captd, sure, you can look at the effect of PM2.5 on lungs and say, not so bad. I don’t mind that in my neighborhood, and can just wear a mask when outside like they do in Asia. But then you would need a different type of government that is more sympathetic to the industries that produce the stuff, and didn’t really care about what you breathe. There are governments like that, but thankfully America has evolved on air quality and does have clean air and water, not by chance, and there was and still is resistance at every step. Some people don’t appreciate what regulation gets you and take it for granted.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Mike Flynn
John Carter,
You wrote –
“That’s right: It’s that a geologically sudden multi million year shift upward in earth’s basic insulation layer – the same one that keeps earth from being a largely lifeless large ball of ice – for some strange odd . . . ”
And this is related to “man-made” precisely how?
Are you silly, or are you really convinced that everyone else is so dumb they don’t realise that the recent rise in CO2 levels due to man, has only been around for a couple of hundred years?
Is that like Al Gore’s “millions of degrees”, or Gavin Schmidt’s “CO2 control knob”? Possibly Michael Mann’s limp and saggy “hockey stick” appeals to you. Facts have no effect on you, by the look of things.
Have fun – I look forward to the boiling seas! It might be interesting!
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
There’s another observable hockey stick curve that comes to mind for this debate; human life expectancy. It’s peer reviewed by the entire population, no degree required.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
I thank you for your kind words!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Stephen Segrest
David Hagen — Obviously, I don’t agree with how most people here at CE “frame” and construct “straw-men” arguments.
In your (and others) World, the opinion of a Nobel Prize winning Scientist like Dr. Molina (and others like him) would always be a Red Herring.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by In Praise of Judith Curry’s Week in Review–and the Social Cost of Carbon | The Lukewarmer's Way
[…] Etc. has done a remarkable job following the various segments relevant to the climate debate. This week’s post on energy and policy is no exception. I want to explore one of the stories she linked to in a little more […]
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by nickels
Strangely there appears to never have been a scientist heading the EPA. Mostly JD’s.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Davies
SS:”In your (and others) World, the opinion of a Nobel Prize winning Scientist like Dr. Molina (and others like him) would always be a Red Herring.”
The Nobel Prize has recently been devalued by a series of poor choices IMO and to use this as a form of appeal to authority does not have very much credence.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
@Jo Nova. Take the test.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
↧
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #187 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #187 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Which climate change papers ‘matter’? by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #187 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #187 | Watts Up With That?
↧
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #187 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
“Winter is coming. This might just become an appropriate phase soon, as scientists have predicted that a mini ice-age will take place in 2030 thanks to 60 per cent fall in solar activity between 2030 and 2040.”
Must be true. Scientists have predicted it. The Royal Astronomical Society believes it. But are the authors “real scientists”? Are they members of the Esteemed and Most Distinguished Brotherhood of Climatologists? Is anybody?
It might go to show that different scientists can make different predictions. Time will tell, no doubt.
We can always find something to panic about before we die!
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by beththeserf
It aint easy bein’ green,
livin’ with high-level angst,
maintainin’ gate-keepin ter
uphold ‘ the con-sensuss,’
policin’ politically-correct
controls on free-speech,
even ridin’ a bicycle across
town ter yr environmentally-
friendly work-place ain’t easy
but it’s fer a reely noble cause,
cuttin’ back evil f-f energy and
bad-bad human-productivity,
say, who would do it if not
us?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by thomaswfuller2
The EPA may be wrong, but their decision on discount rates is not obviously absurd. Nobody is getting 7% on investments these days. Japan shows that interest rates can be very low for a very long time.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
The Keck has a 0.04-0.4 arcsecond resolution. The sun at one light year is 0.03 arcseconds in diameter. This makes studying the solar cycles of other stars a little challenging.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/nov/12/distant-stars-shed-light-on-the-solar-cycle
Apparently some of the emission lines are related to the magnetic field so they have tried to study similar stars.
There is some thought that the gas giants influence the solar cycle. The barycenter of the solar system is outside the sun 64% of the time.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
jacksmith4tx,
Not much to worry about with your “experiment”. CO2 levels have been far higher in the past, and the Earth still managed to cool, didn’t it?
CO2 (and H2O, the other main product of burning hydrocarbons) are both pure organic compounds. Re greening the Earth will require lots of both, although California is crying out for more H2O. How do you know that cutting back on fossil fuel consumption didn’t cause a drought in California?
I suppose you’ve got a model that proves that increased moisture and plant growth is evil. The Pope thinks so, so it must be true. Let them eat sand!
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jeff Norman
As a completely private individual, perhaps I can shed some opinion on this subject. The Provincial Government elected to shut down its dispatchable greenhouse gas emitting coal generating stations and replace them with non-dispatchable (contract based) renewables (mostly wind) and some relatively inflexible CCGTs.
The renewables are considered to be baseloaded which, along with most nuclear, cannot be dispatched up or down in response to daily electrical demand curves resulting in more instances of surplus baseload generation, which can lead to negative market prices, which can be exported to the U.S.A. to the limits of the interties.
The higher priced resources (usually hydroelectric) are considered to be the export source for accounting purposes.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
