This is so alarming.
Looking at a portfolio right now. P&As are big.
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Jim D
One question was “Suppose we cut all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Would this avert the supposed catastrophic impacts?” The correct answer would be: No, that is why there has to be an international agreement. If everyone cut emissions like the US proposal, CO2 levels by the end of the century would be stabilized at levels several hundred ppm below where they are headed without such agreements. These can make a difference of degrees and can also affect the sea-level rise rate by then.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by PA
Richard Arrett | May 5, 2015 at 12:05 pm |
PA | May 4, 2015 at 9:04 pm |
I believe I understand your analysis based on reserves.
My question is what about all the hydrocarbons not yet discovered and not yet in the reserves?
Well… the point (which surprises me) is that it really doesn’t matter. In 44 years absorption will equal emissions. Rate of atmospheric CO2 increase per year in PPM when absorption equals emission is zero (0).
Fossil fuels are going to get more expensive. The 2% annual increase in emissions that I’ve assumed isn’t reasonable. At 10-15 GT of emissions we can basically burn fossil fuel until the cows come home and not get over 500 PPM. The global warmers are going to interfere with fossil fuel consumption so that we don’t get over 15 GT. In about 31 years, because of increased absorption, the CO2 level stops rising. The level of CO2 will level off around at something under 460 instead of 473.
The ocean is virtually an infinite sink since it already has 38,000 GT of carbon, and converts much of the “excess” CO2 to wildlife. Guess what effect 2.7 GT (the annual amount absorbed by the ocean) has on a 38,000 GT reservoir?
Anyway I’ve gotten curious enough to actually plot the trends and rate of change trends out to 2100, it ought to be interesting. I noticed that warmers plot the exponential emissions rise but don’t plot the exponential absorption rise which is over twice as fast. The exponential emissions rise isn’t going to go on much longer, in fact 2013 and 2014 emissions are claimed to be the same.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Jim D
It can’t be statistically significant because if you take one or two years longer, the result changes significantly. This is not a sign of a robust choice. On the other hand 30-year trends ending any time during the “pause” are robustly near 0.17 C per decade, not being sensitive to start dates.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Jim D
Actually that trend was faster than the models predicted, mainly because of 1998.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by jim2
Analysts are still all over the map on the future for WTI. Here’s one:
…
U.S. oil prices are heading into a sweet spot that could spur the fracking industry to crank up some of the drilling it shut down when crude prices collapsed.
West Texas Intermediate oil futures for June rose above $60 per barrel Tuesday for the first time since December. That sparked expectations the price could go even higher, if U.S. oil inventory data Wednesday show an expected draw down in oil stored at the Nymex physical hub in Cushing, Oklahoma.
“If oil prices stabilize above $60, I believe we are going to resume production growth in the second half of the year. More companies will drill more wells,” said Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102649648
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by John Carpenter
“Anyone lost their job??”
If the folks who have confided in Judy ‘came out’ about their non consensus AGW views, it could be a possible outcome for them. It’s not a matter of integrity-challenged scientists, as aTTP says and you parrot. There could be a real fear of reprisal for these people. You and aTTP are very confident these folks don’t exist, based on no evidence to the contrary. Of course, you have to take Judy for her word, which… surprise… you don’t. Maybe think of it this way, would you say that gay folks who are afraid to come out have no integrity? They are not to be trusted because they live a lie about their sexuality to the outside world? Or try this example, how about people who use pysdonyms when expressing opinions on blogs or don’t use their whole name, Michael. Do those people lack integrity and are not to be trusted? After all, we don’t really know who they are or that they even exist at all. Maybe aTTP got it right, we can by default just ignore them.
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by John Carpenter
Oh wait, we should just them a swift kick in the nuts, yeah, that’s the ticket… When all else fails, resort to violence.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Willard
> Schneider & Held muses about attribution but doesn’t attempt it.
The best empirical evidence are in the detection studies. Schneider & Held shows how it’s possible to do that without relying on simulations.
OTOH, whoever attempts attribution needs to work with a statistical model, which usually implies simulations, considering the nature of the beast. To pretend, like Jaime just did, that “expected” is a caveat misrepresents the very idea of doing attribution studies in the first place.
Until we see a stadium wave of studies that work otherwise, Jaime’s desiderata remains a fool’s errand.
***
To return to the Chapter 10, which Denizens don’t seem to have read while still ranting against:
Detection and Attribution results can be used to constrain predictions
of future climate change (see Chapters 11 and 12) and key climate
system properties. These properties include: the Equilibrium Climate
Sensitivity (ECS), which determines the long-term equilibrium warming
response to stable atmospheric composition, but not accounting for
vegetation or ice sheet changes (Section 12.5.3; see Box 12.2); the
transient climate response (TCR), which is a measure of the magnitude
of transient warming while the climate system, particularly the
deep ocean, is not in equilibrium; and the transient climate response to
cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE), which is a measure of the transient
warming response to a given mass of CO2 injected into the atmosphere,
and combines information on both the carbon cycle and climate
response.
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
Skepticism regarding attribution studies, to be consistent, requires that we also ditch all discussions about sensitive matters. While I don’t care about sensitive matters, I fear Denizens might feel lukewarm about that splendid suggestion.
↧
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Mike Flynn
One minor problem with the GHE.
