- RSS Channel Showcase 5319132
- RSS Channel Showcase 1434915
- RSS Channel Showcase 7538877
- RSS Channel Showcase 6349646
Articles on this Page
- 04/25/17--14:09: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--14:10: _Comment on A ‘Red T...
- 04/25/17--14:25: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--14:27: _Comment on A ‘Red T...
- 04/25/17--14:36: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--14:37: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--15:16: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--15:22: _Comment on How hurr...
- 04/25/17--15:27: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--15:31: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--15:57: _Comment on Untangli...
- 04/25/17--16:11: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--16:17: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--16:18: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--16:34: _Comment on A ‘Red T...
- 04/25/17--16:43: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--17:26: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--17:28: _Comment on A ‘Red T...
- 04/25/17--17:31: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--18:46: _Comment on A ‘Red T...
- 04/25/17--19:00: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--20:54: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--21:15: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--21:18: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--21:32: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--21:39: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--21:49: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--21:52: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--22:24: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--23:58: _Comment on How hurr...
- 04/26/17--00:31: _Comment on How hurr...
- 04/26/17--00:52: _Comment on Discussi...
- 04/26/17--00:55: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--01:04: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--01:46: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--01:51: _Comment on Untangli...
- 04/26/17--02:39: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--03:02: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--03:03: _Comment on How hurr...
- 04/26/17--03:12: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--03:21: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--03:23: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--03:25: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--03:34: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--03:38: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--03:43: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--03:43: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--03:54: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--04:06: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/26/17--04:10: _Comment on Science ...
- 04/25/17--15:57: Comment on Untangling the March for Science by sifttheashes
- 04/26/17--01:51: Comment on Untangling the March for Science by Jim D
You should have read the final AEMO report on the SA blackout, the Grauniad - as usual - has its own spin on events.The blackout was caused by switch-off of several windfarms. Of course that was lower than forecast, but writing that is a devious way to hide a malfunction. There was no thermal malfunction; because the sudden switch-off of windfarms caused a spike on the interconnector with Victoria it tripped, to protect itself. If SA would have had more thermal generators, they would have provided rotational inertia which probably would have prevented the blackout.
For developing countries, targets are more fairly set in terms of reduced emission intensity (emissions/GDP) rather than emissions per se. India is taking part that way. They expect power needs to triple by 2030 and GDP to go up four times according to their INDC. Their target intensity reduction is 20-25%. GDP growth must be allowed for in their targets, but better carbon efficiency is still the goal.
Milo is hilarious. Of course he is the object of a fake scandal. As a fabulously attractive gay man who was sexually active from a young age and who is refusing to be a victim as a result. Meh.
This is par for the course for the insane and ludicrous progressive left. As is fake hate crimes.
Are you saying he incites riots by the insane and ludicrous left? The rioting is not from the audiences of the dangerous faggot tour.
Universities from the first were hotbeds of "inquiry and expression both inside and outside of the classroom."
ECS constraint is a trillion-dollar question. We need to avoid paying fortune tellers though. The development of red team protocols would provide that confidence. That is the proper way to silence dissent, not by marching.
I think he is hilarious too, and quite tame. However, when confronted with minority audiences, he does like to stereotype them to their faces like the troll that he is. He wants an argument, then acts innocent when people don't want him around their campuses. Anyway the scandal lost him the support of Breitbart (which takes some doing) and the righties won't invite him anymore.
<blockquote>rebelronin | April 24, 2017 at 7:45 pm | Reply
The culture of science unfortunately, like most things, is ruled by fashion.
Politics, art, even warfare, are usually stuck in one fashionable absurdity or another. </blockquote>
See support for this in the book <I>Flavor of the Month: Why smart people fall for fads </i>on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/Flavor-Month-Smart-People-Fall-ebook/dp/B0032Z8IHM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1493156107&sr=8-2&keywords=flavor+of+the+month+book
Why do the conservatives even want to speak to these people on a campus? Surely they can find somewhere else better to do this. Is it just to incite and be in their face? What are they thinking? Do they seek the headlines? They are preceded by their previous talking points, so how do they get past the ill will that leads to on these campuses?
