people think different, people have biases, people have beliefs, people have opinions. where does one of these stop and the other begins?
Americans came from everywhere and we have all the cultures plus what has evolved here. European cultures are not all the same and we have some of all of them.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
James
Are you aware that serious droughts in Syria are a frequent occurrence? What is different this time is that Syria has a population of some 22 million people whereas 50 years ago it was 5 million.
The country does not have a sufficiently well developed infrastructure of dams and irrigation to grow enough crops for this burgeoning population nor the foreign exchange to buy them in. This is all quite separate to the civil war and general fighting between factions that started to fray people’s lives years ago.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
Wow! The democrats base everything on the few Climate Scientists who really make up the 97% and who use Climate Models of their best theory that provides output that always disagrees with Mother Nature.
When the model output is wrong then the models are wrong and the theory is wrong. What is really going on with you alarmists? The Republicans are trying to save us from this madness. I don’t agree with everything the various Republicans say, but this is most important and they are right that manmade CO2 is good and not bad in any way.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
James Thompson: What I suggest is you actually seek out some news, rather than just reading ‘skeptic’ sites, esp ones that focus more on sociology than actual events occurring in the world right now.
I get most of my information from peer-reviewed journals and curated data sets. To date, the reviews in Science magazine have not concluded that cyclonic storms, droughts, floods, or fires have increased in frequency, intensity, or extent during the warming since 1880 — unless I missed some. If you can link me to reviews that say different, I’ll download them. As noted by Weart, some committee summaries such as those of the IPCC make claims beyond what can be supported by the data.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Fernando L.
Stephen Segrest: I didn’t use the word “agreed”, when referring to market forces which will inexorably curtail fossil fuel demand. I come from a background in engineering, and specifically in the oil and gas industry, and I’m fully aware of how difficult it is to establish future resources.
It’s difficult to convey what I’ve noticed over the last 20 years or so. To summarize: the industry is running out of ideas as to where to find new exploitable resources. What’s left to add on is mostly very expensive to extract, and requires a lot of resources to get it to the customer.
Some are deceived by plots showing increasing “reserves”, but when we understand the fine detail we can see the resource adds come from known reservoirs or accumulations. We just don’t seem to have anything new that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg to extract. And as time goes by its going to get harder, more expensive and much more time consuming to get it out.
And the thing is, there are many countries with weak economies. As prices increase they will simply be unable to buy these fuels.
And I realize today’s low prices give many a false sense of confidence, but the current price levels aren’t sustainable. There is a war going on, I’m not sure what drives the Saudis, but they can’t keep it up. The USA shale industry, and associated contractors, is now undergoing a full crisis, and production is dropping at a fast rate. Other marginal producers are also hurting and losing production (most nations have declining oil production rates). In short order, the market will balance and we will see a price run up. And I suspect within 20 years prices will be so high we will see production reach a peak.
The gas story is similar, the shale gas provides a breather, but the new resource pools aren’t really there, other than very expensive “shale” gas.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
You may not understand why people are replacing fossil fuels, but almost everyone else knows exactly why and they have plans to do it even faster coming up at Paris in case you are not aware. The numbers speak for themselves. Half of emissions are staying in the atmosphere, which even staying at 40 GtCO2/yr, works out to over 2.5 ppm per year. At that pace we blast through your target by 2050. Look at the numbers sensibly.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
James
As an example of droughts in south America shall we take brazil?
This seems a reasonably balanced article which gives the actual reasons for the drought which includes lack of infrastructure and maintenance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Brazilian_drought
The drought is the worst in some 80 Years probably since 1926
Again we can lay a large part of the reasons for the drought as being the huge numbers of people trying to use the water for home and industry
The population was some 39 million in 1926 and a whopping 200 million now . Don’t yOu think that sort of growth in a poor country will have huge implications in the way that water has to be managed?
Undoubtedly the deforestation of the Amazon has had a local impact on rainfall patterns. I ‘own’ several acres of amazon rain forest in order to help prevent deforestation. If you would like to take some practical action you might like to google ‘cool earth’ whereby you can ‘ buy’ your own tract.
