Ethanol and octane link: http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2015/02/is-ethanol-being-forced-down-our-throats.html
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Curious George
Stephen – thank you for a kind reply. Your link does not show “how issues are constantly negatively “framed” here at CE.”. It links to an article saying “Octane is an additive needed to reduce the reaction of gasoline to combust/ignite under pressure in a car’s engine cylinder.”
Octane is not an additive. It is one of basic components of gasoline, C8H18. It is a desirable component, and a low percentage of it does indeed lead to an engine “knocking”. Please use a knowledgeable source next time.
↧
Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by harkin1
“All donations to the University, whether from oil companies or anyone else, do not affect the independence of our teaching and research programmes,” she said. “Those donating money to the University have no influence over how academics carry out their research or what conclusions they reach.”
See, you only need show trials for the scientists who go against the ideology (whether or not a cent of funding comes from the fossil fuels sector), not the ones sucking up petro-pounds and preaching to the choir.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by climatereason
Not so i am afraid . I learned about the roman warm period at my junior school in England which unfortunately was some time before 1995 . Tacitus was also aware of it and remarked on the growing warmth which allowed grape vines to flourish in England and that caused beech trees to suffer in Rome.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by curryja
from the dictionary: hypocrisy – the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform
↧
↧
Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by Barnes
At the same time, given that this is a relatively new approach, maybe, just maybe, some adult will come along and introduce the concept that increased co2 levels may actullay be a good thing. Naive optimism on my part, but you never know.
↧
Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by popesclimatetheory
industry pressures could be dictating the focus of scientific research
Duh, industry wants to know what is really going on in natural climate cycles.
They need that to make correct decisions to be successful.
The other side only wants to convict humans and CO2 of crimes.
The need that to tax and control us.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Steven Mosher
“The good folks at ASU apparently want to reduce CO2 to 350 ppm, as the climate at that time was as good as it could possibly be.
Now, the question is, what to do with all the CO2 removed from the atmosphere, at great expense, and with no discernible benefit?”
Your first argument was man will never fly.
Now that you see prototype trees, the argument becomes,
why would you want to fly.
or it will be expensive to fly.
As AK has adaptly pointed out direct air capture is a pretty good safety net when they skeptics of today are dead and gone and we need a
solution to the problem they left us.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Tucci78
<blockquote><i>Whether the fault is defective physical inuition, selective citation , or willfull ignorance of the scientific literature , Curry’s problem goes beyond denial :
She is denying the obvious.</i></blockquote>
Sphincter-boy, with nothing but purely irrelevant and flagrantly insulting <i>argumentum ad hominem</i> (do you really conceive that there's something substantive in your spew about how "A century of radiometric data [allegedly] proves otherwise : those te[n]th of a percent variations are trivial relative to both the observed temperature trend and the order of magnitude larger radiative forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic factors"?) addressed against the host of this Web site, do you honestly expect to evade the banhammer?
No one with any understanding of the error intrinsic to the legacy instrumental analysis techniques involved in the recording of those <i>"observed temperature trend"</i> data (even <b><i>before</i></b> they'd been systematically, mendaciously, and with malice aforethought "adjusted" to impose a speciously exaggerated warming bias) is going to take your crap as anything other than proof of your intent to act as accessory after the fact in the perpetration of fraud.
<blockquote><blockquote><i><b>He has committed the crime who profits by it.</b></i>
<blockquote>-– Lucius Annaeus Seneca</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Arch Stanton
What is left to deny, you say?
God help us, is there no end?
↧
Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by pottereaton
If they stop taking donations from private industry and individuals based on ethical qualms, where will they get free money to balance their budgets?
Why, from government, i.e. the taxpayers, of course.
↧
Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by rebelronin
:)
ugh
must we scrub the entire language of even the slightest possibility of offense?
let’s create an entire neutered language
filled with fluffy words and concepts like ‘climate change’
↧
Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by Joshua
smokin’ –
==> “Don’t you find any usefulness in a voice like Judith’s?”
Yes.
I think that advocacy, as a general phenomenon, is useful. However, its usefulness varies, IMO. It’s usefulness is contingent on various attributes, IMO. Even-handedness, consistent application of standards, attempts to control for bias are, among others, attributes that I think correlate positively with usefulness.
And I think that advocacy that is based on attacking advocacy (of only those who disagree) undermines it’s own usefulness.
↧
↧
Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by Joshua
smokin’ –
==> “Joshua can you see the difference between advocating for integrity vs advocating for a particular team?”
