Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by jim2

November 27, 2013, 4:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by Ragnaar

≪ Previous: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$

0

0

(Jim2) Here’s a nice benefit from carbon.

From the article:
On one hand, it could be seen as a warning sign that usage is down, but reports have suggested that is not the case. Instead, the increasing inventories of oil appear to be driven by robust production here in the U.S., which is leading to gluts. That effect is backed up by the low price of American WTI oil (West Texas Intermediate) vs. international Brent. Brent oil, at $110.64, is now approximately $18.40 more expensive than WTI, well up from the $3.18 spread in mid-July.

The subsequent easing in fuel prices is also one of the factors that will have helped the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index to increase from 72.0 for October to 75.1 currently. So if the holiday shopping season comes in strong this year, maybe a bit of credit is due to America’s oilfield workers.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1867281-oil-supply-overflowing

---

Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by Ragnaar

November 27, 2013, 4:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by jim2

$

0

0

“Yet not that long ago rubble was allowed to be dumped into the mouth of the Hudson River – narrowing it substantially – to create more vulnerable real estate.”

So what I think happened is the natural defenses were impaired. If you have wide open rivers and a hurricane stacking up water along the shores, the Zen approach is let the stacked water flow inland, up the rivers during the hurricane.

Inland from New York City, there probably is far less natural water retention than in the past. As the rain falls, it ends up more quickly in the rivers, decreasing the rivers ability to take excess water at the worst possible time.

It looks more like development and less like global warming and sea level rise.

Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by jim2

November 27, 2013, 4:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by Ragnaar

$

0

0

Good analogy. The lesson is that it pays to know what you are talking about – don’t base your policy on some nebulous “threat.”

Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by jim2

November 27, 2013, 4:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by jim2

$

0

0

And in the case of the US, socialists running the government are building those wasteful, unnecessary bridges all over the place.

Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by jim2

November 27, 2013, 4:52 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

≪ Previous: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by jim2

$

0

0

(But for them, those are bridges to voters.)

Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

November 27, 2013, 4:55 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by Howard

≪ Previous: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by jim2

$

0

0

Matthew M. said:

“Once you get beyond the absorption spectrum of CO2 and the notion that an increase in atmospheric CO2 might lead to an accumulation of additional radiant energy someplace in the atmosphere, everything claimed in AGW is disputable.”
——–
Since the “accumulation of radiant energy someplace in the atmosphere” is not a signicant part of the physics or models based on the physics, then you can get passed it pretty fast. It it the physical and chemical alteration of the atmosphere via the human carbon volcano that is of importance. Most of the energy storage is, by basic physics, going to be in the ocean.

Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by Howard

November 27, 2013, 4:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by DocMartyn

≪ Previous: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

$

0

0

Same as it Ever Was!

Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by DocMartyn

November 27, 2013, 5:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by Howard

≪ Previous: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by Howard

$

0

0

“prion-style protein malfolding were implicated in multiple further degenerative diseases”

They are not.

---

Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by Howard

November 28, 2013, 3:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

≪ Previous: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by DocMartyn

$

0

0

Also, Mosher. Please, please, please, more name dropping because we all know that appealing to authority is the very best most convincing argument ever.

You were doing so well the last year, why can’t you get a handle on Mr. Hyde?

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

November 28, 2013, 3:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Herman Alexander Pope

≪ Previous: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by Howard

$

0

0

Well, let’s see. The oceans are getting warmer, there is an accelerating loss of ice mass, my grown children have never lived in a month with below average temperature, Hadley cells are expanding poleward and so are climate zones, and this list goes on. If you believe in conservation of energy, the earth is receiving more than it is sending out.

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Herman Alexander Pope

November 28, 2013, 3:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Schrodinger's Cat

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

$

0

0

NO, EARTH IS ALWAYS IN OR VERY NEAR EQUILIBRIUM.

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Schrodinger's Cat

November 28, 2013, 3:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Herman Alexander Pope

$

0

0

That has happened in the past, eg MWP, Roman period, etc.

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

November 28, 2013, 3:40 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by stefanthedenier

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Schrodinger's Cat

$

0

0

hmm, that would be this one.
“An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950″
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/43307/2/JGR_2009JD012105%5B1%5D.pdf

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by stefanthedenier

November 28, 2013, 3:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

$

0

0

extra heat in the troposphere is not accumulative. When is extra heat, for any reason -> troposphere expands instantly and releases extra heat and equalizes in a jiffy: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

November 28, 2013, 3:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by stefanthedenier

$

0

0

I take your use of all caps to mean that I’ve hit near the heart of an emotionally sensitive subject for you.

Aside from that, your assumption is easily proven wrong. For instance, the heat content of the ocean is large, and it takes hundreds, if not thousands, of years for ocean circulation to produce a new equilibrium.

---

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

November 28, 2013, 4:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by kim

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

$

0

0

I don’t know whether to try to explain that no one is saying that any large portion of the energy is accumulating in the atmosphere, or to point out that changing the volume of a given amount of a gas does not change its energy content. Either and both indicates you don’t know what you are talking about, and it looks like you have chosen to believe someone else who doesn’t know what they are talking about simply because they are telling you what you want to hear. Your understanding of physics is too low to ascertain the validity of the arguments you are hearing; so, why else would you choose to believe what you found at that site?

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by kim

November 28, 2013, 4:29 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by captdallas 0.8 or less

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Chris G

$

0

0

The globe is cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
====================

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by captdallas 0.8 or less

November 28, 2013, 4:49 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Bart R

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by kim

$

0

0

That is an interesting link. The “benchmark” sensitivity is approximately 3.2 to 3.3 Wm-2k-1 which if the surface were a true ideal blackbody would be a temperature of -30C. Obviously, the majority of the surface is not at -30C and includes water vapor making it a less than ideal blackbody. Stephen’s et al pointed out the difference is roughly +/- 0.4 Wm-2 TOA and +/- 17 Wm-2 at the true surface in terms of uncertainty. The problem is of course water vapor specifically saturated and super saturated water vapor which are common to ~-30C degrees and can be found in mixed phase to less than -40C degrees.

Using a 1000mb reference as a “surface” especially when the average land elevation is ~700 meters (-930mb) and the planetary boundary layer is ~2500 meters (850mb) and assuming that the impact of 3.2-3.3 Wm-2 will produce 1 C of warming has a few issues such as latent, sensible/convection and advection all of which tend to reduce the “surface” impact of ~3.2 Wm-2 at an estimated effective radiant layer at -30C degrees.

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Bart R

November 28, 2013, 4:54 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by Dr. Strangelove

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by captdallas 0.8 or less

$

0

0

Picking at the scab of a three-year old wrong guesstimate, while it may have some entertainment value, hardly seems healthy.

Here, something new to fascinate on: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/11/29/science-environment/carbon-mapping-and-why-only-climate-policy-can-stop-boats

Enjoy.

Comment on Social cost of carbon: Part II by Dr. Strangelove

November 28, 2013, 4:55 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Herman Alexander Pope

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Bart R

$

0

0

No it doesn’t help the consumers who end up paying for all this. How economists do their accounting is academic. Consumers pay for carbon tax and it’s neither cost nor benefit according to economic theory? No wonder the management guru Peter Drucker had low regard for economists. They are like theologians with no faith. Economists with no sensible economic theory.