bob droege
a revenue neutral BS tax sounds more like it
Comment on Gamesmanship by manacker
↧
↧
Comment on The Future of Natural Gas by brent
Hopefully the investment gurus won’t forget this too soon!!
Hopefully the “market fundamentalists” will learn something as well.
Texas May Triple Power Prices to Avert Summer Blackouts
The state has two choices: raise prices high enough that generators will determine it’s safe to build, or change to a model such as that used by PJM, which sets prices for needed power years in advance, said Oren, the Berkeley professor.
He expects Texas to hew to its model of paying for power only as its generated, which means the state will need to raise prices.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-01/texas-may-triple-power-prices-to-avert-summer-blackouts
A Record Buyout Turns Sour for Investors
Struck at the peak of the buyout boom five years ago, the $45 billion acquisition of the Texas energy giant TXU — the biggest leveraged buyout in history — has been a painful investment for its private equity owners.
They did not need Warren E. Buffett to remind them how bad things were.
America’s most famous investor, in his annual shareholder letter on Saturday, highlighted his $2 billion wrong-way bet on the bonds of the company, which its new owners have renamed Energy Future Holdings. He called the investment “a big mistake” and said it was at risk of losing all of its value.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/a-record-buyout-turns-sour-for-investors/
Fears grow for $45bn utility as hedges near expiry
“Once the hedges roll off, it’s all over”, said one person very close to the original investors, “the single thing we got wrong was gas prices, no one saw shale gas coming”.
http://tinyurl.com/829ymeu
↧
Comment on Science is not about certainty by Edim
Gavin wrote: “It has been explained to you that the correlation between temperatrure and the derivative is mathematically unable to explain ANY of the long term accumulation. This is because the sum of the part of the annual changes that the correlation can explain is precisely zero.”
Gavin, if the annual increments are temperature dependent, then the lower temperatures during the period of the long term accumulation will cause lower increments and this must cause lower long term accumulation. If the temperature didn’t rise at all since ~1960, then (if the correlation holds) the annual change would have been significantly smaller in average, maybe ~0.9 ppm/year (average in 1960s) instead of 1.45 ppm/year. That would be ~360 ppm in 2012.
↧
Comment on Science is not about certainty by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
Of course nature doesn’t work that way. The impact of the increase in CO2 at the radiant layer is pretty accurate. The location of that radiant layer is not all that accurate. Energy from that layer will not be felt fully at the surface since you cannot transfer energy without some loss. Under ideal conditions, the radiant layer energy would increase by 3.7 Wm-2 (1.5C) and depending on the conditions between the surface and that layer, the surface temperature would increase by 1 to 1.2 degrees “if all things remain equal”. To go beyond that 1 to 1.2 would require some positive feed back to the CO2 forcing. Water vapor itself is a negative feed back, contrary to popular opinion. Since water vapor shares parts of the CO2 spectrum, it would absorb some of the energy at the radiant layer which would increase the rate of convection and since water vapor does not share all of the CO2 spectrum, provide a radiant path through the atmospheric window, decreasing the CO2 impact. That was the 20Wm-2 the K&T missed.
↧
Comment on Gamesmanship by manacker
Eli Rabett
Sorry, I read the blurb. But there is absolutely no “proof” of anything there.
(Besides, science doesn’t work with “proof”.)
What is lacking, Eli, is empirical scientific evidence (not “proof”) based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation, that human GHGs (principally CO2) have been the primary cause of late 20th century warming, that this has caused an increase in severe weather of any kind and that it represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless the emission of human GHGs is curtailed.
Ball’s in your court, Eli. (But don’t bring another silly blurb like the last one.)
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Science is not about certainty by David Springer
Stanford Professor Vaughn Pratt at one time not long ago wrote an article “Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon: Part IV” which was posted here on judithcurry.com. There are many links to it. It received over 2000 comments at least some of which can be teased out of here:
http://corymbiform.rssing.com/chan-1147123/all_p15.html
Why has this article been removed? Don’t you know, Dr.Curry, that disappearing articles like that is considered one of the most egregious sins that bloggers can do? How very 1984 of you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole
A memory hole is any mechanism for the alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts, or other records, such as from a web site or other archive, particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression that something never happened.[1][2] The concept was first popularized by George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
↧
Comment on Science is not about certainty by David Springer
You wouldn’t happen to have a copy of Vaughn Pratt’s “Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon: Par IV” would you? Pratt is one of the few people who’ve put even a modest effort into duplicating the woods experiment. The article above was originally posted here about 8 months ago. It’s been disappeared for some reason. The last I found from Pratt was in Jan 2010 when he wrote that he was dissatisfied with his cardboard box/saran wrap setup and had obtained optical quality rock salt lenses to more closely match what Woods had done. No one else has done this. I can’t find a damn thing anywhere on what results Pratt obtained. I smell a rat and the more I look into Woods replication the more it smells. Now I find the smell coming back to here where Pratt published a guest article which has subsequently been removed. I cannot find a copy of it on archive.org as this site denies it archive access.