Everyone on all teams disavow the teamness of their own advocacy. Everyone here thinks that they’re advocating for integrity. I don’t find self-sealed self-proclamations of integrity to be impressive. I’d rather judge advocacy on it’s integral logical consistency – to the best of my ability.
↧
Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by Joshua
==> “must we scrub the entire language of even the slightest possibility of offense?”
The problem isn’t one of “offense,” IMO. The problem is the engagement of ad homs in place of reasoned discussion in good faith. As such, pointing out hypocrisy can be a grey area, as saying someone’s arguments (or advocacy) are hypocritical isn’t technically an ad hom, even if often it effectively amounts to playing the man not the ball.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Danny Thomas
JCH,
You’ve indicated before that they are not in conflict, but are they in agreement? The approaches do not suggest that there is no warming of the oceans. However, Nieves indicates it’s located in the Indian Ocean while Karl basically adjusts the more contemporary (modern) instrumentation to coincide with the more ‘old school’ methods. To me, this would be akin to then taking the satellite data and doing the same. It makes no sense to me unless we’re becoming worse at our measurement capability as we update our systems. Surely the newer systems could be expected to have greater precision and accuracy. If not, why bother?
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by hockeyschtick
bobdroege: “Prove I am wrong.”
Sure, will do, I have repeatedly:
“The primary factor that affects the formation of winds is differences in atmospheric pressure. As is true throughout nature, any fluid will try to move from a region of high pressure to a region of low pressure. The principal causes of these differences in pressure are related to the absorption of heat due to solar radiation.”
“But as you can see below, the region along the Equator [where rotation speed is HIGHEST] is referred to as the Doldrums because there is essentially no prevailing wind in this area.”
” wind cannot be explained by something as simplistic as the rotation of the Earth. It is instead a complex fluid dynamics problem that involves the Earth’s rotation, imbalances in the heating of the atmosphere caused by the Sun, and the absorption and radiation of heat by large bodies of water. ”
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0117.shtml
In addition, on Venus, there is no temp difference between the poles and equator, which has NOTHING to do with rotation speed of Venus, and everything to do with the gravito-thermal GHE.
bobdroege, all you are capable of if throwing up strawmen and red herrings to see what sticks, and so far, nothing has, including your ridiculous static gas cylinder theory of the 100km atmosphere.
Sure, we believe you bobdroege, it’s just an unbelievable, incredible, amazing “coincidence” that the HS greenhouse equation (derived from the IGL and 1st law, Newton’s 2nd law, and Poisson relation) PERFECTLY reproduces the 1976 US Std Atmosphere, and the International Standard Atmosphere, and that of Venus and Titan as well.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Beta Blocker
<strong>Stephen Segrest:</strong> <em>"Beta Blocker — I’m not familiar with the CA legislation. [SB 350] But if it is a locked in concrete mandate that can never be changed (hard to believe) then I of course would be against it."</em>
The passage of SB 350 in California, combined with Governor Brown's recent Executive Order directing that climate change issues be included in all of California's government planning activities and regulatory decision making activities, gives those who are pushing hard for quick adoption of the renewables direct access to the levers of power needed to decide the outcome of energy-related public policy decision making.
<strong>Stephen Segrest:</strong> <em>"I understand this — Per the EIA the last time I looked, California has been the biggest buyer of combined cycle natural gas units in the U.S. (second, was Florida) — giving them tremendous flexibility on Renewable generation options."</em>
If the California ISO, acting in pursuit of its newly assigned responsibility for promoting a renewable-friendly grid architecture for California and for the western states, were to publish a hard-dollar estimate for what it will take to achieve 50% renewables in California by 2030 -- a cost estimate whose engineering basis includes a specifically-detailed mix of gas-fired generation, wind generation, solar generation, and grid-scale energy storage facilities -- that detailed engineering feasibility study would, all by itself, spark an intense debate as to just how far it is possible to go in pushing a highly-ambitious renewable energy timetable without relying upon extensive use of gas-fired power generation facilities,
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by hockeyschtick
Well, if it isn’t the infamous nut Russell Seitz.
Read all about it here folks: http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=russell+seitz
Earth to Seitz: Ice cores from BOTH poles clearly show the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian, Holocene Climate Optimum, etc. were warmer than the present, and GLOBAL.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by hockeyschtick
The clueless and infamous [http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=russell+seitz] denies solar influences by denying over 100 solar-amplification mechanisms described in the peer-review, published literature:
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=solar+amplification+mechanism
↧
