Regarding the goofy NAP quote, “may” should read “may of may not” as this is pure speculation pretending to be science.
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by David Wojick
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by David Wojick
Sorry but of should be or in the proposed NAP quote. I was brushing a cat while typing.
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Grey Tash (@GreyTash)
In some places back-to-back housing has made a return, courtesy of Barrats, I think it meets the needs of single divorcees, 1 bedroom.
Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by JCH
What hogwash.
The cool phase of the PDO lasted for at most 10 years during the 1st quarter of the 20th century, and the GMST went up. During the warm phase that followed, the PDO index ascended. During the warm phase in the last quarter of the 20th century the PDO index descended, and the GMST went up. It’s never stopped going up, and is now poised to make a major leap.
December 2014:
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Steven Mosher
Brushing a cat?.
Is that a new euphemism for…..?
In any case one handed typing is the first sign of Internet addiction.
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by kakatoa
Judith,
Just across the NV border SMUD has been addressing system wide costs associated with Net Metering by allocating PV Net meter customers:
1) System Infrastructure Fixed Charge- $16/m
2) Solar surcharge- $.0015 per kWh
3) State Surcharge- $.17
https://www.smud.org/en/residential/customer-service/documents/PV-bill-sample.pdf
I am required to maintain the ground around our PG&E power pole. The pole has an inspection tag nailed to it dated “1965”. The transformer at the top of our pole was replaced in 2009 after a Tahoe like snow storm hit our foothill location and dumped 28” of very wet snow, after a bit of ice, overnight in early December. The next morning when dealing with tree damage, and various water line issues, I failed to notice that the transformer was hanging by only one bolt sidewise on the pole. Luckily the cross member on the pole, that supports the incoming 200 amp service to our house, was held in place by a rather stout metal wire as the cross member holding the wire onto the power pole had been damaged as well.
It wasn’t until 2 days after the storm that I finally cleared one string of our PV panels so that they could generate power that I noticed the rather hazardous condition of our incoming electrical service. A repair crew from PG&E made it to our place within 4 hours. The cross member was reattached to the utility pole and a new transformer was installed as well. It’s a good thing PG&E’s bucket truck had four wheel drive as I had only partially cleared out our parking area. Our PV system, installed nine years ago, sends the over generation of our PV system out to the grid via the transformer.
I wasn’t changed anything by PG&E to have the new hardware installed nor for the emergency service call to have the hardware R&R’d. Our E-7 net meter was not damaged so it didn’t need to be replaced- which is a good thing as we had to pay for the thing back in 2006. So after this long story I am OK if PG&E changes their cost allocations and follows SMUD’s approach and charges me a fixed fee on our utility bill. How much it should be is open for discussion.
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by David L. Hagen
David Wojick. Then Oklahoma can continue to ignore (nullify) the EPA’s assertions because this law is non-constitutional, based on the 10th Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal government power to completely transform intrastate commerce or energy generation based on very weak scientific evidence. (It originally had only very weak control over interstate commerce.) See: Scalia
“Reading cost-benefit analysis into section 110 was akin to “‘alter[ing] the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme,’” which Congress does not do “in vague terms or ancillary provisions—it does not … hide elephants in mouseholes.’”43″ http://bit.ly/1dsV0PV
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
Yes, and on this issue, FAR was even more forthright than AR5. So the question is, what has changed in the scientific literature to imply that “dominant” means something substantially different to what was stated in the FAR? I suspect the answer is “nothing” and that the equivocation is there as a result of the difficulties in getting a bunch of scientists to fully agree about anything.
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by David Wojick
Her name is Annie Oakley. As for addiction the first thing I do when I wake up is start the iPad, while still lying prone, so yes.
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by harrywr2
Peter,
In the US the industry is spending very tiny amounts onPR. The market for large amounts of new base-load is pretty much non-existent unless the EPA manages to make it latest coal regulations stick and natural gas prices begin to firm.
The exception to that rule was going to be the US Southeast…but with the real estate crash the practice of retiree’s selling their ‘expensive homes’ in cold winter climates and moving south has ground to a halt. So even in the US Southeast the need for new base-load is questionable.
I expect the nuclear industry to start ramping up PR in the US somewhere around 2018 unless the EPA’s ‘kill coal now’ plan manages to hold up in court.(It’s probably be 2018 before the cases are eve heard).
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Mike,
From ice cores we know that ocean temperatures and CO2 levels in the atmosphere are tightly coupled: CO2 levels follow temperature with some lag at about 8 ppmv/°C in the Vostok ice core, recently confirmed by the 800,000 years Dome C ice record:
The control mechanisms for temperature also controls the CO2 levels over the past several million years and we have had no CO2 levels below 180 ppmv, which is the critical level for C3 plants, that are all types of trees and a lot of other plants.
As I don’t think that CO2 is THE control knob for temperature, there is little we can do if the temperature drops again towards a new glacial period. In the best case, our emissions may prevent the trigger which leads to an ice age, but that is just speculation…
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by RiHo08
It seems I didn’t provide the post that I was commenting upon:
“A look at past UN climate negotiations offers valuable context for forthcoming Paris talks [link]”
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by curryja
interesting, thx
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by jim2
You are doing as the “greens” wish. So, shut up and carry on.
Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by curryja
Chief, thx for spotting this paper
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by jim2
kakatoa – the maintenance fee should be calculated, not negotiated, IMO.
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by AK
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by AK
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
There’s too much disinformation in the media that perpetuates notions that humanity is depleting natural resources, most of it is nonsense that continues to play into today’s culture of alarmism. We have reached peak use of many commodities, as early as the 1940s in some instances, the pressure continues to decline on many commodities. I described how developed nations have seen a net increase of forests since mid 20th century in another thread.
Everyone needs to read this link that JC provided. It astonishes me that even among those that are informed that the power of media perpetuates a dumbing down process where facts about natural resources are simply not distributed. I blame much of this to media bias that is not unaffected by politics.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-5/the-return-of-nature
This is an interesting set of statistics:
“But even Californians economizing on water in the midst of a drought may be surprised at what has happened to water withdrawals in America since 1970. Expert projections made in the 1970s showed rising water use to the year 2000, but what actually happened was a leveling off. While America added 80 million people –– the population of Turkey –– American water use stayed flat. In fact, US Geological Survey data through 2010 shows that water use has now declined below the level of 1970, while production of corn, for example, has tripled (Figure 11). More efficient water use in farming and power generation contribute the most to the reduction.”
CAs water problems today are more aligned to poor planning and infrastructure buildout to protect against recurring drought, this over a period when population doubled.
As I said before, where global problems “may” exist including AGW, these are imminently solvable with the advancement of technology. People seem to forget that most of the sum of human knowledge has come in the last 100 years. Simply look with a 2x power lens, maybe 50 years ahead, things aren’t dire. About the only thing bad is politics.
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Wagathon
As Schopenhauer might say, the motivation and unlikely efficacy of persuasion would challenge the art of Plato engage in effective discourse given the calcification of the audience’s institutional assets.