Clearly, climate is not the only thing they do not understand.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher
Danny
“That’s a good question. What range of temps do mammals ‘endure’ from say 8 am to 4 pm within a days time? And what is the total temperature ‘increase’ (defined as global warming) from say 1850 to present?”
Very bad questions and off topic. try again
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Beta Blocker
Quoting a National Law Review article published October 17th, California law SB 350 sets targets of 33% renewable electricity by the end of 2020, 40% by the end of 2024, 45% by the end of 2027, and 50% by the end of 2030. Energy efficiency in California is to be doubled by 2030.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-enacts-law-requiring-50-renewables-2030
Regarding my original question to ‘aplanningengineer’ concerning the impacts on California’s power planning approach from SB 350, existing California state law now requires the Independent System Operator (ISO) to ensure efficient and reliable operation of California’s electrical transmission grid.
The newly enacted SB 350 law provides for the transformation of the California ISO into a regional organization to promote the development of regional electricity transmission markets in the western states. The new law requires the ISO to propose governance modifications to accomplish this goal, modifications which must be approved and implemented by the California state legislature.
As I interpret the referenced article, what this means is that the California ISO now takes on the additional responsibility of promoting the development of a renewable-friendly grid architecture for the entire western United States, not just for California by itself.
For an example as to what kinds of new power planning activities might take place under this newly enacted law, what if the California ISO were to write an inter-government proposal for approval by the California state legislature that the states of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and California should cover a good fraction of their respective arid land areas with solar energy farms and to sell a good portion of their solar-produced energy to California energy consumers.
We should expect that the California ISO would have to prepare a feasibility cost analysis for the proposal, one which included a reasonably detailed ‘basis-of-estimate’ technical architecture for the kind of solar power generation facilities, energy storage facilities, and power transmission facilities needed to support large-scale generation of solar power in the states of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah for a power market which resides primarily in the state of .California.
The upshot here is that anyone who has power planning experience in California is going to be busier than a one-armed wallpaper hanger.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by bernie1815
From Carbon Brief’s interview with Gavin:
“And one of the things that we’ve found is that in some of the calculations where they come up with a slightly lower number there are some systematic problems with those kind of calculations that mean that that’s not really a valid response and it really should be little bit higher, in line with the estimates that have comes from paleoclimate, which I think are the more robust ones.”
Is this as absurd as I think it is?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
MM, I will just assume you don’t know about the IPCC reports. Several degrees by 2100, yes, that is what the scientists say. This should not be new, and you can swear as much as you like at their projections.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Wagathon
Could? It happened in the UK…
Within the walls of Western academia is a refusal to have a serious scientific debate about how much global warming is entirely natural. Since, however, maybe all of it is natural, the debate morphed into speculations that human CO2 is causing the Earth to experience bizarre and unpredictable weather phenomenon—so much so that early apple blossoms in Washington DC three springs ago were as worrying as the UK’s elderly burning books to keep warm throughout the winter.
And, the Left’s fix for all of this is so simple: UN representatives from around the world should fly to places like Cancun to talk about how best to stop Americans from driving SUVs.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
MM, the IPCC do weigh up that CO2 helps plant growth against all the other factors around warming. It is not something that is denied, but it is only a part of the picture. People like Goklany and Dyson have a simplistic one-dimensional view based on greening, and just do not consider the big picture or any of the negatives at all. It’s all green fields and roses for them, and a lot of people want to hear that too.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by kim
Salute the brave soccer moms fighting the carbon wars through the trenches and barbed blogs with their suburban assault vehicles.
=============
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Arch Stanton
Got a minute?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/17/green-vegan-liberal-sees-light-climate-change/
See the light.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by kim
Who’s gonna collect my welfare? Pay for my Cadillac?
===================
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Wagathon
True, what unites SUV-driving soccer moms in the global warming war is their embrace of technology.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
Michael,
Yes. I noticed that the ABC, in the best Warmist tradition, presented the scary “Average Wet Bulb Temperature. . . ” as the title of the large graphic, and hid the crucially important “Wet Bulb Globe Temperature” in small print at the bottom.
