Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Danny Thomas

April 28, 2015, 8:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by genghiscunn

≪ Previous: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by sciguy54

$

0

0

JCH,
Sigh. Memory failed. It was one foot in 30-40 years……..etc. (but still a miss):
“According to recent calculations by the Environmental Protection Agency, the sea level around much of the United States will climb by one foot over the next 30 to 40 years and by three to five feet over the next century, according to James G. Titus, who directs the agency’s research on the problem. These estimates include the effects of the gradual subsidence of land, which is about eight inches per century along the eastern coast.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/02/18/science/signifigant-rise-in-sea-level-now-seems-certain.html

So ya got me on this one. I’ll await your rebuttal on the others (which I don’t expect to be forthcoming).

---

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by genghiscunn

April 28, 2015, 8:40 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by David Young

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Danny Thomas

$

0

0

And those elephants can play havoc with bamboo!

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by David Young

April 28, 2015, 8:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by David Young

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by genghiscunn

$

0

0

Steve, I ask the same question down thread. Cook is being countered in the literature by Duarte, Tol, and Jones. They are doing the hard and necessary work. You must admit though that Cook and Lew are propagandists and not scientists.

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by David Young

April 28, 2015, 8:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Barnes

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by David Young

$

0

0

You may be right Judith. Some one needs to point it out.

Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Barnes

April 28, 2015, 8:54 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by David Young

$

0

0

Peter – I applaud your efforts and hope you are succesful. At this point in time, our energy needs require continued use of fossil fuels until sufficient political will and understanding come to realize that nuclear is the only true solution to our long term energy needs, at least for electrical power generation. We can only hope that those in power will soon wake up to the folly of solar and wind as viable alternatives.

Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

April 28, 2015, 8:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by mosomoso

≪ Previous: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Barnes

$

0

0

Carrick,

… there is a role for government support of basic and applied research on alternative energy. I think the government funded research should focus on improving the economic viability of these alternative energy sources.
Note this means investing in improved methods for construction,

I agree there is a role to play in supporting RD&D, but I strongly disagree with interventions to distort the market to favour some technologies over others. On what basis to you decinde to favour renewables and disadvantage nu clear, for example. That’s what’s been happening in USA, Canada, UK, EU, Australia and other developed countries (led by NGO activism) for the past 50 years or so.

I strongly disagree that solar is a success – at 0% of global electricity supply after massive incentives for the past 30 years of more. And unlikely to ever be viable because it is not sustainable (for many reasons; here’s one important one: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ )

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by mosomoso

April 28, 2015, 9:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pondering Nepal’s hazards by David L. Hagen

≪ Previous: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

$

0

0

That reminds me, Great Cunn. I’m thinking of selling your new Labor government on my idea of a bamboo monorail: organically grown, 100% renewable, a traffic hazard, a business strangler, a total debt hole and certain to fail from day one.

I think I’ve covered all the bases for an acceptable urban green project, wouldn’t you say?

Comment on Pondering Nepal’s hazards by David L. Hagen

April 28, 2015, 9:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by mosomoso

$

0

0

<b>Indigenous rescue efforts also need help</b> Indigenous organizations are also doing all they can to help with the massive rescue task facing Nepal. Relatives in country recommend supporting a small <a href="http://rescuenetworknepal.org/" / rel="nofollow">Nepali Christian NGO RNN</a>; <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RNNgoodsamaritan?fref=ts" rel="nofollow">Rescue Network Nepal</a> <blockquote> This group has been giving First Aid and First Responder training to many communities around the country through local churches. They are an approved project to receive designated gifts through <a href="https://app.etapestry.com/hosted/WorldMissionPrayerLeague/OnlineDonation.html?" rel="nofollow">Nepal Field Fund of World Mission Prayer League</a>. . . .they are concentrating on South Lalitpur District to go give first aid to villagers and provide tents and ferry patients to the hospital. </blockquote> They have so many requests that they had run out of supplies Tuesday April 28th.

