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

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

0
0

Jim D,

Is there a pause you prefer to “adopt as a cause”? Know you’re in love with since 1950, but what about since say 1700?


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

0
0

Don M, it is a sad state here when you are the lone voice of reason.

Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by Peter Lang

0
0

Peter, I hope you’ll read the link. It’s not “my” link. It’s to the U.S. Depatment of Energy analysis of the levelized cost of electricity generation. I provided it because you wrote that, if storage were free, wind turbines wouldn’t be cost effective. The DOE analysis seems to directly contradict your assertion, hence my question.

Please quote the DOE text you are referring to. If you are making an assumption based on the LCOE figures, it is because you don’t understand them. Read the fine print.

If it wasn’t for the CAGW scare there’d be no justification whatsoever for incentivising solar and wind, and investment in it would stop immediately.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

75% of the CO2 increase has been since 1950, so I think this is where the signal is above the noise. It would have resulted in 2/3 of the warming by the log rule. The first 1/3 was spread over more than a century, so it would have been harder to see against the background solar and volcanic effects.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort

0
0

There you go again, jimmy dee. You are shrinking. Smaller and smaller, in an ever deeper hole.

I could coach you and get you out of the deep crevace you are in. Your presentation is all wrong. No wit, no humor, no finesse. Just the same old rote dogma punctuated with links to huffpo and pal reviewed papers that no one will read. You desperately need to up your game, jimmy. Start by telling the truth, occasionally.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by David Springer

0
0

Don your scientific illiteracy is showing. Listen to Bartemus.

The fact that aCO2 emission rate is increasing exponentially while CO2 concentration in atmosphere increases linearly in response shows us that it is an equilibrium system being driven far out of equilibrium. The characteristic response of these systems is when driven farther from equilibrium the drive to restore equilibrium becomes stronger as well. This is what creates the linear increase in atmospheric CO2 despite the exponentially increasing emission source.

Chris Gollege doesn’t understand this either. If aCO2 emission were to stop the amount in the atmosphere would decrease at the same rate it increased. The rate of decrease would decelerate as the system moves closer to equilibrium.

Equilibrium appears to be 280 ppmv CO2 if ice cores covering multiple glacial/interglacial cycles can be trusted. 280 ppmv CO2 for interglacial ocean temperature and 200 ppmv CO2 for glacial periods. Those are the equilibrium points and appear to be controlled by ocean temperature.

Bartemis – where I’m going to disagree with you is on natural source being responsible for 20th century atmospheric CO2 increase. The global ocean basin mean temperature hasn’t changed significantly during the industrial revolution. Rising CO2 is almost certainly because the rate of emission has increased driving the ocean/atmosphere interface farther and farther from equilibrium.

Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by climategrog

0
0

“While the voltage or current wave forms can lag or lead each other by a little bit, they can’t get us much as a whole cycle (1/60th of a second) behind or ahead of any other generator without causing a major system problem. “

This is totally incorrect. If it ‘lags’ by a whole cycle it is perfectly in phase ! The problem happens long before it gets a full cycle out of phase. The worst case would be half a cycle lag.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

0
0

You are really not doing well, jimmy. I am your only friend here. Trying to help you. Read the polls. The public are not worried about climate change. Last on the list of major worries. Fact. Now I know you are just engaging in wishful thinking, but the rest of them will think you are again being jimmy DISINGENUOUS!

Even the greenie alarmist journalists are admitting what everybody knows:”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.”


Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by David Springer

0
0

Not to any degree that we need to worry about it. The benefits far outweigh the consequences.

Warming from aCO2 is occurring predominantly over land, at night, in higher latitudes, in the winter.

If we were to wish for a global climate more friendly to living things we would wish for warming at night, over land, in higher latitudes, in the winter.

The reason the AGW is distributed unevenly across the globe is CO2 has the greatest greenhouse effect where there is the least water on the surface available for evaporation and the least water vapor in the atmosphere to compete with CO2 for the limited number of photons in the narrow CO2 absorption band.

Add to that great benefit to the primary producers in the food chain of longer growing seasons in the colder latitudes plus the acceleration in plant growth rate afforded by higher CO2 concentration plus the reduced water requirement per unit of plant growth (which helps in places where soil water content is a limiting factor) and it becomes clear that CO2 is a boon to life in general.

