Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest

$
0
0

Reasonable people (like Nobel winning scientist Dr. Molina) are proposing a portfolio of mitigation actions to address AGW that will not destroy economies:

(1) Fast Mitigation (methane, black carbon, smog, HFCs);
(2) Renewable Energy decisions based on sound engineering economics;
(3) Energy Efficiency — especially as discussed often by engineering giant ABB (like ultra supercritical coal units).
(4) Foreign trade incentives to Developing Countries (for lower carbon footprint products).
(5) Increased R&D funding Worldwide (including things like tax credits to solar as long as production costs keep on significantly dropping).


Comment on Climate closure (?) by kim

$
0
0

A useful point, but would you rather or rather not have had the Holocene?

Also, the clear solution seems to be keeping energy cheap enough to raise all the people out of abject poverty and into a state rich enough to adapt to the coming cooling, to the extent that such can be done.

We may not have much time left to do this. Glad you’re aware of the danger.
==================

Comment on Climate closure (?) by aaron

$
0
0

I didn’t know that McGill encouraged satire.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Sure its a proxy. ANY STATION or collection of stations can be considered as a proxy.

This isnt that hard.

The only question is this: is it a good proxy, how good? and how reliable.

There are some reasons to not rely on it as a be all and end all, and other reasons to consider it as better than nothing.

Is it magic? well if you believe in magic stations then Mann has some magic tree rings

Comment on Climate closure (?) by aaron

Comment on Climate closure (?) by JCH

$
0
0

Burl – in the early 1980s, I used to be the national training manager for a company that used chassis dynamometers and exhaust gas analyzers to tune cars. I was born a gear head. I once accepted the haze argument, but I no longer do. I think warming from 1910 to 1940 was caused by a confluence of a rapidly increasing PDO index, EL Nino dominance, ocean heat transport, and increased solar. The mid-century cooling, which many climate scientists attribute the haze, imo, was caused by a rapidly decreasing PDO index and, possibly, a reversal of OHT.

Then, around 1952, ACO2 blew it all out and has never relinquished its dominate role as the control knob of the climate.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0

> But I did not find any indication that all students are actually required to take courses within [philosophy of science].

That would be a great idea for these students, and for anyone who’d like to pontificate online about philosophy of science, Fiction.


Comment on Climate closure (?) by Jim D

$
0
0

AK, it is not he that shortened the scale. The forcing just wasn’t changing much prior to the early 20th century, and 70% of the forcing change has occurred since 1950 together with the most steady temperature rise in the whole record. It is no wonder that this part of the scale dominates both records.

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

$
0
0

Strawmen, like the poor, shall always be with us.

You should try reading the multiple energy-related articles posted here by Planning Engineer and Rud Istvan.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D

$
0
0

timg56, the purpose was to use past economic data globally to quantify the effects of warming. It’s yet another inconvenient result for the do-nothing crowd, but there it is. They are now free to put in the work to audit the study, but of course they won’t and I think they will just attack the authors and their institutions instead to gain the support of the anti-academic mob. It’s the easiest course.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Curious George

$
0
0

You remind me of a Russian joke of about 1970. Scene: A Communist Party Central Committee meeting.

Comrade Brezhnev: Americans have landed on the Moon. Our scientists decided to leapfrog their achievement. Comrades, we will land on the Sun!
Comrade Academician Korolyoff: Comrades, that’s a worthy and lofty goal, but there are problems. The Sun is hot. Very, very hot.
Comrade Brezhnev: Comrade – is he really a comrade? – Korolyoff is attempting to divert us. He raises objections to a plan he did not know about five minutes ago. But our scientists have foreseen the difficulty he mentions, and discovered a solution: We will land at night!
(Five minutes of standing ovations.)

BTW, I wonder if a strategic meeting at the White House preceding an Iraq invasion was similar in spirit.

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

$
0
0

 
Margaret Thatcher noted and Lomborg understands (and, for what, 0.03°F?), it’s all just great… until, you eventually run out of other people’s money. Meanwhile, we may headed towards decades of global cooling, not warming and possibly an little ice age by the end of the century.

Most existing coal and gas suppliers cost about half or less than wind and could run for decades; instead, we half-close them to accommodate wind. Whereas the new, cheap German wind-energy producers cost $80 per MWh ($0.08 per kWh), the average German spot price in 2014 was just $33 per MWh…

…wind and solar make fossil-fuel-generated electricity more expensive. Some people may think that is a good thing… Significant wind and solar usage reduces the number of hours gas and coal generation operates; with large fixed costs, this makes every kWh more expensive. In a real electricity market, this would result in much higher electricity costs on windless evenings. But this is politically problematic, which is why markets are often constructed to spike much less.

