Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Herman Alexander Pope


Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Bart R

0
0

David Springer | May 31, 2013 at 5:21 pm |

I’m saying someone spun up the 12% figure and you bought it hook, line and sinker.

Suppose they’d said 97% instead? Would you believe that without checking?

I know a lot of people who doubt 97%, that instantly believe 12% like it were the Word of the Messiah.

The USA isn’t the bad guy in the world. The USA is the best thing to ever happen in, to, or for the world. That China steals US production capacity and then scams Americans into paying China to take US jobs and US capital growth from Americans doesn’t make the USA the bad guy. It makes the USA the victim.

Of course, like all victims of con games, you think you’re too hip to be fooled. It’s what makes you such a great mark.

And I could freaking care less about Europe. Sorry, Bjorn and Pekka and any other denizens of yesterdayland. It’s not that I think less of you, it’s that I have no place making decisions on your behalf.

I’m saying the USA will have higher ROI if it has less waste. I’m saying the USA has X-inefficiency in its energy markets due barriers to entry and exit, largely from subsidies for fossil. I’m saying what any competent businessman would know, if he made his money by smarts not by luck or charm.

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Bart R

0
0
timg56 | May 31, 2013 at 6:03 pm | I think you can do that math. Heck, you could do the math of what it's more likely to be: China matching the US per capita number. Because, why would China not match the US per capita number, when it doesn't have to pay a penny to plunder the US share of the carbon cycle, take American jobs, poach US capital growth opportunities, and hack US industrial and technical secrets? (Okay, that last one is a distinct rant.) The problem isn't <i>per capita</i> emission. It's <i>per capita</i> dividends that ought be paid to the owners of the carbon cycle.

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by David Springer

0
0

timg56 | May 31, 2013 at 5:57 pm | Reply

“As someone with a graduate degree in Environmental Science and Engineering who took courses in Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry, I do not come at this issue from a basis of political opinion.”

Well that explains why I only disagree with you about stuff that Ms. Manner’s already answered. Mostly in your favor too. I never was fond of the snooty old gal.

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Faustino

0
0

tim, excellent, don’t expect a coherent reply from Eugene.

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by jim2

0
0

When are we going to pay the owners of the nitrogen cycle, the water cycle, the bi cycle … Bart, give it up. We all breathe the same air and we all get the benefit of fossil fuels. You are all cost and no benefit. You’d make a lousy bookkeeper.

Comment on Forget sustainability – it’s about resilience by manacker

0
0

tony b

Not to go too far OT and get a fine, BUT:

You’ll be pleased to know that Verbier is considering re-opening its ski lifts.

Other ski locations are thinking of following suit.

Several thousand skiers are signing up for June skiing.

And, just think, climatologists were telling us just five years ago that snow in the Alps would soon be a thing of the past.

Just thought you’d be interested.

Max

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Faustino

0
0

Bart, I didn’t know the word minarchist, assuming the wiki definition is accurate, it gives me a better understanding of where you are coming from. I perhaps have minarchist tendencies, but I’d see a significant reduction in the role, reach and size of government as a hopefully achievable goal. I try to promote that, the chance of government retreating to the minarchist position seems remote. But if promoting minarchism helps lead to reduction, at least that’s an improvement on the present overblown scale of government.

From memory, when the UK government introduced some social security measures about 100 years ago (1911ish), government accounted for only about 11% of the economy. That introduction led to the demise of many non-government co-operative schemes. (I might follow up the facts on that.)


Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Alexander Biggs

0
0

:For the record, and for the umpteenth time, there is no “great amount of uncertainty” about whether the planet is warming or why:”

. There have been two periods of global warming: 1910 to 1940 qnd 1070 to 1998. The second period may have been just the effect of the first delayed by the transport delay of the oceans. Despite ever increasing CO2 concentration, global average temperature has remained constant or fallen at all other times. This om/off nature of global warming is not understood nor is it predicted by models. So how can one say that climate is well understood by science?

Comment on Forget sustainability – it’s about resilience by climatereason

0
0

Max

Yes, I saw your comment about snow at 600metres. Apparently the Pyrenees are also opening for the first time ever.

Here is CET to 1538 with ten and 50 year climate shifts and with glacier movements noted. I have now graphed glacier change back to 1000BC

. Of course glaciers neither advance (to bottom of page) nor retreat (to top of page) as quickly as that

http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph01.png

Here is latest CET showing an anomaly of 0.4C

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

I have noted that changes in glacier movement occurs at roughly plus 0.2C CET anomaly. Now, one year doesn’t create a meaningful trend but thought you might be interested that for the first time for years there looks to be the possibility of a change in glacier movement IF the current situation continues

tonyb

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by manacker

0
0

Jim Cripwell

What you’ve written makes good sense.

