Lindzen not Linsten
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by scotts4sf
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Peter Lang
Bush and Cheney also gave the US cheap plentiful oil and gas. US Citizens should be for ever grateful. At the next US presidential election US citizens should remember that Republicans mostly facilitate real progress, while Democrats mostly thwart real progress.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang
75% for planning approvals in Ireland last year ended up in the Courts, essentially none for wind farms have been granted in 2015 to date. People are starting to exert their rights.
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by Mark Silbert
Bob Ludwick,
Once again you nail it. +100
Does anyone know of a Bob Ludwick of the CAGW persuasion who can compete?
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Don Monfort
I am sure you know that I didn’t say I read it, willy. I haven’t seen little joshie contradict Judith. He wouldn’t pass on that, if he had any justification real or contrived. Did you delete it to shield your little troll colleague? It’s really sad that a man of your former stature should stoop to these games, willy. Think about your legacy.
↧
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by JCH
The GISS land and ocean temperature anomaly for March 2015 is said to be .84C, which makes the 8-month anomaly ending on March 31, 2015 .75C.
As.84C indicates, the AMO is going negative. Tell congress all about the AMO and the stadium wave and .75C.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Danny Thomas
Ouch?
“Three are well-respected by most scientists.
The other three—”………………………
They put that in Scientific American? Certainly there’s some survey of some kind used to substantiate this kind of comment, huh? Wonder where the link was?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Danny Thomas
Yet APS calls all 6 “Experts”: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdf
Tacky, Scientific American. Just Tacky.
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by cerescokid
I hope one of the Committee members will ask about the recent NYT article discussing how the California drought is not unprecedented. I was pleasantly surprised they wrote what many have been saying all along. Leave it to this fine rag to eventually get it right.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2
While they are making hay while there’s still hay to be made, I’m doubting they are worrying about solar. They are probably worried about their enemy, Iran, pumping more oil courtesy of Obumbles, though.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by AK
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/03/05/us/ap-us-nuclear-future.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">Scientists Outline Research Wish List for Nuclear Energy</a><blockquote>ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Engineers and researchers from national laboratories and universities around the country said Thursday that the United States needs to develop a proving ground where the latest innovations in nuclear energy can be put to the test instead of losing designs to China and other countries.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>D.V. Rao, a staff member at Los Alamos National Laboratory, said scientists have no way to persuade investors to jump on board without a way to test new ideas on a small scale.</blockquote><blockquote>"There's frustration, and we need to break that paradigm," he said in an interview. "We need to go through these cycles of advancement, just like SpaceX has with their rockets. They don't keep sitting in the lab designing and designing. They take their rocket out and test it."</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>But given the intermittent nature of renewable energy and the lack of storage, nuclear power will have to be part of the equation as regulators look to curb pollution, said Kevan Weaver, director of technology integration at TerraPower.</blockquote><blockquote>"It's the only non-emitting source that we can build at the terawatt level," said Weaver, who participated in the workshop in Albuquerque.</blockquote><blockquote>TerraPower, a Washington-based company chaired by billionaire Bill Gates, hopes to build a next-generation, <b>prototype reactor by 2025</b> and have commercial plants ready <b>a decade later.</b></blockquote>IMO Bill Gates will discover another technology that "changes everything", but we'll just have to see.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Jim D
There are several candidates, possibly a sum of solar slump, PDO phase, Chinese aerosols, but it now looks like CO2 is starting to prevail again as it always wins on the longer term due to being relentlessly there in the background.
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by Jim D
Bill Maher, too. They have fun just quoting the right-wing people. It doesn’t need comment to get laughs.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by beththeserf
Sigh. Deja vu all ovah again. Election based on generic
appeal, ‘It’s time for a …’ has a poor record in the past.
Think not category but quality of past performance,
”What can he, she do for his, her country?
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by GaryM
BY ALL THAT’S HOLY, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Joshua
Really Judith?
You mention that I called myself a troll as if it were some kind of “gotcha,” and Don picks up on it and mentions it more than once, and you delete the comment where I make it obvious that I’ve done so many times sarcastically and mocking of the subjectivity and self-serving nature of how people thrown around the “troll” label?
