Ok John, please list for us the number of prosperous businesses started last year that didn’t rely on fossil fuels. Heck, list just one.
Comment on Week in review by k scott denison
↧
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Curious George
No one can force SkS to reply to what I say. You seem to be rather obtuse.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Faustino
Telegraph: Wind turbine collapses in Northern Ireland: Investigation after 328-foot turbine buckles at wind farm in County Tyrone despite only light winds [that’s almost 100 metres, or just shorter than London’s Millbank Tower].
A 328-foot tall wind turbine worth more than £3 million pounds has buckled and collapsed on a mountainside in Northern Ireland. Unconfirmed reports suggested the blades of the turbine had spun out of control – despite only light wind speeds – before the structure came crashing to the ground on Friday. The remaining seven turbines have been shut down while manufacturers investigate what went wrong.
“Worth” over £3 million? It cost that, but I doubt that it was ever worth it. Now it’s scrap metal.
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
Oh those compluhcating factors of narrow band absorption
frequencies and disentangling the positive and negative
feedback data. All those $$$$ spent, all those IPCC reviews!
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by PA
eadler2 | January 4, 2015 at 11:49 am
“I asked you for a list of the negative feedbacks you claimed would cancel the warming effects of CO2.”
Well…
1. Pretty curves from Susan Solomon. They show that the likely low 500 PPM (somewhere in the 520 PPM range) that is likely CO2 maximum doesn’t cause a hill of beans worth of warming. There isn’t much to explain.
2. The unknowns driving temperature include ice cover, snow cover (98% is in the Northern Hemisphere), specific humidity low level, specific humidity high level, evaporation, clouds low level, clouds high level.
The stratosphere is warming from CO2 and cooling from reduced specific humidity. Many of the other measures have a similar good news/bad news profile.
The CO2 warming calculations assume more CO2 and all other things being equal (a static analysis). The atmosphere is dynamic and things aren’t so pretty.
Solar on the other hand appears to have strong positive water vapor feedback and water vapor increases exponentially with real (TSI) external heating.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Faustino
Consensus science? Another good quote from “Against the Gods:” mathematician MFM Smith wrote: “Any approach to scientific inference which seeks to legitimise an [italicised] answer in response to complex uncertainty is, for me, a totalitarian parody of a would-be rational learning process.” (“Present position and potential developments: some personal views of Bayesian statistics,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol 147, part 3, pp 245-259.)
↧
Comment on Week in review by Faustino
moso, Tim Palmer was honoured in the 2015 New Year’s Honours List, he is surely beyond question or reproach. And he has the consensus on his side (see my reply to Wagathon below).
↧
Comment on Week in review by John Smith (it's my real name)
not archaic kim
I understand you perfectly
It’s the Western elite that have taken to abusing the living cr@p out the English language
they consider it clever
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Don Monfort
I was just funning ya, AK. Don’t be like Brandon.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Obviously we are not talking about violating the laws of nature – merely considering the use of existing technology to displace fossil fuels.
Engineers like myself know that pontificating about being an engineer is bloody stupid.
↧
Comment on Week in review by John Smith (it's my real name)
amendment to my comment…
hesitant about the use of the word “elite”
I like real intellectual elites
some of ‘em comment on (and run) this blog
them that follow science and not the herd
they’re feeling a bit under siege
sometimes they think no one is listening
but I am
↧
Comment on Week in review by jacobress
Believing that current technology will produce emissions reduction (apart from nuclear), is counter-factual, counter-physical and delusional.
The 37 GW wind “capacity” and 30 GW solar “capacity” installed already in Germany have produced no reduction. These are facts, the belief that “money will buy you anything” is just that – an idle speculation.
↧
Comment on Week in review by k scott denison
Yes, as it is a sure sign of an elitist ideology.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
<blockquote>All those $$$$ spent, all those IPCC reviews!</blockquote>Reminds me of the N.I.C.E. ("National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments") from C.S.Lewis' <a href="http://www.onereads.org/hideous-strength-c-s-lewis?page=0,8" rel="nofollow">That Hideous Strength</a>.<blockquote>"The N.I.C.E. marks the beginning of a new era-the really scientific era. There are to be forty interlocking committees sitting every day, and they've got a wonderful gadget by which the findings of each committee print themselves off in their own little compartment on the Analytical Notice-Board every half-hour. Then that report slides itself into the right position where it's connected up by little arrows with all the relevant parts of the other reports. It's a marvellous gadget. The different kinds of business come out in different coloured lights. They call it a Pragmatometer."</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>"And what do you think about it, Studdock?" said Feverstone.</blockquote><blockquote>"I think," said Mark, "that James touched the important point when he said that it would have its own legal staff and its own police. I don't give a fig for Pragmatometers. The real thing is that this time we're going to get science applied to social problems and backed by the whole force of the state, just as war has been backed by the whole force of the state in the past."</blockquote>NOTE: any coincidence of names unintentional.
