Thanks heaps. I have been having fun all day knocking out quasi erudite responses – sometimes a little tongue in cheek – but you have me stumped. I have not the slightest clue.
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Chief Hydrologist
↧
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by thomaswfuller2
As a confirmed lefty it is natural that I jump in on Chief Hydrologist’s side. I think he makes perfect sense throughout this.
How come people praising the American system never seem to look at Scandinavian countries? They’re not perfect, I know, but they live longer, they’re richer, they’re happier, healthier and they seem to manage their economies and environment quite a bit better than the U.S. of A.
Did everyone just get freaked out by the Girl With A Dragon Tattoo?
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Peter Davies
Referendums Chief.
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Peter Davies
But they don’t work very in Oz!
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Peter Davies
…well …
↧
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by thomaswfuller2
Hiya Willis! How are you?
What part of revenue neutral is difficult to comprehend. Raise taxes on A. Lower taxes on B by the same amount. You get less of A and more of B.
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by Brian H
Nothing. There is no evidence that climate is changing in a detrimental way, to start with. Warming, should it occur, is historically demonstrated to be highly favourable.
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by cerescokid
An enjoyable post, Chief.
I have wondered what happened to Wub. Nice to know he is still up to his uncle-in-the-attic shtick.
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by ulriclyons
Chief Hydrologist | May 21, 2015 at 12:25 am said
“You are really quite mistaken.”
You really are not paying attention to what I have said. If you know where to look, there is evidence that the effects of a minimum in the solar wind can thoroughly override the opposite effects of higher TSI at sunspot maxima.
There is nothing chaotic about AO/NAO variability as it can be forecast from solar factors consistently at very long range. And ENSO and the AMO will have to follow what the AO/NAO do.
Abrupt climate change in terms of warming through interglacial states cannot occur because of the oceanic negative feedbacks, and also their influence on continental precipitation.
Chief Hydrologist:
“The last shift – to a cool mode – happened in 1998/2001 – the next is due in a decade or so. Given how little we know about internal climate dynamics – I doubt that we can predict the sign of the next shift let alone the extent.”
The last shift happened in 1995 – to a warm mode, and it has stayed in that warm mode since then. Given that the AMO has been exhibiting a ~69yr envelope, it should cool again in the mid 2030’s, and reach its coldest in the mid 2040’s. I know a way to predict and confirm that the solar wind conditions will be of a similar strength in the mid 2040’s, to what they were in the mid 1970’s when the AMO was last at its coldest.
↧
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
That would be a great post for you Tom. Since A is carbon fuels and B is alternatives that either naturally cost more or don’t exist, I believe there will be a cost increase for most.
Rud has already explained how corn ethanol cannot possibly cause an increase in food and fuel prices.
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by ulriclyons
ENSO is a negative feedback to weaker solar wind conditions. 19 out of the last 20 solar cycles had an El Nino episode at the regular major minimum in the solar wind speed around a year after each sunspot minimum. Where a major minimum in the solar wind occurs at sunspot maximum, there will be an El Nino episode there too.
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by AK
So did you actually make the comments still there under your name? Even <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/02/robs-gallop.html" rel="nofollow">at the SouPit?</a> Or is somebody using your name in vain?
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Stephen Segrest
My question is primarily to <b>Planning Engineer<b> but can be for others also.
I was reading articles on how the use of <b>solar power</b> is increasing at a breath-taking pace in "Developing Countries". A reason given for this dramatic increase is that they are not using the "Electricity G/T/D Model" that has been used in "Developed Countries".
Here at CE, people make arguments primarily on the life cycle economics of the <b>generation option</b>. But in "Developing Countries" this economics question of electrification is framed as: (1) the cost of a central power plant plus the necessary T&D infrastructure versus (2) the cost of distributed power options requiring much less delivery infrastructure.
In Developing Countries where many don't even have access to electricity (or very limited access) the "Model" is (1) installing solar for residential and commercial use; (2) creating a clustering of Industrial Parks using on-site fossil fuel generation (but also including biomass heat & power).
