Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by brent

$
0
0

Shell boss hopes US-China climate deal will “reinvigorate” UN talks

Ben van Beurden calls for gas and renewables to replace coal, argues Shell wants to be part of solution to climate challenge
Shell’s chief executive has branded last week’s US-China climate pact as “historic” and has written of his hopes it will “reinvigorate” efforts to secure a UN deal to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
In an article in the Times newspaper Ben van Beurden, who took over as CEO of the oil and gas giant in January 2014, said a proposed 2015 Paris climate deal was “desirable” and “achievable.”
“Why should we care? Well, if anyone were still complacent about the scale of the problem that climate change poses then the recent report by the IPCC will have come as a stark wake-up call,” he said.
Van Beurden added his backing to US efforts to decarbonise, arguing the country was now moving “farther and faster than ever before.”

http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/20/shell-boss-hopes-us-china-climate-deal-will-reinvigorate-un-talks/

Energy groups face ‘existential’ climate threat, says ex-BP chief

Energy and mining companies are ignoring the “existential threat” from climate change and must change the way they operate, the former head of BP warns.
The intervention by Lord Browne, one of the energy world’s most influential voices, comes as coal, oil and gas companies face mounting investor criticism that they are too complacent about the risk of tougher action to curb global warming.
He told a seminar in London on Wednesday that the scientific evidence of global warming should be treated as settled but “this conclusion is not accepted by many in our industry, because they do not want to acknowledge an existential threat to their business”.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102200922

Green Blob.. BP and Shell and Grantham Institute
Global Energy Governance Reform and China’s Participation

http://tinyurl.com/ndxqy34

Global energy cooperation needs urgent reform, say researchers

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_10-11-2014-16-41-47

A Big-Oil Man Gets Religion When John Browne broke ranks on global warming, he did more than shock the industry–he began to convert it.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-378231

BP as well as Enron were at forefront lobbying for Cap and Trade

Their mission that day? As revealed in the August 1, 1997 Lay briefing memo whiih I was later provided — having left a brief dance with Enron after raising questions about this very issue — it was to demand that the White House ignore unanimous Senate instruction pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution (“advice”, of “advice and consent” fame), and to go to Kyoto and agree to the “global warming” treaty.
Oh, and to enact a cap-and-trade scheme.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2010/06/15/BPs-Excellent-Oval-Office-Adventure


Comment on Week in review by rls

$
0
0

Beth and Faustino

Perhaps there are two aspects of wariness; wariness of one’s own limits and excursions, and wariness of external advise. The first makes us powerless and the second tricks us.

Richard

Comment on Week in review by jim2

$
0
0

Sulfate emissions cooled the planet – don’t you want a cooler planet?

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

$
0
0

“As an independent, I am personally fatigued by the brinksmanship. Current leaders staked out turf before action was taken without knowing for sure what action would be taken. Just posturing. Immigration is one of the toughest to handle. The left is likely pandering, and the right cannot come down too hard as it can cause political damage. So each side does as little as possible. And they wonder why “We the people” seem dissatisfied when we know they’re just planning for the next election to save their own jobs. Don’t we pay them to handle the tough work?”
—-
I too am an Independent, decidedly left leaning on social issues and far more centrist to right on monetary ones. Both sides pander and both sides are caught in the game of constant fund raising for the next election cycle. The system is broke. Fundamentally broke, and only We the People can fix it, but it does neither of the current two parties any good to help us fix it.

Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$
0
0

R.Gates, “Regarding the current state of ocean heat content versus what has happened in the past, it is probably best to look across the entire Holocene. We’ve had this conversation many times here in CE, but the current best data would tell us the oceans are warming at their fastest in 10,000 years:”

Funny you should say that :) I am slowly putting together a tropical ocean temperature reconstruction which should be more indicative of OHC since that does represent the bulk of the ocean heat source.

Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Trans-continental railroad of 1860 justifies Solyndra. Get real.

Comment on Week in review by ceresco kid

$
0
0

Gates

At least you tried. Kudos. The article suggests the trend but when going to the study nothing in the abstract discusses trends, only temps. If someone has access to the study behind paywall, I would like to see the precise language the authors use in the trend for the last 10,000 years. Until then, thanks. They speak of a bump in MWP and drop in LIA so those amounts would be of interest as well.

Comment on Week in review by ceresco kid

$
0
0

Capt

Are you familiar with the study gates linked to? It is paywalled and I think it would be of interest for this discussion.


Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

$
0
0

That’s exciting Captn. We know it all becomes proxy, and so multiproxy is best, but I’d be very interested in seeing that, and comparing it directly to known short term and long term forcings, like volcano, Milanokovitch, GH gas, etc.

