Comment on Week in review – science edition by Willard

August 3, 2015, 6:33 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Canman

$

0

0

> Real Science always speaks the language of mathematics. Was Newton an “eminent physicist”? Not until he developed a version of the Calculus so he could actually put numbers, mathematics behind his theories of gravitation.

Real Science always speaks the language of mathematics. Was Newton an “eminent physicist”? Not until he developed a version of the Calculus so he could actually put numbers, mathematics behind his theories of gravitation.

Therefore Tsonis’ the master of all Real Science.

Therefore zoology, botanic, geology, geography, and all the other non-mathematized disciplines are not Real Science.

You just can’t make this up.

---

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by PA

August 3, 2015, 6:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Willard

$

0

0

“Sigh”, couple of corrections

Stable stable = stable state

DOD = AEC (the forerunner of the DOE)

And there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
Science writer Richard Martin states that nuclear physicist Alvin Weinberg, who was director at Oak Ridge and primarily responsible for the new reactor, lost his job as director because he championed development of the safer thorium reactors.[8][9] Weinberg himself recalls this period:
[Congressman] Chet Holifield was clearly exasperated with me, and he finally blurted out, “Alvin, if you are concerned about the safety of reactors, then I think it may be time for you to leave nuclear energy.” I was speechless. But it was apparent to me that my style, my attitude, and my perception of the future were no longer in tune with the powers within the AEC.[10]

That just about says it all.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

August 3, 2015, 6:56 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by PA

$

0

0

aaron | August 3, 2015 at 7:16 am |
But who is John Carter

First google entry:
http://movies.disney.com/john-carter

From what I can tell John Carter is the protagonist of of number of Edgar Rice Burroughs novels.

Apparently there were people on Mars in the early 1900s before global warming wiped them out.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling

August 3, 2015, 7:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

$

0

0

I became a skeptic when I was looking at some data and I posted a question about confidence intervals. Being a retired, with a PhD in Genetic Epidemiology I have quite a bit more training in stats than most scientists and confidence intervals are rather important to me in assessing the validity of data. Instead of an answer, I got called a bunch of ugly names, I got accused of being in the pay of big oil, I got banned from posting again, and I was told I was not a scientist. I never did get an answer about the confidence intervals. I like it here because if I ask a question about confidence intervals I generally get an answer. I may not like the answer but I do get it.

A you are doing the same thing as the people at that blog did. You are making long drivelling wild assertions about skeptics and our motivations and your answers run to pages about how right you are and how wrong skeptics are but I have yet to see anything specific in anything you say. You can’t win a here debate by having so many talking points that the no else get a chance to speak. Either say something substantive or go elsewhere where everyone will agree with you and applaud you.

Now I am still waiting to hear why you have a problem with my assertion that more than just temperature may affect glacier growth and how warming may even mean bigger glaciers. Please answer that specific question in 2-10 sentences or I am going to simply ignore you as irrelevant from now on.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

August 3, 2015, 7:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling

$

0

0

I will try to keep it simple for you guys, jarheads too

1. You need an alternative physical theory of the climate.
2. that theory will contain math.. equations
3. there will also be entities that are quantified.
4. your theory has to explain past climate and predict future climate

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

August 3, 2015, 7:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joseph

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Steven,
No one does “predictions”, only projections.

As the GHG theory only incorporates understanding of ‘segments’ of ‘global climate’ it’s not a reasonable suggestion that alternatives must incorporate a comprehensive explanation of all past and future climate scenarios. Alarmists don’t comprehend that such a scenario does not currently exist under the GHG theory any more than it can be explained under an alternatives with today’s level of understanding.

I’d fully agree if the current understanding incorporated all these factors, but as it stands, no way.

So you go first!

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joseph

August 3, 2015, 7:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

$

0

0

<blockquote>One is that if you poach a list of the top 2000 global warming authors you are going to get mostly global warmers because they have an easier time getting articles published</blockquote> Where do you get this from? Still trying to follow the logic..

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Wagathon

August 3, 2015, 7:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joseph

$

0

0

Can we quick change the Constitution and draft Amber Rudd to run for president?

---

Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK

August 3, 2015, 8:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by curryja

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Wagathon

$

0

0

<blockquote>1. You need an alternative physical theory of the climate.</blockquote><a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.370.4655&rep=rep1&type=pdf" rel="nofollow">Here</a> Steven.<blockquote>2. that theory will contain math.. equations</blockquote>Yes.<blockquote>3. there will also be entities that are quantified.</blockquote>Such as “<i>synchronization events</i>”.<blockquote>4. your theory has to explain past climate and predict future climate</blockquote>It does and has. For instance, the current <b>relatively</b> level global temps will continue for another 10-20 years.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by curryja

August 3, 2015, 8:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by scotts4sf

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK

$

0

0

well, the GHG crowd can’t predict future climate since they can’t predict solar variations, volcanic eruptions, or ocean oscillations. They assume these are unimportant, but they obviously aren’t.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by scotts4sf