This "Model" is a <b>Bridge</b> until Developing Countries pull themselves out of poverty (a very big task) and greater prosperity is achieved and them having the expectation of 24X7 electricity availability of Developed Countries.
<b>Comments on this Bridge Model?</b> (where the dramatic increase in use of solar in Developing Countries is a "Fact", not driven by policy things like Western Portfolio Standards, Tax Credits, or Treehuggers).
Doesn't this "Bridge Model" put a big dent in Lomborg's Thesis?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
<blockquote>BTW, Salby was completely wrong about ice cores, which is clearly not his field of expertise: what he said is physically impossible and implies negative CO2 values during glacial periods…</blockquote>I'm reminded of a quote from <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=7Hc5CQAAQBAJ&pg=PT92&lpg=PT92&dq=%22claw-boots%22+%22in+the+drawing+room%22+%22at+the+dinner+table%22&source=bl&ots=fnJoTQ3Kke&sig=UoKJHReCLH9tGOb75DSEVkhlGuc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=281dVcboLcWrNr_NgvgF&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22claw-boots%22%20%22in%20the%20drawing%20room%22%20%22at%20the%20dinner%20table%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">Dune</a><blockquote>The banker picked up his water flagon, gestured with it at Bewt. “None of us here can surpass Master Lingar Bewt in flowery phrases. One might almost assume he aspired to Great House status. Come, Master Bewt, lead us in a toast. Perhaps you’ve a dollop of wisdom for the boy who must be treated like a man.”</blockquote><blockquote> Jessica clenched her right hand into a fist beneath the table. She saw a handsignal pass from Halleck to Idaho, saw the house troopers along the walls move into positions of maximum guard.</blockquote><blockquote>Bewt cast a venomous glare at the banker.</blockquote><blockquote>Paul glanced at Halleck, took in the defensive positions of his guards, looked at the banker until the man lowered the water flagon. He said: “Once, on Caladan, I saw the body of a drowned fisherman recovered. He–”</blockquote><blockquote>“Drowned?” It was the stillsuit manufacturer’s daughter.</blockquote><blockquote>Paul hesitated, then: “Yes. Immersed in water until dead. Drowned.”</blockquote><blockquote>“What an interesting way to die,” she murmured.</blockquote><blockquote>Paul’s smile became brittle. He returned his attention to the banker. “The interesting thing about this man was the wounds on his shoulders–made by another fisherman’s claw-boots. This fisherman was one of several in a boat–a craft for traveling on water–that foundered . . . sank beneath the water. Another fisherman helping recover the body said he’d seen marks like this man’s wounds several times. They meant another drowning fisherman had tried to stand on this poor fellow’s shoulders in the attempt to reach up to the surface–to reach air.”</blockquote><blockquote>“Why is this interesting?” the banker asked.</blockquote><blockquote>“Because of an observation made by my father at the time. He said the drowning man who climbs on your shoulders to save himself is understandable– except when you see it happen in the drawing room.” Paul hesitated just long enough for the banker to see the point coming, then: “And, I should add, except when you see it at the dinner table.”</blockquote>Or, I should add, except when you see it in a pseudo-scientific blog comments debate.
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by popesclimatetheory
The Temperature control system that the earth has in place, in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Southern Hemisphere is very robust. Look at the control of temperature in the north and in the south while, over ten thousand years, 40 watts per meter squared did move from the north, above 60 degrees, to the south, below 60 degrees. The temperature that polar oceans melt and freeze is the set point for the thermostat and that does not change. Look at actual data, not model output.
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Stephen, the developing country applications are market driven and the developed country reactions are don’t screw up my market driven. “Global” planning doesn’t really exist. When folks talk about “regional” approaches they are addressing these issues. Every region has options that best fit their current situation. A high voltage DC transmission system will likely evolve in regions that have the best change of it being the best overall application. Less expensive storage, relative to the region resources would increase the viability of a HVDC system served primarily by solar, wind, tide etc. Infrastructure has advantages and disadvantages that have to be addressed by the own/users.
