But you don’t need electricity when you live in a cave.
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by Dan Pangburn
PA – The analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com achieves an R^2 of 0.97+ by accounting for both the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies (which is a proxy for cloud changes) and an approximation of all ocean cycles (which appears to be dominated by AMO and PDO). CO2 change was found to have a negligible effect in this analysis.
In a completely separate assessment discussed in a separate section of the paper, it is proved that CO2 has no influence on climate.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
That last graph even has the helpful vertical lines. Maxima correspond to rises, minima correspond to drops about 100% of the time for the largest ones.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by brentns1
Robert T. Lackey Presentation.Use and Abuse of Science in Water Resource Management and Policy
http://tinyurl.com/ouarvnd
http://tinyurl.com/nen48e8
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by PA
fernandoleanme | May 31, 2015 at 10:13 am |
…
I give this a lot of thought, and lately I’ve concluded the best option is to throw the kitchen sink at the combined problems. This includes action to slow down population growth, develop nuclear, get renewables to take up a reasonable amount of the load, and encourage efficiency measures.
http://web.uvic.ca/~kooten/Agriculture/CO2FoodBenefit%282013%29.pdf
Well, gee…
The human population gets more than $1 trillion in benefits in farm/fish/forest from increasing CO2 per year. The analysis above of 45 crops estimated a $140 Billion/year benefit just from 1960-2010 for those crops. Congress should require by law that a study be performed of the gross external positive benefits of increased CO2 since 1700. We need properly researched and reviewed (peerily) data on this phenomenon for making reasonable policy decisions.
There has been a feeding frenzy looking for negative externalities. This needs to be balanced by a 10 year 2 billion dollar research program on the positive externalities of more CO2. Scientists whose studies show the greatest benefit from more CO2 should be given priority for further grants under the program.
The governments of the planet have embarked on a crazy anti-plant nutrient crusade. We need to accurately research and document what it is costing us in terms of benefits.
But, back to your view fernandoleanme:
1. “Throw the kitchen sink”. If you are damaging your kitchen to solve a problem you could be over reacting or may have misunderstood the problem.
2. “This includes action to slow down population growth, develop nuclear, get renewables to take up a reasonable amount of the load, and encourage efficiency measures”.
Well, my list would be a little different.
1. Use social persuasion, carrots, whatever to limit the increase in global population. Reducing the rate of increase is probably a good idea. Any approach used should not be coercive.
2. Develop high temp (molten salt/liquid metal) reactors. I am concerned about waste heat and using passive safe Brayton cycle reactors would address this by reducing waste heat 50%..
3. Renewables today are symbolic and simply move the pollution to China so it has to travel 6000 miles (5959.8 miles from Peking to San Jose) to get back to us. We should wait 10-20 years until they are more efficient and less resource intensive.
4. Research better storage solutions and energy implications of grid changes.
We are playing games with the grid that could bite us. The other issue is current renewables are a joke and it is clear the grid 20 years from now will have a different composition than the green agenda wants. Adding cheap efficient storage to the grid makes it more resilient and mitigates a number of problems.
5. Implement known upgrades needed to grid to harden it. EMP upgrades alone are estimated at $2 billion. The money should be taken from global warming programs which are a complete waste of time and used to reduce known grid vulnerabilities.
So there is no doubt more CO2 is beneficial.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by PA
I would satisfied with a partial transition to all nuclear.
Nuclear is far superior by any objective standard to expensive, large-footprint, high-resource, animal-killing renewables.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by willb01
Jim D,
How do you know you are not just looking at an artificial correlation resulting from orbital tuning?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by PA
Lackey is right.
We don’t tolerate child abuse or spousal abuse. It is time to end science abuse.
Watching data get twisted and tortured by global warmers is just sickening. Time has come to criminalize this abuse of data.
1900 was not the peak of environmental perfection in the history of the planet. Pretending it was is wrong. Normative science “value-driven policy construct” substitutes policy advocacy for real science.
We are paying for a values-free objective accurate presentation of research results. Anything else should earn a temporary debarment. Knowing misrepresentation or research misconduct should result in legal action for fraud.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by Slywolfe
The social progressives are out to impoverish the US and don’t seem to be as interested in their stated goals as they really should be.
For some reason, I doubt that most of them even know what “their stated goals” are! I don’t.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
A better statistical analysis would composite on the larger insolation peaks and then for the troughs and see what the glaciation/temperature was doing during those. These would show clear rises in the former and drops in the latter with likely a very significant statistical difference between the two sets.
↧
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by douglasproctor
Don,
Tell me you don’t have personal experience of the low accountability of industry executives, bankers, investment firms and politicians. Tell me the Plame outing was a mistake and not punishment.
Cherry picking for your political friends – sure, I’m guilty of that, too. Comment on my point: lousy accountability.
BTW, I’m not a liberal. Your focus goes to another point I make, that skeptics don’t apply the same level of skepticism to their side as to the warmist’s. We are both in a love-me, love-my-dog relationship.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by Stephen Segrest
Jim2 — And what should Obumbles policy to ISIS be in Iraq and Syria?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by jim2
CIA spies. Help the enemies of ISIS. Special forces.