August 3, 2015, 8:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by vukcevic

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by curryja

$

0

0

FTTW
I also moved to the concerned column by the lack of confidence intervals and minute level of temp changes trumpeted as leading to massive CAGW disruptions. The Long Slow Thaw exists. The questions are concerning the recent acceleration in surface temp, then the changes to historical temp, rates of sea level rise increase above 7″/century and portioning of increase temps between CO2 and natural variation. Have not seen strong evidence in either direction.
Enjoy your comments and skip long winded diatribes from the likes of A
Scott

Comment on Week in review – science edition by vukcevic

August 3, 2015, 8:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Intermittent grid storage by Recent Energy And Environmental News – August 3rd 2015 | PA Pundits - International

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by scotts4sf

$

0

0

Hi PA
I would agree with that. Both equations show that the SSN for the SC25max would be somewhere between 40 and 50 (low numbers are more difficult to estimate) on the old ‘classic’ scale, ignoring newly tailored metric.

Comment on Intermittent grid storage by Recent Energy And Environmental News – August 3rd 2015 | PA Pundits - International

August 4, 2015, 3:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by bigterguy

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by vukcevic

$

0

0

[…] Intermittent Grid Storage […]

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by bigterguy

August 4, 2015, 3:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Intermittent grid storage by Recent Energy And Environmental News – August 3rd 2015 | PA Pundits - International

$

0

0

Obama = carbon pollution. So, yes 20-Jan-17 it will be reduced.

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by climatereason

August 4, 2015, 3:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by aplanningengineer

≪ Previous: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by bigterguy

$

0

0

RobertoK06

Clicking on the link you put in your post took me straight there-assuming its about Volcanoes.

tonyb

---

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by aplanningengineer

August 4, 2015, 4:02 am

≫ Next: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by aplanningengineer

≪ Previous: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by climatereason

$

0

0

Best quote so far that I’ve seen comes from Obama nominee FERC Commissioner Tony Clark:

“Whatever EPA believes are the environmental benefits of this regulation, it cannot be said that it will be easy or inexpensive. Such is the stuff of unicorns and leprechauns. For if EPA’s energy vision was the most reliable and affordable means of providing power, we would not need the rule. Engineering experts, markets, utilities and their regulators would already be choosing these resources without EPA dictates. No amount of political posturing changes that fact.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t usually get this excited – but that’s good!

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by aplanningengineer

August 4, 2015, 4:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by aplanningengineer

$

0

0

Pardon the bad form (not my first time) or replying to myself but one more (self serving) quote from the commissioner:

.Though EPA officials are writing these regulations, EPA officials are not responsible for ensuring reliable, affordable power. That task falls to America’s utility regulators, engineers, and operators. I am concerned there is an assumption that these dedicated experts will get the job done simply because they always have before. They are the best in the world, but no one should think reliability and affordability are slam dunks, lest we deny the science of electrical engineering. Make no mistake, this work is extraordinarily difficult and it will be even more so should this regulation come to pass.”

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang

August 4, 2015, 4:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by GaryM

≪ Previous: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by aplanningengineer

$

0

0

Judith,

Thank you for this post. I was in disbelief about how the US president could be so blinded b y ideological belief. Can’t he hear people telling him he’s being misled by his adviser. Doesn’t he listen. he has a tin ear t world leaders advising him on international relations and has a tin ear to rational people advising him to stop lying about BS climate change consequences – like asthma.

Your responses to the journalist’s questions are excellent. I especially liked these two responses:

The public health arguments are even weaker. CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with asthma. Extreme weather events are not increasing with increased CO2; extreme weather events are dominated by natural climate variability. Particularly in the U.S., extreme weather was substantially worse in the 1930’s and 1950’s.

… Trying to sell this plan as economic and public health issue is a ploy to develop political will for President Obama’s preferred energy policies.

He’s being misled by his advisers and ideological backers like John Holdren and Chu. He’s be beholden to group-think and herd-mentality. He’s not wise enough to seek independent advice and weigh it.

He’s the worst US President in my lifetime and has done enormous damage to international security. He’s wasted enormous US prestige internationally.

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by GaryM

August 4, 2015, 4:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang

$

0

0

I’ll take economic advice from the EDF when I start taking investment advice from Bernie Madoff.

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang

August 4, 2015, 4:28 am

≫ Next: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by GaryM

$

0

0

Turbulent Eddie,

It is completely logical – nuclear and renewables are expensive – shifting to them will send more of your income to electric utilities.

How do you conclude from that chart that nuclear is expensive. It seems to me that the countries with the highest proportion of nuclear have the lowest electricity prices. And that conclusion is clearly shown in Slide 14 here: http://canadianenergyissues.com/2014/01/29/how-much-does-it-cost-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-a-primer-on-electricity-infrastructure-planning-in-the-age-of-climate-change/