This is what is so screwed up about the revenue neutral tax unicorn. There is no such creature. Someone makes out and someone gets the shaft. Like the corn ethanol :”mandate”. Regionally, it is a great idea, farmers make more cash, cars still run, animals still get fed and there is some reduction in automobile pollution. Unfortunately, that model has NIMBY impacts. Actual food costs increase for the majority. Whenever you introduce another step in a distribution chain there are new hands taking their share. There are also vehicle other than cars and older vehicles that where never designed for E10. Since we live in a hand-me-down world, E10 impacts the hand-me-down market, that would be the poor.
Since most of the save the world planners are rich by world standards they don’t understand that one person’s squaler is another person’s castle. If you increase the “global” minimum wage to $5 a day, there are still billions that cannot share your dreams.
Now if you really want to save the world you could look at some of the very basic stuff. Reduce PM10 and the more damaging pollutants in the developed world with “affordable” methods that can be copied down the road by the $5 a day gang. Consider effective land use change that results in more productivity and lower cost than can be copied by the $5 a day gang. Focus on cost effective de sal and waste water treatment, wetlands restoration and in general ways to keep things in you own back yard since the $5 gang are going to get stuck with you crap if you don’t.
Also try to avoid buzz words so you can just do it.
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by Billy Ruffn
“we should follow ‘no regrets’ policies”…
Isn’t this the same as saying we should always take the steps necessary to avoid high impact, low probability events?
I seem to remember that logic similar to this was used (I think by Dick Cheney) to justify deposing Saddam Hussein — specifically, to avoid the possibility Saddam might put WMD in the hands of terrorists. A WMD attack on Manhattan was a high impact, low probability event and we followed a “no regrets” policy in eliminating the possibility it could occur. Problem was (is) that even “no regrets” policies tend to have unintended consequences.
↧
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Barnes
JimD – I agree that we need to find that alternatives to fossil fuels. But, it is hard to take anyone seriously who says that we must do so to maintain climate in a steady state and that climate change is the direct result of our non-sustainable lifestyle. Are you saying that climate existed in a steady state for the 4.49999 billion years before humans started to make it change due to fossil fuel use? Please tell me that comment was not more than a simple brain fart.
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
“How come people praising the American system never seem to look at Scandinavian countries? They’re not perfect, I know, but they live longer, they’re richer, they’re happier, healthier and they seem to manage their economies and environment”
Look up what Sweden’s Borg did with that economy. Most of the Scandinavian countries were in depression in the 1990’s, were they “happier” then? The sorts of conclusions you cite are based on cultivated studies that have worked there way into a loose manifesto of left leaning elitist philosophy. For Sweden, Borg cut taxes and cut welfare spending to attract wealthily job creating entrepreneurs back to that country who had left it, very basic really. That’s how Sweden’s economy was turned around quite literally.
Most Scandinavian countries have populations half the size of NY city, they spend little relatively speaking for their defense which is basically subsidized by the west; therefore this frees up a massive amounts of currency for social engineering. Ignoring these sorts of fundamental line items that have strong influence on culture leads to unbalanced conclusions; similar to using a model of management of a goldfish in a bowl and extrapolating conclusions from it for recommendations to the management of the ocean.
The left often times uses Scandinavian countries as a model but it’s done so with incomplete acknowledgement of holistic economic causes and effects, either intentionally or out of ignorance, the latter is most often the case because thinking is carried forward out of trust, it’s the drivers of the idealism who bury truisms that interfere with their sculpted/cultivated conclusions, the rank and file usually will just tow a line.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by AK
<blockquote>It doesn’t make a difference for the attribution of the CO2 rise to humans: as the oxygen balance shows that the whole biosphere (land + sea plants, bacteria, molds, insects, animals,…) is a net producer of oxygen, thus a net sink for CO2 and preferentially 12CO2, it can’t be the cause of the 13CO2 decline, to the contrary.</blockquote><i>Non sequitur</i>. If I though you were actually discussing this in good faith, I might expand. But if you were discussing this in good faith you'd almost certainly have caught, <b>and mentioned</b> the big difference between your argument and mine.
IMO.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