Here, once again, a link to where I call myself a troll. What do you make out of that? Why don’t you link to my comment over at ATTP, where you’ve mentioned that I called myself a troll so I an explain.
In the meantime, here’s just one of the times I’ve done it here at Climate Etc.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/01/the-legacy-of-climategate-5-years-later/#comment-652402
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang
AK’s emissions of twaddle
AK, I’d urge you to read how to avoid “Emissions of Twaddle”. Read, carefully and with a willingness to learn, “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air”. The main point of the book is to teach people to do their own reality checks and back of an envelope calculations to compare options on a properly comparable basis. That is something your comments continually fail to do. They are all irrelevant nonsense because they don’t compare options to meet requirements on a properly comparable basis.
For example, you advocated for:
1. Ridiculous solar powered pumped hydro on Hoover Dam – I showed you it is not viable now and highly unlikely to ever be viable. That applies to probably all solar pumped hydro, at a scale that is large enough to make any significant contribution to global GHG emissions reductions.
2. You posted links to insignificantly small pumped hydro sites in France – 0.6% of France’s electricity
3. You posted photos of floating solar panels – generating 0% of Japan’s electricity
4. I replied by posting a photo of a 40 year old nuclear power station in the suburbs of Toronto, Canada’s largest city, and quoted that, “in the past hour, Nuclear reactors contributed 70.2% of Ontario’s electricity, 95.6% of Ontario-generated electricity was carbon free, and Nuclear reactors contributed 73.4% of Ontario’s carbon-free electricity.” Your response was to post cartoons which show you cannot admit when you have clearly lost an argument and showing signs of extremist REligious zealotry.
5. I gave you figures of nuclear generating 70% of Ontario’s electricity and 80% of France’s electricity while your solar panels were generating ~0% of the electricity in the countries you picked your examples from.
You provide no context for your options analysis and no authoritative sources for your figures
You invariably don’t state the basis for comparison and don’t compare all options on the same basis.
What date are the numbers compared for?
What currency and what base year are used for cost comparisons?
What learning rates are using for projections and what’s the basis for those projections?
You don’t include all relevant costs, such as system costs, in your comparisons – a major distortion.
You include many “Ifs’, which are nothing more than baseless and biased hopes and wishes
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang
This new post, posted on BNC yesterday is very relevant and applicable to your behaviour
Is Renewable Energy looking like a ‘new religion’? http://bravenewclimate.com/2015/04/14/is-renewable-energy-looking-like-a-new-religion/
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by cerescokid
Maher’s audience proves that economic illiterates never lose their sense of humor. The problem is that the joke is on them and they never catch on.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Danny Thomas
Attp,
Palmer is an interesting read. Reaffirms that oceans dominate (I coulda told ’em that), and that nature’s the boss. After all is said and done I get “we have no idea” other than it’s nature in charge.
“However, the spatial patterns and ultimately the processes
controlling this internal variability warrant further attention. In
particular, understanding of the spatial patterns and associated
mechanisms from model simulations would promote greater
insight into processes behind the recent pause in surface
warming.”
And if we could figure it out, modeling would improve:”. Consideration of these spatial patterns may also help to account for deficiencies in model simulations by the scaling up or down of model signals to match observed amplitudes. Ultimately, we would like to understand the mechanisms for
ocean heat rearrangement in the models (e.g. Meehl et al 2013) and relate this back to quantitative statements about the real world.”
For me, not a lot of meat on them bones.
So at this point I’m still suggesting not that: “The idea is that anthro overwhelmes natural variability on long timescales (many decades). On short timescales (1 – 2 decades or less) natural variability can be substantial.”
but instead “that on long time scales natural variability is substantial and lacking further evidence anthro affects pieces of the natural world on short time scales.” Nature has been (and still is) in control. Even 160 years seems a bit to short for me to yet accept that man is in charge to the extent that is being put forth. After all, AGW is still a theory. And there are at least 3 hiati? not covered in this paper (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metoffice.gov.uk%2Fnews%2Freleases%2Farchive%2F2012%2Fglobal-temperatures-2012&ei=xL4tVe3uK8iYNpKNgZgF&bvm=bv.90790515,d.eXY&psig=AFQjCNEskZ05cStAINbeTleEpZeyUo2vew&ust=1429147613545259)
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
