Agency is working, just not for US…
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/fbi-informant-crimes-report/2613305/
we supply the fields to work in so to speak.
Comment on FT on the IPCC by Tom
↧
↧
Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
To add to the W.Wang paper, someone added an interesting comment to the NASA press release
”
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/957
Rowan Rowntree:
Please explain more about the gas exchange and the mechanism for generating more atmospheric carbon dioxide. We know that forests “inhale” and sequester carbon (and “exhale” oxygen). Then, how can increased temperatures (with resulting increases in growth) produce more atmospheric carbon dioxide?”
It sounds more like a thermally-activated outgassing effect. This is similar to the hypothesized methane releases.
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Peter Lang
Pekka,
That is another pile of gobbledygook and irrelevancies. Do you find it impossible to understand and focus on what is important. here are a few examples what is important and relevant;
- wind and solar power are very expensive (compared with fossil fuels and nuclear power to provide equivalent ‘fit for purpose’);
- they are unreliable and need costly back up generation and expensive additions to the grid, in both operation and maintenance
- they abate far less CO2 emissions than proponents claim and do so at very high CO2 abatement cost
- they require an order of magnitude more material resources per quantity of energy supplied over their life than the viable alternative low emissions electricity supplier, nuclear power
- they make negligible contributions to energy and at very high cost; this applies in countries with high solar incidence too. such as Australia. Solar power generates just 0.8% of electricity in Australia and this is after decades of subsidies at to up to ten times the cost of conventional power supplies.
I’ve provided substantiation for all these statements many times before. If you’d read the links you’d know by now that all those statements are correct.
Pekka, you keep making these long comments advocating renewable energy but say nothing of relevance – and at times make statements containining significant errors of fact. Your comments are the sort of claims made by the greenie extremists.
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Jim Cripwell
Please visit
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
The difference betrween current sea ice area, and the average value for this date has fallen below 1 msk, at 0.898 msk; for the first time in weeks. The highest value earlier in the year, was around 1.5 msk. So Bart R.’s “decayed” ice, (whatever that is), is obviously melting slower than normal ice. I agree with Chief that his estimate of 5.7 msk is looking very good indeed. My bet with Bob Droege is looking better and better, from my point of view, all the time.
Antarctic sea ice seems to be setting more high value records, and total sea ice is well above the zero anomaly. The papers written recently by the UK Met. Office claiming that decreasing Arctic sea ice was a sign of CAGW, are looking distinctly awkward for the authors. If Arctic sea ice is, in fact, starting to increase, the UK Met. Office will lose altogether what little credibility is still has; together with people like Julia Slingo and John Mitchell FRS.
↧
Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by k scott denison
Michael and Web, guess its just pure dumb luck that we’ve made it this far. All those wonderful government policy makers take such good care of us. Nothing that has helped civilization ever came out of the private sector, it’s all been done by those brilliant policy makers and their uncanny ability to predict the future. So glas they thought of the automobile. And the computer. And the phone. Because none of these needs were obvious to anyone but those amazing policy makers.
You seriously underestimate the power of non-governmental forces, both in history and currently.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Tom
In a world where, Deposits are posted as liabilities & Debt is your asset; the FED could not be doing any better.
http://www.etfguide.com/commentary/1095/Bond-Losses-at-Federal-Reserve-Top-$192-Billion/
Inside the Yield Curve, it is all curves, all the time. Downhill, anyone?
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Peter Lang
I said on my comment to Pekka @ August 4, 2013 at 7:10 am
In Australia the average size residential PV installation is subsidised about $340 per year by other electricity customers for its use of the grid and hidden costs transferred to the dispatchable generators
To put that in figures more familiar to most people, that amounts to about an additional 10 c/kWh of subsidy being paid to owners of residential PV by those who do not have PV. And this is in sunny Australia.
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Pekka Pirilä
Peter,
I wonder, how many others read my message as advocating renewable energy.
Looking from an extreme enough position almost anything appears to be on the other side.
↧
Comment on Tall tales and fat tails by David Appell
So, please try not to obfuscate the issue of the “greenhouse effect” and just stick to physics.
Yes, let’s stick to physics. Yours implies that a system consisting of two blackbodies should reach an infinite temperature.
Do you have any experimental evidence to back that up?
↧
↧
Comment on Tall tales and fat tails by David Appell
How much longer are you going to avoid the evidence (measurements) that demonstrate the existence of the greenhouse effect?
