You can spoon feed schit out my ass.
Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by jacksmith4tx
Fear not sweet Judith, Your GOP has heard your prayers and lamentations and they have been mighty moved to smite down the evil EPA, Dept. Fish and Wildlife Services and Interior Dept.
Tonight on C-SPAN 1 (house)
-prohibit use of funds made available for California drought response or relief in contravention of implementation of the California Water Code.
-prohibit use of funds by EPA to issue any regulation that applies to an animal feeding operation, including a concentrated animal feeding operation and a large concentrated animal feeding operation.
-prohibit use of funds to implement or enforce the threatened species listing of the lesser prairie chicken.
-prohibit use of funds to limit outreach programs administered by the Smithsonian Institution.
-approved use of funds to carry out seismic airgun testing or surveys off the coast of Florida.
-prohibit use of funds to implement, administer, or enforce the rule entitled “Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces” published in the Federal Register by the EPA.
At this point it would have been faster to just delete all funding and just add amendments for the stuff they actually approve of. I think the only thing they have approved was expanding drilling on public and government properties.
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by Stephen Heins
As for government solutions, the carbon tax and cap and trade have yet to provide a single good example of working. In fact, the EU ETS has been an abject failure since its inception in 1997. CA’s trading scheme is just another hidden tax that gets rolled into CA’s general revenues and RGGI has just increased the cost of electricity without providing any real market signals, plus, it makes New England less competitive for business than other regions of the U.S.
As for a carbon tax, who determines the price point? Political science from the noisy world of energy and environment clearly won’t work.
In addition, greenhouse gases, auto emissions, airplane emissions, waterways, ethanol, and now aircraft emissions: One can’t help asking where is it written in legislation that the EPA has the power to regulate any one of these areas, let alone all six at once?
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by Danley Wolfe
RiHo08: I am not as encouraged as you “that the American people will eventually see through the climate scare …” The climate change movement is not at all like Prohibition. Prohibition was an on / off policy, obviously wrong policies were made and then fixed by constitutional reform. The liberal climate agenda has been underway, right or wrong, justified or not justified, for ~20+ years (marking the real beginning at the UNFCCC 1993 Rio convention in which the precautionary modus / call to action was cast in concrete laying down consensus talking points) … and now many world governments are fully on board. You have to admit that good has come from this in terms of energy efficiency improvements etc. To change the course of history needs more than a constitutional referendum, which is a political process. Question: what happens if the policies are allowed to continue, providing improvements in efficiencies, reduction in coal usage etc. accompanied by reduction in CO2 emissions and atmospheric levels, and meanwhile the global temperatures flatten off or drop well below the 1.5-4.5 deg C (per IPCC AR5). Even though it may be unverifiable that the changes are related, and maybe even entirely due to natural climate variations. Ans. the climate change advocates will claim a huge victory saying “see, just like have been telling you all along.” If the models turn out to be absolutely worthless, won’t matter at all.To affect the course of history we need reach a point of understanding of natural vs. manmade forcing cause and effect… and the course of the hiatus in the next few years will have much to do with the outcome of the debate. My opinion is science must provide the answer; but if science cannot clearly and definitively answer the question, this thing will continue on the political (and consensus/opinion poll) path that it has been on. I think we can be optimistic that we have learned much and communicated clearly in the past couple of years on the issues of data/prediction uncertainties and climate sensitivities.
↧
Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by aaron
And maybe affect biology in unpredictable ways.
↧
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by PA
Well, if the CO2 rise drops below 2 PPM the global warming scare is over.
There isn’t any way to get to even 0.5°C at 2 PPM/year. We will run out of fuel before we could possibly encounter a problem. After all the CO2 rise was 2.10 PPM in 1977 and we haven’t set an annual CO2 increase record in 17 years (a period with an over 49% emissions increase).
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
Forget about building blocks – they lead us to a dead end. Forget about the Supreme Court ruling by people ignorant of what carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually does. In the absence of real science, allowing such scientifically ignorant people to judge the outcome of scientific observations forced them to act on political expediency. This not just stupid but irresponsible of public servants who had full knowledge of carbon dioxide but held it back and distorted it. Such irrational rules are against our national interest. What makes this entire campaign illegal is its reliance on lies about carbon dioxide as a cause of global warming. Their so-called scientific argument is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the air by absorbing the energy of outgoing infrared radiation. We know that it absorbs it – that is what makes it a greenhouse gas. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius realized that by absorbing that radiant energy carbon dioxide had to warm the atmosphere. That became the basis of the greenhouse law still used by the IPCC. The warming it causes is called greenhouse warming, said to be so dangerous by the global warming pseudo-scientists that we must do everything to suppress the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The problem with these pseudo-scientists is that they have been exposed to real climate science but have chosen to reject it and actually blacklist it since 2007. That was the year when Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi published his global warming theory called MGT. First, he points out that carbon dioxide is not the only grteenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and there is ten times as much of it in the air than there is of carbon dioxide. They both simultanrously absorb outgoing infrared vradiation and we must find out what role each of them plays in this joint absorption system. According to Miskolczi, the two gases form a joint optimal absorption window in the IR whose optical density is 1.87. The exact value of this optical density is derived from radiosonde measurements using NOAA records that go back to 1948. