Szilard,
Very cogent. As an owner of a nice chunk of P.G. & E stock and having wondered about the strange sight of the mysterious giant blowtorch of the broken pipeline as I was driving out of the Santa Cruz mountains one night I’ve been horrified as this story has unfolded the last few years. As the subject of numerous talk shows I’ve listened to in the ensuing years I second your summation of the situation as a “snake pit.” I too worry about how common the malfeasance and cozy, revolving-door relationships we’ve discovered are throughout the industry. Personally, I wouldn’t buy a home anywhere near a major feed line. And sleep sounder knowing mine isn’t.
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by johnvonderlin
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Davies
Trying another link:
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by PeteBonk
“Warm blob in ocean linked to weird weather across US [link]” Interesting that the story (and presumably the authors of the papers cited in the “Science Daily linked report) states that the blob is NOT due to “climate change”, but the authors had to say (in so many words) “this is what is coming with climate change”. Never let a good crisis (or a warm blob) go to waste…..
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #176 | Watts Up With That?
[…] See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/23/climate-sensitivity-lopping-off-the-fat-tail/ […]
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #176 | Watts Up With That?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change availability cascade by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #176 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #176 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #176 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by brandon c
Jim d
I use the base 3.7 watts per doubling, and we are around 40% of that. Simple, but enough to make the point. But it is irrelevant since almost no forcing existed from co2 during a temp increase of .45 in 30-40 years. No dancing around that makes it go away. I can show, using alarmist data, that natural variation can cause large temp changes over short periods independent of co2. As a starting point you have to show that the more recent warming was not caused by what caused earlier warming. Going back further just adds another warming event with no co2 forcing as well.
Saying that co2 can account for almost all of the warming, does not follow logically since it did not cause .45 degrees warming from an increase of about 15 ppm. And you have nothing to back up the assumption that early 20th century warming forcings did not repeat in later warming. there are plenty of spots to logic check your narrative. Any theory creates a series of logic chain events that must be there. If they are not, your theory is wrong. Find what is missing or wrong and correct it. There are too many assumptions being given a free pass simply to support a theory.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK
<blockquote>you made a whole pile of nonsensical assumptions and interpretations from the Tantangara-Blowering pumped hydro scheme.</blockquote>So you say. But you've consistently failed to actually state <b>even one of your claimed “<i>pile of nonsensical assumptions and interpretations</i>”.</b> I've repeatedly asked you to do so. I don't claim to understand your mind (if any) or its products well enough to be sure I'm using said products right. In fact, when I first posted my <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/04/week-in-review-policy-and-politics-edition/#comment-692661" rel="nofollow">comment</a> I said<blockquote>Is this what you’re talking about, or have I done something wrong?</blockquote>Your <a href="" rel="nofollow">response?</a><blockquote>It’s hopeless. You don’t have sufficnet understanding of the subject, you don’t know how to do the most basic of reality checks, you avoid what’s relevant and argue about trivial details. </blockquote>Perhaps. Or perhaps you found the results “<i>inconvenient</i>”, and denigrated my estimate, which was based on yours, before you actually looked at it. Or perhaps you don't care about anything but whether the results support your hobby-horse.
If there really is anything to your denigration beyond my estimate's “<i>inconvenient</i>” nature, now's your chance to put up or shut up:
I'm from Missouri. Show me!
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Don Monfort
The debate is over, joe. The alarmists gave up debating after this:
http://www.npr.org/2007/03/22/9082151/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis
“In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.”
The green team led by Gavin Schmidt got creamed in front of a sympathetic audience. And this was before Climategate, when climate science still had a facade of credibility. They have audio at the link and I believe you can still find video of the green team getting their clock cleaned on youtube, unless the Google truth police have removed it.
And Jim D is highly correct and polite. The models do OK, if you don’t expect them to have any useful predictive value.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D
Brandon C, you have chosen 1910-1940 which is a period from a solar lull like today’s (1910 was a local temperature minimum) to a mid-century solar max, and it is not a good period to attribute to CO2 alone because we know the sun was doing something fairly significant in it. Conversely since 1950, if the sun has done anything, it has reduced, so this is a better period to check for CO2 effects, and also the CO2 signal should be stronger because 75% of emissions occurred since 1950. The warming since 1950 has also been 3 times more than in 1910-1940.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by PeteBonk
Water used for agriculture in the Midwest and elsewhere, pulled from aquifers filled ages ago, should be re-injected into said aquifers. This is especially true of municipal water water leaving treatment plants. Aquifer water should no longer be considered disposable; it’s going to be needed again, sooner than we think.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by brandon c
The warming since 1950 has not been “3 times the 1910-1940″ that contradicts the GISS graph, so please back that one up.
My math says .6 is not 3 times .45. That is a ridiculous statement that isn’t supported by the data. Not even close. Not even remotely close. Even the slope of the warming events is almost identical.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Barnes
To get a sense of where this country is headed, brake the next flight to Detroit – the poster city for democracy policies and union corruption.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kim
Thanks, Peter, but your link also disappears.
==============
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by brandon c
Also tsi kept rising until the 60’s, but temps stopped rising 20 years before. Tsi does not correlate well with temps during most of time. And the aerosol excuse has lost alot of credibility in light of papers that actually check it. So there is additional forcing from co2 for 30 years that does not show up.
It is all asking peopleto put too much faith in assumptions and models.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Barnes
And don’t dump several hundred million gallons if water into the San Fran bay to save a non native fish.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang
No, AK, its for you to put up or shut up.
I’ve provided many examples from authoritative sources of costs of solar versus nuclear and all show that solar is around 2 to 5 times more expensive by 2030 and 2050 (and thise are using optimistic learnignrate assumptions for renewables and none for nuclear). I’ve provided references for everything I’ve stated.
The Tantangara-Blowering pumped hydro scheme is well explained – as demonstrated by the discussion on the thread amnd the fact that thread has remained amongst the top 10 hits on BNC over the past 5 years.. The issue is that you don’t read the links provided so you don’t understand. However given that you have no background in the subject (energy), I am persuaded you wouldn’t understand any way.
You also repeatedly demonstrate you are not debating in good faith. You demonstrate you have no intention of trying to understand. When the evidence is blatantly obvious you cal it a strawman; meanwhile using strawman techniques yourself continually.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Davies
Stick around Kim. The second one works, after a while! :) Cool links hey? Something to do with an inbuilt self destruct mechanism I believe.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