Hurricanes acting effectively as PAC-men of water vapor strongly reinforces the conclusion that control of atmospheric temperatures lies not in CO2 concentrations, but in the manifold manifestations of the hydrological cycle.
With reduction of particulate emissions by 99.9% with fabric filters or electrostatic precipitation - the health impacts of coal generation are vastly overstated. With HELE there is a 32% increase in efficiency.
Plan B in the unlikely event that high temperature, fast neutron, small modular reactors don't pan out.
If they didn't want their faces offended - there is a simple solution.
I'll never understand why otherwise smart and well-educated people insist on sticking to the narrative that Galileo was persecuted by the Church. In fact, he was supported by the Church for much of his career (as was Copernicus, whose theory he supported). His early research was quite good, when he did important work on gravity and his astronomical observations were also solid.
When he decided to advocate for heliocentrism, Galileo apparently abandoned good science to pester people to accept it without providing solid evidence. First, he pestered people until Cardinal Bellarmine told him not to talk about it any more without evidence, then he flogged a broken hypothesis about tides and finally, his biggest mistake, he used the words of his friend the Pope as the dialogue of a character in a book named Simplicio, who was portrayed as rather stupid.
Even then, he wasn't tortured or held in bad conditions. He was held in a large apartment with his own servant until the trial was over, then under house arrest in a comfortable home for the remainder of his days. He even continued to publish, despite the fact that he had been ordered not to and had to smuggle his manuscripts out of the country.
DP, a favor, please. You believe you know radiative physics. But evidentally not all of it. Learn the rest. The doubled CO2 'grey body' Earth response absent feedbacks is 1.16C ECS. The devil is in the feedbacks, not the primary, experimentally lab established (first by Tyndall in 1859) GHG response. The net warming is a lack of IR cooling. Nothing more.
Last time I checked it was conservatives on the campus who invited in a speaker they wanted to hear speaking. As for incitement, it is pretty obvious liberals think just the mere existence of people who disagree with them is justification for violence.
I'm curious Jimmy, why do you seem to think violence against speech you don't like is justifiable?
-Really, JohnC. After all these years. You should know better.
I'm happy to know Willard is looking out for me. We see the same thing differently. As Held points out, the IPCC doesn't say there was an increase in confidence, yet what was presented in the summary to policy makers was an increase in confidence. Why? What do you think the media picks up on? Held acknowledges the media gets in a tizzy about these things. Willard should ask himself what was the reason for the APS reviewing their climate change statement? Level of confidence in our understanding of the climate and how its communicated to the general public was one of the big reasons. There is no dodge there, it's what the whole day was about.
Very well said, especially this take-away message:
<blockquote>Energy is the life-blood of everything human society has achieved to date. As with all essentials, energy should be as reliable, secure and cost-effective as possible. It is no less important than food and water, if for no other reason than that the production of food and water depend on energy.</blockquote>
I have a ten year solution to a stable power grid.
We start out with a pair of hamsters, and those produce 23 new hamsters each year (a very, very conservative estimate). In 10 years we'd have 43 trillion hamsters (weighing about 1.4 billion tons), which we of course run in little hamster wheels. If their power output per pound is similar to a horse, they should produce about 1 Terawatt of power, which is about equal to the current US installed generating capacity.
It not only green and renewable, it's organic.
We pitch this idea to Bill Nye, who will convince countless American kids to start breeding hamsters like they were going to save the planet. Then Bill Nye gets buried under an avalanche of hate male from pissed off parents whose homes are overrun.
> It is utter – and demonstrable – nonsense.
Chief may try to contact IsaacH to present him his demonstration.
He has an email. It's easy to find. Mailing an image should be short and sweet.
> We see the same thing differently.
That's a bit more plausible than saying I'm misrepresenting what teh Koonin did, but that's still not good enough. Here's the meeting purpose, as stated by teh Koonin himself:
the meeting's purpose is <strong>to explore through expert presentations and discussion the state of climate science</strong>, both the consensus view as expressed by several thousand pages of the IPCC AR5 Working Group report that came out three months ago, but also the views of experts who credibly take significant issue with several aspects of the consensus picture.
That's on page 5.
