Word is that Obama may announce the final EPA coal-killing climate rules tomorrow, much fight to follow. However, the state compliance plan submission deadline will be extended to 2018, after he is gone. Interesting possibilities, depending on who the next President is.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by David Wojick
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by aplanningengineer
Another excellent set of links. The issues discussed in the link “Beyond Energy Efficient: Making the distributed grid capacity-efficient” could help better inform a lot of today’s efforts to increase “clean” energy. My take however, is we should be more concerned and focused on the interplay and interdepencies between the gas and electric markets which are discussed in the link from FERC.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
Yes beth, I wish more people understood the ramifications of fiat currency described in the essay you post.
I have high confidence there will be another round of QE in the U.S., this will go on with ever diminishing effect. I don’t see things ending well frankly.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Don Monfort
==>”2. The benefit of using NG as a bridging fuel is slight.
This argument fails because THOSE IN POWER believe that there isnt even a slight advantage to using NG to bridge and they are arguing for a quicker switch over to NZCT.”
Do you think this paper will fool them? They are not likely to be any more impressed with a next to nothing advantage than we are. Anyway, they are ideologically driven and they have to pander to their greenie base, who demand solar and windmills. They love that intermittent stuff. You should know these things without having to be told.
==>”Coal is dying in the US. you have a couple of options
1. Try to fight a political machine you have zero proven success in fighting.
2. hope for a painless switch over to NZCT
3. make a bridge.
Now, the skeptics who have already lost the science debate will continue to try to fight a lost battle. And they will expend political capital defending a dead parrot claiming that it is just tired and resting. If you are pragmatic you pick option 3 above.”
How many times do I have to explain this to you, Steven. The skeptics want to do nothing, until they see convincing evidence that there is a serious problem. The alarmists are desperate to impose drastic and very costly schemes to stop CO2 emissions, by any means necessary. The alarmists have been Chicken Littleing us for decades and they have gotten next to squat in meaningful CO2 mitigation. The alarmists are not winning. And if a Republican soon becomes POTUS, he/she will roll back all the greenie crap that Obama has belatedly spent political capital on to impose on us. See what happened in OZ.
AGW is not a serious worry of the electorate. Wake up and smell the dookey, Steven. Promoting costly CO2 mitigation that has next to squat effect on alleged climate change is not a winning political position, except in places that are already firmly in the greenie left-loon camp.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher
“Note to Steven Mosher: Your “skeptics need an alternative theory” is building right under your nose. You just don’t see it because it’s primarily mathematical, not based on “physics”.
Let me be more precise.
Skeptics need an alternative PHYSICAL theory to challenge the
existing physical theory.
math of course is used in theory building but is not a theory
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
A loquacious clown once said…
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
There is a couple problems with the glacier meme. About 1/2 of the glaciers (other than greenland and antarctica) are in the Himalayas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/9206785/Himalayan-glaciers-growing-despite-global-warming.html
The higher glaciers are growing.
Kilimanjaro is shrinking due to deforestation and the resulting moisture loss.
The lower greenland glaciers may well be melting – the combination of Chinese soot and Icelandic ash has lowered the albedo.
However the actual CO2 forcing that is supposed to be affecting these things has been measured and it is 22 PPM causes 0.2 W/m2. IPCC TSR is 0.618 W/m2 for 22 PPM. I was surprised when scientists celebrated measuring TSR as proof of global warming.
Suppose some scientist claimed that there was an effect called gravity, and the force was 100 ft/s2. Finally they get around to measuring it and it is 32 ft/s2 (the actual value). He goes nuts and starts celebrating.
What I concluded is that the scientists really weren’t sure any warming exists (much like our gravity guy) and were relieved that something was measured. The fact that they were completely wrong and overestimated by a factor of three got lost in the shuffle.
The fact the effect is only 1/3 the IPCC level means that the global warming projections are mistaken fantasies that just can’t happen.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jorgietom
Steven Mosher: “Skeptics need an alternative PHYSICAL theory to challenge the existing physical theory.”
Hello Steven, I rarely comment, but I’m hoping you can clarify for me your position on why skeptics must come up with a alternate theories. To explain what I hear when you say this, I’ll do an allegory:
I come home to my place in San Francisco to find my front door pushed open and covered with large scratches. Inside, the kitchen is torn apart and bits of food are everyone. I ask you, my neighbor, to help me understand what happened. You tell me that it was certainly a bear since there are claw marks on the door, and bears tend to rip apart kitchens looking for food. I tell you that it could not have been a bear since bears do not exist in San Francisco. You tell me that that the only way for me to disprove that it was a bear is for me to come up with a better theory for what happened.
OK, kind of silly, but that’s how I see your argument. Can you explain for me what I’m missing?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
“A” hmm … so much verbiage, so much diatribe
and claiming the high ground, all the while so much
concealment behind a little letter, ‘A’ for ‘anonymous’
or ‘absenteeism’. So little courage mon-non-brave!
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Davies
“A” writes very much like John Carter did before he stopped contributing to Judith’s blog a few weeks ago.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
My alternate physical theory is that there is not convincing evidence for the theory of strong positive feed backs. Get back to us on that.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by aplanningengineer
Long answer lost to logging into word press after entering my comment. Main point was not sure where coal and NAT gas prices might go so that scenario is possible. But for US coal would have to be very cheap compared to natural gas to allow for the expensive capital costs associated with coal. Fracking projections don’t look like gas could increase the required multiples relative to coal.
So I see merit in the argument if we lose existing coal infrastructure, it will not be replaced easily .
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by justinwonder
A
Whole, segments of the skeptic community are wondering how you measure ocean heat content. How do you do that again?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron
Matt, he linked to his own blog. He’s just another rhetorical spin machine. Probably paid.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron
A is for agit-prop.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by vukcevic
Minor effect on the sun, but far greater on the Earth traversing gravity min/max about every 13 months. All climate data are based (understandably and with the good reason) on the annual (12 month) periodicity.
Cross modulation of two periods results in the QBO.
You seen it here first!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Springer
Mosher’s so full of crap I bet his eyes are brown, Monfort. Why bother? There is absolutely no rule in science that an untested hypothesis must be supplanted with a better untested hypothesis. That status of true-until- -proven-false is reserved for well tested theory. CAGW is not even close to that point. It’s speculation and it’s failing in its major prediction. The pause is killing the cause. Big time.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Springer
Average sunspot cycle is 11 years but varies between 9 and 14. The major contributor to barycenter movement has a cycle of 11.9 years.
Why would barycenter movement have little effect on the sun?
Have there been any experiments performed on highly compressed plasma when gravitational motions are set up within them?
Am I allowed to ask questions without Mosher frowning so hard it eclipses the sun?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jacobress
Coal is being murdered by activists and regulations.
Next targets of the agenda of the killers are NG and nuclear.
If you don’t fight the nuts you’ll end up sitting in the dark.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by fizzymagic
I guess you don’t mean “fully informed” like the 97% plus of climate scientists who professionally study this issue and overall have the most relevant expertise on it. And fully disagree.
I was enjoying your posts, but then you post this and any respect I had for your positions vanished. If you’re going to quote this result with such confidence, I can immediately conclude you are not competent to discuss the issues.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
