Beth, This should not be posted on the “Policy and Politics Edition”. It belongs under “Religion”
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
↧
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Jaime
Willard, you can play around with terminology all you like. It appears to me that the ‘detection’ of climate change seems to have involved only the trivial fact that the world has warmed overall since 1950 (concurrent with a rise in CO2ppm and the highly dubious dismissal of natural internal and external forcings as having virtually zero net effect on temp, plus the even more dubious assertion that the temp rise and CO2 levels are ‘unprecedented’), rather than the far less trivial observation that climate change has proceeded in accordance with what one would expect from the ‘fingerprint’ of GHG warming. If you can identify the ‘fingerprint’ you are a long way towards attribution. Technically, ‘attribution’ would then involve merely demonstrating that the source of the GHGs which caused the warming was anthropogenic. In the absence of the ‘fingerprint’, the empirical part of ‘attribution’ (what you say is more to do with ‘detection’) is largely missing and hence IPCC attribution relies exclusively upon assigning anthropogenic GHGs (via model runs) as the cause of the trivial rise in temperatures based upon the twin assumptions that climate sensitivity is greater than more recent observationally derived estimates and internal and external natural forcings are negligible or have tended to cancel one another out. That’s not science, it’s hokum.
↧
Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by aplanningengineer
Mark Silbert-“the powers that be” is a pretty diffuse concept. Transmission planners are limited as to how they can respond to requests from generators. In the U.S. It used to be that a utility could work to directly jointly plan generation and transmission to coordinate and maximize the benefits to the power system. In my career I ran a Planning department that had both generation and transmission responsibilities. They don’t exist for regulated (or near regulated) utilities anymore. In order to make sure that outside parties had equal access to the grid, transmission and generation functions we’re separated by Federal orders. Utility employees who work on the grid can’t share transmission info with the generator personnel from their own company. It must all be communicated only in public forums with equal access to all. Their are utility OASIS sites for this (open access same time information systems).
The cost signals between transmission and generation are muted by federal regulations around allowable rate mechanisms. Different generators use the grid and what they pay does not alway link up to what they cost. So in some ways nothing new with renewables, entities pay less than their costs at times, but they have the potential to skew things badly.
↧
Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by Barnes
You forgot the deal plants as well, except they were never actually used if I recall correctly.
↧
Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by Barnes
Desal. ..
↧
↧
Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by Barnes
Another informative and valuable post from PE. Hopefully, congressional staffers on both sides are reading these posts. It would be interesting to see this info cross-posted to other sites or published in print media. Have you attempted to post anywhere besides CE?
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by jim
Reblogged this on <a href="https://pdxtransport2.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/quantifying-the-anthropogenic-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2/" rel="nofollow">pdx transport</a>.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by beththeserf
Deer Peter :(
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by genghiscunn
And sickening.
↧
↧
Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by mosomoso
Your’e right, Barnes. And still not used. Costing $500 thousand per DAY for Sydney, $600 thousand for Melbourne. Every day. For no water. Direct result of climate misinformation.
Then there’s Queensland. Read this and weep:
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/qld-decide-what-do-botched-4b-water-assets/2218887/
The millennarian weirdos cheering for a big El Nino this year might get their way. You eventually have to have another strong one like 1997-8, 1982-3, 1940-2, 1914-15, 1905-6 etc. We’ll then get to find out how much the desals cost when used, if used. (Australia’s driest known year, 1902, was only weak El Nino; many dry scorchers weren’t even El Ninos, while the “strongs” of 1905 and 1998 weren’t severe for drought.)
Imagine if all these desal billions had been spent on needful and efficient projects. Which brings us back to wind turbines, doesn’t it? And monorails.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by climategrog
This is an interesting article that will need time to digest
Maybe the EPA background explains why our engineer freind thing running averages and running diffs are a low-pass filter of choice.
Taking fig 6 as an example we see that there is still considerable sub-annual variability in the 12 month diff.
This should have be been removed by a decent fitler. In fact most of it will be corrupt, inverted data that this kind of ‘filter’ produces. I would suggest a simple 6month gaussian which would give a much clearer plot and help to see the longer term changes.
I discussed this in an article here on CE a couple of years back. My original is here and provided links to some alternative filters, including gaussian.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by beththeserf
Yes Faustino, a serf is likewise sickened by the gate-
keeping- machinations of the enemies of open society.
Close debate … Oh Socrates!
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
True dat, little jimmy. But what you said does not reflect well on your character and intelligence. I would say you have not acquited yourself well, despite the opportunity you were handed on a gold platter.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Skeptics have to now use the past tense with pause because it has ended as you can see. Good for a few newspaper articles, I guess. Takes the mind off the 50% Arctic summer sea-ice decline of the last decade. However, hard as the skeptics tried with the distraction, the public did notice the Arctic too, and that long-term trend is still going.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Jim D
Don M, this whole natural CO2 thing is a good example of the motivated reasoning and groupthink that Judith keeps talking about. If a skeptic deviated and said that the main post was junk, they would have got a battering and lost club membership, so they either toe the line or keep quiet.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Brian G Valentine
“Skeptics have to now use the past tense with pause because it has ended as you can see.”
In the above, I meant to say, “INCURABLE” paranoid schizophrenia
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
The pause has already killed the cause, little jimmy. It’s too late for your crowd:
“This coming December, the world’s nations will gather in Paris to figure out how they will avoid dangerous climate change. To say that expectations are low is putting it mildly.”
You have labored and belabored mightily for years and years with your tedious blogathon, yet I would bet that you have turned more people against the CAGW dogma than you have converted. Probably around 40:1. Keep at it, yimmy. We are amused.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
You are digging deeper, yimmy. You must have missed what I said and several others. Do you think I am on your side? HELLO! YIMMY!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
The public have shifted in the opposite direction to the denizens, and most, even in the US, now want some kind of climate action. I am trying to bring that bit of reality here, but these pockets are becoming increasingly isolated from the real world out there. It is to an extent that looks beyond hope, as they start even grasping at the CO2 emission record now, and that is a rabbit hole into their own Wonderland.
↧
Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by Peter Lang
Charlie Pluckhahn
If you want to know more, read the references, and if you still want to know more read the critiques and follow the debate. There’s no point me repeating it all here.
Regarding the ERoEI of 75 for nuclear that is for the existing generation of plants. It will increase by a factor of up to 100 when it becomes more economical to use breeder reactors instead of once through reactors as we use mostly now.. Nuclear fuel, used in the current generation of reactors, is 20,000 times more energy dense than fossil fuels. It is 2 million times more energy dense when used in breeder reactors. Few people understand the many orders of magnitude difference between nuclear energy and chemical energy.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
