Comments for Climate Etc.

If it is to do with the head post by Maria Wyatt I also agree but the fine statistical print needs to be read with considerable care. I agree that measures of dispersion, such as means, can only be independant if the population distributions are uncorrelated.

Apologies, Marcia, for the missing “c”

+1
Plus hair buns and
http://i2.wp.com/craftgossip.com/files/2014/12/il_570xN.463029880_4rz8.jpg?zoom=3&resize=440%2C239

+1
operating on all 8 cylinders tonite.

This is what happens when Phase II begins and climate change becomes so last decade’s issue.

You can do that when you have minions who believe just about anything you tell them because they are morally superior beings on a mission

You need more minions John

Bill is getting there, slowly. I’m happy that he is making the effort.

We have been delayed about four decades by environmentalist objections to nuclear power. If I was feeling kind, I would explain that away by saying they were probably also frightened by the cold-war fears of nuclear war.

Naomi is just barking for book sales. I can think of no other kind explanation.

@NS: The post here explains why the linearity of the latter plot is a result of the linearity of the former.

Agreed, Nick. I’ve said as much myself on various occasions in the past.

However the claim that this linearity is independent of the sinks is only true for the linearity itself and not for the coefficient of x in that linearity.

You need that coefficient for when the growth drops below exponential, in order to be able to continue to extrapolate the growth reliably. This is the situation that some here expect either is imminent (PA) or has even started already (TE).

As near as I’ve been able to tell so far, the basis for this expectation is the principle first expressed in a previous millennium (e.g. Lewis Carroll’s The Hunting of the Snark) that if you say something three times it must be true.

Power plants mostly burn lignite and low grade bituminous. They have cheap tastes.

No Revana Family Cabernet Sauvignon for them, they use Mad Dog 20/20.

Again surprised that this thread still has life but …

Nick says we don’t know if a scenario is likely or not.

Either Nick is redefining the word “know” or the word “likely” or possibly both.

Well written article.
Thanks for the link Dr Curry

Back in ’09, Jacobson wrote up a plan for the whole world in Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

Oreskes and her sector of the global warming movement have always confused me.

I don’t understand what their game is. They don’t seem to like people and would prefer that they (people other than Oreskes and her elite friends) are as poor and miserable as possible.

I view Oreskes viewpoint as being unhelpful and opposed to my best interest.

Jim D

Assume a ton of coal sells for 40 bucks.
In the ground you can assume it is worth less than 40 bucks.
in other words… if you extract it and sell it to me at 30-40 bucks a ton
it probably costs you something to extract it.

Now Burn that coal and you will get 2.8 tons of c02.

and you want to tax the c02 at what 30 bucks a ton or more.

buy the coal. keep it in the ground.

Beth has a tin ear..

Anthracitecene sounds way better

I sometimes think Naomi Oreskes might be a Maoist. She even appears to have come up with a new Mao suit:

Steve, you still haven’t said who pays. Bill Gates? There is no profit in it, so it would be a humanitarian gesture. The fairest way is if there is a carbon tax that gets used to pay for this, then it is the biggest users who help to buy it up. The other idea I had was something I would call climate bonds (maybe carbon bonds). This is a public investment opportunity with a guaranteed interest rate, so the government borrows money from the public, and pays for infrastructure related to mitigation and adaptation, that may include buying up mines. It works like war bonds did, and is voluntary rather than being a tax.

Sorry Beth, I can’t read baby talk. I’m sure it’s quite fetching to your misogynist compatriots, but here in the capitol of venture capital, my only response is “yes, I’ll have fries with that”