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR just as the Arrhenius greenhouse law predicts. But according to MGT, as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, the original optical thickness is restored, and no Arrhenius warming takes place. This of course contradicts what Arrhenius greenhouse law tells us. They both cannot be right, hence the Arrhenius law is wrong and must be discarded. To pseudo-scientists contemplating it in 2007 this did not go over well and they simply blacklisted it. You could not talk about it or use it in your work. Experimental proof of it was difficult until the twenty-first century arrived and acwarming pause/hiatus became observable. By now it has lasted for 18 years. There has been no warming during these years while carbon dioxide at the same time kept increasing. And that cinches the case for MGT because that is what it predicts. Arrhenius theory requires warming instead which has been entierly absent. There is one additional observation that needs to be prought in, and that is the existence of a second hiatus in the eighties and nineties. I discovered it in 2008 while doing research for my book “What Warming?” and show it as figure 15 in the book. What happened is that HadCRUT, GISS, and NCDC jointly decided to over-write it with a phony “late twentieth century warming.” This phony warming has been adopted by ground-based temperature sources but fortunately they still do not controm satellites. As a result, you can still download the actual data for this hiatus from both UAH and RSS satellite sources. The gata show complete absence of warming from 1979 to 1997, another 18 year stretch. With two hiatuses at our disposal, we should look at the overall picture. Jointly the two hiatuses have blocked out 80 percent of the warming during the entire satellite era. The remaining 20 percent includes the super El Nino of 1998 and a short warming that starts in 1999. Neither one has anything to do with greenhouse warming. Hence, we can say that there has been no warming whatsoever since the satellite era began in 1979. This kills the AGW. Since there is no warming now there is absolutely no reason for any emission control laws of any kind. Any and all emission control laws suggested are based on false science and must not be implemented. Same for any that were passed previously. I want to emphasize that the consequences of MGT were known to the cabal planning these emission controls since 2007 and were hidden from the public and public officials alike. The conspiracy of covering up the hiatus of the eighties and nineties required cooperation among several pseudo-science groups. Obviously presidential advisers could not be ignorant of this situation either. A fully authorized independent board of inquiry should be established to investigate this conspiracy to deceive the American public about climate change.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by gymnosperm
SA is a rag. I probably tarred Nature and Science with the same feather unjustifiably for their work other than climate science.
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by PA
Obama doesn’t seem bothered by the legal constraints on the executive branch.
↧
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Tutto torna, per il bene della scienza | Climatemonitor
[…] ieri mi è capitato di leggere un post di Judith Curry sul suo blog. Lì per lì avevo deciso di non riprenderlo, perché […]
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by De zwartste dag van “Science” - Climategate.nl
[…] Judith Curry maakt zich er heel boos om: […]
↧
Comment on Heat waves: exacerbated by global warming? by Punksta
“So the whole surface and deep ocean are warming,”
We do not know this. The data on oceans is nothing like as robust as for the atmosphere.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
The Arctic is not recovering. CO2 levels of 400-500 ppm are not compatible with Arctic sea ice if you go by history.
↧
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by Danny Thomas
Willard,
I’m not intelligent enough to be that sneaky. But I can “call ’em like I see ’em” in Climateball (did I use the quotation marks to your satisfaction?).
I didn’t ‘put you in a box’, but instead indicated this observers view of the box you put forth surrounding yourself and stated how you act in this public format regarding that box. If the truth hurts (it’s out there) I’m sure you’ll let me know.
Are we once again back to my “global cooling” when it comes to my fumbles? I still can’t find that reference sourced as being originated with me.
You’re offering several ‘presumptions’. Yet, how you know how I think and that which I presume is an amazing power you own. (Especially since you’ve never once bothered to ask a specific question).
Personal attacks? Are you ‘presuming’ the reference w/r/t “It doesn’t matter how accurate as long as you ‘stand up’ for your side.” was directed your way? Remember, as you taught me earlier, when one uses “you” it doesn’t necessarily mean you! (I’m able to learn quickly in this whole climateball game……..self props).
http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/03/a-key-admission-regarding-climate-memes/#comment-714962 (plus the following few entries).
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by fireofenergy
I want to edit: NO person is qualified to even suggest that we must limit our consumption because we have the science to provide even more energy than that of even fossil fuels – and safely.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
Jim D:
“Internal climate variability, by which we mean climate variability not forced by external agents, occurs on all time-scales from weeks to centuries and millennia… …Thus the climate is capable of producing long time-scale internal variations of considerable magnitude without any external influences.” – IPCC
Saying that the Younger Dryas was a result of a metastable state allows them into the shorter term. We can wonder if the PDO, AMO and ENSO are examples of shorter term metastable states? I would use the Younger Dryas as a possible example of the current climate.
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by verdeviewer
jacksmith4tx:
“That huge toxic algae bloom in lake Erie last year was traced to agriculture effluents.”
Not the only cause by a long shot. The City of Detroit can’t afford to maintain/upgrade their sewage treatment plants and are dumping raw sewage into the Detroit River.
“In 2011, the worst year for algae on Lake Erie, there were 45 billion gallons of sewage overflows from the Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant.”
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
You need something very large to affect global climate. Greenland melting significantly is an example of the scale you need. Not many other candidates out there. What else are you thinking about of that scale?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
Keep at it, yimmy. I think they are starting to waver. Give it all you got. Paris could be the very last of all the last chances to save our planet, and our children, and our children’s children and blah..blah..blah
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joel Williams
You folks might find this treatment of the global temperature anomalies since 1881:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Climate%20Studies/Download/6128
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
