Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by GaryM

0
0

Rob Starkey,

No, I expect the loans will be just as secure as those that gave us the magnificent housing boom up to 2007.

And of course, once you have a secured loan, there is no risk of loss. Just ask the formerly secured creditors of GM.


Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by GaryM

0
0

Mark Silbert,

Hence the term “crony capitalist'”

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by Curious George

0
0

Bob – CO2 is rising, but not monotonically. And temperature is rising .. err .. climate is changing.

Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by barn E. Rubble

0
0

RE: Steven Mosher | February 24, 2015 at 5:59 pm
“. . . nobody IS TRYING TO ESTIMATE the true daily average.
we are constructing a consistent record of what was recorded.”

I’ve obviously missed something. I, like many others here, thought that the issue was, or at least we were given the impression; that you were adjusting ‘a consistent record of what was recorded’. I’m not sure if I understand the dfference between constructing and adjusting, as used here . . .

Mouse nuts indeed.

Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Steven Mosher

0
0

Johnny.

It’s easy.
Go get 5 minute crn data.
Calculate the average per day
Calculate tave
Now see how well tave estimates the average.

Then take the slope of tave
Predict the slope of the averages

It’s only been done hundreds of times by guys who like you don’t get it.

Finally the historic metric is tave. You can work with that or pound sand

There are papers on this. You fail Google too

Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Mi Cro

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by ROM

0
0

For 25 years or more we have tried to reduce that nefarious, ignorantly misnamed “carbon”, the very basis of life as we know it .

We have erected vast arrays of wind turbines.
We have installed tens of millions of solar panels.
We have spent billions on unsuccessfully sequestering “carbon”
We have planted tens of millions of trees
We have doubled the price of energy to reduce energy consumption.
We have spent hundreds of millions on media propaganda campaigns telling the populace that they are in mortal danger from climate change.
We have spent hundreds of millions on media propaganda telling the populace that they “will be” responsible for the extermination / extinction of most wild life unless the nefarious carbon is eliminated.

And the result;
Wind turbines ;
A 3000 year old technology that the first British industrialists of the nascent Industrial Revolution of 300 years ago got the hell out of as fast as they could shovel coal into the first of those highly dangerous, grossly inefficient steam engines.
A technology that works when the wind blows as in sometimes.
A technology that has an overall maximum generating efficiency of production equating to around 18% to 25% of their plated capacity and going down as the turbine numbers increase.
A technology that entirely on it’s own is utterly incapable of powering ANY modern computer controlled industrial process at any level.
A technology that is UTTERLY INCAPABLE of powering a modern developed technological society at any level.
A technology that destroys bats and birds in their thousands.
A technology that is NEVER installed in cities close to where most power is required and used but is installed hundreds of kilometres distance amongst rural residents whose only reward is to suffer increasingly severe health problems from the pulsating pressures of the turbine blade sweeps to the point of health forced abandonment of their homes for some.

Solar panels;
Power for 10 hours a day maximum and at peak summer periods only.
Another technology that is utterly as in totally incapable of powering a modern 24 hours a day industrial process in any shape or form.
A power generation technology beloved of the western warmist who is prepared to turn a blind eye to the massive chemical pollution created in solar panel production providing the pollution is in some far off country and they are never forced to read about it let alone see it and experience it.
A technology that barely pays back the energy used to mine the ores, process them and produce the solar panels, transport them to their site of use and install them and build the grid connecting infrastructure.

Sequestering Carbon;
Hundreds of millions spent with the outcomes of far more energy required meaning more carbon to be sequestered in rock formations for periods of unknown length and without knowing what has happened deep underground or if that nefarious “carbon” will remain there or just leak right back out in a few years or a few decades or centuries thus proving the whole thing to be a typical government type scheme where somebody digs a hole and then somebody else comes along and fills it in.
Thus is government success in increasing employment.