It didn’t fool you, but it certainly sucked in ATTP, and no doubt others (just a guess, of course).
But it does get a little more interesting. I don’t know if you are aware that the Australian BOM doesn’t actually measure the WBGT. It says “Because the Bureau of Meteorology uses an approximation to the WBGT, the user should clearly understand the limitations of this approximation as compared to a real measured WBGT. ”
So the scary title doesn’t mean what it seems to, and even the fine print doesn’t point out the limitations of the metric in any case.
It all sounds like Warmist “business as usual” to me.
Or maybe just another string of unavoidable and minor mistakes by the very knowledgeable ABC journalists, do you think?
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by kim
I’ve long considered Techno-Optimists vs Malthusian DoomSayers to not even be a sporting contest. Yet look at the field.
======================
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
You wrote –
“Several degrees by 2100, yes, that is what the scientists say.”
Oh I see. A scientist said it, so it must be true! Would you like me to provide a list of things that real scientists said were true, ie factual, but turned out to be wildly incorrect. Do a bit of your own research first, if you like. You might like to start with Lord Kelvin, or Trofim Lysenko.
You choose to believe a ragtag mob of second rate fortune tellers who claim to be able to look into the future. Good for you! You have the brains to realise that these fools provide predictions for no charge (being fully funded by the taxpayer of course), whereas professional fortune tellers have to make a living by making good enough predictions that they get repeat business.
Opinions are worth what you pay for them. Climatologists’ opinions cost you nothing, and have the same value at most.
What preparations have you made on the basis that the predictions of doom come to pass? Or are you all mouth and no trousers? It’s not too late to move to Patagonia or Siberia you know! Good luck with your precautions.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by timg56
Jim D,
Better not let that little gem of knowledge get out to all of the retirees in FL and AZ
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
The Lewandowsky article is a comprehensive review of several other studies related to uncertainty and decisionmaking and overlaps with themes that Judith frequently addresses. Several of the reviewed articles refer to the idea that climate change is too complex and uncertain to predict all its consequences. Under these conditions, where uncertainty increases by degree with climate change, the best course is to reduce climate change itself which is the surest way to reduce risk. Another paper tells us that uncertainty is not the friend of cooperation. Given a 50% chance of a poor outcome, people will not cooperate to reduce it, but when it rises to 90%, they will. The skepticism merchants play to this aspect of psychology in the hopes of no cooperation. Other work tells us that planning on past trends is better than planning on hopes of a reduced trend regardless of whether mitigation is attempted or not. These are all highly relevant studies, and this article makes a good summary. We need Judith to try to rebuff point by point rather than dismiss via Pile what this area of research is saying because sowing uncertainty is her main effort these days. It deserves attention and debate here.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by wert
‘Are those the same people whose climate models were 95% wrong on the hot side?’
:-p I look out and there is wet bulb temp of +6C. Not all mammals can survive that for a prolonged period, it’s too cold. We got two precious degrees more during the instrumental period, and no-one, really, wants them removed.
I somehow fail to see the problem with wet bulb. Without fossils I’d probably be dead or not born in the first place. A jungle is full of mammals even in the hottest web bulb areas. It might not be convenient for me, but does not seem to be an ecological problem.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
Nasty little clown. Judith is not sowing uncertainty. She is calling it as she sees it. That is science. You should stop gratuitously insulting Judith, if you want to have any credibility here.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
OK, JimD. Flip that switch and reduce climate change. The world awaits your magic touch.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joseph
Well Mike I wish “skeptics” believed it was only a ‘matter of opinion’ Unfortunately, I see a lot of is “skeptics” questioning the motives of scientists or using condescending general categories like “group think” to describe their behavior. I think it’s difficult to know what motivates a single person or how they arrive at conclusions, much less trying do that with a large group (i.e. climate scientists). Wouldn’t you agree?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
