Comment on Week in review – science edition by jddohio

November 1, 2015, 3:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)

$

0

0

NOAA response to Congressional Committee seeking its emails:“Because the confidentiality of these communications among scientists is essential to frank discourse among scientists, those documents were not provided to the Committee,” the agency said. “It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”

I guess this line of thinking never occurred to Shukla and those seeking RICO investigations. If mostly government funded studies are exempt from disclosure, why are private scientists and corporations also not protected in their internal deliberations? Based on Climategate, Michael Mann, Peter Glecik and Shukla’s actions, there is no reason to presume that government funded actions or studies are conducted in good faith.

JD

---

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

November 1, 2015, 3:47 pm

≫ Next: Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Kiribati crisis: the blame game | Climate Etc.

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by jddohio

$

0

0

Steven Mosher,

I can see why you might like this.

Lots of green and red jellybeans.

Discussion about how long it might (or might not) take for CO2 to return to pre industrial revolution levels. Whee! Why not consider how long it might take to return to historically higher levels? Healthy dose of subjectivity?

Of course, no information as to why pre industrial levels of CO2 are particularly desirable.

No attempt to show that CO2 warms anything at all. I wonder why? Possibly more baseless assumptions?

Thanks for that Steven. It’s at least aptly titled. Denial. That’s what Warmists practice. Facts? Who needs ’em! Experimental verification of their delusional theories? We don’t need no stinkin’ experiments! We’ve got Mosher and Mann!

Cheers.

Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Kiribati crisis: the blame game | Climate Etc.

November 1, 2015, 3:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

[…] 10.2 of Alan Longhurst’s book Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science addresses the underlying science relevant to sea level rise and island living.  The text below is […]

Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

November 1, 2015, 3:52 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

≪ Previous: Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Kiribati crisis: the blame game | Climate Etc.

$

0

0

Jim D | November 1, 2015 at 5:50 pm |
I have justified it several times already. You take the population increase rate and the per capita CO2 increase rate due to development and you get 700 ppm by 2100 or thereabouts. Anything less means we have successfully replaced some fossil fuel burning by other means, mitigation in other words, and/or that you have restricted developing countries from increasing their carbon footprint somehow.

Really? Really?

Good luck with that. The first time the annual CO2 rise hits 3.5 (your average) we can start taking that estimate seriously. Until then we will just file it away with the other failed global warming predictions.

In 1959 emissions were 2.45 GT/Y.
In 2014 emissions were 9.8 GT/Y.

For people who are bad at math, the current emissions are 4 (four) times higher than they were.

Now some more simple math:.the increase went from 0.85 to about 2.2 – which is 2.59 times. Emissions are increasing 50% faster than atmospheric CO2 rate. That is why the two curves bear no resemblance to each other.

Further – the 90’s “hiatus” shows that at least a 1.5% annual increase is needed just to keep the annual increase at 2 PPM/Y.

The predicted Chinese/India increase of 7 GT/Y (2 GT of carbon) by 2040 from the current 36 GT/Y of carbon dioxide is about 20%. This
would mean an annual increase in emissions of 1.3% per year, down from the 21th century average of around 3% per year.

The annual increase is going to hang around 2 PPM/Y (or less) like a broken speedometer.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

November 1, 2015, 3:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

$

0

0

Mike Flynn, A real scientist would have used m&ms.

Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

November 1, 2015, 3:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$

0

0

Here are some solutions for the ‘threatened islands’ :

1). Build homes and businesses on solid stilts like they do along the US Gulf Coast.

2). Raise the land by pumping sediments from offshore. The Chinese have demonstrated they are good at this sort of things when building artificial islands West of the Philippines. The Chinese also have an infrastructure bank to provide loans for these kinds of projects.

The problem can be solved without trying to hold up developed countries and, courtes yof the UN, laying on guilt trips.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout

November 1, 2015, 4:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by thomaswfuller2

≪ Previous: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

$

0

0

Stephen

You are not trying to understand what Fernando and Rud have stated. First, Fernando did not use the term “agreed to”. It perhaps is an opinion, but from what I’ve read it is based on evidence. And the evidence is easily available; try doing a bit of reading related to expected future supply and demand of coal, oil, and natural gas (the draconian market forces of which Fernando speaks). A start might be the post of Prodessor Rutledge, the link provided in my comment above.

Richard

Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by thomaswfuller2

November 1, 2015, 4:08 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by mwgrant

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout

$

0

0

I believe Kiribati may have as much as 30% more land than it did in 1960. Sadly, their population has climbed from 35,000 to 100,000 during that period.