↧
Comment on Science is not about certainty by David Springer
I’d like to apologize for being harsh with you before but when I run into frauds like Nahle’s claim to be a university professor and loathesome attempts to whip up a website like Principia Scientifica and try to peddle it as a peer reviewed publisher it makes me angry with those associated with it. One is judged by the company one keeps, Dr. House. At any rate the Woods experiment is riddled with controvery and deceit that began shortly after he published in 1909 with the Smithsonian IIRC immediately trashing Woods. The red flags are up now and I’d like to give it a fair consideration but that’s proving difficult.
↧
Comment on Gamesmanship by climatereason
Eli
We have a variety of records of severe heat waves in Russia, as well as huge natural variabilty in many other places.
“1831: Summer was unbearably hot, and as a consequence of numerous fires in the forests, there was a constant haze of smoke in the air, through which the sun appeared a red hot ball; the smell of burning was so strong, that it was difficult to breathe.
The years of 1839-1841 were known as the “hungry years.” In the spring of 1840, the spring sowings of corn disappeared in many places. From midway through April until the end of August not a drop of rain fell. From the beginning of summer the fields were covered with a dirty grey film of dust. All the plants wilted, dying from the heat and lack of water. It was extraordinarily hot and close, even though the sun, being covered in haze, shone very weakly through the haze of smoke.
1868: the weather was murderous. It rained once during the summer. There was a drought. The sun, like a red hot cinder, glowed through the clouds of smoke from the peat bogs. Near Peterhoff the forests and peat workings burnt, and troops dug trenches and flooded the subterranean fire. It was 40 centigrade in the open, and 28 in the shade.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Science is not about certainty by gavincawley
Edim, whatever. I have already explicitly said that the natural fluxes are temperature dependent and why this does not support your contention because temperature is not the only thing that affects those fluxes and you are not taking them (e.g. Henrys law) into account. Just saying the maths is incorrectly applied doesn’t make it true; the maths was the maths applied by Salby, not me, I just pointed out the flaw.
I don’t have inexaustible energy for countering incorrect skeptic arguments – life is too short; it is to your own disadvantage to cling to them, but it is your choice.
↧
Comment on Science is not about certainty by Edim
Gavin, it’s ok – thanks for the discussion.
↧
Comment on Gamesmanship by Beth Cooper
‘Since one otf the main leading factors in global warming is the greenhouse effect … ‘
Guess I jest imagined the science wasn’t settled …silly me.
↧
Comment on Gamesmanship by Peter Lang
<blockquote> We can weigh the “egoistic” and “altruistic” criteria for each actor introducing so-called “coefficients of egoism”. This coefficient is very large, if the actor uses a very egoistic strategy, and conversely, if the actor is a “super-altruist”, then the corresponding coefficient is very small.</blockquote>
It seems to me that those arguing for high cost policies to mitigate CO2 emisisons, think they are being altruistic. However, I believe they are wrong. I believe it is those who are not persuaded we should waste our wealth on high cost CO2 mitigation policies,who are the truly altruistic people. The others are just irrational, IMO.
↧
↧
Comment on Science is not about certainty by Pekka Pirilä
David,
What’s the detailed heat balance of a greenhouse is not a big scientific question. You told what Wood had in mind when he did his experiment. He was not doing serious science. That applies certainly also to what Vaughan Pratt had in mind when he did his version.
Studying detailed heat balances may is of engineering interest. Engineers use well known formulas and computer software to calculate convection, conduction and radiative heat transfer. Such methods can certainly describe fairly accurately what happens in a greenhouse although the phenomena are such that reaching a high accuracy may be difficult.
It may be that nobody has verified carefully the applicability of the theory for a simple greenhouse but the methods have certainly been widely and successfully used in similar more important tasks. Thus there’s no doubt that everything is understood that needs to be understood to model a greenhouse.
The only question is: why bother? To give answers to some cranks who insist that this is a problem the science cannot explain? The scientists – and engineers – have better things to do.
My comment was about a factor that influences the outcome. When the comment is understood correctly it explains that there’s an effect but that effect is small, so small that observing it without a carefully set up experiment may be impossible.
There’s nothing scientifically interesting left in this question. It may have some curiosity value, but that’s all. The experiment cannot tell anything new about physics and even less (if there’s less than nothing) about the atmosphere or global warming.
↧
Comment on Gamesmanship by Captain Kangaroo
Real jokes from the cold war.
Q: What exactly constitutes a developed socialist society?
A: The victory of progressive powers over strong logic (rationality).
Q: What is the difference between socialism and capitalism?
A: Capitalism makes social mistakes while socialism makes capital mistakes.
Q: Is it true that Adam and Eve were the first socialists?
A: It might be true. Adam and Eve dressed very humbly, had a very modest need for food, and didn’t live in their own home. On top of everything else, they believed that they were in heaven.
Q: Will there be any theft after we reach the communist stage of development?
