘forgotten’ (one of Trish Gleick’s recommended tricks perhaps ?), I have already applauded PIK for distancing themselves from the IPCC approach by taking an open and honest approach to data etc.

Comment on Week in review 3/2/12 by curryja

0
0

I have a post prepared on this paper, last week my coauthor Jiping Liu was swamped with media and email queries, and I was on travel. One of us should have time this week to field queries. So it is coming . . .

Comment on Climate policy discussion thread by Richard T. Fowler

0
0

Robert, not new to it, just trying to preserve some semblance of sanity. I thoroughly enjoy those definitions!

I think I’ve commented about enough for this thread. I am well aware of how “different” and, at times, intense I can come across to those who don’t share my paradigms about the world. I intend no harm, and seek to persuade where it may be possible, and to tread lightly when not possible.

Judith, I am thankful for your light moderating hand and your willingness to explore many angles of an issue in your posts.

RTF

Comment on Climate policy discussion thread by Beth Cooper

0
0

Inherently good….Ah! ‘The Good.’ Come up to my tower for a while and we’ll enjoy a nice discourse about essences. Quite platonic, I assure you.

Comment on Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall by curryja

0
0

If you live in Buffalo NY, you will understand lake effect snowfalls.


Comment on Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall by Anything is possible

Comment on Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall by Bad Andrew

0
0

“We think the recent snowy winters could be caused”

Anyway, I think this is gramatically incorrect. Should be “could have been caused”.

Andrew

Comment on Week in review 3/2/12 by Bob Ludwick

0
0

AP: “Bob, we may have to eat some mighty sour cherries.”

Well, we have come full circle.
I started out by questioning the likelihood that one of Hansen’s predictions would be realized, given the historical data and recent trends, and, after multiple iterations during which your only response to anything I said was to quote the predictions of climate authorities, culminating in your citing of Hansen’s prediction yet again as rebuttal of my post. A classic circular argument. Literally.

Of course you did have the satisfaction of proving me to be a fool, as I continuously repeated the same process while expecting a different result. Apparently the old adage, “Live and learn.” does not apply universally.

Comment on Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall by Ryan Maue

0
0

I agree with those comments.

Bonus points for the Liu et al. paper referenced the Thompson and Wallace (2001) Science paper with the awesome paragraph:

“The notion of blocking and cold air outbreaks being orchestrated on a hemispheric scale was anticipated by Namias and collaborators in early investigations of the so-called “zonal index cycle”, but was abandoned nearly 50 years ago for lack of evidence of statistically significant relations between climate anomalies in the North American and Eurasian sectors ”

As a follow-on suggestion for future research, I would be interested in the origin and type of the blocking episodes found in your climate simulations. The importance of wave-breaking (cyclonic vs. anti-cyclonic) with respect to explosive extratropical cyclone activity and block onset is right up my alley.

Comment on Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall by DocMartyn

0
0

Try the Admirality Records, the RN ran convoys to Russian from 1941 and tried to keep as close to the ice pack as possible. After WWII British and American spy ships monitored the Soviet Navy pretty much non-stop.
The USN will also have all the yearly records their submarines got of the Arctic ice.
It wasn’t until relatively recently, with the commissioning of USS San Juan (SSN-751; 1988) that US submarines were able to break through thick ice. Prior to this period, they would spend a lot of time looking at ice thickness.
So both the RN and USN have a LOT of data on ice-pack thickness and extent. You could ask really nicely.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images