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

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by mosomoso

$
0
0

I’d go further and guess there is no rounded understanding of climate and weather without that. And that would only be a start. The disturbing thing is that so much “data” is based on min/max temps, which are often nothing more than a record of how cloud kept the temps up or down at a likely trough or peak time-of-day.

I sometimes suspect that many collectors and processors of climate data have never even considered this critical point. Incredible as it may seem.

When I’m in the paddock or the bush or the bamboo I might wonder how much cloud and what sort of cloud is interacting with wind and sun to produce the weather I’m experiencing, and what sort of wind, in what humidity…then I just give up in bewilderment.

I truly wish good luck and millions of dollars to whoever can really get their head round the fantastically complex flux we call climate. I’d suggest that the mechanistic, kiddie-console approach has not been doing the job.


Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by climatereason

$
0
0

To the ‘we don’t really know their effects’ List I would add the sun, clouds, thunderstorms, cyclones/typhoons/hurricanes , the variability and dirction of winds, the jet stream, atmospheric rivers, ssw and heat plumes. apart from that we know everything…except the things we don’t know about all the other things…

Tonyb

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma? by knutesea

$
0
0

Bob/Dr Curry

Thanks Bob, but the links you sent send me to the same place for the ones I sent you. Odd. No matter, we are looking at the same article. I don’t understand why you would claim a 60 million year comparison as Roman and previous periods were warmer than even Kobashi. Essentially the natural variability claim still holds even when including Kobashi.

In any event, I’m on a mission to find out why Kobashi 2011 is not included in any common paleoclimate chart that is commonly found on the web. If they are valid measurements they should be included.

Dr Curry, if you know the reason for the above discrepancy, I’d love to hear from you. Save me a world of hours diving into something you may know the answer to.

The above is another common example of an article by Siegel 2015.

Hotwhopper goes on to claim deception.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/09/a-doozy-denier-don-from-anthony-watts.html

I am piqued in why Kobashi is not included.

Naively seeking the truth
Knute

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma? by Science or Fiction

$
0
0
"PARTII- THECLIMATECHANGEDENIALSTRATEGY A. Denier groups use the strategy created by tobacco industry front groups – attack science with misrepresentations to create public doubt about scientific consensus." I would say that by the way United Nation distorted the scientific process and endorsed subjective "science", there are more similarities between the United Nations and the tobacco industry : <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/08/accountability-for-climate-change-damages-is-fossil-fuel-like-tobacco/#comment-742535" rel="nofollow"> Comment </a>

Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by gweberbv

$
0
0

catweazle666,

you spread a lot of half-wisdom.

For heavy-users of electricity the price in Germany is lower than in UK. Because heavy-users need to pay only a very little for the Energiwende or grid extensions, etc. So aluminum smelters enjoy a good time in Germany right now.
However, I do not care too much if an aluminum smelter or a carbon fiber producer decides that setting up a factory on Iceland or in the US is even more profitable because of even lower prices. The percentage of high-energy usage industries in Germany is not so high, that the economy as a whole depends on them. It is much more important to have the schools, universities and research institutes in a good shape than to lower electricity prices. High-skilled labour keeps you alive as a western country. Not low wages, not low energy prices, not low environment standards. Because there are more than 5 billion starvelings on the globe that will always outbid you in a race to the bottom.

Comment on How sensitive is global temperature to cumulative CO2 emissions? by aaron

$
0
0

Berenyi, I suspect a few major players are thawing of bio-mass and increased exposure to circulating air (increased thawing of tundra in NH), increased efficiency of the water cycle, increased transport of water from ocean to land and increased plant water efficiency making more water availible for biomass, and increasing biomass at the surface increasing uptake potential.

Basically, some of the carbon from increased biological activity increases its resiliance and ability to take up carbon in future years. Kind of like a profitable company investing some of its profits in productive capital investments.

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by catweazle666

$
0
0

Jim D: “The magnitude of forcing variations due to the sun and volcanoes are very well known”

No they are not.

Stop making stuff up.

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by jim2

$
0
0

rud – how much money has New Jersey spent to “harden” against severe weather events like Sandy? Any at all? For example, no state that I know of forbids residences on the coast.


Comment on German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Peter Davies,

You aren’t taking into consideration just how strongly opinionated general members of the public can be, and how little attention they pay to the actual numbers when assessing risks. Most of them think flying is far more dangerous than driving or crossing the road, for instance.

I most certainly am taking the public’s anti-nuclear phobia into account and I have been for 30 years. However, public opinion can change relatively quickly, whereas the technical constraints that limit what renewables can achieve cannot. I don’t know what background you’ve read and particularly whether you read the links I provided to this
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/competitive-nuclear-energy-investment-avoiding-past-policy-mistakes
And this
http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/29/deep-de-carbonisation-of-electricity-grids/
and this comment: “How to make nuclear cheaper” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/competitive-nuclear-energy-investment-avoiding-past-policy-mistakes
I don’t want to have to explain the same things all over again, so I won’t address the rest of your long comment until you respond to those.

