Nick
I have an electric bike whose battery I power with a little solar panel. But then again I need help to get up our steep Devon Hills (or get part way up)
tonyb
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by climatereason
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change cartoons by climatereason
+10. Casting and final vote.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Steven Mosher
You realize that he used HITRAN data. You did read the code, right?
I thought not.
↧
Comment on Energy supplies and climate policy by Nick Stokes
Agreed, it’s a very good post. Focuses on the key questions:
1. How much carbon is available for butning?
2. How much will the atmosphere let us burn?
3. If it’s less than what we could burn, how will we arrange to leave carbon in the ground? (and whose?)
In terms of policy, that’s what matters.
↧
Comment on Climate change cartoons by Beth Cooper
When implacable Nature speaks, ya better listen.
There’s no such thing as the innocent eye, innocent clmate model or cartoon* either…(either / or, neither/ nor? )
*Hmm, I have a great cartoon on peception, if I can jest find it.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change cartoons by Beth Cooper
“Perception.” (Some people can’t edit.) Moi.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Girma
Chuck
Hansen et al 1988 => http://bit.ly/JPvWx1
IPCC AR4 => http://bit.ly/HnYPQf
↧
Comment on Climate change cartoons by Beth Cooper
↧
Comment on Climate change cartoons by Barry Woods
That’s not so funny. reality ;(
Latest UK activist group (just a rehash of all the old ones, climate camp, ukuncut, Campaign against Climate Change, Rising Tide, etc)
Has a clenched fist graphic front and centre (and is also anti-capitalist)
they were trying to storm a UK energy meeting yesterday (and it got rough)
http://climatejusticecollective.org/
and they wonder why most people reject them…
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by Bart R
Roger Caiazza | May 4, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
You’re free to hold your opinion about people you’ve never met, spoken to, asked about these issues, and discussed with their needs and wants and what benefits they seek.
The facts remain different on the relative costs to them of pipes for drinking water and sanitation, wind-powered pumps, solar-assisted water filtration and treatment, and the containers used in transporting drinking water as well as crops, all from the one issue of plastics alone.
You can’t make plastic from oil they’ve burned to run a tractor you can’t afford to buy that some multinational uses to compete with your goods.
↧
Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by Captain Kangaroo
‘Researchers are trying various shortcuts to get a rapid answer. One of those is to use short-term natural variations, such as the El Niño cycle, to see how clouds react to higher ocean temperatures. Dr. Dessler, the Texas A&M researcher, did that recently. His analysis, while not definitive, offered some evidence that clouds will exacerbate the long-term planetary warming, just as many of the computer programs have predicted.’
Odd how they can hold one idea – that ENSO shows positive cloud feedback to AGW – but can’t accept at all that cloud changes by anything but AGW. The satellite data showing positive feedback is correct but the trend data from the same source showing secular variability is incorrect. Climate weirding in action.
↧
Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by maxdaddy
Dr. Curry:
I like your blog a lot. But have you misstated, or at least overstated, something? You refer to “…Joe Romm’s article Norway Terrorist is a Global Warming Denier, although Romm didn’t post his on a billboard.” Yet your link reaches only an article of that title. It is written by someone other than Joe Romm, though the article is in Romm’s blog, to be sure.
Maxdaddy
↧
Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by peterdavies252
In other words: junk science as practiced by CAGW junkies.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by Roger Caiazza
BartR
My interpretation is that our disagreement is whether society can provide both plastics and affordable electricity to those currently without access to both or does society have to choose one or the other. My impression is that you believe that society has to make the choice. Either we provide plastic or we artificially reduce the price of fossil fuels. Those two options are mutually exclusive. I also think that when you say artificially reduce the price of fossil fuels you are implying that externalities have to be applied to fossil fuel use to increase the price to cover the “true” cost of their use.
I disagree with those points because I think that artificially raising the price of fossil energy increases the cost of producing the plastic to the point where it may not get to those who need it. I would argue further that no plastics production facility can operate solely on renewable energy without extraordinarily higher costs. As a result of the increased costs the plastic is not going to make it to those without it even if you sufficient feedstock to produce it. While I only have opinions about people who I have never met, I suspect that they would prefer to have the plastic if it means society can only provide it if the cost of theoretical externalities are not included.
Seriously, how do you propose to produce and get the plastics to where it is needed without using fossil fuel?
↧
Comment on Energy supplies and climate policy by Fred Moolten
I don’t have strong opinions on how it’s done, but we agree, I think, that funding basic R&D makes sense. At some point beyond that, one view would be that continued subsidization would be justified to offset the costs imposed by CO2 emissions, while an alternative view would be to abstain from any subsidization but to impose a cost on carbon to account for the costs. The quantities required would obviously involve scientific, social, political, and even philosophical considerations I’m not prepared to get into, but I do believe that an attempt to estimate the societal costs of carbon emissions should be part of the package.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
Best, HADCRUT4 and GISS all have the same limitations, the limited data they have to work with. The 1990 to present data is pretty good, but more by luck that skill. The average of large regions not well covered in a dynamic system will show its inadequacies. With both HADCRUT and GISS increasing their northern exposures 
they are diverging more from the satellite trends.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/UAHpoleandtropicfrom2005.png
That appears to be pretty rare, the poles and the tropics all trending down, even for a short period. It may even be “unprecedented”
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/GISSpoleandtropicfrom2005.png
With GISS, one outta three is bad.
↧
Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by Faustino
Heading off to a 100-year-old’s birthday party. I’ll ask him if he’s seen any change in climate since 1912.
Mind, as he grew up in west London, I won’t necessarily take his answer in Brisbane as being definitive. Not unless he takes a hockey stick to me.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by jmsully
I just read the section of the book which relates to the Wegman report, the NRC report and the Barton hearings (pp 160 – 175) and can say with 100% certainty that Mann neither quoted nor referred to any emails released by Wegman in the FOIA request. In fact, he referred to no emails from Wegman, PERIOD, AFAICT — however this was not a close reading. The only block quotes in that section were from congressional testimony, none of it Wegman’s. I do not feel that it would be wrong to call Schnare a liar on this point.
Judith, I think you have been spun by ATI on this. You have also been spun on how the oral arguments went on 4/16. The judge ruled at the end of that hearing against ATI on the matter of waiver because of the disclosure to Mann’s counsel, although w/o prejudice. This means that if ATI can come up with plausible new arguments on this issue they can refile (I almost typed that as refail!). He did not rule on whether or not ATI was entitled to discovery (I do seem to recall that the WaPo reported that he ruled against them a week later but was unable to locate the article, so I tend to doubt my recall on this one item).
Judith, you should be careful about who you believe, it can make you look foolish to believe liars.
↧
Comment on Climate change cartoons by Beth Cooper
Good to see the denizens here, SM, tonyb, CH , critical of Heartland’s objectionable advocacy.
And there’s this on considered debate from a climate warrior:
‘I have advised them ( commenters here, ) to attempt a liitle more subtlelty in perjorative invention – they seem sadly underperforming…’
I was tempted to place a smiley here but there have been too many posted of late.
↧
Comment on Energy supplies and climate policy by Rob Starkey
Fred
We do agree in funding basic research. I have strong opinions on how it is done because I have experience in that area.
Imo, a huge amount of funding has been wasted by government trying to promote and invest in the development of specific technologies and funding companies to try to make them competitive in the marketplace. The wasteful contracting took away from basic research.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
