Earn as you burn: the green energy offer that saved the monks of Pluscarden
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/earn-as-you-burn-the-green-energy-offer-that-saved-the-monks-of-pluscarden/
Comment on Deforestation in the UK by brentns1
↧
↧
Comment on Deforestation in the UK by Stephen Segrest
Mike Flynn — Thanks!. I’ll do some reading on indolene.
To understand your position — The U.S. EPA uses an incorrect regulatory model/paradigm. You believe a correct Regulatory approach would be that used in the UK — where biofuel octane blending does not occur in practice? Also, the UK never used MTBE?
I always want to try and learn something but I scratch my head over the fact that one of the largest customers of U.S. produced ethanol is Saudi Arabia (of all places).
↧
Comment on Driving in the dark by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
vp, “The Summary for Policy Makers at the beginning of AR5 defines “the past” by referencing temperatures to the global mean surface temperature averaged over 1985-2005. According to WoodForTrees, the 20 years 1985-2005 averaged 0.273 °C above HadCRUT4’s reference point.”
That is wonderful, but the original “consensus” was based on the Charney compromise of 1900 and 79. 110% of the warming beginning in 1950 according to Gavin Schmidt is due to Anthropogenic causes, primarily CO2. Picking 1985-2005 as a baseline to indicate that warming from 1950 is predominately man made, doesn’t mean that 1985 to 2005 is the “new” baseline or Zero for future warming.
Warming up to 1950 is a bit of a mystery. During the “consensus” heyday, it was due to solar and aerosols. Both are having a bit of a “consensus” challenge. Prior to 1902 of course there was no climate change according to the most “consensus” of all consensus authorities, which btw produces better accuracy with tree rings than NOAA wtf NOAA can muster with real thermometers during the 1880 to 1902 overlap period.
↧
Comment on Week in review – Energy and policy edition by Danny Thomas
Late addition, but thought others might find this of interest: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/putting-a-price-on-nature/
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by matthewrmarler
Mosher: You cant wish the pressure away willis. you cant say “there should be no pressure”
He did not do so. He wrote that the “definition” of PNS does not distinguish between PNS and anything else. As to time pressure in the CO2-Climate debate, the existence of “time pressure” is asserted by the advocates of reducing CO2, but the scientific support for the claim that urgency is required is “slim to none”. Is it “definitional” of PNS that “urgency” is asserted by a small vocal lobby? If the majority are unpersuaded that there is “urgency” (as seems to be the case with CO2 reduction), does that mean that the case is not a situation of PNS?
Is the case of Chicken Little a situation of PNS?
↧
↧
Comment on Driving in the dark by Peter Davies
My assessment of the likely scenario if GAT goes up by 4 degrees C is based on a whole lot of sources, some pro AGW and some against. While I can understand your deference to the expertise of your wife, I still don’t believe that she would have much idea of what would happen either.
The main problem IMO would be the impact of rising sea levels but the whole question is moot because the indications are that CO2 levels (both anthropogenic and natural) will never be problematic because of the huge sinks of the ocean and of the vegitated areas of the land mass.
I believe that the world has much more to fear with a sudden onset of cooling rather than from the gradual warming that has been observed to date. In this respect, the GCM’s are even more deficient than in their estimates of future warming, purely because they have not factored in the various natural cycles adequately IMO.
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by matthewrmarler
Mosher: <i> The ONLY way that response made sense was if dmk38 was Dan.</i>
As an experienced blog reader, you ought to have considered some alternative ways that it made sense ("the only one I can think of" is seldom an informative claim); as well as the possibility that it did <i>not</i> make sense. You read it after the "answer" had already been disclosed.
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by matthewrmarler
Mosher: <i> as it stands andywest who accepted the invitation, looks to be having an intelligent conversation.</i>
I thought that the three jokes you missed were intelligent. You don't, <i>maybe</i> because you did not understand them.
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Steven Mosher
AK
“Well, the IMO one good first step would be to look at the pressure, and the politics. ”
1. That move is not always allowed.
2. As an example see my post on deadlines (here at Judiths)
Where Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre both fell prey to
a deadline to get things done.
Now of course you can resist the pressure but it can take you out of the game. Anyone who works in an applied area knows this. The job must be done by date X. you can walk away from that, But that is just surrender.
Next: your next part is better:
Note that to fight against the urgency or to tamp it down the best strategy is to work from WITHIN the science. So you might focus on residency time, you might fight on emissions projections, you might fight on discount rates, you might fight on sensitivity.
You write
“For example, for “global warming”, most of the yelling about urgency has referenced the “fact” that fossil carbon, once put into the atmosphere, will take many centuries to go away. So if we don’t start “drastic” measures immediately, the future “will be horrible”. (Or may be.)
So go after the urgency: why should we assume that if mankind put extra CO2 into the atmosphere, mankind can’t take it out again? This turns it into an economic problem with a much longer time-scale. An immediate solution that leads to robust carbon-capture technology solves the urgency problem, allowing time for more “normal” science.”
Yes, so we argue for bridging solutions argue for no regrets actions..
and that fight takes place on science grounds. AK is a pragmaticist.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Juliet Donand
i want to thank Dr chiwaka for the herbal HIV medicine he gave to me and my daughter, i was suffering from HIV when i gave birth to my daughter and that was how my daughter got the sickness indirect from me, but to God be the glory that i am heal with the herbal medicine that DR chiwaka gave to me when i contacted him. i want to use this medium to tell everyone that the solution to our sickness has come, so i will like you to contact this great healer on his email address: chiwakaspelltemple@gmail.com with him all your pains will be gone, i am really happy today that i and my daughter are cured of HIV, we are now negative after the use of his medicine,my doctor confirm it. once more i say a big thank to you Dr chiwaka for healing hands upon my life and my daughter, i say may God continue to bless you abundantly and give you more power to keep helping those that want your help in their lives. email him now he is waiting to receive you. :chiwakaspelltemple@gmail.com Or contact his number +2349032539857
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by davideisenstadt
mosh:
Does Anthony use a sick puppet on his own website?
Can’t you distinguish between , or contrast, if you will, the two people?
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by davideisenstadt
Mosh: i read your posts daily, because they remind me of what is wrong with the world.
full of snark, contempt, pissy, replete with inexact wordsmithing, your posts are train wrecks that keep giving.
You dont even have the integrity to explicitly say what you think of Willis, and now, you give us the argument of a coward.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by timg56
One advantage to a paper with Ehrlich listed as an author is that one knows they can automatically skip it.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D
yes, it was aka to me until I looked into the difference just now.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Oldman Rivers
I too, like you, Tonyb was slightly thrown by the term ‘neo-sceptic’. I made a few enquiries and found out that it is meant to be (a) a very bad thing to be, and (b) a common symptom of classic Anthropogenic Factor Delta Depression (AFDD) that has many causes but inevitably creates an outlook, within a sufferer, that associates any change in any measurable attribute which can be traced back, with or without peer review, to a Human source to be a bad, very bad thing (see (a) above)
Hope this helps.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D
They quoted the section of AR5 it came from. What else do you need?
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK
It's just a letter to the editor, signed by <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7556/extref/522287c-s1.pdf" rel="nofollow">these people.</a>
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by timg56
So Jim, exactly what evidence is there that the trend of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration shouldn’t be discounted?
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D
Yes, Judith spotted it and pointed it out for discussion, so here we are.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK
Not only “The end of Civilization!”
Not only “The end of Humanity!”
But “The end of Life on Earth!”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