After trapping, storing, and accumulating heat from the Sun for about four billion years, with CO2 concentrations of up to 95%, the Earth seems to have actually cooled.
Therefore, TOA energy balance negative.
Average surface energy balance negative.
TCS negative to chaotically irrelevant.
Antarctica had abundant flora and fauna in the past. So did the Sahara region. How do we ensure that Man influences the climate in such a way as to simultaneously restore the Antarctic and the Sahara to their previous biodiversity?
Does anybody really believe that weather – and its average – climate – can be tailored by altering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
It seems to have had no discernible effect on the average cooling over the last four billion years. I am unaware of cosmic changes to the properties of matter over the last couple of hundred years.
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by angech2014
Judith, Steve is on record as being a lukewarmer, which means he accepts a lower Climate Sensitivity.
Furthermore he has said that if the pause continues Climate Sensitivity would have to be lowered as a result.
This was about 4 years ago so however low his CS was it must be lower now.
In response to Steven I would just point out that it is your response that was asked for and given.
He can give his response anytime he wishes but he will undoubtedly put up his usual very broad range without a central figure.
Easy for the pot to call the kettle black when he will not commit to an average figure, especially one lower than the average of his guessed range 4 years ago.
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Stephen Segrest
<b>Mark Silbert</b> -- In numerous venues over the years, I've understood Dr. Curry to say her "best guess" is that human influence is probably about 50%. This has helped me "frame" this issue, with Dr. Curry saying ~50% and Schmidt saying 100% (actually greater than 100%).
This is what raised my attention in Rep. Loudermilk's OP/ED comment of "<b>if any at all</b>".
Now Rep. Loudermilk is not a scientist. In his OP/ED, Dr. Curry is clearly the centerpiece of his arguments. He cites no other scientist.
Just for my own edification/education though -- Do you know of any mainstream scientist(s) who is/are making the "<b>if any at all</b>" statement that Rep. Loudermilk <b>could</b> be referring to?
Thanks.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by PA
Well… there is an incorrect assumption there.
The question is “Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by GHG (dominated = more than 50%).”
If the post 1950s warming hasn’t been over 50% GHG – who cares? If GHG isn’t the dominant player it is a fact, perhaps a concern, but not a problem. If over 1/2 the warming is out of our control we are in the passenger seat. It makes more sense to figure out where the driver is going.
↧
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by mtobis (@mtobis)
People who are intensely anti-regulatory suffer from a delusion that people propose regulation just for fun, or to make the anti-regulatory folks unhappy, or something. It would be amusing if it weren’t so widespread.
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by PA
mtobis (@mtobis) | May 5, 2015 at 11:06 pm |
People who are intensely anti-regulatory suffer from a delusion that people propose regulation just for fun, or to make the anti-regulatory folks unhappy, or something. It would be amusing if it weren’t so widespread.
I live outside the beltway. I wish they were doing it for fun.
The bureaucratic minded are intensely afraid of anything they don’t control. The idea of someone exercising their free will, in a way that the bureaucratic minded don’t want, makes the bureaucratic minded wet themselves.
The fact that it is fun for them to make free and independent people desperately unhappy is viewed as a pleasant bonus.
The only solution is to downsize government . The regulatory minded are mentally ill and there isn’t any alternative but to remove them from positions of authority in the government.
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Jim D
PA, it is different if someone is acting out their free will on your air, water, food or lawn, isn’t it? You might want someone to regulate that for you.
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Henry Johnson
Ms. Curry,
I am not a scientist but follow very closely the debates on CO2, climate change, global warming and the “science” of Climatology. I have never seen such a group of self-important, self-promoting bloviating clowns-of-science as inhabits this hideous science. The word humility and restraint are obviously words that never cross the lips of many of these so-called scientists, and the idiotic, illogical predictions these fools make have worked their way into public policy and will cause immeasurable harm, especially to the developing Third World.
How did we ever get to the the point where computer models, that are always wrong, shape the conversation is beyond stupidity, it is criminal. This gibberish is Nirvana for the wackos and zealots: An imaginary crisis that requires massive control of energy and society in general, a claim of success no matter what happens( more storms, less storms, more heat, more cold) and an endless hyping of perfectly normal situations where they are never required to account for their stupidity.
I feel sorry that you and other sensible scientists waited so long to confront this cancer that has turned your science into a farce. For my own mind, I don’t think the climate can ever be modeled to the point of accurate predictions, but I am not a scientist, only a lover of Logic. The scientists of old must be rolling in their graves when they see the rascals that now pose as objective scientists.
Henry Johnson
secondstreet417@aol.com
↧
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by Don Monfort
Whoa! stephie! You said that he quoted Judith saying that. Don’t you have the basic minimum decency to admit that you got it wrong? Do you really want to keep arguing about an issue that you completely made up? Have you no shame, stephie?
↧
Comment on Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony by John Robertson
Where does ATTP put Dr. Willie Soon on the list of people possibly about to lose their job? Seems to me that a few people are trying to get him fired…
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Judith ja epävarmuushirviö | Roskasaitti
[…] Currya voinee pitää epävarmuudesta paljon puhuvana tutkijana. Eräs hänen tuore artikkelinsa käsittelee teemaa painottuen siihen (Linkki), miten epävarmuutta on yritetty piilotella […]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
