Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Tonyb

December 31, 2014, 12:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas

$

0

0

Max

Supplying electricity via renewables to African villages without electricity is a vastly different proposition to hugely expensive, inappropriate and inefficient renewables being used to supply electricity to first world countries which need great amounts of Relibable energy supplied Continuously and cost effectively

We have just had three or four days of very cold but bright weather with very cold nights.

There was no wind for the turbines and at this time of year the solar arrays barely function and not at all of course at night when Most needed.

I can’t speak for the other organisations but I think you will find those are The prime global warming policy foundations objections.

I am not at all averse to the notion of renewable horses for courses but the Uk has yet to get it right and I suspect most other countries are in the same boat.

Tonyb

---

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D

December 31, 2014, 12:22 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mark M

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Tonyb

$

0

0

Danny, for climate what matters is the CO2 value through higher levels in the atmosphere because the radiative impact depends on its profile. The surface is not a good place to get this because of extraneous noise. The best surface locations for getting at this would be mountains far from sources with correct filtering to remove surface effects in some measurements. They are trying to measure the cleanest representation of tropospheric CO2.

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mark M

December 31, 2014, 12:22 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by ATAndB

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D

$

0

0

As for ‘the pause’ and ‘the return of the heat’, it is like watching Linus wait for the return of the Big Pumpkin … only more pathetic.

Happy New Year and thanks for your time and blog.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by ATAndB

December 31, 2014, 12:24 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Curious George

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mark M

$

0

0

I have a couple of problems with this solution.

1. Affirmative action just means that less qualified people are doing the work. Even if they have the same world view as me, I still find the practice not recommendable.
2. Government regulation of media? Again even if it means that the media has to tilt toward my point of view I can’t recommend the action. It is simply a line that I would never cross, and would not vote for anyone who proposes doing so.

Furthermore, there are much better controls that could be put in place;
1. Government funded research should require complete disclosure of methods, data and results. No pay walls for government funded papers. There may be exceptions to this, say for national interests, but it should be the rule rather than the exception.
2. We should increase the public’s control of how government dishes out funding dollars and the transparency of how this happens. The taxpayers should be able to simply go to a website and see how much money we are spending on climate research for instance and where exactly that funding went as well as exactly what that funding produced. We should be able to answer such questions as who voted for this? Currently these decisions are made by non-elected and therefore non-touchable people.

Just my two cents worth.

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Curious George

December 31, 2014, 12:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by ATAndB

$

0

0

Max, you are venturing into a dangerous terrain. Let me paraphrase your approach: Why do I think Max lacks any intellect? Because my search of the Internet on Max_OK intellect failed to come up with any positive results. If there are any, Google missed it.

You have a full right to your opinions. But please don’t present them as facts. Happy New Year.

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

December 31, 2014, 12:44 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by John Smith (it's my real name)

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Curious George

$

0

0

Tony, those monarchs weren’t elected like our presidents.

This is OT, but I wish your royal families had used more imagination in choosing names for their kids. The UK has had 8 kings named Henry, a bunch named William, some Edwards, etc. This repetition makes it hard for me to remember who’s who.

Henry also was the name of 5 kings in France and 6 kings in the Holy Roman Empire. Altogether I count 19 kings named Henry. Were all these guys related?

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by John Smith (it's my real name)

December 31, 2014, 12:54 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

$

0

0

discovering CE, I must admit, has been one of the highlights of my year
don’t know if that speaks to the quality of my life
or the quality of the blog
what the hey
I choose no.2
cheers to all
more ice and cold in 2015
us “deniers” must be victorious at all cost
no guilt
although, of all the stuff I could be doing
this has the smallest carbon footprint
‘cept for organic farming and making my own shoes from hemp
I think I’ll do this

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by steven

December 31, 2014, 12:55 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Tonyb

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by John Smith (it's my real name)

$

0

0

“, but starting in 2015…”

I always tell people I am to much of a procrastinator and I intend to stop doing that tomorrow.

---

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Tonyb

December 31, 2014, 12:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by steven

$

0

0

Max

Some might say( al gore for instance) that certain presidents weren’t elected)

It is traditional to call a new member of the royal family after an ancestor.

