David,
I’ll grant that the Sierra Club’s abuse of the legal system ends up raising the financial risk profile of coal fired plants as it does nuclear plants and hydro plants.
As far as the mercury rules…It’s hard to comment on the impact. 22% of US coal fired capacity has input heats rates greater then 12,000 BTu’s.
They are going to have a hard time competing against CCGT(heat rates of 7,000 BTU’s) no matter what. Especially when you start calculating in ash disposal etc etc etc..
Re Brandon Shollenberger’s comment on December 31, 2012 at 11:56 am
Brandon says: “To make sure I understand you correctly, are you’re claiming it is not deceptive to ignore the last eleven months yet you are showing date from “over the last 16 years”? That’s what it sounds like, but I’d hope not. Your graph was certainly deceptive. I don’t think it was intentional, and I don’t think it made much of a difference, but it was deceptive.”
___________
As you will recall, Brandon, what I said was “all four major global temperature metrics show warming over the last 16 years (1996 – 2012).” I can understand how you and other readers, could interpreted this to mean a period including all of 1996 and most of 2012. However, that interpretation would put the period at almost 17 years, not 16 years, and therefore would be an incorrect interpretation.
In retrospect, I could have avoided misinterpretation by saying all four major global temperature metrics show warming over the last 16 complete calendar years, from January 1996 up to January 2012.
Wait! You mean the Sun controls the temperature??? Say it ain’t so!
I would nominate the US Presidential election of 2012, during which climate change and preventing it were hardly every mentioned. In second place, the international climate conference someplace or other where nothing much happened.
Didn’t you hear? It’s a gamechanger, they say.
Trenberth admitting that we should not conflate prediction and projection.
The defenders of the IPCC are not playing fair.
For a species that’s endangered by Global Warming, there sure are a lot of polar bears out there available to have their picture taken.
Happy New Year
Andrew
This nomination agrees with Monbiot’s:
http://guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/31/year-abandon-natural-world
David Springer recommends broad thinking: “Of course you’re interested in what the other side has to say” [posts link to 2007 lecture by Don Easterbrook]
Hmmm … subsequent energy balance observations and analysis affirm that Earth is steadily heating; and so we learn that (1) Don Easterbrook’s 2007 predictions were wrong, and (2) because his predictions had little theoretical basis, there wasn’t much to be learned from their failure.
———————-
Definition Science is weak when falsifying it conveys little new knowledge.
———————-
By this definition, Don Easterbrook’s skeptical science is both wrong (which ain’t good) and weak (which is worse), eh?
And isn’t the problem with most skeptical “science”? The data is cherry-picked, the physical theory is non-existent, and so falsifying it teaches us little, and therefore it is just plain weak science, eh?
I’d have to agree with Peter Lang that it is “extremely unlikely” that IPCC will waver from its “CAGW” message, no matter what the latest science shows.
The dilemma for IPCC, however, is that “the cat is out of the bag”.
As Judith stated earlier, it will be difficult for IPCC to brush the new data “under the rug” and retain any semblance of credibility.
But it would be even more painful to admit that past reports exaggerated certainty when it came to the impacts of AGW – and, worse yet, that they also exaggerated the magnitude these impacts.
The most damaging news for IPCC were the two recent studies based on physical observations (Lewis and Schlesinger), which indicate that (2xCO2) equilibrium climate sensitivity (the alpha and omega of the “CAGW” premise) is very likely to be around half of the values previously predicted by the climate models.
These followed earlier studies based on CERES and ERBE satellite observations (Spencer + Braswell 2007, Lindzen + Choi 2009/2011), which also showed low climate sensitivity.
Let’s see how IPCC handles this new situation in its AR5 report.
My guess is that IPCC (in keeping with its past tradition) will try to “tough it out” as long as this is possible, maybe with some quick rebuttals to the damaging reports, but that this policy will eventually backfire, as it loses all the credibility it still had left after Climategate, etc.
However, I expect that the days for IPCC’s “CAGW” position are numbered scientifically, even though the politically-driven multi-billion dollar big business that “CAGW” has become may continue to lumber on a bit longer before it finally collapses under its own weight.
2013 should be an interesting year.
Max
That’s nothing. You can go back and cherry-pick periods when temperature declined and CO2 rose, showing (a) more CO2 reduces the greenhouse effect ,or (b) there is no greenhouse effect anyway. Of course, some people might think you are a moron.
Max_OK
IPCC is a political organization whose job from the “get go” was to show that human influences on our climate (from the use of fossil fuels) are likely to be harmful unless we dramatically curtail our use of fossil fuels through international action.
To support this political agenda, it needed a “consensus” process based on agenda-driven “science”.
And, yes, it has been doing exactly this all along.
Problem now is that the holes in the consensus science are beginning to become apparent to one and all.
Max_not from OK
There is no inherent conflict between democracy and totalitarianism.
yes, fan some take the high road. Judith did an essay on this long ago,
Note, I’m not saying she takes the “high” road.
Eli
The “list of candidates” is rigged.
Add:
- Doha disaster
- Schlesinger finds ECS is only half of previous model predictions
- Lewis confirms Schlesinger
- IPCC (AR5) starts backing down on “severe weather” link to AGW
- Thermometers continue showing “pause” in global warming
Max
David Springer posts: “Speaking from personal experience, if you find yourself in handcuffs it usually and reliably means you took the low road. “
Does this mean you weren’t arrested alongside of not only James Hansen, but 94-year-old coal-country legend, WWII combat veteran, and longest-serving congressmanKen Hechler, eh?
Heck, most folks think occupying the same paddy-wagon as a 94-year-old veteran like Ken Hechler is a downright honor! Ain’t that so, David Springer? So, good on `yah, Jim Hansen !!!
Science marches on, thanks for the vision Eli. Happy 13, everyone.
Just how did SOD get science to take the poor & the rich down this road?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0000&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%3F%3F%3F%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffeeee&fg=0000dd&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffddee&fg=ee00bb&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
