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

Comment on JC’s book shelf by Rud Istvan

0
0

Roger, cannot wait to read it. But since all my bookshelves were full years ago ( plus massive boxes more in storage), I must await the ebook version. Hopefully out very soon. Highest regards to a front line soldier.


Comment on JC’s book shelf by vukcevic

Comment on JC’s book shelf by Lucifer

0
0

“Why Our Brains Are Wired To Hide the Decline”

Comment on JC’s book shelf by Jim D

0
0

Gell-Mann is a pure scientist. He has clearly not been exposed to the politicization of climate science, and expresses just the science on its own merits. This is the way it should be. You could tell from the video that he even had no patience for Revkin trying to put social science issues to him.

Comment on JC’s book shelf by Wagathon

0
0

True, true, let’s all drive a Prius to a SeeBS interview.

Comment on JC’s book shelf by beththeserf

0
0

I met Frank Furedi last month when he was guest speaker at The
Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne. Speaking on threats to
free speech, he thinks tolerance is vital because it presupposes
all other freedoms.

Even though a lot of Frank Furedi’s family died in the Holocaust,
he still considers it is wrong to suppress an idea bureaucratically,
better to be debated, argued over and ultimately discredited.

Comment on JC’s book shelf by Steven Mosher

0
0

“Of the ‘big names’ in the climate consensus, who is openly questioning the high sensitivities and predictions of doom of the consensus? ”

changing the conditions of the statement.

now if I name a big name, you will say

“no a really big name”

true scotsman so hard to find.

Comment on JC’s book shelf by Rob Ellison

0
0

Climate variability is not cyclic – it is episodic. Every 30 or so years it seems. Potentially extreme and proceeding at a rapid pace determined by the system itself as tremendous energies cascade through powerful mechanisms. Better characterized as changes in control variables driving the system past a threshold at which stage the system is destabilized as multiple positive and negative feedbacks kick in – cloud, ice, snow, dust, biology – until it finds a new quasi equilibrium.

This is a vastly different concept to cycles, noise and a secular trend. Minor modern warming – some 0.2K – that might be attributed to anthropogenic emissions is set against a backdrop of vigorous variability at all scales.


Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Peter Lang

0
0

Segrest,

Renewables can not possibly overcome intermittency problems/challenges. This is just an incorrect engineering statement.

Your comments are damaging your credibility as an engineer, in my opinion. Your comments are frequently disingenuous, misleading and intellectually dishonest. An engineer should know you have to take cost into account. Renewables like solar and wind cannot provide reliable power supply without either backup or energy storage. Both are costly and make renewables not viable – except in niche markets and by and adding a small proportion of generation to existing grids using the existing reserve capacity margin in these grids and transferring some of their costs onto the existing infrastructure.

You comments show no actual costs so they are comprised of loose, unsubstantiated assertions. Just waffle and belief. Not professional engineering quality.

Comment on JC’s book shelf by Howard

0
0

It’s unseemly to speculate about what would Feynman say. It’s very similar and just as weak as a straw-man.

Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by Pete

0
0

Alexander, thanks for yours. I’m not sure I agree. Here’s why: Even though Climate Research does deal with a dynamic problem, we surely must be able to identify and range past behaviors, even begin to build possible characteristic distributions that may allow us to predict such functions in future. We also by now should have records indicating the frequency of certain types of weather /climate patterns. Moreover, patterns of subsurface flow-rate and flow-declines ARE dynamic processes, and they fit characteristic statistical forms. I find that it’s not uncommon to dismiss potentially useful ideas out of hand, without trying to adapt them. “If it’s not uncomfortable, it’s not a new idea.” Your thoughts?

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison

0
0

Brownian motion is illustrative of the diffusion process. That particles tend to settle and don’t because of random molecular motion.

As far as the balloon is concerned – perhaps he should move onto Newton’s third law. Although the use of a further *thought experiment* to demonstrate the validity of a former *thought experiment* is an example of extreme verbiage rather than a rigourous treatment.

Much like the average kinetic energy being *exactly* equal at every level or the Wikipedia gas in a box animation being illustrative of the symplectic manifold of the Hamiltonian. Just verbiage with no significance.

Comment on JC’s book shelf by Rud Istvan

0
0

Your reply to Mosher was an education. At least for me. Thanks.

Comment on JC’s book shelf by nottawa rafter

0
0

Mosher
A couple of weeks ago I asked you what were the physics involved in the 1910-40 warming. You didn’t answer. So……….you fail 101.

Comment on JC’s book shelf by ianl8888

0
0

Great body-surfing wave – all slide, no curl ‘n dump


Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by aaron

0
0

Have people done analysis of chemistry of sea ice? I’m curious how much co2 etc. is dissolved in sea ice of varying ages.

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison

0
0

Brownian motion is illustrative of the diffusion process. That particles tend to settle and don’t because of random molecular motion.

As far as the balloon is concerned – perhaps he should move onto Newton’s third law. Although the use of a further *thought experiment* to demonstrate the validity of a former *thought experiment* is an example of extreme verbiage rather than a rigourous treatment.

Much like the average kinetic energy being *exactly* equal at every level or the Wikipedia gas in a box animation being illustrative of the symplectic manifold of the Hamiltonian. Just verbiage with no significance.

Oh – and bouncing balls. A *simulation* involving balls and kinetic and potential energy in a gravity well. Repeated several times and gloated over by FOMBS. So phucking what is the relevant question.

Comment on JC’s book shelf by Rud Istvan

0
0

Hi JD. I suspect you might be right.
RF was not only an inspiration for my carbons inventions (his 1964 Caltech commencement address, aka Cargo Cult Science, rat maize example is the relevant comment), but his 62-63 CalTech physics lectures provided direct physics support in Volume 2, 11-7. Enabled me to develop an alternative rigourous mathematical physics treatment of the Helmholtz double layer, from which all the materials inventions then flowed.

Comment on JC’s book shelf by Howard

0
0

Gellman:

Can people really not grasp this trivially simple idea? That you have the sum of these three terms, and if we wait until the secular term, the anthropogenic term, gets really, really big, until it drowns out the other two, is that really so hard to explain?

This is Gellman’s point that is worth debating.

What is really, really big? (2K)

When will the secular term get really really big? (2050)

Will it drown out the other two terms? (Unknown)

Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by Doug Badgero

0
0

What is your point? Do you have one?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images