Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

JCH,
I’m not ‘attacking’ anyone. But satellites and ARGO buoys? Why are we spending the millions (billions) if their results are not robust? Seriously. Even Karl (from the quote from the article presuming it’s an accurate quote) indicates those data were not used in his work.

Karl’s data ‘clashes’ with satellites and ARGO was ‘left out’ due to issues, according to the article. Well apparently there were ‘issues’ which he chose to address via inclusion. That’s not an attack, but leaves me wondering why to chose to not address those two very contemporary resources.


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

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

$
0
0

Stephen

Seems your support of renewables is based on the fact that they are at such a low penetration level, the waste of money and resources on them is ok.

Richard

Comment on Climate closure (?) by russellseitz

$
0
0

Here to remedy Hockeyschticks ignorance of the subject is IPCC %’s section TS.2.4
Radiative Forcing Due to Solar Activity and Volcanic Eruptions

Continuous monitoring of total solar irradiance now covers the last 28 years.

The data show a well-established 11-year cycle in irradiance that varies by 0.08% from solar cycle minima to maxima, with no significant long-term trend. New data have more accurately quantified changes in solar spectral fluxes over a broad range of wavelengths in association with changing solar activity. Improved calibrations using high-quality overlapping measurements have also contributed to a better understanding. Current understanding of solar physics and the known sources of irradiance variability suggest comparable irradiance levels during the past two solar cycles, including at solar minima.

The primary known cause of contemporary irradiance variability is the presence on the Sun’s disk of sunspots (compact, dark features where radiation is locally depleted) and faculae (extended bright features where radiation is locally enhanced). {2.7}

The estimated direct radiative forcing due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m–2, which is less than half of the estimate given in the TAR, with a low level of scientific understanding. The reduced radiative forcing estimate comes from a re-evaluation of the long-term change in solar irradiance since 1610 (the Maunder Minimum) based upon: a new reconstruction using a model of solar magnetic flux variations that does not invoke geomagnetic, cosmogenic or stellar proxies; improved understanding of recent solar variations and their relationship to physical processes; and re-evaluation of the variations of Sun-like stars. While this leads to an elevation in the level of scientific understanding from very low in the TAR to low in this assessment, uncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales. {2.7, 6.6}

Empirical associations have been reported between solar-modulated cosmic ray ionization of the atmosphere and global average low-level cloud cover but evidence for a systematic indirect solar effect remains ambiguous. It has been suggested that galactic cosmic rays with sufficient energy to reach the troposphere could alter the population of cloud condensation nuclei and hence microphysical cloud properties (droplet number and concentration), inducing changes in cloud processes analogous to the indirect cloud albedo effect of tropospheric aerosols and thus causing an indirect solar forcing of climate. Studies have probed various correlations with clouds in particular regions or using limited cloud types or limited time periods; however, the cosmic ray time series does not appear to correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994. Together with the lack of a proven physical mechanism and the plausibility of other causal factors affecting changes in cloud cover, this makes the association between galactic cosmic ray-induced changes in aerosol and cloud formation controversial. {2.7}

And here for those who prefer primary scientific sources to the fulmination of Anthony Watts is the paper both he and Hockeyschtick fail to link :

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4737323/Seitz_BrightWater.pdf?sequence=1

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Steven Mosher,

“Your first argument was man will never fly.” You can make up whatever statements you like, and you often do. Anybody who takes the time to try to verify your statements will be sorely disappointed, in most cases.

Repeating an untruth does not make it true. It is obviously a deeply ingrained Warmist trait. If you are going to fabricate statements, choose ones that are not so easily disproven.

Not satisfied with one fabrication, you press on.

“Now that you see prototype trees, the argument becomes,
why would you want to fly.

or it will be expensive to fly.”

I have not mentioned artificial trees, or flight. I have merely quoted from a
Iink you provided. Maybe you could go off and argue with yourself some more. You are getting quite adept.

Feel free to promote artificial trees, artificial cows, even artificial intelligence, if you find you are lacking a sufiicient amount of the natural commodity.

You are an odd lad, Steven. This might well explain your preoccupation with nonsense such as “surface temperatures” which aren’t, reducing CO2 levels, wiping out humanity because you believe that CO2 raises temperatures, and similar bizarre delusions. Maybe you could try sticking to facts. I find them much more satisfying. Of course, you can choose to pursue Warmist fantasies, if you wish.

The choice is yours.

Cheers.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by hockeyschtick

$
0
0

Hey Seitz, are you incapable of understanding the IPCC said “evidence for a systematic indirect solar effect remains ambiguous” DOES NOT mean what you falsely claimed “the IPCC has ruled that , no surprise, the indirect effects are even more trivial than the third decimal place variations in the solar flux.”?

Furthermore, are you incapable of understanding the IPCC is ONLY referring to ONE (Svensmark’s theory) of over 100 solar amplification mechanisms described in the published literature?

The IPCC selectively ignores the dozens of other potential amplification mechanisms, as do you Seitz.

Here’s also an update from Svensmark refuting the IPCC claims:

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2015/02/epn2015462p26.pdf

Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by Mark Silbert

Comment on A peculiar kind of science by ulriclyons

$
0
0

If I had a political agenda, I would portray that I had more uncertainty rather than less uncertainty, then I could scare you with both increased floods and increased droughts.


Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by PA

$
0
0

Just looking at the numbers – about 40% of the student body is people that don’t build things (humanities/business/science).

If you don’t have the engineers on board, that is a sign it isn’t real.

An engineering university can’t stake out a really absurd PC position without hearing about it.