I’s all about rationally looking at the empirical evidence at hand, rather than emotionally predicting future disaster backed only by model simulations based on theory.

It’s basically what Rep. Lamar Smith has suggested, as opposed to what President Obama is calling for (see previous post).

Max

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Wagathon

0
0
<strong>I. THE CONCLUSION THAT EPA DREW FROM ITS THREE LINES OF EVIDENCE IS DEMONSTRABLY INVALID.</strong> EPA grounded its controversial near-certain conclusion that manmade GHG emissions contributed to observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century on three “lines of evidence” in the administrative record: (1) a “basic physical understanding” of the impacts of various changes—both natural and manmade—on the climate system, (2) historical estimates allegedly suggesting that recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual, (3) and computer-based models simulating the climate’s likely response to various forcing mechanisms. 74 Fed. Reg. 66518 (2009). Not one of these lines, however, supports EPA’s ultimate conclusion, much less the degree of certainty asserted by EPA. The significance of the flaws in the bases for EPAs contentions should not be understated. EPA’s expansive GHG regulation program is unprecedented by any agency regulatory program in size and scope. Because evidence EPA had available to it contradicts EPA’s ultimate conclusion, its corresponding sweeping actions are arbitrary and capricious. In the view of many scientists, including amici, there is ample evidence that EPA’s Endangerment Finding is grossly flawed. In its finding, EPA relied on the claim by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. See <em>id.</em> & n.22. EPA bases its Endangerment Finding on three “lines of evidence.” 74 Fed. Reg. 66518. But, using the most credible empirical data available, each of EPA’s three lines of evidence should be soundly rejected. EPA’s purported three lines of evidence are summarized below: 1. The first line of evidence is EPA’s “basic physical understanding of the effects of changing concentrations of greenhouse gases, natural factors, and other human impacts on the climate system.” <em>Ibid.</em> EPA is here referring to its GHG Fingerprint (or Hot Spot) Theory, which is that, in the Tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere and the lower is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations blocking heat transfer into outer space. By this mechanism, increasing CO2 is assumed to increase surface temperatures. 2. The second line of evidence consists of “indirect, historical estimates of past climate changes that suggest that the changes in global surface temperature over the last several decades are unusual.” <em>Ibid.</em> This line of evidence refers to EPA’s claim that GAST has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last fifty years. <em>Ibid</em>. This line of evidence refers to EPA’s claim that GAST has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last fifty years. <em>Ibid</em>. 3. EPA referenced as its third line of evidence the the “use of computer-based climate models to simulate the likely patterns of response of the climate system to different forcing mechanisms (both natural and anthropogenic).” <em>Ibid</em>. Those climate models assume that CO2 is a key determinant of climate change, and EPA’s conclusions rely on such models to provide forecasts of future temperature conditions that are adequate for regulatory policy analysis. In fact, however, highly credible empirical temperature data facts, readily available to EPA prior to its endangerment finding invalidate each line of evidence. And temperature data that is now available for the years 2009-2012 further confirms that each line of evidence was invalid. [Excerpt taken verbatim from the brief by the Attorneys for Amici Curiae Scientists (see, <a title="Amicus brief" href="http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EF_SC_Cert_Amicus_153014_1_Final_%282%29.pdf" rel="nofollow">Amicus brief</a>) in Support of the Petitions for Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of <em>Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.</em>

Comment on Forget sustainability – it’s about resilience by climatereason

0
0

Faustino

My debt collectors don’t worry about Doors.

Tonyb

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Patrick B

0
0

I agree. I work with a number of bright, hard working individuals at Rice. (I’m not a Rice employee.) I’m shocked that someone with such a lack of knowledge and grace is occupying a position there. I’m even more shocked that the hard science scientists and engineers at Rice haven’t spoken out – he tarnishes all of their reputations.

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Bart R

0
0

jim2 | May 31, 2013 at 7:01 pm |

The N2 cycle doesn’t exhibit much scarcity. Not rivalrous. Not excludable. Not administrably feasible. NOx’s are subject instead to command and control regulation. Is that what you want more of?

Water? You think your water’s free?

And I’m not sure whether you realize it or not, but if you walk around picking up bicycles (or bi’s, if that’s what you mean), that belong to someone else and ride them around the town, pretty soon it’s going to lead to a bad end for you.


Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Rud Istvan

0
0

Tim, add my kudos to those of Faustino. Well said. Very well said.

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Bart R

0
0

timg56 | May 31, 2013 at 5:57 pm |

Try a shorter reply for better success. People who had to shorten ‘opinion’ and ‘editorial’ to ‘op ed’ may respond better to brevity.

Also, argument from authority may not be the best starting point. I know you didn’t intend it, but it’s how it came across. As for the rest, you may as well have simply put in a link to WUWT or GWPF with the note, “These guys are always right!!!”

And yes, putting one’s foot in one’s mouth is ‘emnarassing’. Unless you’re weaving a tapestry, in which case it may be a Persian Flaw.

Comment on Forget sustainability – it’s about resilience by AK

0
0
Well, it's all very well to hindcast this sort of thing. Can you forecast? I can: In 1993 the Missouri Floodplain just down the hill from where I live was covered with 10 feet of water: <blockquote>The Flood of 1993 was one of the most destructive in the recorded history of the Mississippi Basin: nearly 50 people were killed, over 70,000 evacuated, and 50,000 homes damaged on over 17 million acres (close to 27,000 square miles) across nine states. Over 16,000 square miles of working cropland was flooded, at a loss of more than $5 billion. All told, the flood caused around $16 billion in damage.</blockquote> <blockquote>In the first blush of post-flood shock, some local and federal officials decided that trying to hold back the Mississippi River was likely to be a costly and never-ending enterprise. Instead of depending on levees and other structures for protection, some thought, it was time to move people’s homes and workplaces off the floodplain and cede ground to the river.</blockquote> [...] <blockquote>And FEMA acted on this notion: In the nine states flooded in 1993, the agency ultimately moved more than 300 homes, and bought and razed nearly 12,000, at a cost of over $150 million; the lands were turned to flood-friendlier uses like parks and wildlife habitat. The village of Valmeyer, Ill., just downriver of St. Louis, became the buyout poster child: devastated when floodwaters overtopped its levee (an event that likely helped save St. Louis itself from a major flood), the entire town packed it in, selling out its bottomland location for a new site two miles away — and 400 feet above the Mississippi floodplain.</blockquote> [...] <blockquote>And unlike some of the other states deluged in the Flood of 1993, [...], Missouri has been much slower to enact stronger regulations for floodplain development — perhaps because the state has hundreds of miles of floodplain fronting the Mississippi and Missouri rivers (read: lots of tax income lost and jobs unrealized if new businesses and homes don’t get built).</blockquote> All this comes from an article from 2008: <a href="http://grist.org/article/gertz2/" rel="nofollow">Fifteen years after the Great Flood of 1993, floodplain development is booming </a>. 20 years now, and while I'm not prepared to come up with development figures, I see what I drive past 1-2 times a week, and I can tell you there hasn't been any letup. Just this morning I shopped in the Wal-Mart mentioned in the article. None of this construction shows any sign of special "resiliency", towards floods or, for that matter, tornadoes like the ones that touched down yesterday. If any <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_resilience#Flood-water_control" rel="nofollow">special new technology</a> has been deployed on/for the levees, I can find no mention of it. It may happen <a href="http://www.weather.com/news/midwest-tipping-point-major-flood-event-20130529" rel="nofollow">this year</a>, or next year, or in 10 years. Or never. But this is a major disaster waiting to happen.

Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker

0
0
97% of <em>"papers"</em> related to climate agree that <em>"humans have caused some change in our planet's climate",</em> according to John Cook at Skeptical Science. (Hey, this is what you <em>have to</em> conclude in your paper if it is about climate and you want to have a chance of publishing it.) This does not mean, of course, that 97% of <em> climate scientists</em> believe that <em>CAGW, as defined by IPCC in its AR4 report, is a valid premise.</em> And that is the point of debate. But even if it were true that <em>"97% of climate scientists agree with the CAGW premise as outlined by IPCC in AR4",</em> (for which there is no evidence), a rational skeptic would still say, <em>"so what? I do not care how many people agree with it, where are the empirical data to support the CAGW premise?"</em> (following the scientific method). So the whole John Cook blurb is a) misleading and b) meaningless. Max

Comment on Open thread weekend by AK

0
0

@GaryM…

I was talking about insurance, which I regard as part of a smart individual’s policy of resilience. And businesses. Smart, or required to have it by their counterparties, such as customers, vendors, lenders, etc.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images