Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

Yep, every conservative and libertarian should hold their nose and read that book. I have. It sanctions lying, cheating, and stealing – all via politics.

Further to my previous response to this eye-grabbing recommendation, the premise that conservatives and libertarians are less prone to lying, cheating, or stealing than mere ordinary mortals sounds like a fascinating topic for some aspiring academic to work up into a thesis. Looking forward to reading all about how these goody two-shoes manage to avoid life’s little temptations, or at least detection thereof.

(My dad once told me, at an impressionable age, that there were people in the world who believed that the only sin was to be caught. The very thought left me so flabbergasted that the possibility my own father might be kidding occurred to me for the first time in my life, witness to the principle that puberty afflicts the sheltered well before cynicism.)


Comment on Week in review by Richard

$
0
0

Great comment over at real climate – well pointed out Judith – thanks for that

Comment on Week in review by phatboy

$
0
0

kJim D:

You can put facts into evidence such as what has been happening since 1950, but “skeptics” refuse to even see the possibility of a connection.

Now can you show us the evidence of what was happening before 1950?

Comment on All megawatts are not equal by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

$
0
0

steve, we should send a copy of Sowell’s Basic Economics to Suhail Al-Mazroue, the United Arab Emirates’ oil minister. Apparently, unlike you and I, he doesn’t understand economic theory and believes “Low prices means less supply which means high prices.” Based on this misunderstanding of how supply and demand work, the Arab Emirates and some other countries that produce oil inexpensively think they can use low-priced oil to
reduce the supply of U.S. shale oil which is relatively expensive to produce, and after this competition is suppressed the price of oil will go back up. Al-Mazroue recently said he didn’t care if oil went down to $40 a barrel.

Al-Mazroue may not realize as the price falls you have to sell more oil just to keep your income constant, proving low prices mean more supply not less supply. So U.S. shale oil producers will keep drilling more new wells, even if the new ones are unprofitable, in order to keep their income from falling.

Hmmm …. I’m afraid I haven’t thought this through.

Comment on Week in review by Pinky and the brain

$
0
0

“War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength”

Comment on All megawatts are not equal by Pinky and the brain

$
0
0

‘Don’t question why she needs to be so free
She’ll tell you it’s the only way to be
She just can’t be chained
To a life where nothing’s gained
And nothing’s lost
At such a cost
Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday
Who could hang a name on you?
When you change with every new day
Still I’m gonna miss you…’
Ruby Tuesday

Time is the quintessential resource where the supply is inelastic – no matter what the demand the supply is constant. Hence Ruby Tuesday. goodbye – Ruby Tuesday -…. – when you change with every new day.

Oil is an example of a resource where demand is relatively inelastic – no matter what the price the demand is relatively constant.

Oversupply leads to competition to sell the same amount of oil – almost – at lower prices. The lowest cost producers – such as Saudi Arabia – have an advantage. If they had the sense of Norway – they were making hay.

It is a bit difficult to work on one side of the equation without the other. It is after all the theory of supply and demand.

Comment on Week in review by beththeserf

Comment on Week in review by gbaikie

$
0
0

–it takes so long to get them built 15-20 years?
even if we start tomorrow the hiatus could be 30-40 years long by then
if so, won’t CO2 GHG theory be uh…in bit of trouble?–

Yes. Bad idea to tie nuclear energy to the pseudo science of
Jim Hansen. And if they take 15-20 year to build, then they don’t
ever get built.
It only helps the wacko lefties to support something like nuclear nuclear
because it the only reasonable path of reducing CO2 emission. Nuclear energy was reducing CO2 emission before anyone was scared of CO2 emission. So Lefties need something rational to tie to their stupid ideas.
The Nuclear industry can remind people that nuclear is a power supply that is the lowest emitter of any kind of greenhouse gas, but to sell the idea it should focus on it’s strong points.
Such as it’s a very safe way to make electrical power. And it has the long record which proves this
And the goal or focus should be to make it the cheapest way to make electrical power for various regions. So not cheapest power every where but rather the cheapest for a majority of the regions which need
electrical power. Or they should say there goal is for all people to pay less than 10 cent per Kw hour. And there are lot of places in which residential retail price of electrical power is over 10 cent per kilowatt hour.

And to provide electrical at 10 cent per kw/hour retail [a 1/10th of that wholesale] it needs to be able to build power plants in a time period of
less than 10 years. Or if going to take 15+ years it will cost a lot more than 10 cent per kW/hour Or it simply will not be done.


Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by anng

$
0
0

Thanks Vaughan,

I won’t worry about it then.

Comment on Week in review by aaron

$
0
0

From my comment up thread (slightly edited for clarity…I hope):

It seems very unlikely that CO2 levels were as low or stable as icecore data suggests. I’m pretty sure plant stoma suggest they were much more variable (ask Tony Brown). As I think icecore data does itself, 27% of the CO2 increase in law dome CO2 concentration happens before CO2 emission become significant in the 40s, when 18% of total industrial era emissions happened. More recently, 2000-2008, 20% of emissions happened, but only 15% of total industrial era concentration increase.