A: Yes, but only if, after socialism, there is anything left to be stolen.
Q: What are the primary contradictions under socialism?
A: There is no unemployment, yet no one actually works. No one works, yet the stores are all full. The stores are full, yet the people are unhappy. The people are unhappy, yet they still vote “Yes.”
Q: Is it true that the USSR is the biggest country in the Eastern Bloc?
A: Maybe Hungary and Czechoslovakia are even bigger. This might be because our armies began withdrawing from there more than a year ago and they still haven’t reached the Soviet border.
Q: Is it possible for democratic socialism to start up in such a well-developed country as the USA?
A: Yes, it’s possible, but, why?
Q: Is there a difference between “democracy” and “popular democracy?”
A: Yes, it’s the same difference between a jacket and a straitjacket.
Q: Is it true that we haven’t yet reached the final stage of communist development?
A: Yes, but don’t worry; it can’t get any worse than this.
Q: Why was the return of the Soviet space station from the Moon such a great success?
A: Because it proved once and for all that it is possible for something to leave the USSR and actually return.
Q: Can you say freely and publicly that which you are thinking here in our country?
A: Yes, of course. Unless, of course, you are thinking of something that shouldn’t be said freely and publicly.
Q: What is the most concise definition of a learned worker?
A: One whose blood pressure is higher than his salary.
Q: The Central Committee of the Communist Party offered me a job as a secretary. Should I accept?
A: Yes. Your only duties will be saying, “Yes, Comrade,” and at night, “No, Comrade.”
Q: Yesterday, I wanted to buy some bananas, however, at the store there was only one banana and it was past its prime. How is a guy supposed to choose?
A: The same way you choose during the elections.
Q: Presently, how can the smart bulgarian converse with the stupid bulgarian?
A: By calling him from Canada.
↧
Comment on Gamesmanship by Beth Cooper
Wagathon, this should probably be posted on the science demarcation thread, but since you mentioned e e cummings …
O sweet spontaneous
earth how often have
the
doting
… fingers of
prurient philosophers pinched
and
poked
thee
, has the naughty thumb
of science prodded
thy
… beauty , how
often have religions taken
thee upon their scraggy knees
squeezing and
buffeting thee that thou mightest conceive
gods
(but
true
to the incomparable
couch of death thy
rhythmic
lover
… thou answerest
them only with
spring!
↧
Comment on Gamesmanship by NW
My favorite joke from the USSR (more of a quip): “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.”
Second favorite joke from USSR:
A worker had saved enough money to buy a car, so he went to the Lada dealership. After picking out his preferred model, the salesman confided that delivery would take ten years.
“Morning or afternoon?” the worker asked.
“Comrade, do you understand me?” the dealer said. “It will be ten years!”
“Well, it’s just that the plumber is coming to my house that morning.”
↧
↧
Comment on Science is not about certainty by Pekka Pirilä
Although I doubt this helps, I add one more comment.
In rough terms we are looking at four different reservoirs of carbon:
- atmosphere
- oceans
- vegetation
- fossil fuels
There are others but these four are essential for the present issue.
El Nino and other climate variablity influences both the average temperature and the state of vegetation. That leads to a clear correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. This is almost certainly the effect that Salby has noticed. The total amount of carbon bound in vegetation does not change over longer periods due to this variability. Thus Salby sees a well known effect that has no trend.
Ocean temperature affects the solubility of CO2 in water, but that effect has been measured by many scientists and the change is small. The observed total change in ocean temperature can explain only few percents of the observed increase. By that I mean that keeping everything else unchanged raising the temperature as much as it has risen would lead to a slow release of CO2 from the ocean until the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by perhaps 2 ppm, certainly less than 5 ppm. At that point the change will stop according to Henry’s law. This is insignificant in comparison with the actual increase in CO2 concentration.
We cannot get continuously extra CO2 to the atmosphere from the vegetation, the oceans can contribute only very very little. Other sources like volcanism have been proposed, but nothing special has occurred in that over the period of increasing CO2.
The only credible source is burning fossil fuels. The observed increase fits well on what can be expected to remain in atmosphere from the releases from burning fossil fuels. The conclusion is clear and solid. This is an issue, where we know the mechanism with high certainty. There are still open questions in understanding the details of the fate of the other half, but the main picture is clear beyond reasonable doubt.
↧
Comment on Gamesmanship by Beth Cooper
Q: Is it possible for Democratic Socialism to start up in such a well developed country as the USA?
A: Yes, it’s possible, but, why?
CK +1 lol
↧
Comment on Science is not about certainty by Edim
Pekka, you say:
“El Nino and other climate variablity influences both the average temperature and the state of vegetation.”
I don’t accept this distinction – ENSO is just another temperature index, no different than other temperature indices fundamentally. ENSO oscillates and other temperature indices oscillate as well.
ML CO2 would show the best correlation with the SST anomaly of the corresponding latitude band. The same applies to the CO2 measurements from other latitudes.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