The only real downside appears to be sea level rise and then only to one species that stupidly built a lot of immovable concrete and steel nests close to sea level. That species will need to abandon some ill-placed nesting sites. Fortunately sea level is rising so slowly there is plenty of time to migrate to new nesting locations on higher ground.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort

0
0

davey. davey

Show us the alternate explanation for the increase of CO2 in the freaking atmosphere. Not a bunch of half-baked theoretical BS, but where is the NCO2 supposed to be coming from, when did it start increasing, how much of it year by freaking year, how much have the sinks expanded, which sinks, but you really can’t show doo-doo. On the other hand we know that ACO2 has increased just at the right time to explain the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and in an amount twice what it would take. And that ain’t all. Read Ferdinand E’s explanation. I never took you for a denier, davey. Now I am out of this foolishness. This has been a most unproductive and silly thread. Judith should know better.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by plazaeme

0
0

For those interested in examples of how the thinking process may go hilariously wrong, I do recommend the Oreskes and Lewandowsky paper.

Thanks for pointing it, Dr. Curry. It’s a gem.

Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by Charlie Pluckhahn

0
0

Peter, I did read the fine print. Don;t be arrogant. Explain to me what you think I didn’t understand. Thanks.

Comment on Transmission planning: wind and solar by Charlie Pluckhahn

0
0

On second thought, Peter, don’t bother. It’s clear that your answers to me are, in so many words, “Because I said so.” I see no difference between you and the people who try to say that Tesla is making money. You want to preach to the choir? Go right ahead. I’m done with you.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

0
0

Jim D,

So, from time to time CO2 increases are not always accompanied by temperature increases, but only sometimes, and unpredictably.

What is the theory behind this? If the breakdown in correlation can’t be predicted, what is the point of saying rising CO2 causes rising temperature except when it doesn’t?

Are you being serious, or just having a laugh?

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Carrick

0
0

Arno Arrak:

The one burning question I have about CO2 is this: how is it possible for the Keeling curve to keep on rising for eighteen years in a row if there was no parallel warming this was supposed to create?

Because anthropogenic CO2 isn’t the only thing that controls temperature. For short enough periods, the variation in the Earth’s temperature is dominated by short period natural variability. It’s only over long periods (I’d say at least 30-years of data) do you see CO2 start to really dominate the overall variability.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by peter3172

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen

0
0

Dany,

I am very skeptical about the “projections” of climate models as I am pretty sure that climate models do overestimate the effect of 2xCO2 (and aerosols) and underestimate natural variability.
But I am as sure that the current CO2 increase is almost completely caused by human emissions.
Indeed correlation is not necessary causation. But if all evidence points to one cause and that possible cause is delivering twice the amount that is found back in the atmosphere, it would be a hell of a coincidence that some natural cause started at the exact moment and increase rate as human emissions, without violating one observation (which is impossible)…

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by beththeserf

0
0

I fer one don’t luv octopussy,
it’s arms are too long. Git rid of
the BBC, likewise the ABC,
UNFCCC, IPCC, the list is long …

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen

0
0

Don, Bart indeed is a master in math, but has no idea of natural processes. My math is completely rusty, but I have 37 years of experience of implementing theoretical processes in a real chemical plant, with all the problems involved: theory doesn’t always (mostly not) work in the real world…

Bart simply calls everything that is counter his (spurious) match of natural variability and slope of the CO2 increase with temperature as just conjecture. Human emissions simply disappear in space…
In this case, his theory is of a huge natural source out of the oceans. But that violates about all known observations like the drop of 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere and ocean surface.

More to the point:
Human emissions increased a fourfold since 1960.
The observed increase rate in the atmosphere increased a fourfold since 1960
The calculated net sink rate increased a fourfold since 1960:

If some natural cycle was the cause, that cycle MUST have increased a fourfold since 1960 to overwhelm the influence of human emissions. Not a threefold or fivefold. For which is not the slightest indication in any observation, to the contrary…

Comment on Week in review – science edition by genghiscunn

0
0

The West seems to have been its own worst enemy in recent decades.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images