Comment on Week in review by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Jim D & PA,

I think I missed it. Did either of you factor in a pause in to your calculations? I could not find one. :)

Comment on Week in review by aaron

$
0
0

I think a lot of it ends up at the bottom of the ocean.

From Dec 4 Open Thread:

Fish also breed fast. Plant life in the ocean is consumed quickly. I brought this up in a couple comments on this post. http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/07/week-in-review-34/#comment-646123

Danny, I meant a decrease in the emissions growth rate. We seem to be approaching a linear growth rate.

Sinks are growing. With emissions rates growing, sinks have grown so much that concentration growth is almost linear.

I would think it is largely an increase in biomass, but not primarily vegetation. Think of the oceans, how much old plant growth is there? I imagine much is consumed by animals…

The oceans are huge, there is a lot of plant mass which reproduces quickly, is short-lived, and may be growing because of warming and CO2 (and keeping upper ocean CO2 lower than equilibrium with the increased atmospheric concentration). This mass is likely consumed by animal life rather quickly. Fish also breed very quickly, so both CO2 and energy may be sequestered in large increases in ocean biomass, and waste sinks and transports it to the deep ocean to decay (some of Trenberth’s direct deep ocean heating :) )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)#Ocean_biomass

Comment on Week in review by Bob Ludwick

$
0
0

@ PA, Curious George

“The overeager activist regulators (OAR’s) have done more to damage America than foreign powers.”

This was not a coincidence. The OAR ‘movers and shakers’ are all smart folks who graduated from prestigious universities near the top of their classes. They KNOW what they are doing. And they are VERY GOOD at it.

“I don’t believe it would be possible to build the Hoover Dam in the U.S. today.”

You would be correct. In fact, we will be doing well if we can prevent the OAR’s from destroying it like they have so many other dams.

Comment on Week in review by Bob Ludwick

$
0
0

@ Gareth

“………………“policy based evidence making”.”

Consensus Climate Science condensed to one phrase.

Comment on Week in review by AK

$
0
0

They need to be wired, supported, inverted, … etc. If their price gets near zero, there is still a lot of expense, plus they take up a lot of space and materials.

There are many ways around those problems. Reading the above might have shown a few, rather than knee-jerk straw-man arguments.


Comment on Week in review by Bob Ludwick

$
0
0

@ Dr. Curry

I followed this link:

“A remarkable comment at Real Climate [link]”

and read a bunch of the commentary regarding it and previous comments by Harris.

Every time I visit that site I am forcibly reminded that Saul Alinsky is the Patron Saint of Climate Science.

I am also reminded that these and the like-thinking are the folks who we have placed in charge of setting the rules—-all the rules—in what is generically known as Western Civilization.

As Dr. Jerry Pournelle is fond of saying: “We have sown the wind…….”

Comment on Week in review by PA

$
0
0

thebackslider | December 14, 2014 at 10:18 am | Reply

When will scientists begin to be honest about just how tiny anthropogenic CO2 emissions are in comparison to natural CO2 emissions from the biosphere?

AR5 WG1 Figure 6.1

There is about 220 gT of carbon that sloshes in and out of the atmosphere every year. There is about 820 gT of carbon in the atmosphere so the average CO2 lifetime is about 5.6 years. But to be clear, 26% of the carbon in the atmosphere is absorbed by the environment and replaced with emissions.from the environment every year.

About 4.2 gT of human emissions stayed in the atmosphere and about 5.6 gT was absorbed by the environment in 2013 (less than half of emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere).

And yeah human emissions are less than 1/20 (5%) of the carbon budget.

Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by kirkmike157

$
0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="http://kirkmaxey.com/2014/12/15/will-a-return-of-rising-temperatures-validate-the-climate-models/" rel="nofollow">Kirk M. Maxey: Blog and Website</a>.

Comment on All megawatts are not equal by AK

$
0
0
@Planning Engineer... Have you seen <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CKUBEBYwFQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pjm.com%2F~%2Fmedia%2Fcommittees-groups%2Fcommittees%2Fpc%2F20140512-advance%2F20140512-sdge-inverter-technical-standards-white-paper-08072013.ashx&ei=vgOPVMqoGYKayATOmIGoDA&usg=AFQjCNFib2ZOlxB_Zr20Hp8eDXmzghKT2A&sig2=DWFiokiaWp3VGUOXIgEu3g" rel="nofollow">this</a>? I just found it while searching for something else, and thought it might be handy if you don't already have a link to it.

Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by John Plodinec

$
0
0

Our current arguments cluster around assumed correlations that even if perfect are not necessarily indications of causality. It might be interesting to take an entirely different approach that essentially makes no assumptions. We could try using fuzzy logic (hate the term, love the math) to seek causal relationships among climate response variables and possible climate-forcing variables, alone and in combination. It would require a great deal of computing power but would have the advantage of eliminating selection biases. There may certainly be problems with non-linearities, but as long as any relationship was monotonic the technique could work.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images