Comment on Week in review by Curious George

$
0
0

Matthew – thanks. I too suspect that 0.04% of CO2 has almost no direct effect on a lightning frequency. I think Prof. Romps had an idea that a lightning strike frequency may increase with temperature; that looks like a sound assumption. He designed an ad-hoc mechanism to support that idea. So far so good. But why would the mechanism be limited to the United States? He wanted it to be supported by data. If, as you suspect, a correlation with CO2 or surface temperature “would not reveal too much”, he should have just said so – instead of ringing an alarm bell.

Comment on Week in review by curryja

$
0
0

Interesting article, thanks for the link

Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$
0
0

R. Gates, I just throw that together and avoided the Rosenthal, Oppo et al. data for the IPWP which I will compare to later.

http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-problem-with-changing-your-frame-of.html

That is my cheeky write up with the reconstructions used so far. Basically though, if you want lower troposphere you don’t want OHC reconstructions and vice versa. Mix them all together and you get this.

As usual though I believe that K. Lawrence and crew have something similar in the works showing the “Seesaw” that is related to precessional cycle.

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

$
0
0

“Basically though, if you want lower troposphere you don’t want OHC reconstructions and vice versa. Mix them all together and you get this.”
——
True., if improperly mixed, but mixed correctly and they tell us the history of the Holocene climate and the accurate perspective on our current warming period.

Comment on Week in review by JCH

$
0
0

It was so what to whether or not the abyssal ocean is warming a tiny amount or cooling a tiny amount, and it should obvious that if it is cooling a small amount, which is what recent work indicates, that is good for warmers and bad for koolers.

Your graph starts 1950. You said warmest ever.

Good grief, the earth has been a hot house and it has been a snowball. When somebody says warmest ever, or coldest ever, it sounds dumb as hell to point this out.


Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$
0
0

ceresco kid

“Are you familiar with the study gates linked to? It is paywalled and I think it would be of interest for this discussion.”

No, if fact I am avoiding that study for now. Warming “unprecedented” in ~10000 years would be consistent with the precessional cycle which has a roughly 20,000 year cycle with minimal wobble. Ocean warming and lower troposphere warming are not all that directly related since high 65N solar insulation helps melt glaciers, but reduces the rate of ocean heat uptake. If you get the right paleo reconstructions, they should show precessional impact on average ocean temperature.

When you have a higher average ocean temperature you have the energy required to dump a kilometer or three of snow on the midwest which should start another glacial cycle. I doubt the midwest volunteer to end “global” warming though.

Comment on Week in review by JCH

$
0
0
Scroll down to the paper: <a href="https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/yair_2013.pdf" rel="nofollow">10,000 years</a>

Comment on Week in review by Wagathon

$
0
0

AGW theory, as it came to be — an accepted science among Western academics — is an example of celebrating divergent thinking that lacks verification. Hence, there is to genius in the idea of global warming. At this stage in its development of the science of global warming, the value of skepticism in the search for knowledge has been vindicated.

Comment on Week in review by RiHo08

$
0
0

re: Obama’s worst ever environmental decision:

“A central question for the proposal to be issued by December 1 is whether the current air quality standards for ozone, set at 75 parts per billion of ozone in the ambient air, adequately provide such protection.”

The standard: 75 ppBILLION ozone is based upon…”expert opinion.”

The science, in part performed in environmental chambers with volunteers with heart & lung disease as well as elite athletes (during the 1984 Los Angles Olympics) used 0.3 and 0.4 ppMILLION ozone which translates to 300 and 400 ppBILLION. Ozone concentrations had to be increased from 300 ppb to 400 ppb in testing to see an effect that was measurable; i.e. to differentiated exposed and non-exposed groups.

The EPA, under the former leadership of Lisa Jackson, declared that the new standard should be 70 ppBILLION a difference of 5 ppBILLION from the current standard. EPA scientists declared that such concentrations and differences make a health difference, based upon….their interpretation of….?

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

$
0
0

“When somebody says warmest ever, or coldest ever, it sounds dumb as hell to point this out.”
—-
There are so many different qualifiers that one could add after “warmest ever” that it all must be taken in context of the conversation, and polite and reasonable people know the context and don’t expect constant qualifiers, such as:

Warmest of the year
Warmest in the decade
Warmest of the century
Warmest on instrument record
Warmest of the Holocene
Warmest in the past 3.2 million years

Etc etc etc.

If we say it was the “warmest October ever” , well reasonable people know we mean instrument record. Can we get past this pedantry?

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images