Disqus - Latest Comments for davids99us

Re: The Reference Frame: It's totally obvious that these lockdowns are nothing else than an unprecedented waste of money

davids99us — Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:00:24 -0000

‘Kunda’ LOL

Re: What Graduate School in Theoretical Physics Is Really Like

davids99us — Sun, 19 May 2019 20:28:00 -0000

Really good story. You should consider the role of stress though in giving up. Rajeev seems to have good stress management, cheerful, and you hit the bottle for example. It may be that giving up is a stress management decision to preserve remaining health. I can relate because I knew nothing of adrenal failure until after it happened and I crawled back.

Re: How does cold fusion work?

davids99us — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 05:57:52 -0000

Sounds good thanks.

Re: The absurdity of a 4 degree Celsius rise in temperature

davids99us — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:42:48 -0000

Don - thank you for a very good blog post. I particularly like the use of mathematics that is basic; it makes the argument both rigorous and accessible to the most number of people. Even Einstein made his mathematics simple to the specialists of the day, and so was more convincing. Showing that state-sponsored articles like the SoC contradict basic maths or observations (including their claim of no increase in rainfall) has been quite effective at derailing the AGW juggernaut. Telling the reader how to think about things - must include how to think about things in mathematics they understand.

Re: What if global warming is actually good for us?

davids99us — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:53:45 -0000

Don, I have an opinion up at Quadrant that you might be interested in http://quadrant.org.au/opin.... The approach was inspired by one of your comments on writing - that an article should frame the discussion, show how to think about an issue - something like that. Thanks.

Re: A Practical Project for the Hyperloop

davids99us — Sat, 31 Aug 2013 08:55:17 -0000

I think the main barrier is customer acceptance - i think thats what you are saying too. If it breaks down - am I going to die? But if it means that I step into a capsule and a few minutes later I am somewhere else - albeit with a few Gs - then that is good and I would accept that. If the others survived.

Re: Cold Fusion a Victory for the Free Market

davids99us — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:10:23 -0000

All good points.

Re: How does cold fusion work?

davids99us — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:40:17 -0000

Yeoug Kim has some good papers with a different theory, that the Columb barrier is overcome by a niche-like behaviour that I might do a post on. This one goes into possible Ni reactions suggesting:

http://www.physics.purdue.e...

(i) ANi(2p(S=0), p) -> A+1Cu, with even A=58, 60, 62 and 64.

Re: How does cold fusion work?

davids99us — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:32:11 -0000

Its a huge rabbit-hole, isn't it?

Re: How did climate skeptics know the scare was not real?

davids99us — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 22:27:38 -0000

You mean the amount the earth has not been warming in the last 15 years, don't you?

Re: How does cold fusion work?

davids99us — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 03:28:24 -0000

Hi Pat. There would be a range of reactions after absorbing a nucleon, and there are a number of Ni isotopes to start from. If an alpha is emitted after absorbing a proton then Ni and Zn would go back to lower energy elements.

Elliptical orbitals seems to be a Defkalion idea and at least they are conventional science. Quantum theory predicts a non zero probability that the electron is inside the nucleus with eliptical orbits but could an electron be inside a proton?

Re: How does cold fusion work?

davids99us — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 06:05:57 -0000

Please say more.

Re: Gough Whitlam is 97

davids99us — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:04:53 -0000

Okay... I don't see the point of these stories. To me they show he was manipulative. I don't admire Gough. He implemented some reforms that were overdue, and blew a heap of money on education and the arts. He has spent the rest of his life moaning about the dismissal. I never spent much time in the Coombs Building, except for the occasional philosophy lecture I sat in on. And winters in Canberra were uniformly cold and dull, especially in the Copland Square were I spent my time as a maths undergraduate. So there. I wish him well.

Re: A sensible ‘carbon’ tax

davids99us — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 08:45:16 -0000

The McKitrick proposal would need to be seen in the context of tax theory. That is, it seems like a benefit tax where the revenue is directly linked to the Government expenditure. Benefit taxes would be preferred by small Government advocates because it limits Government discretion, and I suppose Ross, like me, would be among those. But then, would not a levy, such as the existing flood levy, be more efficient. Simply, link the personal tax levy to the climate damage mitigation, such as infrastructure rebuilding. I would have liked to seen the proposal embedded in a broader context.

Re: On Philanthropy, especially in Australia

davids99us — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 08:08:32 -0000

Good thought provoking post - as usual! My response was to wonder, to what degree is the US wealth CAUSED by philanthropy? And so, becomes a virtuous cycle. The opposite of philanthropy - schroogeiness - is not going to produce collective wealth. To what extent does the voluntary distribution of the fruits of good stewardship produce abundance?

