Wagathon,
So it was just a shot at the temp series as opposed to stating warming isn’t occurring. Sorry, but I missed the sarc.
W/R/T teapot worry? When science removes the word unsettled before the word tempest. And I don’t see it yet.
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Danny Thomas
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell (@davidappell)
Electromagnetic radiation moves handily through a vacuum. Obviously.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Rhyzotika
Thx for the comments.
It just puzzles me that you see both trends mentioned all the time, but they are rarely put side-by-side. Or if they are put side-by-side, by a warmist, the Plateau is then dismissed on some basis or other. The heat is coming back out soon, etc.
No one seems to go around touting record cold temperatures for some reason. Well, other than the last two years polar vortex.
There must be a lot of below freezing records being set all over the place.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Rhyzotika
By the way, this new eco documentary has some pretty scandalous critiques of big NGOs – makes it look like they are diverting attention from big ag/ranching to the CO2-energy-warming nexus for less than honorable reasons…
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Rhyzotika
What’s interesting to me is that big ag/ranching has massive non-GHG but potentially climate-altering impacts, at least on a regional basis – in the Amazon, 91% of deforestation is to grow soy for cattle (at least according to “Cowspiracy” ;-). And how many regional effects does it take to add up to global effects?
I know Pielke Sr has done a bunch of stuff on this.
Also, while on this topic, the evaporation from the Oglalla aquifer transferred to the surface in irrigation — it can’t be minor. Think about the additional surface area from spraying as opposed to just irrigation canals. Tho I met a meteorologist recently and he maintained it is too small to affect local weather.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by JCH
<a href="https://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/temps.jpg" rel="nofollow">RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES FAR OUTPACE RECORD LOWS ACROSS U.S</a>
I've read that 2014 saw more record lows in the US than record highs.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Danny Thomas
JCH,
Interesting that most of the indicators for percentage of record highs in the U.S. being above average happened during the pause (that isn’t/wasn’t but is). Makes me wonder where the offsetting record lows are. Gotta be somewhere, huh?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by micro6500
You can see the beginning of the transition in the rate temp change over the warming and cooling potion of the year from the 70’s to the late 90’s and it’s going back to where it was.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by stefanthedenier
@David Appell (@davidappell
David sweetheart, don’t try to muddy the water with electromagnetism, please. In THE orbit the earth travels around the sun, the temp is -93C – that ”cold vacuum” penetrates trough the upper troposphere and is canceling any heat – IF there is heat to neutralize – if not, just zooms trough underutilized, and ”new cold vacuum” moves trough every 10 minutes – because the planet travels at 108000kmh trough new ”cold vacuum” all the time = the planet cannot get warmer than normal. ”Global” warming is the Grandmother of all lies! please read the second post, on my homepage; don’t be the last to learn the real proofs
(the links you are regularly giving, are the laundromat for brainwashing – get out of your septic tank and smell the roses – the truth is refreshing, try it)
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Turbulent Eddie
Right. It’s a measurement uncontaminated by surface effects and where greater warming is supposed to be occurring. I can see why you wouldn’t be interested.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by GaryM
Well, given that the consensus now preaches that surface temps are a poor proxy for globalclimatewarmingchange, who cares?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by jim2
Unfortunately for him, Steven’s fiat won’t change the science. But I guess it does serve to cover his A$$.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Mark Silbert
When I click on the Floor link all I see are a bunch of comments from others. What am I missing?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Mark Silbert
That was supposed to b Kloor!
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by sarastro92
A recent NY Times poll confirmed interest in electoral candidates who want to mitigate the impacts of “climate change” … until specific remedies such as energy taxes, subsidies and higher electric power rates are suggested.
Then support for such candidates collapses.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Mark Silbert
By the way, the Franzen piece is fascinating.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by sarastro92
The “backup” power generation you refer is largely a coal-based, fossil fuel system that provides base load capacity 24/7/ 365. Germany is carrying, effectively, two generating systems… one real (fossil fuels)… the other a shiny, green ornament … which accounts for the fact that German residential electric power rates are 300% higher than US rates. Yeah, it’s true, Germany has a generating capacity more or less twice as great as demand. During the day both are running simultaneously, with half the capacity dissipated as waste heat.
This is the insanity the US Greens insist we must embrace. Side note: since there is so much overcapacity during the day time there is now talk of German utilities charging negative rates for the excess… ie, charging green power sources a fee for accepting their electricity. Precious.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by mosomoso
That trick where you use the shared categorisation with hydro as “renewable” to pump the tyres of wind and solar? An oldie, but a goodie.
Why not have a categorisation of “self-stored” energy? It sounds nifty, sort of means something, and we could then lump coal, oil, gas, nukes and hydro together. (Geothermal would take a free ride in our category, but one can afford to be generous with a good power supply.)
We could call wind and solar “dependent/ intermittent” and make them come across as itinerant hobos.
Of course, once could simply look at real need and efficiency, but word games are more fun.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by mwgrant
Dr. Curry
For me the last couple of days have been too much. Obviously your level of tolerance is higher than mine.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by AK
Think “exponential growth”. It’s actually hydro that’s dragging down wind and solar.
What matters is growth rate, not current volume.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
