I got a 2015 survey by http://www.fwwatch.org/fracsurvey. “What is fracking, exactly? [It] is a drilling process…” Exactitude at its best.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by kim
Thanks for the memories.
===================
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
Sorry … http://www.fwwatch.org/fracksurvey.
↧
Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by jim2
This is just in the nick of time for Paris. And, well, I don’t know how to say this folks, but this paper on economic impacts of climate change is, well, it’s not good. In fact, the impacts are REALLY BAD. But, hey, didn’t they just know it all along? Oh, and naturally, the approach is unprecedented!!! From the article:
…
Climate change may have many economic impacts, including loss of crops, changes in water supply, increased incidence of natural disaster, and spikes in health care costs related to infectious diseases and temperature-related illnesses. However, hard evidence about the effects of climate change on economic activity has been inconsistent.
A new paper published in Nature takes on the ambitious task of connecting micro- and macro-level estimates of climate costs. The study finds that climate change can be expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23 percent by the year 2100. This study is important because it solves a problem that has existed in prior models of climate change effects on economics: discrepancies between macro- and micro-level observations. This study presents the first evidence that economic activity in all regions is coupled in some way to global climate. The study also sets up a new empirical paradigm for modeling economic loss in response to climate change.
…
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
James
This is a cynical lot. They are cynical because they have heard it all before. They also have done their homework. Inductive reasoning doesn’t cut. Might I suggest providing a link. Two would be even better.
This is not a chewing gum business.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
Jame Delingpole message tee shirt @ the IPA
in Melbourne. I remember it well.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
nothing like a nice unbiasded survey
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
The problem is renewable energy.
Nuclear energy is cleaner than renewable energy.(in this case wind) but both are basically fixed investments. The cost per unit of output is the monthly bond cost/units of output produced. If you cut the output in half the cost of the produced power per KW-H doubles.
The situation is probably something like this:
Before renewables the nuclear plant was the baseband generator. It operated at close to 100% and was profitable.
They have installed enough wind that the plant is being operated at half capacity or less) with gas load-following the wind because the nuclear plant can’t load follow as economically or quickly as gas..This makes the nuclear plant uneconomical.
They will end up using gas and wind at night instead of nuclear. 70% of the nighttime power generation will emit CO2, instead of 0%.
And renewable advocates will claim a victory for the environment, and go off to perform another good deed.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by blouis79
SCM paper appears to have a typo – IPPC is mentioned instead of IPCC. There are no contact details in the paper or on SCMwebsite.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by justinwonder
Th Entergy nuclear plant produces 17% of the electricity used by the state of Massachussetts, even when it doesn’t rain, the wind doesn’t blow, or the sun doesn’t shine. It is being regulated out of business. Very dumb. My bet is CO2 emissions and electricity rates will increase.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by blouis79
found it scm.sa@orange.fr
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
changingminds.org – “How we change what others think, feel, believe and do.”
No brainwashing, we just change what others think, feel, believe and do.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
JCH, “How can the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic spread globally? ”
It doesn’t very much which is the point. The north Atlantic basin is small, about half the size of the north Pacific because of the land mass configuration. It would have a small impact on “global” ocean temperature but a fairly large impact on land temperature and precipitation transfer to land. It has a slower time constant because it cannot mix well with the rest of the oceans. The north Pacific has more efficient mixing because of size and has a different time constant because of that. The AMO is just a better indication of larger variations driving climate and not that large a driver own its own.
↧
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by ristvan
J, SkS might, but I do not trust them to do anything right. Ross McKitricks 2014 paper arduously correcting for autocorrelation says SkS is wrong. Heck, forget error bounds, use ordinary OLS, and SkS is still wrong–but less certainly wrong. Do you know any basic statistics? Cause it sure looks like you do not, nd are relying on the pronouncements of a notoriously bad warmunist site. The GIss, NCEI (formerly NCDC), HadCru, RSS, RSS, and even BEST is downlodable, so can be personally examined using your favorite stats package. Actually, Excel suffices for these imprecise purposes. You are just wrong about the pause (unless using Karl’s newly readjusted SST), mouthing other’s claims that can be easily and rigorously shown erroneous.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Wagathon
So, you think it is reasonable to ‘flatly deny’ that rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration has anything more than a ‘tiny’ effect on a rise of global temperatures because the ‘climate cycle’ is ‘robust’ within certain ‘bounds’ and that an example of an extreme position would be that rising CO2 levels have no effect on the rise of global warming because the most effect CO2 can have has already been had?
For example, I believe it is a mischaracterization to label Dr. Tim Ball’s view as extreme –e.g.,
Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint. (Dr. Timothy Ball
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Science or Fiction
You can add to it the words of wisdom from Popper:
“Believers in inductive logic assume that we arrive at natural laws by generalization from particular observations. If we think of the various results in a series of observations as points plotted in a co-ordinate system, then the graphic representation of the law will be a curve passing through all these points. But through a finite number of points we can always draw an unlimited number of curves of the most diverse form. Since therefore the law is not uniquely determined by the observations, inductive logic is confronted with the problem of deciding which curve, among all these possible curves, is to be chosen.”
– Karl Popper
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by eli rabett (@EthonRaptor)
CET is virtually meaningless before ~1770.
1992 Parker, Legg and Folland paper:
———————–
“Manley1953) published a time series of monthly mean temperatures representative of central England for 1698-1952, followed (Manley 1974) by an extended and revised series for 1659-1973. Up to 1814 his data are based mainly on overlapping sequences of observations from a variety of carefully chosen and documented locations. Up to 1722, available instrumental records fail to overlap and Manley needs to use non-instrumental series for Utrecht compiled by Labrijn (1945), in order to mate the monthly central England temperature (CET) series complete. Between 1723 and the 1760s there are no gaps in the composite instrumental record, but the observations generally were taken in unheated rooms rather than with a truly outdoor exposure….”
———————
Which means that the Manley reconstruction is only continuous from 1722 on, but the information upon which it relies from 1723-28 has further difficulties, essentially absolute values were not reliable, and the series was constructed by taking the difference between measurements made by those thermometers and ones thought to be more reliable after 1727, and then repeatedly differenced to get values before 1727.
In the light of this, it is perfectly reasonable to truncate the CET series at 1730 although Parker chose to start in 1772 when reliable thermometer records are available from Hoy in London, not trusting the data before 1770.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/07/this-is-where-eli-came-in.html
↧
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
btw JCH, there are some other interesting things. The North Pacific Sea level is about 8 inches higher than the North Atlantic. When you have an eastward shift of “weather” in the Pacific you would change the rate of flow across the Arctic and over the eastern Indian ocean which would impact Arctic sea ice stability and the Gulfstream flow. Because to the Antarctic Circumpolar current you don’t have that in the southern hemisphere. There is basically no way you cannot have fairly significant longer term pseudo-oscillations with a somewhat consistent frequency.
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by Steven Mosher
UAH?
from 2000 to present? warming.
Nick Stokes has the nicest trend calculator
↧
Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by JCH
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/normalise/plot/esrl-amo/from:2015/normalise/plot/rss-land/from:2015/normalise/plot/rss/from:2015/normalise" rel="nofollow">even the satellites agree with me!</a>
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