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Brandon Shollenberger
It’s good to know you have a problem with gun ownership lolwot. Next time a coyote comes around my house, I’ll make sure to ask you to kill it with a baseball bat.
Because clearly guns are comparable to explosives. It’s not like there are perfectly good reasons for people to own them.
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Peter Lang
Just for interest, Australia has strongly funded solar power research and development since the 1970s. The first solar thermal power station began operation in 1983 and operated until about 1993. It cost about $1.6 million for 25 kW peak power ($64,000/kW peak).
http://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/sustainable/renewable/solar/sustain_renew_solar_white_cliffs_project_report.pdf
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by DocMartyn
Judith, would you be so good as to get my earlier post out of moderation?
Can we turn to the statistics of comparison? In the Pb production rate and in the violent crime rate what is being compared is line shape. Moreover, the production rate of lead paint and tetraethyllead are used as proxies for levels of lead exposure in children; despite the fact that in one case the lead is immobilized withing an organic matrix and applied to objects and in the other is injected into the atmosphere as particulates.
Now, what is generally used as the likelihood that two series share the same distribution around a mean or correlate against a common common axis? Typically, the answer is 5% or that there is a one in twenty of a perverse correlation or false positive.
However, what happens if you are working on something ‘hot’, something really, really, important; like crime rates or Autism rate?
How many investigators examine the line-shape of your hot topic with some environmental stimuli?
Here is the incidence of autism in the US over the past few decades:-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Increase_in_autism_diagnosis.png
Now it is obvious to any keen-eyed climate buff that autism incidents completely follow the Keeling curve, indeed we know that Autism rates in the winter months are higher than in the summer months; slam dunk. Obviously Autism is caused by atmospheric [CO2]. But, [CO2] isn’t responsible for the increase in global temperature, people like Judy and Mosher have missed the obvious; global temperature is directly coupled to the NBA salary scale, the more players are paid, the warmer the temperature:-
http://www.kerryonworld.com/sites/kerryonworld.com/files/sports/avg-nba-player-salary-1984-2006.gif
Can you see how NBA average salary captures the lag?
For the past decade biomedical researchers have had the ability to measure the expression levels of all the genes in a very small sample and so they have been doing comparisons of the gene products of all 20,000 protein-coding genes, in different diseases. This has caused a huge number of studies to claim that they have found gene:disease correlations that are statistically significant. Alas, on the whole they have reported ‘very pretty rubbish’. As the number of comparisons you make increases, so does your false positive rate.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/6/434.long
The simplest way around the problem of false positives, is to do what the authors suggest; Determine the prior probability of the hypothesis before viewing study results. However, people still do not do this. People ‘fish’. Fishing is fine, you take cells, split them into two populations, add ‘X’ to one group and then at time equals t, analyze the difference between the two populations. The you formulate an hypothesis for why ‘X’ does the thing it does, and then test the hypothesis to destruction using a n of sufficient power to determine if the null is correct.
What you cannot do, is compare line shape ‘A’, with line-shape ‘B’ and fail, then compare with line-shape ‘C’ and fail, line-shape ‘D’ and fail………the compare to line-shape ‘CB’ and find a near perfect fit and proclaim to the world; ‘Look, condition ‘A’ is caused by effector ‘CB’! At a p=0.001 for a pair-wise comparison.
What you cannot also do is cheat; biomedicals love the Japanese, Western economy, great health system, meticulous record keeping and definitely not American, or even European. If you want to know if ‘A’ is affected by ‘X’, you look in the US (who write the grant cheques), then the UK (they speak English) and then Japan (just like us but not).
Japan is an internal control, so in the case of the link between organo-mercury and Autism, Japan is great as they both record Autism cases, but removed organ-mercury from their MMR vaccine in 1993. No fall in the rate of Autism after organo-mercury was removed from the MMR vaccine.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn7076/dn7076-1_572.jpg
So what about lead and violent crime? Do Japanese kids exposed to lead turn into violent criminals?
Japanese violent crime.
http://violentdeathproject.com/images/Japan-Post-War-Homicide-Murder-Rate.jpg
Now Japan stopped the addition of tetraethyllead to gasoline in 1986.