Re: When will the ABC tell us about the pause in global warming?

davids99us — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 02:54:48 -0000

"puzzle about why the heat has gone through the upper layers of the ocean to nest in its coldest zone. It seems a rather tenuous proposition to me."

It seems plausible to me because sea water can sink not only because it is cold, but from increased density from salinity (resulting from evaporation). Winds also provide mixing. So its an interesting situation that warm pools of salty water can sink below the surface. See http://www.bom.gov.au/clima.... I have never seen it explained simply like this though.

When I see the rhetorical word 'paused' being used, I wonder when the word 'stopped' will start to be considered. If evidence of 'pausing' could falsify AGW models, then why not consider the models are completely wrong, and GW has 'stopped'. Saying that GW has 'paused' allows for modification: some extra factor has not been considered, or natural variation is greater. But in my view looking at presentations such as Spencer's image, http://wottsupwiththatblog....

there is now hard evidence of a non-zero possibility of a 'blunder' of epic proportions.

Fascinating, and supports what you and others have been saying -- that the forecasts of climate scientists are not to be trusted.

Re: Still no weakening of the Walker Circulation

davids99us — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 04:59:34 -0000

How is that declining rainfall going? http://www.bom.gov.au/clima... Not.

Re: Climate change: what consensus?

davids99us — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 05:06:49 -0000

Don, To some people plausibility and serious implications constitute a 'unifying principle', though I would call that politics. Some might call it research that is relevant. I was thinking more about, e.g. ecology. While it used to be about communities and species interactions, all species interact with climate spatially and temporally over all scales. Take geography, or human geography, or epidemiology, these have a spatial and temporal relationship to climate. So many fields can adopt it for their agendas.

And you are right, I have been saying for years that the only thing that will kill belief in AGW is a sustained period of cooling or lack of warming. I have been producing graphs showing the break points where warming has stopped, writing posts on how robust tests on autocorrelated data show no significant change, and so on. I think the cooling of interest in AGW is directly due to the 'pause' in warming.

But then because the scientists started with a plausible but possibly incorrect proposition that AGW is correct, the "hundreds if not thousands of papers in the literature that start from the proposition that AGW is correct, and go on to set out what might happen then to the mouthless moth or the nutless gnat" are now, or soon will be, junk.

Re: Climate change: what consensus?

davids99us — Tue, 07 May 2013 22:52:45 -0000

As a long term admirer for your work, and (former) science researcher in biodiversity and climate related issues, I heartily agree with your pithy take "wriggling with distaste" on the debate, for example, and most everything else.

Would be interested in your opinion on a view that I have formed that it is not really an argument from authority that is the problem. In most areas and especially science, one advances by gaining the support of peers for your ideas, not by authority. In the case of AGW, it has been very easy to rally scientists around the central idea as it is a kind of unifying principal, even the speculative aspects (what would happen if temps increased by x). This is also why skeptical studies have not gained traction, as they only serve to fragment the unified proposition that many find useful.

Natural cycles and sun research has gained some traction as it is unifying to some degree. While the career opportunities in those fields are limited, they are greater than public opposition to a useful and generally accepted proposition.

Re: The Widening Gap Between Present Global Temperature and IPCC Model Projections

davids99us — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:36:48 -0000

ROFL - the trend difference from the models is barely significant over 30 years, and these guys think a non-significant difference between models and temperatures over 12 years means something!

You cant have it both ways - say that there is too much variability to show inconsistency, then say that it is meaningful.

Re: Santer: Climate Models are Exaggerating Warming – We Don’t Know Why

davids99us — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:33:37 -0000

Too embarrassed?

Re: Santer: Climate Models are Exaggerating Warming – We Don’t Know Why

davids99us — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 16:03:53 -0000

There are no end to the manipulations to get the data to show what they want it to show.

Re: Sea level rise projections bias

davids99us — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 01:10:16 -0000

The 2012 data agrees well actually.

Re: Santer: Climate Models are Exaggerating Warming – We Don’t Know Why

davids99us — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 20:22:52 -0000

Hmm... Norton finds no problems.

Re: Solar Supersensitivity – a new theory?

davids99us — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:37:31 -0000

Layman, That does look good. Have you taken it back to 1900? The fit in the first half of the century is not as good with TSI, so it would be important if GRF was better. The integration mechanism is still valid, but the driver different.