In the third world, a gallon of gas is a day’s wages (not exactly but you get the picture). They can’t afford it. Solar would be a better direction.
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by stevenreincarnated
That may have actually been a 15% increase. I’ll have to look later if you are interested.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Exactly, and that would be a rate of $20 per tonne, which has a reasonable revenue generation rate too.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Heh, the slings and arrows of outrageous energy. Why can’t it be still?
==========
↧
Comment on Week in review by Berényi Péter
The patent system <a href="https://www.ffii.org/" rel="nofollow">stinks</a>.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by blueice2hotsea
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1878.25/to:1910.25/offset:0.24014/detrend:-0.29522/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910.25/to:1942/offset:0.53455/detrend:0.29665/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1942/to:1975.75/offset:0.2367/detrend:-0.30981/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.75/to:2006.25/offset:0.54749/detrend:0.33063/trend" rel="nofollow">Secular - 100% Co2</a>
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1878.25/to:1910.25/detrend:0.08152/offset:-0.00005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910.25/to:1942/detrend:0.14603/offset:-0.08157/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1942/to:1975.75/detrend:0.22638/offset:-0.2276/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.75/to:2006.25/detrend:0.26764/offset:-0.45398/trend" rel="nofollow">Zero Trend Natural</a>
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1878.25/to:1910.25/detrend:-0.21289/offset:0.24019/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910.25/to:1942/detrend:0.44388/offset:0.45308/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1942/to:1975.75/detrend:-0.08441/offset:0.0092/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.75/to:2006.25/detrend:0.59827/offset:0.09361" rel="nofollow">Zero trend Residual</a>
I get 0.78, 0.67, 0.58 and 0.55 as the natural fractional absolute temperature change for the four 1/2 'cycles'. Natural dominates. woo. woo.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Jim D
So you are going to disagree with the APS, AGU and independent scientific and national societies and industries on their evaluation of the science. Perhaps they are all socialists?
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
They can’t afford it. Solar would be a better direction.
Probably. What about storage, though? Maybe H2, but I’m skeptical small-scale stuff could be made cost-effective. Not to mention fuel cells to get the energy back out. That’s why I favor H2+CO2→CH4+H2O (technically 4H2+CO2→CH4+2H2O).
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Jim D
They included all the forcing changes they could think of, and it is enough to account for the warming seen over the last century.
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by William McClenney
Ah yes, Berger and Loutre…….. A medium resolution 2D model run by CLIMBER2, the model run actually done in the late 90’s. Got it.
This was effectively squelched by observational data 3 years later in Lisiecki and Raymo’s landmark 2005 paper entitled: “A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records”,
“Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6 o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398-418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6 o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.”
Paywalled here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004PA001071/full
Which more or less puts Berger and Loutre in the “Oops” category.
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “The air and water happen to be warmer because of global warming. ”
You sure it isn’t climate change? According to some papers there has been an increase in organized deep convection in the tropics and an increase in latent heat flux in the Northern Hemisphere. The trend is lower than normal ENSO, that pause thingy, appears to be caused by increased surface winds related to higher North Atlantic water temperature which have shifted tropical storm patterns eastward which would be one feature of increase northern advection. That sounds almost like an AMO kind of deal. Oh wait! Where was my head? It cannot be AMO related because Mann says so. I guess that shoots down the whole variation in heat transport deal.
I guess it has to the the Global Warming or unicorns.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
There is a difference. AGU, APS are member based science organizations. IPCC is a psuedo governmental agency. IPCC has a “Summary for Policymakers”, APS still has a few questions: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
Appealing to the authority of IPCC is like appealing to Democrats vs. Republicans.
There is a difference.
↧
Comment on Whats up with the Atlantic? by harrytwinotter
I am happy for you to do your own homework. It still does not explain the “poisoning the well” rhetoric.
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by AK
Of course I disagree. IMO they’ve been infiltrated by people using political means to subvert the scientific process. Many of the infiltrators probably are socialists or fellow travelers.
↧
Comment on Week in review by phatboy
Fuel tax here simply goes into the general taxation pot, and does not contribute towards renewable subsidies.
And it’s ineffective at reducing fuel use as well.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
blueice, I can do that too. Could these trends possibly be related?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.3/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1950
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by William McClenney
Lucifer,
You might want to check out Sirocko et al, 2005:
“The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades (see the core photograph in Fig. 4), demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416Wm22, which is the 658N July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428Wm22. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
http://seelos-translate.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by sarastro92
Jim D:
Here are Salby’s four points. They seem pretty viable. The residence time discussion is a complicated one and hardly seems open and shut as you suggest
1- The man-made share of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a maximum of 30% (0-30%). The remainder is related to temperature changes, natural outgassing from the oceans, and to humidity.
2- The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-7 years, not hundreds of years as falsely claimed by the IPCC Bern model.
3- Man-made CO2 emissions increased a whopping 350% faster since 2002, yet the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere remained steady at ~2.1 ppm/yr, a “strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share.”
4- “Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all. However, the known fossil reserves would be exhausted by then.”
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
There is that centennial cooling trend in the North Atlantic (Rahmstorf and also see for yourself on GISTEMP), which became more obvious in the 70’s, so I think the Arctic warming has to be more local based on that. The North Atlantic is cooler now than it was a century ago, making it hard to blame the melt on that, and perhaps it results from the Greenland melt.
↧
Comment on Week in review by HaroldW
With respect to Earth Hour, it's hard to improve on <a href="http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/earthhour.pdf" rel="nofollow">Ross Mcitrick's essay</a>: "I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. [...] The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity. Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness."
↧