That teh Koonin raises concerns about "how [climate science] communicated to the general public" is just par for his stealth advocate course.
One does not simply invite IsaacH for what is not science but is important nevertheless.
Turner ==> By odd coincidence, I was once a commercial hamster breeder -- for the pet trade. A female hamster can produce up to ten offspring every six weeks....recalculate and let me know
The seems the consensus position is about as clear as wee willies perpetually foggy mindset. But it is quite silly to assume that electromagnetic fluxes at toa do not vary. I doubt if an email will remedy that.
A decline in cloud cover will cause both ocean and atmospheric warming. Quite obviously a large natural variation. Here it is in words because you evidently cannot decipher a graph on your own.
"The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
"With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation
between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, 2.1, and 1.4 W/m2, respectively, which are similar to the observed decadal changes in the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) Pathfinder OLR and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) version FD record but disagree with the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) Pathfinder ERB record. Furthermore, the observed interannual variability of near-global ERBS WFOV edition3_Rev1 net radiation is found to be remarkably consistent with the latest ocean heat storage record for the overlapping time period of 1993 to 1999. Both datasets show variations of roughly 1.5 W/m2 in planetary net heat balance during the 1990s." http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3838.1
Why don't you email Held - wee willie - and tell him it's complicated.
Preaching aside as well as the likemindedness of many campus students, bigotry and hate speech remain protected speech so sayeth the Supreme Court in Healy v James 408 (1972):
"In this decision, the U.S. Supreme Court first affirmed public college students' First Amendment rights of free speech and association, saying those constitutional protections apply with the same force on a state university campus as in the larger community."
The recent efforts of University of California Berkeley administrators to impede Ms Coulter from expressing her ideas on campus violates not only the US Constitution but the spirit of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of the mid-1960's.
This perspective of the UC Berkeley Administration, ie, imposing conditions upon Ms Coulter speaking as well as the realities playing out in the climate change alarmists suppression of dissent, represent a national and broader trend for many people not wanting to hear contrary information as it maybe just plain upsetting. And this seems to be the crux of the matter, people who have fixed beliefs are not interested in acknowledging contrary information as they would have to process such information resulting in: cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance seems to be the quintessential barrier to progress in the climate change information structure.
<i>However, the Supreme Court also said “the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government” (Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 406 U.S. 37, 46 (1983)) and that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are allowed. ...</i>
As I understand it the university claims there were threats of violence. If they can prove this, then it would appear the outcome of the case is obvious... Berkeley wins.
JCH, If there is a threat of violence, it is the duty of authorities to arrest those doing the threatening and provide a safe environment for the exercise of the 1st amendment. just as if there was a threat of violence if black men voted, it is the duty of the government to make sure the back men can vote. "Threats of violence" is just an excuse for giving in to fascism and street bigots.
JimD, You obviously don't understand the nature of the 1st amendment. There has actually been a decrease in hate crimes, except against Jews, where the increasing anti-Semitism of Islamists and left wingers is taking a toll. This truth is covered up and ignored by the media because it goes against a deep cultural prejudice that hate crimes are always a "right wing" phenomena. That's a very big lie.
When possible, but it's not always possible. Threats can be anonymous. They can be ambiguous. A public university clearly has a right to postpone and otherwise delay a guest speaking event if there is a legitimate security issue. In this case, it depends on the specific facts.
Perhaps, JCH, but in this case, the city of Berkeley and the University administrators are playing the role of George Wallace blocking the schoolhouse door. It's a clear case of failure to protect the constitution and our very important 1st amendment. No excuse except bigotry.
About steel trap minds and scientists. About half way through a science career, I was exposed to a run of scientists with what I came to name the "steel trap mind" or STM in recognition of their strong use of logic and observation in analysis of scientific evidence.
When you get people like Bill Nye meeting with STMs like Will Happer or (maybe, I don't know enough about him) Rick Perry, there is often an embarrassing display. The STM tends to say little, then when something is said it often gives an unexpected perspective to the problem. The other party tends to go through a quick response cycle of being lost for words, then gushing whatever fills the mind at the time, but seldom answers the logical challenge, because it can require thought and mental reformulation.