In Spain, gas plants were used 66% of the time in 2004, but only 19% of the time now, largely because of more wind use. Because the plants must be kept running 57% of the time to avoid losses, many are likely to close. Across Europe, possibly 60% of all gas-fired generation is at risk…

And its positive impact on the climate is negligible. Consider two worlds: in the first, all governments implement all their green promises, as indicated by the IEA, and increase solar and wind energy more than seven-fold by 2040; in the second, not one new solar panel or wind turbine is purchased over the next 25 years.

The difference in subsidy spending between the two worlds is more than $2.5 trillion. Yet the difference in temperature increase by the end of the century, run on the United Nations climate panel’s own model, would be a mere 0.0175°C (0.03°F)… ~Bjørn Lomborg

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Steve Fitzpatrick

$
0
0

Jim D,

I must admit that you are probably the most predictable, and clearly the funniest, participant on this blog.

Thanks.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest

$
0
0

Opluso — I do read and comment often on Rud’s and Planning Engineer’s writings. Obviously, you have not read and tried to understand my comments very much.


Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Beta Blocker

$
0
0
<strong>Stephen Segrest:</strong> <em>"And you, apparently along with Bjørn Lomborg, do not understand integrated resource planning and operations using engineering economics."</em> Under a recent law passed by the California state legislature, the Golden State must achieve 50% renewable electric generation by 2030. One of the provisions of this new law stipulates that the California Independent System Operator (ISO) is now charted to promote a renewable-friendly grid architecture for California and for the western region of the United States. Now that the agency has this added responsibility, would it not be appropriate for the California ISO to commission a study whose objective is to determine the present-value hard dollar implementation cost for designing, permitting, and constructing a 50% renewables grid architecture for the state of California? This study would include the possibility of attaining cooperative participation from other western states; and would include a fairly detailed project schedule, one which is nominally capable of achieving the legislated goal of 50% renewables by the year 2030. This kind of cost study would employ a <em>"basis of estimate"</em> engineering feasibility design for the 50% renewables grid architecture, a design which includes: (1) numbers, types, and locations for the additional windmills and solar panels which are needed; (2) numbers, types, and locations for the additional power transmission & distribution facilities which are needed; (3) numbers, types, and locations for the energy storage facilities which are needed; (4) any other technologies which are needed to operate a grid which meets the California ISO's current requirements for grid stability and reliability; (5) environmental restoration costs for decommissioning and removing California's non-renewable energy production and distribution facilities; and last but not least, (6) the administrative costs of gaining buy-in and approval from all the participating local, state, and regional stakeholders -- i.e., all the affected local governments, all the affected state governments, the affected agencies of the Federal Government, plus all affected non-government and quasi-government stakeholders such as the Indian Tribes, regional commissions of various types, and a variety of environmental activist groups. Stephen, how much do you suppose it would cost, and how long do you suppose it would take, for the California ISO to perform this kind of very detailed hard-dollar engineering feasibility study? One-hundred million dollars and three years, possibly?

Comment on Climate closure (?) by aaron

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Don Monfort

$
0
0

I guess I hurt the nameless one’s little feelings. Maybe I should apologize. He did spend several hours helping his dear indigent relative sign up, after the poor chap had gone around for more than a year with a bum scrotum.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Jim D

$
0
0

This is what I am referring to. Note that the end of it is thermometer data. If you have thermometer data, you can use it. There is no law against this in paleoclimate. It gives the results some present context.

Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by sherparick

$
0
0

Yes, I expect they would. JC is frequently referred to in Alex Revkin’s blog.http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/?s=%22judith+curry%22+georgia

It appears that academics who write papers finding evidence of AGW have been subject to criminal prosecutions & congressional subpoenas, not deniers.

Using conservatives think tanks an the example tobacco industry may not be to wise given that Enstrom was found to have engaged in conspiracy to distort the dangers of tobacco smoke & second hand smoke in court of law. “..The court’s Final Opinion contains a detailed timeline (starting in Section 5, paragraph #3781, on Page 1380) describing communication between Philip Morris and Enstrom to produce the 2003 BMJ study, and describes how the American Cancer Society had repeatedly warned Enstrom that using its CPS-I data in the manner he was using it would lead to unreliable results. The court’s Final Opinion cites the 2003 Enstrom/Kabat study as a significant part of the companies’ conspiratorial enterprise against the American public..” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_E._Enstrom.

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images