Tree planting;
It seems that trees are proving to be quite capable of looking after their own numbers as they obviously appreciate all that extra CO2 as the greening of the planet as seen by satellites is telling us.
Besides from Homo sapiens view point, it ain’t the trees that are important., Its the grasses.
For on the grasses, the food crops of mankind and the food sources for his animals, mankind’s main sources of protein, depends our survival.
Trees provide us with many things.
But with trees only a few dozen at best and only a dozen or so in reality of our species can live and survive in each square kilometre of a trees only forest.
Grasses, as in the wheats and other food crops, corn, sugar, rice and etc provide mankind and his animals with the very basic staff of life.
Grasses or their domesticate grass derivatives can support hundreds per square kilometre
If grasses went extinct over seven billions of our numbers would perish.

Doubling energy costs;
Nothing changed. CO2, that nefarious carbon just kept right on increasing at the same speed.
The only change being the numbers of humans and their families who could no longer afford to warm themselves in the increasingly deadly winters.
The increases in food prices as food producers and food retailers and processors costs rose.
Unemployment rose as factories and production moved to cheaper energy providers and the poor suffered still more as the wealthy prospered.

As has been said many times;
Renewable energy is the fastest way known of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.

We have immense propaganda campaigns telling us we are destroying the world.
Unfortunately nobody seems to be able to come up with any firm provable and undoubted evidence that this is actually occurring
.Even the professed believers are just continuing right on with their extravagant life styles of the past eras without a care that they might show their concerns by adopting a life style commiserate with their climate catastrophe ideology.
So propaganda is all it is and propaganda is all it will remain.

After 25 years, a trillion plus worth of wealth gone for ever, a vast corruption of a branch of science, a dividing of society for no verifiable reason, 25 years and no evidence of any effects from that increase in that nefarious “carbon” and they want ever more of the same tired old increasingly discredited methods to supposedly reinforce that same very tired old meme of a global climate catastrophe still to be seen, felt, experienced and still apparently in the making sometime, maybe, perhaps in the far unforseeable and unpredictable future, perhaps!
Providing of course that nothing at all changes before that far unseeable future finally , like tomorrow which never comes, finally gets here.

25 years or more of Global warming Stupidity;

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by mosomoso

0
0

I live around swarms of native Australian birds. If I clean my windows there are accidents and deaths almost immediately.

Truth is, I’m no great shakes on cleaning and domestic chores (serf stuff, if you ask me) but I really would clean my windows but for the birds. I’ve even had a kookaburra knock himself right out. Let me tell you, a kookie gives a thud when he hits safety glass at speed. The famous laugh stops then.

If wily, intelligent Australians like kookies and bower birds aren’t able to avoid flying into glass, what hope for most around solar towers?

But I’m sure some ingenious person with a degree in something ending in the word “studies” will be able to prove that coal is far more dangerous to bird life than solar towers. That’s why they sent him to university!


Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by thomaswfuller2

0
0

BP and others look at supply constraints. They are only now beginning to look at demand. Economists are happy to make detailed projections of growth in GDP and per capita income in the emerging countries. But those projections (which are historically more accurate than predictions of energy usage) would leave the Chinese population as rich as Americans very soon, but for some reason consuming energy at the same rate as those in Turkey.

The DOE projects energy consumption of 819 quads in 2040. That’s a huge number, each quad being effectively symbolized by a train loaded with coal stretching 3,879 miles. But they are expecting energy consumption from China and India to slow their rate of growth over the next 25 years. I respect the people at the DOE but that’s not realistic.

Expecting energy consumption to track economic expansion in the same way it did in the now-developed world leads to a total of 965 quads by 2040.

Currently the DOE expects coal to provide 219.5 of those quads by 2040, a large increase from the 160 quads we got from coal in 2014. We are not decarbonizing. However, if energy consumption grows along the trajectory I describe and energy consumption grows to 965 quads, coal consumption will almost certainly make up the difference. That’s because politicians and planners are working from estimates drawn up by organizations like the DOE, IEA and even BP. So when the additional demand surfaces the only quickly available and economically usable source of energy will be coal.

We are sleepwalking into a future where we will use 6 times as much energy in 2075 as we did in 2010 and ever more of that energy will be provided by coal.