The important point to recognise is that renewables cannot supply much of global energy requirements so they cannot make much of a contribution to reducing global GHG emissions. Therefore, for those who want to reduce global GHG emissions will needed advocate from a large proportion of energy being supplied by nuclear power. It is the only energy source available that is technically capable of providing most of the world’s ever increasing energy needs for tens of thousands of years (and that’s without fusion).

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by timg56

$
0
0

Richard,

It might be only a small percentage which could be avoided, but even 1% of 3% is a large number in dollars.

I suspect accurate regional weather forecasts ranging from 1 to 3 months out would lead to larger savings than 1%.

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by timg56

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by timg56

$
0
0

Jim D,

To borrow Mosher’s line, read harder. He is not talking about natural variability. He is talking about improving our understanding of weather, primarily with the goal of being better at predicting it on shorter scales than a century out, but longer than the current 10 day forecasts.

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by opluso

$
0
0

NPR had a report recently about Senegalese farmers that demonstrated to me how the word “climate” has been substituted for “weather” in many official outlets. The story was actually about traditional variability in seasonal and annual weather conditions. But at NPR, the funding is for “climate” stories so it is “climate” stories that we get.

It is actually a great story about using technology to improve agricultural output.

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/12/03/456194983/this-peanut-farmer-turns-to-a-cellphone-and-prayer-for-a-top-crop

As the old saying goes, you can’t do anything about the weather — but we can apparently do something about the climate as long as we spend LOTS of money.

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by Turbulent Eddie

$
0
0

I heard that one and started to laugh.

First, because the wonderful tool of agriculture was a smart phone, brought to all by fossil fuels.

Second, because the actual magic process mentioned later was – fertilizer – also brought to all by fossil fuels.

Somehow, just mentioning the word climate is enough to coat-tail on to the discussion.

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by rovingbroker

$
0
0

ristvan wrote, “There are diminishing marginal returns to ‘weather proofing’. At some point, further ‘resilience’ investment simply does not provide a return … ”

Yet it is required.
Post-Sandy Building Codes Protect Property, Raise Reconstruction Costs
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/postsandy-building-codes-prote/26051087

Some entities respond to predicted weather events. Airlines cancel flights and move aircraft; Power companies send fleets of equipment and personnel close to predicted events; Insurance companies mobilize damage assessors and claims processors. For such companies good forecasts improve service and cut costs. Bad forecasts result in substantial unnecessary expenses.


Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by Mike Hohmann

$
0
0

I am getting bored. The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html.

The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of global de-democratization and helotization through monetary and energy politics – and bringing a whole, if not all, of science into disrepute. Even the UK Royal Society has become Lysenkoist.

Knowing that there is no escape from THE FOUR LAWS WITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS – and which cannot be overruled by edicts from whoever, be it Dalai Lama, Pope, Obama, Merkel, IMF, UN, EU, IPCC, PIK, the Supreme Court, EPA, or anyone, I suggest a look at some facts I collected on the subject in my IDIOT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/idiot-guide-to-global-warming.html

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by Joshua

$
0
0

Judith –

==> “In any event, it seems that the tide may be turning (with the Republican Congress) to provide more support for improved weather and short-term climate forecasting …”

Really? What is your evidence for that comment? Something that Cruz’s staff has told you (in your non-advocacy capacity)?

The CR is here . According to the House Appropriation Committee’s summary of the bill, the CR funds Operations, Research and Facilities for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association with $454.3 million less than it got in FY2010; this represents a $450.3 million cut from what the president’s never-passed FY2011 budget was requesting. The National Weather Service, of course, is part of NOAA — its funding drops by $126 million. The CR also reduces funding for FEMA management by $24.3 million off of the FY2010 budget, and reduces that appropriation by $783.3 million for FEMA state and local programs.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/03/11/gop_s_continuing_resolution_cuts_funding_for_national_weather_service_fema.html

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by richardswarthout

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by Barnes

$
0
0

You apparently did not get the memo. According to warmunistas, all we need to do is decarbonize out society to control our co2 output. Doing so will enable us to control the climate so that we will have, as yet not fully defined, a climate utopia where the climate is stable and all severe weather events will be a thing of the past. Who needs to understand trivial things like natural variability when we already know the contro knob is co2.

Comment on Bill Gail: Don’t let climate debate hinder the economy by edimbukvarevic

$
0
0

“We — on every side of the climate debate — are holding our economy back. We have allowed disagreement over human influence to push aside what should be a non-controversial goal: improving our understanding of nature itself.”

This is not correct. Skeptics have been desperately pointing out that there is natural climate change and that the AGW hysteria is holding economies back. It is controversial because of the AGW paradigm paralysis.

Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images