There are also a number of very good books on climate history which might enable you to view today’s events in the context of the past. I would recommend any book by Hubert lamb or le Roy laduries book ‘ times of feast , times of famine,’
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Yes, many are at the bargaining stage. Next is depression when you realize you are counting on something that is simply not true. It is a normal progression. Be prepared.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Joshua
==> “UNFCCC climate policies are currently eating up about 25% of government, development bank aid to undeveloped countries. ”
Could you link to your source?
Are you talking about aid targeting 1) adaptation, or mitigation as a (2) principle (transport, energy, water) or (3) significant (agriculture, rural development) objective?
The most recent document that turned up in a quick use of The Google:
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/47477193.pdf
It would be interesting to see data that is broken down in the manner of Chart #1 in that document.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Fernando L.
Stephen: another point, I don’t answer too fast or at all because I get put in moderation, this tends to discourage trying to exchange conversations. The amount of information one has to absorb to get how the system works is better presented in graphic format over a period of hours.
Lately, I’ve started to visualize the interrelated systems (climate-emissions-fossil fuel dynamics-economy) as a huge flowchart moving in time. I think the integrated assessment models try to mimic the system, but they simply can’t do it. And I have a hunch the system reacts in a chaotic fashion.
For example, not too long ago I read about a climate model group working on Antarctica’s ice shelves and ice flows. It seems their model predicted more ice loss over a long period of time if the emissions were cut back (caused by lower snowfall). Thus reducing emissions could lead to higher sea level and a double whammy economic loss.
I don’t think the models are that reliable, but this particular point worries me. If they are right the moves we are making will backfire. But their model uses the RCP8.5, which I think can’t be achieved. So what I’m trying to accomplish is to tone down their high end emissions case, and learn enough to develop a smarter strategy (I don’t know what it is, but I do know what they have is weak and bound to fail). To me this is an impossible task, but maybe somebody will read what I try to convey and get them to do something more useful?
↧
Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by curryja
I’m citing numbers that I’ve seen from economists. There will be lots more discussion of this running up to Paris
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
The D stands for Doomsayer. Poor thing must be very miserable.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
“There are severe droughts throughout the world now,….”
He says South America and Central America. We are sure he could go on because he said etc., but we know that there ain’t even droughts throughout South America and/or Central America. Who is this new clown?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
Jim D | November 2, 2015 at 5:33 pm |
You may not understand why people are replacing fossil fuels,
Well… Let me think about that… It is sort of true.
I know what their stated reasons are …
The stated reasons are a horrible mix of misinformation and unreasoning orthodoxy. And they willfully refuse to inform their viewpoint.
It is that mindset I don’t understand. Starving people for style points doesn’t make sense to me.
In 2011 (updated in 2013) IPCC RCP8.5 indicates a 2.6 PPM 2015 and 3.0 in 2020.
The 2015 projection is 25% too high. The 2020 projection is 50% too high. I don’t expect 2020 to have a more than 2.0 PPM increase. Relative to RCP 8.5 the atmospheric CO2 concentration is walking off a cliff while the emissions projection is pretty much on track.-
If the CO2 increase in 2020 is 2.0 PPM you can forget about a “global warming” scenario and move on to your next pseudo-disaster.
So let’s wait and see.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Arch Stanton
As they come into the clubhouse straightaway they look to be neck and neck…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426452/political-correctness-peaks-social-justice-liberals
missed it by that much?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by john321s
The palpable sophistry lies in the phrase “known biases.” That would require some gold-standard time-series measurements of SST to quantify those biases in a spectrally comprehensive way. Such measurements are simply unavailable and there is nothing that has ever been done at Asheville to indicate that they posses the analytical expertise to “correct” reliably for biased low-frequency “trend” components in time-series.
There’s no point with arguing with Mosher and others who have no concept of relationship beyond that provided by linear regression and cling to the illusion that long geophysical time-series can be reconstructed piecemeal from mere snippets of adjusted data.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Stephen Segrest
More news on nuclear and natural gas: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-02/entergy-to-close-james-a-fitzpatrick-nuclear-power-plant-ighwq4q9
↧
Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by kim
It seems that with the small anthropogenic aliquot of CO2 we can only improve climate, and the biome, and the wealth of all humanity.
===================
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
Thought fer Today:
‘ Wage, wage war against
the lying and the fright! ‘
H/T kim.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