Now if you propose a hypothesis that has a causal relationship between lead exposure in children and their going on to becoming violent criminals, then the ONE thing you HAVE to demonstrate is universality; like climate models have to not only model the Earths temperature record NOW, they have to also fit the 400K ice-core temperature reconstruction.
The lead causes violence, appears to me at least, is at least unproven if not completely bollocks. Human brain function is complex, the interaction of people in societies is even more so.
The idea that lead is the cause of violence is a perfect hypothesis for some people.
If lead is the cause then it isn’t poor/Black peoples fault that they commit crime.
If lead is the cause then it was environmental campaigners, and not Prison Works Republicans, who can take credit for the drop in violent crime.
If lead is the cause then it is ‘Big Oil’, who caused the horrifyingly violent inner cities and not competing drug gangs.
If lead is the cause then it means that life is actually reasonably simple, that single targets of political action and cause massive and good societal pay-offs. The campaign against lead has saved millions, so chemical banning campaigns, DDT, PCB’s, CFC’s and lead, enhance human existence, and now is the time to pick new targets, SOx, CH4 and CO2.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by kim
Go Baby Ice, Go. Oops, the baby is now a sullen teen-ager.
=============
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by kim
The promise of 72 virgins in Heaven is enough justification for some people to own bombs. The trouble, as there always is in Paradise, is that the virgins remain so forever.
==================
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Peter Lang
Pekka,
The important issues is you are very cunning at writing long comments that say absolutely nothing of value, just arm waving, motherhood, generalities and FUD. You do not explicitly address what is important, like cost, fit for purpose, reliability, lifetime emissions avoided, CO2 abatement cost, etc, amount of subsidies required, etc. Instead you talk about irrelevancies and FUD.
When I point out that nuclear is far cheaper fit for purpose, etc. you kill it with faint praise and make statements like its unpopular and politically unacceptable. And you make unsupported and unqualified statements like solar works better where there is more sun (or words to that effect). Its all just nonsense stuff. After over 30 years of massive subsidies (per MWh of electricity supplied) in sunny Australia we still have only 0.8% of electricity supplied by solar. For virtually all of that time, France has been supplying about 75% of its electricity with nuclear power and producing negligible CO2 emissions from electricity generation. It is all so damned obvious, only a closest greenie could not see the bleeding obvious.
And the reason I respond to your comments as I do is because you write as if you are an authority and often tell us you were a chair of energy economics or something like that. If that was the case a) you should know better than to make the statements you do, and b) you should be prepared to admit when you are shown to be wrong as has happened in the past.
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by kim
Heh, BS, lolwot better be fast, or the coyote will be furious.
===============
↧
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by Joshua
Yes, Steven, tautological thinking <i>is</i>. I am in complete agreement.
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Andy May
I saw this in the NY Times ( a comment by “jrobinson, Washington, DC”:), is this true? Does it mean what it implies?….
Follow the math – none of these facts are controversial, and are all well-established and easy to verify on your own (and I recommend that you do):
- 1% of the total atmosphere’s volume are green house gasses.
Of the 1%:
- 91% is water vapor, the most prevalent greenhouse gas. It is 3-35 times more insulating than any other greenhouse gas, and caused by the sun striking the ocean. (Which is why solar variations drive climate more than anything else)
- 8% of greenhouse gasses are CO2.
Of the 8% CO2:
- 4% represent the entire human footprint. 96% of CO2 is naturally occurring, and we couldn’t do anything about it if we tried. And if we destroyed all of human civilization, it would only affect 4% of the total CO2.
Of the 4% human-caused CO2:
- Kyoto and Copenhagen only sought to regulate 12-17% of that.
It’s obvious that there isn’t enough CO2 to affect temperature, we aren’t responsible for enough of it, and we aren’t even trying to regulate enough of that. A special shout out to James Hansen, who has been touring the world, blathering about the need to reduce global CO2 to 300ppb (parts per billion). What’s wrong with that? Well, not only is it pointless since it has nothing to do with temperature, but it currently stands at 400ppb. Which would mean an 8.75% reduction in global CO2. But we just learned that the entire human race is only responsible for 4% of global CO2 – so, after eliminating the human race, how does Mr. Hansen intend to achieve the further reductions?
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by jacobress
Leave propaganda and sloganeering to propagandists. This does not imply it’s unimportant.
If Dr Curry would concentrate on refuting or “denying” bad climate-science papers or reports – that would be an enormous contribution to science and truth.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