Mount a coordinated surprise bombing attack on neighborhoods known to be the most dense with the most militant Muslims. Bomb the Imams that foment terrorism against the West and if the fundamentalists persist, bomb the mosques. Do that anywhere in the Muslim world where terrorism against the West or where there are pro-ISIS pockets.
↧
↧
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by jim2
DP – Plame was already “out.”
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by ordvic
After reading the politico article on the war on coal I am now beginning to see the light on how the politics will shape up and indeed be glad I’m old. Republicans are always fighting yesterdays battles and always looking like curmudgeons, doddering old fools out of step with the realities of modern life. Instead of embracing modern technology and championing a way forward to an energy renaissance they are still in their caves burning lumps of coal. To think these troglodytes are the only hope against complete big government control of our lives … pathetic.
Let’s say hypothetically that we actually go into a downturn in temperatures over the next decade and people got tired of the global warming cabal. You’d think that would all but wipe out leftist control freaks hanging on to their credability with a thread. Well even if that did happen the right wingers will still be sitting in thei caves singing their Jesus songs around lumps of coal and greenpeace will still be heroically winning on the ground the war against big coal.
The only way for any kind of liberty can be preserved is for a new leader to step up and champion innovation, out ahead of everyone, as suggested by that article about ‘what would Reagan do’. I don’t see that leader or anything remotely like that going on today. If anything it is progressives like Bill Gates and Elon Musk that are carrying that mantle. I’d probably join that philosophy if I didn’t know it comes in a package of big government coersion as we are witnessing in the climate change world led by state control freaks like Lewendowsky, Oreskes, Bloomberg and Obama.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
Here’s the one with “helpful vertical lines”, but I’ve added some helpful vertical lines of my own, since the originals seemed mostly to help with self-deception. (You may have to open it in its own window to get enough size.)
There definitely is some correspondence, but it’s clearly partial, which suggests a triggering or something like that by the Milankovitch “cycles”. For instance, my line #28 identifies the onset of the previous interglacial, while #33 is our interglacial. Notice how much lower #33 is than #28, while #29, as high as #33, just produces a small rise and #30, higher than ours, does much the same.
Going farther back, notice how #23, no higher than #33, produces a full interglacial, while #24, as high as #28, produces something no better than #23’s in the Benthic O18 record, which is almost nothing in Vostock. Notice how #19 produces a full interglacial, while #21 almost nothing in the Benthic O18 and at best a small plateau in the descent in Vostock.
What I see here is some correspondence, “triggering” activity, but whatever is producing the actual timing of the glacial cycles has nothing to do with the upper 65N Insolation curve.
Another thing that stands out to me is that there’s a lot more going on here than glacial←→interglacial swings. The differences between the Benthic O18 and Vostock curves simply scream at multiple dimensions. IOW, like the ENSO/”global standing storm” I referenced in another thread, global glaciation is a product wandering around in an n-dimensional space with n being at least 5-10.
Trying to pin down “causation” while analyzing a single dimension, much less several dimensions schmushed together into one, is a sure recipe for error and hopeful self-deception.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by Wagathon
Whoops… Jim Webb just entered he Demo race. Obviously, the next president will be a Democrat given he voting demographics of he country going forward but at least now we know it won’t the disaster of a Hillary administration or a Democrat from Baltimore appointing the country’s next Supreme Court justices. Webb may have some issues — what with TailhookGate (oh my gawd!) — but what I think is a real issue is, what is Webb’s stand on climate change: human-caused or it’s the sun, stupid? Otherwise, cheers to Webb and having a little Cherokee blood in the White House.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by jim2
ordvic said:
“I’d probably join that philosophy if I didn’t know it comes in a package of big government coersion as we are witnessing in the climate change world led by state control freaks like Lewendowsky, Oreskes, Bloomberg and Obama.”
You left off Soros, Buffett, Gore, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by jim2
The biggest welfare recipient of them all???!!!
From the article:
Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.
And he’s built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.
Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.
“He definitely goes where there is government money,” said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. “That’s a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day.”
…
Tesla and SolarCity continue to report net losses after a decade in business, but the stocks of both companies have soared on their potential; Musk’s stake in the firms alone is worth about $10 billion. (SpaceX, a private company, does not publicly report financial performance.)
…
Since 2006, SolarCity has installed systems for 217,595 customers, according to a corporate filing. If each paid the current average price for a residential system — about $23,000, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists — the cost to the government would total about $1.5 billion, which would include the Treasury grants paid to SolarCity.
,,,
“Government support is a theme of all three of these companies, and without it none of them would be around,” said Mark Spiegel, a hedge fund manager for Stanphyl Capital Partners who is shorting Tesla’s stock, a bet that pays off if Tesla shares fall.
Tesla stock has risen 157%, to $250.80 as of Friday’s close, over the last two years.
…
The $1.3 billion in benefits for Tesla’s Nevada battery factory resulted from a year of hardball negotiations.
…
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html#page=1
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
Ironically, I have been pushing a proposal to build balanced teaching materials, plus a simple website to collect and distribute them, for several years, with no takers. My proposal to Heartland was the subject of Gleick’s “fakegate” scandal. He faked a memo saying my goal was to confuse kids, when it is just the opposite. I want to teach the debate and critical thinking.
The Feds and the warmers have dozens of websites flogging CAGW to kids but the skeptics still have no play in this game.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
