Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Peter Lang

0
0

Answer, nuclear would be much cheaper, rollout would have continued to accelerate as it was doing during the 1970s, designs would be more advanced by now, global GHG emissions would be about 10% lower than they are and the world would be on an accelerating fast track to replace fossil fuels world wide – result we’d have much lower GHG emissions at any date in the future. W’ed not be wasting massive amounts of money subsidising and mandating useless technologies like wind and solar.


Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by KenW

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by curryja

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Mike Flynn

0
0

Nature tucks too much carbon away in fossil fuels. CO2 levels in atmosphere fall. Nature realises mistake. Man created to put CO2 back into atmosphere, and raise levels from dangerously low concentration, otherwise leading to plant starvation and irreversible runaway extinction of both CO2 and O2 dependent life.

See how clever Nature is! Just the Universe unfolding as it should.

Phew, just dodged a big one there!

Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by mosomoso

0
0

I’d really like to hear thing called what they are rather than given a sexy title on a technicality.

“Renewable” sounds good and allows wind and solar to bask in the glow of hydro’s efficiency. But how renewable is wind power which requires so much hardware over such a great area? Was the landscape replaced? Was the real estate moved elsewhere? If there is to be more of it, will it continue to take up more ground and more airspace?

How renewable is something so bloody DIFFUSE?

Right now nobody is going to put “made with coal power” on the label of a soft drink or a toaster. But a wind turbine, maybe with some clouds, flowers and birdies, is a frequently seen commercial image, though no wind turbine has ever been manufactured with wind power. This sympathy vote is only for now. When things get old and familiar, their past sexiness matters not at all, their performance and efficiency are all they have pleading for them. By the time some bright young star of this moment hits sixty, his 2015 body art will be his fashion grave.

Who will have the money and will to maintain/renew Spain’s wind hardware, for example? Good bet it won’t be Spaniards. How far do war guilt and EU survivalism go? Having reverted to brown coal (while still preaching green) will Germany now want to fund someone else’s alternative nonsense?

Renewable? Really?

All that expensive junk chewing up real estate and landscape, exposed, ageing and growing ever more inefficient…Think someone somewhere is going to feel like fixing and replacing it all? Party like it was 2007?

You may as well ask United Artists to make Heaven’s Gate II.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by jim2

Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by David L. Hagen

0
0

Jim D
Christy & Spencer will continue to get funding as their temperature measurements are vital to understanding climate. The problem is with IPCC’s models that predicted 200% higher from 1990 to present of the actual temperature rise. NASA has an excellent verification and validation group that should have been brought to bear decades ago but was not – to allow the gravy train to continue.

Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by Mike Flynn

0
0

/sarc on
I’m disappointed. Do you really mean to tell me I can’t run my car from a roof mounted solar panel? How about I put a wind turbine on top as well?

I only need enough power to travel at a measly 100kph for about 35 hours to get to the nearest capital city. How hard can it be? After all, I’m helping to stop the climate from changing, and God knows we all need that!

/sarc off


Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by Peter Lang

0
0

AK,

If the cost of “simply going nuclear” is actually “about 1/2 to 1/5th the cost of solar” 15-20 years from now, then it’ll probably be the best option. (Probably by hindsight.) But, looking at it objectively, I just can’t see it.

I suggest the reason you “just can’t see it” is because you are NOT looking at it objectively. We’ve discussed the projected costs many times and you haven’t shown errors in them nor been prepared to debate them. And I remind you that they are based on optimistic assumptions for learning rates for renewables and zero learning rate for nuclear.

I suggest it’s time for you to try an objective options analysis!

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ragnaar

0
0

We can take two balance sheets with the latter one showing plus 900 Gt. atmosphere and plus 1100 Gt sinks. We can infer the income statement that connects the two, but we don’t seem to know either what the sink number is or what the natural emissions are. Income statement wise, it’s Hail Mary accounting.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Willard

0
0

> I have not the slightest clue what you were trying to say.

Which part of “libertarian advocates focusing on the easiest things to critique” you don’t get, SteveF? All the concepts come from your own claim. I simply replaced “CAGW” with “libertarian.” I doubt the concept of libertarianism escapes you:

Then, as now, unprincipled people on the left will appropriate any alarming prediction to justify institution of a ‘more fair’ social order. The leftist drum of ‘social justice’ has been consistently beaten for all of my adult life, and I’m sure will continue to be. The ‘justification’ for left wing policies changes over time…. right now it happens to be CO2 driven warming…. but the underlying political motivation does not change.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/15/denizens-ii/#comment-676062

***

As to the Serengeti strategy, your favorite Mike promotes it:

In his book chronicling the attacks he’s faced, Dr. Mann compares climate contrarians’ strategy to the one used by predator animals he saw in Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. Rather than trying to take on all the world’s climate scientists, they pick out someone from the herd who they think they can attack effectively. He’s faced many over-the-top criticisms of his research—and his character—from the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and a whole host of front groups, political actors and online haters.

http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-mann-responds-to-misleading-filings-in-climate-change-lawsuit-641

What may escape Mike is that predators usually attack the weakest preys, but then Mike’s not the target of the most vicious PR campaign known to mankind for no reason.

Do you really want me to spell it out more for you?

***

Finally, there’s Richard Tol’s reaction to Judy promoting formal crap. He considers that this “has done a disservice by lending your credibility to these papers.”

Would you say the same about this blog post?

***

If there’s anything else that I said that you don’t get, please feel free to say so.

Many thanks!

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by iiequalsexpipi

0
0

Dr. Curry,

Fair enough. Although perhaps that just means that the stomatal estimates are unreliable, where as the ice core estimates are relatively reliable.

Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by mosomoso

0
0

Mike, I’m sure there’s a subsidy for that wind/solar car. Maybe it got lost amongst all the other subsidies. Try looking under “corn syrup”. It’s there somewhere.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Jim D

0
0

The ocean is also net gaining carbon. Do you consider that to be natural?

Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by bobdroege

0
0

Looks to me like Texas will get to the knee soon.

http://www.awea.org/resources/statefactsheets.aspx?itemnumber=890

Aren’t wind turbines asynchronous generators turning at the same speed as the rest of the generators powered by nuclear, coal and gas?

Wind power is probably here to stay, in the US anyway, might as well upgrade the grid to take advantage.

20% by 2030 is going to happen.


Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by Wagathon

0
0

“Bottom line is that any time you change generation source locations or add new generation sources, they will to some degree stress some parts of the system and unload others…”

Sounds like an interesting linear programming problem.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by curryja

0
0

I suspect that there are problems with both

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ragnaar

0
0

The oceans gaining carbon is not all natural. We have ocean sunk amount plus all other sinks equaling total sunk amount, which isn’t known, nor is the natural emissions number. We just know that all the unknowns add up to the balance sheet change from before to now. Most time series we see in climate science use balance sheet to balance sheet accounting. We model the income statements that explain the changes, accurately with some of the numbers some of the time, but not all of the numbers being accurate. It seems with the carbon cycle we are doing that.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Jim D

0
0

Do you see that the ocean and atmosphere have each had a net gain? Where did that come from?

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by genghiscunn

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images