The top 5 energy consuming countries (China, the US, Russia, India and Japan) have published their plans for buildout of non-emissive energy sources for the medium term. And don’t get me wrong, those are ambitious plans. But if every nuclear reactor, every dam, every CSP facility that is planned actually gets built, those five countries will raise the percentage of energy received from green sources from 17% to… 20%.

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by jim2

0
0

I think this is related enough to post here instead of an open thread.

From the article:

The first end-to-end scaled production run, which took place in October following two years of pilot testing, produced significant and record-levels of ethanol. This pivotal event shows that conversion of CO2 directly to carbon-neutral fuels is possible in the near future, which would significantly impact humanity’s ability to combat climate change on a global scale

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150223005934/en/Joule-Poised-Significant-Progress-2015#.VO0fEB-c1B1

From the article:

Joule closed out 2014 with major developments across the entire company, leading to the decision to undertake a staged industrialisation process, to culminate in a 1,000-acre production plant starting construction in 2017. This decision comes at a critical moment in global climate change marked by 2014 being the warmest year on the planet, further underscoring the need for large scale industrial companies to engage in rapidly enabling scalable CO2 mitigating solutions.

http://www.gasworld.com/joule-poised-for-significant-progress/2005496.article

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by RR

0
0

John,
By chance, I overheard a group of botany grads discussing how the best way to get their research funded was by linking it to Global Warming. I’m sure they “adapted” to the switch to climate change.
But the need to perpetuate a line of research is a by suggested by the near unanimous use of the phrase “Further study is warranted”. I think it’s in the publication template.

Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by John S.

0
0

Mosher:

The scientifically naive invariably think it’s “easy.” The presumptuous invariably think everybody’s their inferior. I’ve learned over the decades not to waste time with the pretentious polemics of either–especially those who have no solid grasp of the issues being raised. Good luck preaching to the unwary amateurs.

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by jim2

0
0

Batteries and hydrogen aren’t “shovel ready.” Well, unless you ask the Communist-in-Chief.

Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Curious George

0
0

Steven, just tell me how you determine the magnitude of the bias. I got a strong impression that it is not experimentally. What remains is a calculation, estimate, or a guess – correct me by all means if it is something else. An informative answer might be e.g. “we calculate it using Karl’s methodology.”

Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by John S.

0
0

BTW, it’s primarily the English-speaking countries that use min-max temperature readings to estimate the “mean.”


Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by catweazle666

0
0

“The smart money says “We’re gonna leave most of Big Carbon’s faux-assets in the ground”

No, the smart</b. money says nothing of the sort.

The smart money says we’re going to drill and dig and frack and suck up the ocean bed methane for the foreseeable future.

The stupid, uninformed, in-your-dreams money, on the other hand…

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by John Vonderlin

0
0

Mosomoso,
Not sure if it will help, but we had the same problem when building our in-the-wilds house when we installed a wall of eight foot tall, mirror-like skyscraper windows we got a great deal on. Hummingbirds, dog-fighting over the feeder’s territory, were the most common victims. Our solution was to buy some commercially-available, stick-on, black-colored raptor silhouettes. That worked reasonably well.
I assume there is technology that will help with solar towers too, but it might not have been required to be installed yet because of the “When Do Gooders Do Bad,” syndrome.

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by catweazle666

0
0

“*EVERYONE* is starting to appreciate *THAT* scientific reality, eh Climate Etc readers?”

But FOMBS, *YOU* and your fellow Watermelons over at ATTP don’t by even the remotest stretch of imagination constitute *EVERYONE*, and *EVERYONE* except you is profoundly aware of that.

Now go and take your nice medication like a good boy, you’ll feel ever so much better.

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by Bob Ludwick

0
0

@ ROM

Everything you said was accurate, predictable, and predicted.

And is totally irrelevant to the drive by the progressives to use ‘controlling CO2′, by controlling every human activity with ‘carbon signature’, as an excuse to establish absolute, totalitarian control over everything and everyone.

So far it is working a treat.

Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Shub Niggurath

0
0

Yes, that’s right. There is no respect for data as observations from nature. Instead they are treated as mere numbers on a spreadsheet.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images