When you have been in public debate with an STM, as I have been, you feel terrible that people are watching you in your ignorance. The response in the longer term is to try to discipline yourself to be a STM. It can be done but it requires practice, as does a top golfer or musician. There are several STMs in the climate debate from whom you can learn. You can possibly pick them out. Watch again the recent Nye-Happer video where Happer raises the Munich Agreement.
Unfortunately, the blog format is not kind to the STM scientist, because the offering can too often be seen on quick reading as off thread or straw man or hijacking and deleted by moderators.
Keep in mind that there are STMs with views that differ from yours, among the warmistas if you like, so be careful of being too assertive unless you know you are on really strong ground, with logic and observation.
What is the name of the young Republican who was being denied entrance to Berkeley because he was a young Republican? Was Ann Coulter showing up for class and denied entrance?
Bowing to threats is surrendering freedom. The FBI should strenuously investigation and arresting the worst of these perps. There has been one professor arrested for attacking with a bike chain for God's sake. Another women priming glass bottles with fireworks and throwing them. And perpetrators of violence in the streets as well as on campuses should be put down and put down hard.
I expect that most warming since the 1850's was quite natural - and that the natural component will be lost this century.
Having said that - thunderstorms more generally - and convective cells in cyclones in particular - do punch through to the stratosphere.
Although the outflow zone stabilises just below the tropopause.
Convection feeds an incipient disturbance at the surface - sea surface temperatures above about 26 degrees C impart enough energy to create a stable vortex creating a positive feedback and higher intensities. I have read that with SST between 26 and 28 degrees C maximum intensity rises rapidly. Beyond that the intensity rises more slowly.
This study adds a mechanism involving condensation and precipitation that more completely explains - apparently - differences in intensities between theory and observation. A highly scientifically admirable thing to do.
I am assuming your axis in in W/m2 and that it is surface radiation. Positive gives surface warming - negative cooling.
Relative humidity is anti-correlated with temperature for the very good reason that saturation vapour content declines or increases with temperature. Ultimately water will condense out when the air gets cold enough. It has absolutely nothing to do with the energy content of the atmosphere - which depends on the how warm it is on average. This is influenced by the radiative properties of gases.
Whatever the processes at the surface there will be more greenhouse gases - and more water vapour on average on both sides of the planet - and more energy will be retained in the atmosphere. These are not physics that you can get around.
[…] often-times misleading claims from the majority witnesses. In response, Judy Curry has (yet again) declared herself unconvinced by the evidence for a dominant role for human forcing of recent climate changes. And as before she […]
I think speech that incites riots by virtue of being bigoted is the problem. If you can have the speech even with the riots, fine. Trump mostly was able to hold his campaign speeches, but had to call one off.
I think incitement to riot is not protected, whether those riots are for or against the speaker's views. When the riots occur in anticipation of the speech it seems like the speech itself would not be protected by this definition. Why do these people want to go to liberal campuses to give these bigoted speeches? Do pro-choice people go to religious universities to talk about the benefits of choice? No, because there is no point except to incite, and they have the sense not to.
It was their college he was speaking at, and he did not know his audience, which was a big mistake for a speaker. That can go bad.
OK, maybe Darwin is a better example because that is where science more directly challenged biblical beliefs.
Robert I. Ellison | April 25, 2017 at 6:31 pm |
If they didn’t want their faces offended – there is a simple solution.
Jim D | April 26, 2017 at 4:46 am |
It was their college he was speaking at, and he did not know his audience, which was a big mistake for a speaker. That can go bad.
Jimmy has taken to inserting comments in the middle of long threads - that appear as a red dot on my Wordpress bell. I don't really need Jimmy appearing so insistently in my feed. I could live without responding to this.
But as I'm here now - and I have now watched hours of Milo Yiannopoulos. People who just want to hector and disrupt are politely asked to leave by very efficient security guards. They are quite free to demonstrate peacefully outside - in the cold. Wish I could do that with Jimmy. They may of choose not to turn up to be offended by anything said.
The problem in Berkeley and elsewhere is that are not peaceful. The policing problem is very simple. Set up cameras and arrest and imprison the worst offenders.