---

Comment on Week in review – science edition by mwgrant

November 1, 2015, 4:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by thomaswfuller2

$

0

0

Anybody else here miss the likes of Pekka?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

November 1, 2015, 4:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Jacob

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by mwgrant

$

0

0

Well, Tonyb it is like this.

The reserve situation:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_reserves

The 15 GT CO2 China is expected to produce in 2040 is about 4.1 GT of carbon (divide by 3.67). China has 13.3% of the worlds coal reserves, or 114.5 GT of coal, 80% carbon, 20% physically unextractable (they would lose cities etc.). That is 78.3 GT of carbon.

By 2040 they will be consuming 4.1 GT from 78.3 GT of carbon reserves each year.

The prediction chart above is unrealistic. China will not be burning large volumes of coal in 2040. Even at the current consumption their reserves will be almost gone by 2040.

India only has 7% of the world reserves and can do only about 1/2 the damage China can.

Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Jacob

November 1, 2015, 4:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

$

0

0

You are worried about 20 or 30 thousand of inhabitants of Pacific Islands?
There are about 60 Million refugees now in the World, according to the UN. So, how are 20 or 30 thousand islanders that may become refugees (and may also not), in a distant future, a problem?

Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

November 1, 2015, 4:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by John Robertson

≪ Previous: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Jacob

$

0

0

My letter to the Aus on this three months ago, re an article on Vanaatu and its islands:

“The admirable Kate Legge’s article on the inspirational Gail Kelly had one flaw (“Gail force,” August 1-2). Legge refers to “rising sea levels” as a concern for those on the atoll Aniwa Island. The sea level rise around Vanuatu is negligible at around 2.5 mm a year. Atolls are living bodies which adapt to rises and falls in sea level, and monitoring shows that many have expanded over the last 30 years. Contrast that with real concerns, such as an inter-tribal killing followed by the burning down of tourist properties on which livelihood depends.” [An incident during Legge’s visit, which she reported.]

If there are any concerns about sea-level rise in such islands, they are probably prompted by ill-informed non-islander activists.

Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by John Robertson

November 1, 2015, 4:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

$

0

0

Islands such as Kiribati have a population and water problem; not a sea level rise problem. Understandably, the local politicians milk the ‘climate change’ line for all it is worth to get financial assistance for their community. The population density is now greater than that of mainland China.

This means that the islands’ coral foundation has been extensively quarried for building material and that ever more fresh water is needed. There is a high rainfall and, if there was sufficient means of capture and storage, there would be ample fresh water even for the present population level. But it is easier and cheaper to sink a bore and pump.

As any child at the seaside knows when you dig a hole in the beach, sea water seeps in to fill it. That is what is happening on the Islands of Kiribati. If rain water was adequately captured and stored the bores would be unnecessary and the seepage would cease.

Dr Klein’s suggestion of Chinese style reclamation is an interesting one. One suspects that the $s per hectare reclaimed figure will be better suited to a military than a civilian project. The provision of building materials by ship might be a suitable gesture by aid-giving countries?

Whatever be the solution, it is apparent that an ever rising population cannot be sustained on those small islands.

Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Mike Flynn

November 1, 2015, 4:27 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Curious George

≪ Previous: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by John Robertson

$

0

0

You don’t even have to live on a post industrial revolution coral atoll to experience sh*t happening.

Look at Easter Island, or a few others.

Or the inhabitants of a few sunken cities here and there.

If the continental US is more your thing, figure out how too much CO2 resulted in the collapse of the Anasazi civilisation (amongst others).

All due to the dastardly influence of CO2? Maybe, but maybe not. Jeez!

Cheers.

Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Curious George

November 1, 2015, 4:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George

≪ Previous: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

I would listen to Willis Eschenbach, who actually lived there and knows what he is talking about:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/so-many-people-so-little-rain/

---

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George

November 1, 2015, 4:55 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout

≪ Previous: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Curious George

$

0

0

I like your flexibility, glad to have my Gulf Stream back. Who generates these colorful pictures?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout

November 1, 2015, 5:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George

$

0

0

Stephen

Rud’s post “Another Hocket Stick” reveals why he agrees with Fernando’s timeframe. Peak production of oil, coal, and natural gas occurring in the first half of this century, and rapid decline thereafter. Low supply, higher prices; draconian market forces.

Here is the link to Rud’s post:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/01/another-hockey-stick/

Richard

Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

November 1, 2015, 5:30 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout

$

0

0

Thanks, good piece by Willis.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

November 1, 2015, 5:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

$

0

0

… and Max Anacker …

Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Wagathon

November 1, 2015, 5:40 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Stephen Segrest

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

$

0

0

I said global warming was causing the seas to rise but I never atoll meant it would be a problem. ~Barack and Hillary