@Jim D...<blockquote>AK, stifling the Industrial Revolution. LOL. Great stuff. How about a new green energy revolution replacing the black energy revolution. New industries, widespread energy generation and profits in more hands, etc. Not tomorrow, but a few decades for now.</blockquote><b>I 100% AGREE!</b> See <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/10/my-interview-with-mrs-green/#comment-662505" rel="nofollow">above</a>, and many of my comments in previous threads.
But, arguing by analogy (and yes, I know the caveats), you can stifle a fire by throwing too much sawdust on it, or even gasoline under <strike>right </strike>wrong circumstances. Use moderation, and the fire will just burn much brighter. We don't need pointless interference in free enterprise for the sake of a few ppb of CO2 50 years from now. What we need is much more <b>enthusiasm</b> for better technology.
The answers are out there, we just need to find them, to provide the right incentives for people with the right qualifications to find them. What we <b>don't</b> need is to stifle the Industrial Revolution by coming on too hard too fast with limitations where <i>"global warming"</i> is just an excuse.
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by John S.
A Lacis:
In the real world, we have variable wind speeds and the idealized Clausius-Clapeyron relation scarcely constitutes the final word on the dependence of water vapor upon temperature. Because water vapor condenses into clouds, which always reduce the insolation available for thermalizing the surface, its temperature need NOT necessarily rise in re-establishing steady climatic states after some perturbation in backradiation. The problem in situ is nowehere near as simple in vitro conceptualizations make it out to be. And observations pertaining to potential homeostatic regulatioin should not be dismissed as “craclp[ot” ideas.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by AK
Please fix your link.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by mosomoso
Look, I’ll be fair. Mrs Green is running some vaguely cultish commercial operation which is going to be low-cost PR and sociable fun for its customers who don’t take it too seriously. Her soft centre, Repub-friendly, soft line, win/win approach is pitched just right for the people likely to have the money, while her business head is anything but soft.
“Did you speak with a Mrs. Green’s World Champion prior to becoming a member? If so, enter the Champion Number here.” You can be a student sustainer for just 20 dollars annually or join her leadership circle for a mere thousand (annually). Businesses with 100+ employees can be in the green for a mere ten dollars a head (annually). She makes it very easy to pay online!
Look, it’s like gambling in Vegas or buying rugs on your trip to Turkey. If you keep your head you’ll be shown some fun and just get mildly ripped off. All being well, in the case of the rugs, you’ll have floor coverings, friends and memories. In the case of Mrs Green or Vegas, you’ll have just friends and memories.
I’m not knocking Mrs Green, the biz. It’s not as fanatically cultish as Amway or Apple, though, unlike those companies, it’s selling next to nothing (like bottled tap water with sky blue labels). But at least it’s making some money go round and people are entertained.
On a more serious note, we need to be careful that moderates and lukewarmers aren’t keeping a very expensive, solution-rich climate show on the road, when thrift, conservation, modernisation and engineering are civilisation’s real needs. Yes, the climatariat makes noises in favour of those things…but maybe it’s time to skip the climatariat and just do those things. There’ll still be jobs for people who can tell us a bit about weather and get it right more often than wrong. Like Mrs Green, I’m seeing a win/win here.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by eadler2
Gymnosperm
“Additional CO2 will not cause additional ocean warming without first causing additional atmospheric warming. We have seen lots of additional CO2 lately with little or no atmospheric warming. Some would say the radiative energy is warming the ocean instead. Sorry, impossible.”
More fallacies in thinking. There are other influences on surface temperatures besides CO2. Ocean surface temperatures depend on ocean circulation currents like which vary like ENSO, that have intrinsic variations not directly affected by CO2, as well as Volcanoes and aerosals. Because of this it is a logical fallacy to claim that because we have seen increase in CO2 without warming so CO2 can’t be warming the ocean.
When ocean surface temperatures cool, due to a La Nina, the warmer surface water is mixed deeper into the ocean and cooler ocean water flows along the surface of the Pacific. It radiates less heat upward so the ocean has a tendency to gain more heat. You can look at the measurements of ocean heat to see that the oceans have been gaining heat lately.