MTU had a “A World Without Ice” event announcement posted, it attracted some alumni comments.

The alumni comments were entirely against.. Some clippings from different comments::
…climate-change alarmism.
…apparently the institution is undergoing some pretty severe intellectual degradation. Oh well, I guess entropy rules are unavoidable…
…Apparently he is unaware of the 35 errors in Al Gore’s sci fi comedy horror movie
…MTU is simply setting themselves up for ridicule by supporting this hoax.
…I remember having to watch propaganda on “global warming” and “global cooling” in my first general engineering class. More tuition money wasted
…Maybe the Technological should be dropped? Lemmings? Leftists? Anti-Thinkers? Robotrons?
…information immune dullard chumped double-plus-good hoax parrot drones from Orwell’s Oceania, shills, for big money rent seeking leaches.

My take is that the alumni have not been completely persuaded by global warming science.

It might be nice to do a poll of the engineers on the blog and see how bad the “engineering consensus” is. I don’t believe “mostly GHG warming since 1900” would even get 30% it might get single digits.

Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by ristvan

$
0
0

True in theory, not in practice. Old example: my thesis cut the economic legs from under then nuclear power on economic grounds. Was opposite industry research at the time. New example: ‘industry’ research from the renewables industry claiming viability. Planning Engineer and I have been guest posting to the contrary.
My problem with much gov sponsored research is that it is not basic, rather applied, but in directions even the Mad Hatter would know are crazy wrong. Which is why so many gov research dollars have produced so little benefit. Been there, done that, up close amd personal in the corporate, personal, and gov R&D arenas, both basic and applied, in energy, biotech, and electronic subject matters.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$
0
0

Stephen,
Well, SC is adding new nuclear, does have co-fired thermal to burn waste, does allow utilities to decide on solar feed in and rates and since it has hydro to load follow can have a higher percentage of intermittent power without major backup generation having to be installed. They also are raising trees for the UK to burn. They are cautiously moving in the right direction. Oh, and their electric rates are a lot lower than California. I would say that most here at CE don’t have a problem with a cautious approach but do have a problem with a California approach.

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

$
0
0

He doesn’t really believe this:=>”Again, the major issue of Renewable Energy is Penetration Levels which should/must always follow sound and state of the art engineering economics.”

This is BS:=>”Ultimately though in Developed Countries, it really doesn’t matter what one here at CE believes — the evolving electricity market (challenging the centralized regulated electric utility) will determine this.”

It’s government mandates and subsidies that have been driving renewable energy penetration levels. You think that’s good/necessary. You are not being honest here, little dude.

Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by timg56

$
0
0

Josh (aka Putz)

Get it right.

McKibben promotes divestment – advocacy. No bad, as he’s not a scientist.

Judith criticizing divestment policies of universities – observation & opinion. Where is the bad?

Point of this post – universities who receive significant funding from or have significant investment amounts in energy companies should not be playacting to please the advocates of divestment. At a minimu it is hypicritical. At worst it is a sign of stup*ty, particularly if they drink their own koolaid and actually try divestment.

Once again you manage to be honesty challenged.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by davideisenstadt

$
0
0

Mosh:
you write:
“Ideal is greater than 100. easy peasy”
Im sure that all plants, if they could experience gratitude , would be thankful that youre not in charge since they need at a minimum around 180 PPM CO2 to live and thrive.
good luck eating dirt and rocks.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Joel Williams

$
0
0

Today’s “Smart Quote” in SigmaXi’s Smart Brief: “Study the past if you would define the future.” — Confucius, philosopher and teacher.

Getting those higher educations is generally about learning about the past and fitting “new” stuff into its framework – the idea of classical science is NOT to ignore the past, as irrelevant, but to use it, since it has many results with many variables. Build models on facts, check models versus separate group of facts, “iterate” as often as necessary to reproduce the past accurately before venturing into wiz-ing the future.


Comment on Climate closure (?) by Lou Maytrees

$
0
0

opluso – don’t the Roman & Medieval Warm periods prove that the atmosphere is very sensitive to climate forcings? What was it that caused these warming periods you claim were so robust? Is there something specific that caused them? So if the climate is that sensitive, as seen by the R&MWP’s, adding 40% more CO2 will = more high climate sensitivity.

Comment on Climate closure (?) by Ron Clutz

$
0
0

What would we make of an agnoranus?

Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

@Faustino: Somewhat related, 61 prominent Australians have written a letter to world leaders urging an end to coal-mining, with the Australian coal industry the main target.

Not to worry, Michael. The letter writers are wasting their time. Instead of writing letters they should just sit back and wait for four more years. By that time the Australian coal industry will have to pay countries to take it off their hands. Extrapolate this graph out to 2020:

(Source: https://ycharts.com/indicators/australia_coal_price )

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Danny Thomas

Comment on Climate closure (?) by opluso

$
0
0

Lou Maytrees:

What was it that caused these warming periods you claim were so robust?

You raise interesting questions but I did not assert the warm periods were “robust” though I will accept that they did, in fact, occur. What I actually asked was why there was so little concern expressed by the consensus about Dr. Mann’s abuse of proxy (e.g., tree ring) data? Prior to global warming becoming an ideological issue it seems that almost everyone accepted the existence of relatively colder and warmer periods over the past 12,000 years.

To respond to your questions about MWP, etc., I don’t believe that CO2 sensitivity has anything to do with it. Natural variability (even in the absence of changes in atmospheric CO2) is sufficient to reverse many longterm trends, whether they be cooling trends or warming trends.

And what drives natural variability? Good question. I would start my quest for an answer in the ocean depths and end up in the clouds.

Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images