↧
Comment on Week in review by k scott denison
Not sure exactly what you are trying to say John. It is either your writing style or that your arguments are vacuous or both.
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by ordvic
eadler2,
There is conflicting evidence about solar vs CO2 correlation with temperature. I’ve read many papers that show a closer correlation with solar than CO2. You state “Other effects such as solar radiation have been ruled out by measurements. By whom? You also state; “Many features of the predicted effect of CO2 on global temperature have been found … as well as the trend in temperature increases especially since 1975″.
There is just as much of the trend in temperatures since 1975 following solar after all this occured during a solar maximum:
Here is an article that suggests both are in play with CO2 less than commonly believed:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolarHYPERLINK
You can also read:
New paper finds strong evidence the sun has controlled has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years not CO2.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html
↧
Comment on Week in review by k scott denison
John, when one’s third sentence includes two fallacies I’d say one is off to a particularly bad start.
↧
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Arno Arrak
What can I say. Judy is a luke-warmist but with this exception she is a rational and independent thinker. For me the biggest climate problem is official approval of pseudo-science. By a political maneuver the activists have managed to designate carbon dioxide a pollutant. It is an insane move, lifting pseudo-science above science with a legal trick. Acting on it means acting contrary to laws of nature, on the basis of faith alone. That scientific-sounding talk you hear from them is called pseudo-science, not science. Any “scientific advisers” who supported this move are pseudo-scientists, not scientists, and should not be working for the United States government, but they are. The ultimate aim of this warmist faith is elimination of the burning of fossil fuels which generates that carbon dioxide they malign. And they absolutely don’t care if that destroys the material basis of our civilized life. In the service of this faith our government lies to our people about the facts of warming. One of their devices is to calculate how much global temperature will rise when the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is doubled. It is measured in degrees Celsius and is called sensitivity. Politicians have decided that if sensitivity goes higher than 2 degrees Celsius global warming is dangerous. The first person to calculate this doubling effect was Svante Arrhenius. In 1896 he determined that doubling CO2 will raise global temperature by 5 degrees Celsius. It was later recalculated using modern day parameters, and this brought it down to 1.1 degrees Celsius. Since that is less than two degre limit it was not dangerous. What was done to create dangerous warming was to bring in water vapor, another greenhouse gas, as a CO2 helper. It works like this. First, carbon dioxide warms the air. Warm air can hold more water vapor than cold air does. And the additional absorption from the increase of water vapor content can double or even triple the basic Arrhenius warming. This device brings the doubling effect up above 2 degrees Celsius and justifies the anti-pollution measures they want. It served its political purpose well until nature just put a stop to it. All global warming simply came to a halt and there has been none for the last 18 years. If you are a scientist and your theory predicts warming but you get nothing for 18 years in a row you know that this theory has failed and belongs in the waste basket of history. Worse yet is the fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide kept increasing all this time without being able to cause warming as their theory requires. This is not just an instrumental problem but a complete failure of the scientific case for greenhouse warming. It is an observation of nature telling us that the greenhouse effect does not exist. The Arrhenius theory that predicts warming is just completely wrong. The only greenhouse theory that does explain it is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. According to MGT water vapor and carbon dioxide form a joint optimum absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR, just as Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness ia restored. This is a complete reversal of their claim that water vapor increases warming. The introduced carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor keeps total absorption constant and no warming is possible. And that explains is why increasing carbon dioxide has been unable to cause warming for the last 18 years. Where does CO2 sensitivity fit into this scheme? It is defined as the warming observed upon doubling of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. According to the Miskolczi theory doubling of carbon dioxide content does not cause any warming of the atmosphere. Hence, the true value of CO2 sensitivity is zero (0). There is no such thing as greenhoyse warming. But the entire enterprise of global warming is built upon the existence of the greenhouse warming that does not exist in nature. More specifically, that greenhouse warming in turn is supposed to be the cause of the alleged anthropogenic global warming or AGW. But since the greenhouse warming does not exist, AGW likewise does not exist. Furthermore, since it does not exist the huge sums spent trying stop CO2 from causing it are a total waste of taxpayers money. All these projects must be defunded and all organizations put in charge of them shut down. This includes IPCC as well as national organizations working in parallel with it. They were all established fraudulently with pseudo-scientific arguments cooked up by activists.
↧
Comment on Week in review by k scott denison
Call me crazy John, but perhaps, just perhaps, a more thorough examination of “climate change” might lead some intelligent humans to disagree that it is an issue we must do something about now.
↧
Comment on Week in review by mosomoso
The real artists of alarmism always predict stuff that has to happen anyway, and keep the timeline flexible. If Palmer predicted that future Melbourne Cups will be dominated by quadrupeds, I’m sure the Guardian would praise his foresight and someone would find an Emmy or low-rent Peace Nobel for him.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
