Cato has criticized President Obama’s stances on policy issues such as fiscal stimulus, healthcare reform, foreign policy, the war on drugs
while supporting his stance on
the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, liberal immigration policy
Cato was 6 for 6 and reminds us, there still are some libertarians.
The Koch Brothers/Cato probably aren’t as one dimensional as made out.
“In 2003, Cato scholars Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren blasted the Republican Energy Bill as “hundreds of pages of corporate welfare, symbolic gestures, empty promises, and pork-barrel projects”. They also spoke out against the former president’s calls for larger ethanol subsidies.” – Wiki
The biggest problem with the libertarians is they aren’t loyal to the Republicans, but to their own ideas. They exist in a small niche between the two parties. They might even be grateful that people like brian even notice them.
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by Ragnaar
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Climate Scientist
You will never be able to calculate “sensitivity” when the energy diagrams are so wrong.
We don’t “have control, influence, or impact on the climate” for one key reason. The gravito-thermal effect (first explained by the brilliant 19th century physicist, Josef Loschmidt, and never correctly disproved by people like Robert G.Brown of WUWT fame) has been overlooked.
All the energy diagrams have major flaws:
(1) They imply that solar energy absorbed by the surface comes back out of the surface in the same region, thus playing a part in determining local temperature. That is simply not the case for more than half the surface which is the thin surface of the oceans in non-polar regions. That surface is hotter than the floor of the ocean, and so there is significant downward diffusion of thermal energy which then does not surface again until it reaches the polar regions. Furthermore, most of the solar radiation passes right through that thin transparent layer, warming lower regions in the thermocline from where the energy continues its downward trend.
(2) Back radiation only slows that portion of this ocean surface cooling which is by upward radiation. It does not slow evaporative cooling or upward conduction, diffusion and convection. Nor does it have any effect on the cooling caused by downward diffusion to the depths of the ocean in these non-polar regions where nearly everyone lives on land that is affected by nearby ocean temperatures. Nor does back radiation help the Sun to raise the temperature in the first place, as is implied in the way climatologists use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
There is obviously a huge amount of “missing energy” that must be entering the ocean surface. There is indeed, and it comes from downward diffusion (“heat creep”) which is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium, just as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will happen. The energy diagrams don’t show this.
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Bob Tisdale
And I’ll add my congratulations to Judith & Nic.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rud Istvan
Rob, no disagreements to your most immediate above post. But that also does point out the ‘wicked’ nature of the issue.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Steven Mosher
Note. Nobody cares what you think.
Nic on the other hand…. Makes a difference.
↧
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by brian
okay so in other words you guys see no conflict of interest? How can you separate Koch business interests with this issue? Think a sane jury would? Yes you absolutely DO dismiss positions branded by CATO/Koch. They are not disinterested parties.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rud Istvan
Nice to see you here again. You get a big shout out in the forthcoming essay Sensitive Uncertainy about guess what. Hope you like the overall, because you are placed in the sensitivity pantheon just next to Guy Callendar. Makes you VERY prescient.
Highest regards
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Steven Mosher
Rud gets the tactical approach that moshpit laid out long ago.
You only make a difference by working from the inside
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by brian
What’s the argument, Koch funds opera, opera is good, therefore they’re credible when it comes to their position on climate change? Koch is an energy company. The same would hold if Kock was a green energy company.
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Steven Mosher
Im stumped. We needed glory.
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by Ragnaar
“Maybe you think Cato and Koch funded “Science” is hunky dory.”
I thought BEST is hunky dory. The Koch Foundation helped with that. I haven’t been able to find anything on the science research Cato funded. Could you enlighten me?
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by John Smith (it's my real name)
sir
do question the credibility of the Kochs
or Judith Curry?
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by John Smith (it's my real name)
do you question
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Steven Mosher
Robert early on I suggested that C&W be used or tested and put in the SI. So I would agree this
US an important sensitivity to look at.
↧
Comment on Greening the world’s deserts by Portable Ice Maker
My spouse and I absolutely love your blog and find many
of your post’s to be exactly I’m looking for. Does one offer
guest writers to write content for you personally?
I wouldn’t mind publishing a post or elaborating on most of the subjects you write related to here.
Again, awesome blog!
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by ianl8888
@ pokerguy
> … industrialized nations are simply not going to intentionally impoverish themselves. Simply will not happen.
Disagree. The UK is doing this right now. I admit I believed this could never happen in a democracy, but I was very, very wrong
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Mike Flynn
Climate Scientist,
The gravito-thermal effect obviously explains why the water at a depth of 10 kms is warmer than that at the surface. It’s all due to the effects of gravity.
This, of course, depends on you blindly accepting that 4C at the bottom is hotter than 25C or so at the surface. Or maybe water is affected by a special Cotton type of cooling gravity, which affects rocks differently causing them to warm.
Or maybe there is precisely no gravito-thermal effect, and Loschmidt was as wrong about it as Arrhenius was about CO2 heating the Earth.
The Earth is still cooling – just as surely as your warm cup of coffee. Try to stop your coffee from cooling by surrounding it with CO2. Let me know how you get on.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Alexander Biggs
Both AR4 and AR5 suffer from the same defect: they both ignore the on/off nature of climate change, as do the models. They learned nothing from the 1940 singularity which showed clearly that climate temperature is not a stationary process and models that assume it is are inevitably wrong. Ptecewise simulation based on the best CO2 vibration data that HITRAN can provide is the way to go. It is wrong to treat the specific heat of CO2 as a constant and ignore the neutron content of the molecule. Nineteenth century thinking,
The time constant of global atmospheric temperature change is about one month. but the aggregate time constant of temperature change of the oceans is decades. Is it about 30 or 40 years? Models that don’t have an accurate figure for this time constant are inevitably wrong, since they cannot calculate the time taken for heat to travel from atmosphere to the depths of the oceans.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rob Ellison
The energy diagrams are cartoons for cartoon climate scientists. They provide broad global estimates and have no regional implications at all. We are all aware that energy is transported both vertically and horizontally in the oceans and atmosphere.
The system is governed by physical processes. The oceans and land are warmed by solar radiation – the oceans to 100 odd metres. The distribution of energy is governed by a balance between turbulent mixing to depth and warm water buoyancy. The latter dominates to produce the warm surface mixed layer. Slab diffusion is not a process that is all relevant.
Back radiation reduces IR losses from the oceans and – if solar warming is unchanged – oceans warm until a new – conditional – equilibrium is reached. As the 2nd law suggests it should. S-B is irrelevant only useful in calculating a black body temperature – without an atmosphere.
There is no direct gravitational effect on energy transport in the atmosphere. Pressure is gravity dependent – being an effect of the weight of the atmosphere. The top of the troposphere is cooler solely because energy is lost to space and there is less downward IR radiation. Warm air rises buoyantly, expands in the lower pressure and cools. Surface pressure differences from rising and falling air – interacting with the Coriolis force – creates surface wind fields.
Climate is determined by the relevant physical processes – and unless you have more of a clue as to what these are than waffling about the 2nd law and cartoon energy diagrams it is all just hopelessly muddled.
↧
Comment on An unsettled climate by Ragnaar
They are an energy company as well as doing a few other things. Are we counting them out of the political process now? Who decides that they are counted out?
↧