<i>An alternative might be to discourage people from posting denialist talking points.</i>
Are you a photosynthesis denier?
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Turbulent Eddie
↧
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by ...and Then There's Physics
<blockquote>
I noted that CO2 going into the biosphere is a pretty good objective indicator of benefit to life on the planet.
</blockquote>
Apart from that probably being nonsense, a good point.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by ...and Then There's Physics
Are you a photosynthesis denier?
I guess we’re even now? :-)
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Joshua
==> “So he is. And so are we all. You ought to apologize for the gratuitous insult. It pollutes the forum.
The selectivity as to when people comment on gratuitous insults, is really quite amusing.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Mike Flynn
Don Montfort,
You wrote –
“Harping on the cooling of the earth over 4 billion years is harping on a triviality. The argument here is over the prospect that increasing ACO2 will cause the current temperature to increase and whether that increase will be of a magnitude that will cause us problems”
I’m not sure why pointing out the fact that four billion years of cooling, involving a fall of some thousands of degrees, in spite of high historical levels of CO2, is harping. To a Warmist, facts are trivial, particularly if they involve demonstrable cooling.
You might notice that Warmists keep predicting warming based on a selective reading of the past. I’m just pointing out that the longest trend is demonstrable cooling, trivial or not. Fact.
Warmists don’t like facts, apparently, and spend inordinate amounts of resources trying to adjust the past to prove temperatures have risen, A little selective, don’t you think?
So what have Warmists got? No physics to demonstrate their laughable assertions that CO2 can provide heat where none previously existed. Plenty of real physics to show just the contrary – backed up by experimental results. One might think that the combined brain power of the climatological consensus, backed up by seemingly limitless resources, could devise and carry out experiments to justify their strange beliefs.
Real physicists have been measuring things such as the charge, magnetic moment, and other properties of a single electron. As an example of reasonable precision, an experimental value of 2.00231930419922 ± (1.5 × 10^-12), differs from the theoretical value by not a lot. It’s still not exact, so experiments go on.
Warmists work on wild speculation, and cannot seem to agree on anything much, except to keep bleating that it’s worse than they thought. I am not surprised.
If CO2 creates no increase in temperature on a body heated by the Sun, the amount is irrelevant. The big hot rock on which we live continues to cool. If you want personal warming, reduce internal heat loss by any means you can. Not too much or you’ll die quite quickly.
CO2 must be good. When we stop producing it personally, we are most likely deceased. I intend to keep producing CO2 as long as I can!
Cheers.
↧
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Leonard Weinstein
This analysis, and pretty much all others, first assume that essentially all of the temperature rise in the last 150 years is due to the CO2 rise. Proxy studies (e.g., Moberg 2005, and Loehle 2007) going back even 2000 years show as large or larger variations occur over long time periods (about 1000 years ago for these two sources). Proxy studies (ice cores and ocean bottom cores, etc.) going back over the entire Holocene, show even larger variations over all time scales from years to thousands of years. In fact, it appears the present level is not even average over this time. There were no CO2 drivers for these variations, and the Sun average intensity did not vary much, so why do you have to assume the recent rise is not mainly natural variation from a complex chaotic process? Also how do you account for the flattening over the last 18 years or so?
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Carrick
Since this question came up, just pointing to Nick's post <a href="http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/why-is-cumulative-co2-airborne-fraction.html" rel="nofollow">Why is cumulative CO2 Airborne Fraction nearly constant?"</a>
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by RiHo08
justinwonder
Your images give meaning to numbers, and the numbers of those developing COPD in the developing world tell a story, apparently the wrong sort of story that the CO2 and models numbers tell. The CO2 story as a priority of world leaders, leaves voiceless the 3 billion using biomass/dung as fuel to cook each and every meal.
Far be it from me to point out that the pundits (I have a recent beef with Andy Revkin) are co-conspiritors in telling this story. These pundits prefer not to see the blinding acrid smoke filled eyes of these casualties of an energy future in developing countries devoid of coal based electric power.
These women AND children die earlier than even slightly more economically advanced societies. These women, and certainly this is a women’s issue, are less able to perform the household duties as they advance to middle age. If you want to think of your young middle-aged daughters dying, acquiring tuberculosis or succumbing to influenza epidemic, or coughing their brain out still trying to stir the pot, not a lot of room for humanism in the elites view of our world, although of course, these people can dismissed these 3 billion as the casualties of the war on climate change.
If you were a man from Mars stopping by and looking at the real disparity between the rhetoric of climate change and the injury to people of the developing world, would you frame the issue as…genocide?
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Berényi Péter
<blockquote>The multi-model mean and range simulated by CMIP5 models, forced by a CO2 increase of 1% per year (1% per year CO2 simulations), is given by the thin black line and grey area.</blockquote>
OMG. This 1% per year meme is pervasive.
In fact during the last 56 years, between 1959 and 2014 average annual increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration was 0.429% per annum, as measured at <a href="ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt" rel="nofollow">Mauna Loa</a>.
The difference is <b>not</b> negligible. At a nominal rate of 1% it takes 70 years to double the concentration, while at the actual rate it takes 162 years.
70 years from now is 2085, while 162 years from now is 2177. Even the 0.43% per year rate of increase can't be sustained for that long, because there is simply not enough cheap carbon based chemical fuel available.
