You probably think Nature is funny too, and just dismiss anything that appears in there based on some kind of prejudice against academia rather than looking into what it actually says and what facts it gives you in support. This is the easy route for skeptics and just looks rather lazy.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest
<b>Wagathon</b> -- Many people present the reasonable argument that the real AGW dialogue should be: <b>how much and how fast</b>. We just don't know -- nobody knows.
Dr. Molina (Nobel prize) and Dr. Ramanathan have argued that things like <b>fast mitigation</b> (which Dr. Curry has also written favorably on) should be implemented to <b>give our scientists and engineers time</b> to better understand the science and make technology breakthroughs. The number I've heard tossed around is that this "fast mitigation" alone could give us ~40 years. The key concept is to change the current trajectory.
<b>Wagathon and Others</b>only want to make a straw-man argument involving only Renewable Energy (and not a portfolio of actions) applied to Models that they criticize!
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by AK
<blockquote>AK, it is not he that shortened the scale.</blockquote>Yes it is. Why did he shorten the scale?<blockquote>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.</blockquote>Exactly<blockquote>It is no wonder that this part of the scale dominates both records.</blockquote>No, it fits what he was trying to do. Unfortunately, it also means that everything pre-1950 is too rough to prove <b>anything</b>.
If you look at the temp changes on a <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/10/24/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-18/#comment-739117" rel="nofollow"><b>linear</b> time-scale,</a> the slope of warming from 1910-1940 is roughly the same as that from 1970-2000. While the rise in forcing was tiny during the former rise (see above).
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest
<b>Beta Blocker</b> -- As I have consistently said, all Regulatory Agencies and Federal, State, and local legislative bodies must insure that decisions are made using <b>sound engineering economics</b>. This is why I oppose a Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, or any State Standard that is locked in concrete. Targets are fine. Pushing Regulated Electric Utilities to implement state of the art engineering practices (e.g. ELCC) is appropriate. Locked in Mandates are not OK.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Jim D
AK, the scale is forcing, not time. It is a linear scale with forcing, and it turns out that the temperature rises linearly with the forcing (who knew?).
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest
Curious George — Obviously you have not read what I’ve repeatedly said year after year on this blog: “I hate top/down command/control practices such as a carbon tax (regressive tax), cap & trade schemes (another Wall St. financial derivative), or a Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (taking decision making out of our engineers hands).
I believe in Conservative approaches of bottom to top, flexible, incentive carrots.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Danny Thomas
Don,
“Danny, what happens when not enough healthy paying customers sign up for health insurance?”
Great question. Look at what was occurring before O-care for the answer. Medicaid for those less fortunate. Hospitals not getting paid. No coverage and bankruptcy for those with pre-existing (or just not getting treatment).
The Republicans goofed on this one IMO. They should have owned it, said it was stolen (Mitt/Mass.) and marketed it to the fullest to ‘get more healthy’ to buy in.
The alternatives were two: stay the course (which at least Obama tried to address), or the alternative put forth by the right which is __________________(silence).
Sorry, but this one goes to Obama. It needs ‘patching’ and certainly improvement, but just calling it like I see it.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Jim D
The plot below it is on a linear time axis where you can see that 1910 was a cold anomaly, probably due to solar inactivity.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by omanuel
I agree with E.M. Smith’s identification of this basic requirement for us to retain contact with reality and basic constitutional rights:
“The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/pondering-a-funding-campaign/
Is crowd funding a viable way to restore access to information?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
SS,
If “sound engineering economics” we’re used there would be almost no renewable energy projects. Mechanical engineers work on those kinds of things and they have to understand thermodynamics whereas politicians, freeloaders, and renewable energy hucksters do not.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by mosomoso
Fast mitigation is fast white elephants.
Never mind. Someone in Asia will burn the fossil fuels to make all that stuff you like…They’ll even build your white elephants for you! Aussie coal burnt in Asia makes solar panels and wind turbine components for Australia. Fossil fuels build gigantic sympathy-vote enterprises like Ivanaph, and Ivanapah then burns increasingly more fossil fuel for, er, technical reasons. It’s a perfect symbiosis: fossil fuels and white elephants. Any waste can be written off…and written off…
White elephants…you know you need one now. Your planet will love you, Big Gas will love you, Big Green will love you, Big Finance will love you, Big Subsidy will love you, Big Tax will love you, Big Asia will love you and any international institution with a Superman-comic name will love you. More importantly, you can read HuffPo and the Guardian over a weekend brunch and know you’re one of the goodies. Or one of the “folks”, as elitists now like to say.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest
Ethanol is another example of how issues are constantly negatively “framed” here at CE. In the ethanol dialogue no one (except me) will bring octane gasoline requirements into the discussion.
By the omission of objectivity, the current state of ethanol dialogue here at CE is that Lead is really OK, concerns about MTBE and Benzene (and other aromatics) are another Liberal bleeding heart agenda item, costs of toluene and xylene vs. ethanol are irrelevant.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Mike Flynn
Ken W,
For an even greater dose of side splitting fun, try to grow a single plant in air containing no CO2 at all.
The CO2 phobic crowd don’t seem to realise that O2 is needed to create CO2. Better not tell them, otherwise they’ll want to take all the O2 out of the air, and impose an oxygen tax.
Removing all CO2 from the air is suicidal, if a little slow to achieve extermination of the human race.. Removing all oxygen from the air is more expensive, but quicker.
It might be best not to interfere too much with processes we know almost nothing about. Just in case.
Cheers.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest
Justin Wonder — Clearly you have no electricity integrated system planning experience. Clearly you’ve never run an integrated planning model (like from GE) or had any discussions with System Planners.
You should try and read and learn rather than sophomoric bloviation.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Wagathon
True, true and straw elephants too! There really, really is pollution in the world. Freeman Dyson understands that and you do not have to be a genius like Dyson to understand and agree. Unfortunately, even Dyson wonders why Western academia believe CO2 is a pollutant. “The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence [i.e., that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm].” ~Freemen Dyson
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Curious George
Link, please.
To paraphrase your complaint, everybody here is insane. I may well be the only sane person around.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
SS,
“You should try and read and learn rather than sophomoric ”
I’m calling your bluff. How much is 2 x 7%? I don’t want to humiliate you (lie) by giving you anything too challenging. Btw, that’s what you get if you double the renewable contribution to electricity generation.
It’s all in the numbers…
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
Jungle,
I the whole thing is a big conspiracy to promote meat. The Lascaux paintings are actually of vegetables and soybeans, but a vast right-wing conspiracy covered them up with paint from DuPont and petrochemicals from Exxon and and I think Monsanto too…
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest
Justin Wonder — Serious people trying to constructively contribute are addressing a portfolio of at least 5 mitigation areas that I listed above. Yet, you (and others like you) want to build a strawman of only only option — renewable energy.
You are not a serious contributor — just an obstructionist.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by aaron
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