↧
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Jim D
AK, you keep talking about stifling the Industrial Revolution. That phrase has no meaning, and looks like raw rhetoric. The world’s economy has been evolving since the 19th century, and the Industrial Revolution is not a good name for the more advanced and diverse economy we are in now. Energy sources have also been evolving, as have regulations that rein in their effects on the environment. I expect this controlled evolution to continue.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Robert Austin
Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by pokerguy
I cringe when I think about criticizing Judith for not being “aggressive” enough back in the early days of climate etc. There is simply no more powerful skeptic voice out there than the always courteous, respectful, and measured Dr. Curry.We skeptics owe her a lot.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by AK
@Jim D…
Well, there’s no reason to stop the building of a pipeline just because of vague fears about a few parts per billion difference in atmospheric CO2 content 50 years from now. OTOH, regulation is generally a bad idea, so without good justification it shouldn’t happen.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by David in TX
I think France should let the UN handle their problem. Inspections and so forth. After all, that was what France suggested the United States do in response to 9/11 when 3000 Americans were murdered by radical Islamists.
Frogs should practice what they preach.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
eadler2, “Given the controversy over this question, it seems the Miskolczi is making an unwarranted assumption.”
What has the “controversy” to do with anything? Most scientific controversies are little more than handbag fights. If the models were performing reasonably, meaning they had some inkling of cloud dynamics and were able to get absolute temperatures close, there would be no “controversy”. As it is, the model parameterization of clouds just plain sucks. That would be an engineering term.
Now this would be a controversy.
Using a questionable reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere based on tree rings to represent “global” temperature when the tropics with the majority of the energy would be the go to place for a “global” teleconnection with temperature. Clouds would be a positive feedback there, but not for the majority of the real heat engine.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by ordvic
It’s in moderation, the end should read: in-the-wsj/
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Jim D
AK, dirty and CO2-laden energy is a step backwards that should not be encouraged. There are better ways.
↧
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
Presume you’re aware that much of the Keystone Pipeline is already in place: http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/keystone-xl-pipeline/
At the right price, the product will be processed with or without the lacking portion of the Keystone. At the wrong price, it’s less likely. Keystone won’t create the jobs (volume) that some espouse, but not having it will not likely stop the product being processed depending on market conditions.
It’s mostly a political football. http://theneweditor.com/uploads/MapofUSpipelines.jpg
Added benefit is maybe the southern leg runs near enough to pick up Max’s contribution.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Dick Hertz
Humans have always searched for ways to make sure yesterday’s bad weather won’t happen again. So far none ever worked. Dancing, praying, chanting, burnt offerings, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, economic sacrifice…None of these beats good strong walls and roofs.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by AK
<blockquote>AK, dirty and CO2-laden energy is a step backwards that should not be encouraged. There are better ways.</blockquote>That's your opinion. The investors in the project feel otherwise. Why should you be allowed to impose your opinion when you haven't proven any real damage? Can you provide a link to anything even <b>claiming</b> that stopping that pipeline will have any effect on emissions? Much less enough of an effect to counteract the negative effect of government stopping people from doing what they're prepared to pay to do?
And what about the effect on actual CO2 content 50 years from now? Have you provided any sort of <b>proof</b> that stopping people from investing their money in projects with otherwise significant net benefits to society will <b>even make a difference to CO2 levels?</b> Has anybody?
↧
Comment on Week in review by David in TX
Article: What to make of Judith Curry
by Hal Morris at TheRealTruthProject.blogspot.com
Here’s some truth for y’all.
An English teacher somewhere badly failed Hal Morris. Hackneyed and poorly informed.
FAIL
↧
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by AK
None of these beats good strong walls and roofs.
That’s what he’s advocating. And, AFAIK, other things such as levies, stormwalls, and not providing government subsidized insurance to people who build in threatened areas.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by aaron
Here ya go, Jim! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Pretty_Princess
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by John Smith (it's my real name)
“sustainability” is 50 cent word and vacuous concept
stasis is impossible
Mann and the Greens keep trying to “delay” growth
it won’t work
the attempts grow ever more painful to watch
↧