Therefore we shall be forced to switch to nuclear power, which is abundant indeed. One ton of ordinary granite, the default stuff continents are made of contains as much retrievable energy, as 50 tons of coal (+ 166 tons of atmospheric oxygen). The sun is going to turn into a red giant sooner than we'll run out of this resource, because mass of continents is just huge.
The technology is not new, it was available <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Molten-salt_reactor_experiment" rel="nofollow">50 years ago</a>. With modern stuff we can certainly do even better than that.
↧
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Mark Silbert
jiw,
“Why fix real problems when you can funnel public money to your.cronies? That is the real story, not TCR or ECS – interesting problems in climatology but red herrings wrt public policy. They serve as scientific cover for grand theft and the climate scientists are either collateral damage, true believers, dupes, or careerists. The silent careerists are the worst.”
You nailed it. +100
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by stevefitzpatrick
Hi Carrick,
If you apply a 4 year boxcar filter to the Mauna Loa CO2 rate of increase, the influence of ENSO on atmospheric CO2, which is significant, is nearly eliminated (because ENSO is usually near 4 years for a ‘cycle’). This makes the underlying trend much more clear; the year-on-year increase grows, except for the 3 years following Pinatubo, but at a rate that is a little less than the year-on-year increase in emissions. My guess is that the airborne fraction is actually decreasing. That may not continue indefinitely, but it sure seems to be decreasing a bit right now.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Mike Flynn
justinwonder,
+++.
It’s even worse when you’re using dung for fuel. Even worse than that is when you run out of dung. That is a serious matter. I jest not!
I’m sure Warmists will dismiss such real problems as trivial, preferring to sit in their air conditioned offices playing with their computers and each other.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by justinwonder
I miss the Iron Lady!
↧
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Steven Mosher
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
Example:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap26_FINAL.pdf
see figure 26-1
of 14 different climate extremes
4: no trend detected
8: a trend detected, but NOT attributed to AGW
2: trends detected and attributed to AGW
A) predictions at not made at the “location” level
B) at best it would appear that you can talk about regions.
C) at the regional level, for the americas, roughly 15% of the
selected extremes can be tied to AGW.
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by stevenreincarnated
Stop worrying about a few ppm of CO2 and sharpen your global warming causes cooling arguments.
“The heat transport has decreased in recent years compared to values observed prior to 2009; the 5-year mean for the pentad 2009-2013 was 1.14 PW compared to 1.34 PW for the pentad 2004-2008.”
https://www.rsmas.miami.edu/users/mocha/mocha_results.htm
“We investigated the effect of increased ocean heat transports on climate in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) general circulation model (GCM). The increases used were sufficient to melt all sea ice at high latitudes, and amounted to 15% on the global average. The resulting global climate is 2°C warmer, with temperature increases of some 20°C at high latitudes, and 1°C near the equator.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/91JD00009/abstract
↧
Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by Sensitivity to cumulative emissions |…and Then There's Physics
[…] reason I’m telling you this is because Nic Lewis has a guest post on Climate Etc. in which he is suggesting that the TCRE is quite a bit lower than other estimates […]
↧
Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by popesclimatetheory
Exceeded all expectations. in other words, the government gave them more than they expected.
↧
↧
Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by nickels
Lets see. Massively tax the people and employ that money on a non productive endeavour that has the effect of raising the price of the most basic commodity, energy.
Otherwise known as pulling the economy up by its bootstraps.
It is nice of Germany, however, to destroy the potential of their own economy on an R&D project that (perhaps) might benefit the rest of the world (if anything is left) down the road when fossil fuels decline….
↧
Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by RiHo08
Davis Swan
Thank you for an informative article on Germany’s Energiewende and the difficulty in balancing intermittent electricity generation with base load systems.
What caught my eye though, was the graph of the residential price of electricity @ 0.29 Euro/kwh. Having recently returned from Germany I was told that electricity pricing was based upon a two tier system: daytime, from 6 AM to 8 PM, and night time. The daytime residential price was 0.49 Euro/kwh. Further, that the residential rate subsidized the industrial rate as manufacturing would almost cease at that high daytime rate.
“Despite a small decrease in 2014 Germany consumers still pay the second highest retail prices in Europe.” Denmark pays the highest rates.
I am wondering if you have further information on this two tiered system in Germany.
I would be interested in your thoughts about electric rates in the USA and how they compare to Germany’s as I believe the current breakout of electricity pricing: Coal $0.04/Kwh; Gas $0.06/Kwh; Nuclear $0.07/Kwh; wind $0.22/Kwh; and solar $0.56/Kwh with a combined average of $0.11/Kwh.
Thank you
↧
Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by mosomoso
Thanks Davis.
Other considerations:
Oil is a universal catalyst for wars of all temperatures. Europe’s gas tends to come from places like Russia and Qatar (via places like like, er, Syria and the Ukraine.) Wind and solar are domestic, but they are diffuse, intermittent and expensive. American forests, chipped, carted across the Atlantic in nitrogen and burnt in England…well, the less said the better.
Coal lies in German ground, and even the brown stuff is relatively concentrated, constant and cheap. In a naughty world, that has to be worth something. It has to be worth a lot, in fact. I suppose that’s why Germany is now digging so much brown while it still talks so green. (Sorry, Angela – couldn’t help but notice. Especially those new whopper plants in Hamburg and Hamm.)
Anyway, thanks again, Davis. If the urchins throw rocks at you in the street, that often happens to truth-tellers on the subject of imperial clothing.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