---

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by JCH

April 28, 2015, 9:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Barnes

≪ Previous: Comment on Pondering Nepal’s hazards by David L. Hagen

$

0

0

Titus projected a high range, a high midrange, a low midrange, and a low range. Somehow I do think 1′ in 30 to 40 years quite covers it.

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Barnes

April 28, 2015, 9:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by JCH

$

0

0

+1

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Jim D

April 28, 2015, 9:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Barnes

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Barnes

$

0

0

If the skeptics think that there is a conspiracy, or self-serving, or peer pressure among climate scientists, they need to go to neutral arbiters on the science, such as NAS, RS, or APS, etc., and see how they weigh the science on its own merit. These have nothing to gain and everything to lose in going against the scientific evidence, and they are immune to the “pressures” or “incentives” of the climate scientists. Which way do they lean and why? A true conspiracy theorist would have a preconceived notion that these must be “in on it” too in some way, and probably have an explanation of exactly why.

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Barnes

April 28, 2015, 9:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Danny Thomas

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Jim D

$

0

0

Check out co2science.com – read it completely and carefully, then get back to us. Lots of data for you to reference.

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Danny Thomas

April 28, 2015, 9:19 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Barnes

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Barnes

$

0

0

JCH,
Well, you’ve got about 5 years or so to go and are a bit short.

And once again……….the others? (crickets?)

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Barnes

April 28, 2015, 9:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Danny Thomas

$

0

0

It was Hansen who claimed the west side highway would be underwater by now in an interview with salon. Actually, not perfectly acurate, but then, he did make predictions which are far less acurate than this assertion . Based on his predictions, slr would be seriously flooding major parts of NYC by now.

Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

April 28, 2015, 9:25 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Barnes

$

0

0

Thank you fr your kind comments. I’ve done most of what you ask in posts elsewhere. Eleven of them are listed here (the last may be the most relevant, but note the comment in my submission about the curve): http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

This shows the cost of scenarios with 100% and near 100% renewables: http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

This shows the the above four scenarios and add a nuclear scenario to achieve the same emissions intensity of electricity – i.e. 90% reduction and same as France has been at for the past 30 years or more): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.7838&rep=rep1&type=pdf . See Figure 6 for a comparison of capital cost, cost of electricity and CO2 abatement cost for the scenarios.
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/lang2012_f6.png?w=300&h=193

---

Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

April 28, 2015, 9:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by JCH

April 28, 2015, 9:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Hansen’s was based on doubled CO2. It’s 400, or ~160 ppm short of doubled.

I find the list, and that sort of approach, uninteresting and pointless.

Right now, It’s warming very fast, and the list is not going to stop it. I ask what is. Crickets. I try to be helpful: the KimiKamiKaze Wind.

Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

April 28, 2015, 9:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Danny Thomas

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by JCH

$

0

0

The chart is for the four renewables scenarios. Open the pdf of the post that includes the nuclear scenario to see the chart (Figure 6 here):http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.7838&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Danny Thomas

April 28, 2015, 9:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Barnes

≪ Previous: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

$

0

0

JCH,
Just another prediction, JCH. Just another prediction. None of those I listed have been accurate, and yet we’re all supposed to reframe the world economy based on “just another prediction” because it’s all about “risk management” subject to revising the policy at some point in the future and “it’s warming very fast”. It’s gonna cool, I mean warm, I mean polar bears are disappearing, I mean SLR of 1 foot in NYC in 5 years, I mean………………
Yep……let’s get right on that.

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Barnes

April 28, 2015, 9:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Ron Graf

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Danny Thomas

$

0

0

Danny Thomas – exactly! There are risks with inaction but also risks with action. E.g., the cure is worse than the desease. Apparently, the true believers think that the climate would stop changing if we just stopped burning fossil fuels and we would all live nice comfortable lives is some kind of climate utopia free of any extreme weather events. Isn’t that what we are being promised?