It’s great to have so many with the same name as in a quiz about the royals the answer is invariably either Henry or victoria…

Happy new year Max

Tonyb

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

December 31, 2014, 12:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Tonyb

$

0

0

Just look at the temperature graph – HADCrut4 will do – there’s a ~60-year cycle since 1910 and maybe earlier. Call it the ocean cycle, call it the stadium wave, call it whatever … the AGW crowd deny its existence, don’t know what causes it, and just hope it doesn’t continue. I can see it is there, I don’t know what causes it, I hope it doesn’t continue (colder is much worse than warmer for humanity), but I know of no reason why it wouldn’t. So for the next decade or two the expectation is colder.

The oil price is affected by weak demand and surging production. The Saudis have taken the headlines, but it’s the shale and heavy crudes that are causing the glut. The oil price will, I suspect, move quickly towards the marginal price at supply-demand equilibrium. I don;t know what that price is, but general opinion seems to be of the order of $40 in today’s dollars. When that has put the weakest producers out of business, the price will recover to the full equilibrium price, said to be of the order of $70 in today’s dollars. It will “stay there” until the new shales and heavy crudes hit their peak – maybe 15-20 years’ time?? [I put “stay there” in quotes, because the price will continue to be volatile for all sorts of unanticipated reasons.].

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas

December 31, 2014, 12:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

$

0

0

Jim D,

Again, I thank you for your patience. If you have reading material to suggest I’d appreciate it. I grasp what you’re saying, but I don’t quite get the “why”. The more the surface, intermediate, and upper locations seemingly the better to generate a “global” measure. As my reading so far leads me to a multi level co2 flow including sinks, sources, and no matter the altitude if one is trying to figure out the broader “atmospheric” saturation level. I think you’re telling me that due to the GH effect and radiation reflectivity being important at the tropospheric level, but does it not reflect at all levels? I guess part of it is defining a “clean” sample. Grrrr. I’m sure your explaination is clearer to others, but I just don’t have a grasp.

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

December 31, 2014, 1:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas

$

0

0

+1

Everyone here needs to get onto their local reporters (and political representatives) and give them this message, with explanations as requested of course. Only when we get a mindset change in the media can we get a full mindset change in the public.

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

December 31, 2014, 1:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by mkantor

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

$

0

0

I can’t speak for deniers (I don’t even know to which side of the debate you are referring to with this disgracefully pejorative term). Personally, I oppose isolated villages being forced by ideologues to use inefficient unreliable energy if cheaper and more reliable energy could be made available.

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by mkantor

December 31, 2014, 1:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

$

0

0

Dear Dr. Curry,

Thank for for your efforts on this blog and elsewhere. And thank you as well for your new year’s resolution is to improve blog moderation. Best wishes for 2015.

MK

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D

December 31, 2014, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by mkantor

$

0

0

Danny, yes, it comes down to what is most representative of the global atmosphere, and most of the surface isn’t. It is a careful sampling exercise rather than trying to measure everywhere all the time and hoping the noise cancels.

---

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

December 31, 2014, 1:14 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D

$

0

0

Re comments by Tonyb | December 31, 2014 at 3:18 pm

Tony, modern renewable sources of electric power are infant technologies. Until more experience is gained, not all installations will meet expectations. With advances in the technology and added experience, renewables should account for a growing share of the market for electric power, benefiting both the environment and the conservation of fossil fuels, as well as making countries less dependent on foreign sources for their energy needs. I don’t think anyone questions that these benefits are worth pursuing.

There is no guarantee advances in technology will make renewables the primary source of electric power, but necessity is the mother of invention. Investments are always a gamble, but if you want to win you have to play.

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

December 31, 2014, 1:20 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by John Smith (it's my real name)

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

$

0

0

R Gates. I agree with Pokerguy (Dec 31, 2:30pm). I don’t agree with most of what you say, but I do learn from it directly or indirectly, and it is entertaining and good natured which I applaud. And to my mind it’s really important for there to be open debate not group think.

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by John Smith (it's my real name)

December 31, 2014, 1:21 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

$

0

0

come on… s#ck it up cupcakes
I depend on you guys
If I have to talk about this subject with my friends, they’ll kill me
save an innocent denier
keep those comments coming

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas

December 31, 2014, 1:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

≪ Previous: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by John Smith (it's my real name)

$

0

0

Thanks Jim. Happy New Year!

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Mike Jonas

December 31, 2014, 1:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas

$

0

0

If temperatures rise only trivially, we’ll get more “warmest year”s but it’s still a “hiatus”. I expect the temperature pattern to repeat, meaning that there will be some cooling overall, but like sunspots it’s not a precise pattern, no-one knows what causes it, and no-one can reliably predict it. Even with overall cooling, there can still be some “warmest year”s.