Or, the university should be allowed time to provide a safe venue instead of being forced into a situation that could get out of control.
"Thus life on land in the presence of large herbivores is intrinsically unstable."
Isn't that were large carnivores come into it - to restore stability, at least in non human-engineered environments?
Yes, bigots should be allowed to listen to other bigots in peace, but a liberal university is not the best place to do that. What were they thinking?
<i>Jim D | April 26, 2017 at 4:04 am |
I think incitement to riot is not protected, whether those riots are for or against the speaker’s views. When the riots occur in anticipation of the speech it seems like the speech itself would not be protected by this definition. Why do these people want to go to liberal campuses to give these bigoted speeches? Do pro-choice people go to religious universities to talk about the benefits of choice? No, because there is no point except to incite, and they have the sense not to.</i>
Their are two benefits of abortions performed in medical facilities.
The avoidance of unsafe procedures and the preservation of a woman's right to self determination under God given provisions of the US constitution. As decided in law. But it is not a procedure to undertake lightly. Much better a civilised discourse on how to practically reduce the incidence. We are in fact more likely to get riots from the absolutely loony left in reaction to something like this.
Jimmy seems prepared to give up one of these other fundamental rights because the loony left threatens violence. Free speech is not allowed because someone may act illegally in anticipation? Craven nonsense.
Liberals own the university? Not any more.
If he wants to incite people, he went to the right place.
Besides which American liberals have betrayed the classic liberal principles on which the US was founded. They are not liberals at all but pissant progressives.
Yes he ridicules pissant progressives relentlessly and effectively with humour and fabulous style darling -- but provocation is not a defense. Arrest them and put them in jail.
Free speech allows you to make a speech on any subject. Where you choose to make that speech may have consequences you also have to weigh up. You Tube is a great way to get messages out without these side issues so this is not preventing the message getting out.
Deliberate provocation and bigotry is a reason to not want him to give a speech in your university. It doesn't surprise me that these problems happen, and yes people do get arrested. They are willing to do that for their cause too, and that is part of the deal.
Jim D: "a liberal university is not the best place to do that. What were they thinking?"
A liberal university is the very best place for contentious views to be expressed. By doing so you discover whether the university is liberal, as claimed, or indeed bigoted.
Milo's tour demonstrated how violent, closed-minded, emotional, immature, irrational, bigoted and intolerant of dissent supposedly liberal students and institutions actually are. By blowing the myth that modern liberals are in any sense liberal Milo performed a vital public service.
He's talking to people who have already rejected his bigoted views as not belonging in a diverse society. Instead of listening to that, they prefer to protest against it as a counter. Nothing wrong with that. He did not expect to go to a campus and expect people to meekly listen to his rantings. He was expecting exactly what happened, and probably wanted it to make headlines, being a publicity hound.
Good grief Jim, have you taken up permanent residence here? :)
It can not have escaped your notice that many people are intolerant of other peoples views. Whilst uncomfortably widespread, it is typified by the young left (in particular) protesting about any views that differ to their own.
In recent months Peter Tatchell -long standing gay rights campaigner- Germaine Greer, feminist and Jenni Murray, feminist, have all been 'non platformed' because they hold views which are considered distasteful by the children they were meant to talk to (children in this case equals students)
Despite their impressive liberal credentials offence was taken at the idea that someone could hold different views about transgender and other issues, whereby the students views were much more hard line and black and white than those who sought to talk to them.
This is a frequent occurrence . Unfortunately for students, we don't (yet) live in a world whereby you can go through life without being offended, shocked, intrigued or even influenced by the views of people who hold different values to the ones you may hold.
Jim D "Where you choose to make that speech may have consequences you also have to weigh up."
You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of the unique role universities perform in our society. They are supposed to be places where ideas can be freely expressed and tested in a manner unfettered by particular political or other interests. If restrictions are placed on discourse in universities they merely become factories for perpetuating orthodoxies because it is only through the clash of ideas that better ideas are discovered, refined and promulgated.
But is seems you are right. Berkeley is not a fit place for such activities because expressing ideas that do not uphold liberal orthodoxies is likely to be met with violence.