Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Herman Alexander Pope

January 10, 2014, 1:25 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Peter Lang

$

0

0

“China approved the construction of more than 100 million tonnes of new coal production capacity in 2013 – six times more than a year earlier and equal to 10 percent of U.S. annual usage – flying in the face of plans to tackle choking air pollution.

New Clean coal production may, at some point, allow them to close some old dirty coal production. It may well be and likely is moving in the right direction. California has Newer Clean Coal Plants. China can do that.

We are going to burn all the coal. We can burn it clean enough.

CO2 makes green things grow better and it is not a pollutant.

---

Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Peter Lang

January 10, 2014, 1:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Mi Cro

≪ Previous: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Herman Alexander Pope

$

0

0

But nowhere to as clean as nuclear. According to the authoritative studies over the past 40 years or so, polution (not CO2) from coal fired electricity generation causes one to two orders of magnitude more fatalities per TWh of electricity supplied than nuclear. Look at the list of chemicals, the quantities and toxicity produced by fossil fuel generators to understand why and put these figures in proper context with nuclear. Don’t miss that last step. Or you can look at the summary of studies done by authoritative sources (fatalities per TWh):

Nuclear = 0.09
Coal (USA) = 15
Coal world average = 60

Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Mi Cro

January 10, 2014, 1:49 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by willard (@nevaudit)

≪ Previous: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Oh, I forgot, I also average Dew Pt, and Rel Humidity.

Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by willard (@nevaudit)

January 10, 2014, 2:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Herman Alexander Pope

≪ Previous: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Mi Cro

$

0

0

> Otters tend to like to look at other otters…

Indeed, or in otter words:

http://discourseontheotter.tumblr.com/post/67751023219/erving-goffman

Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Herman Alexander Pope

January 10, 2014, 2:21 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by willard (@nevaudit)

$

0

0

Jim D

HAP, yes, 700 ppm is consistent with the iceless hothouse. That level of forcing, when exceeded has been iceless every time it has happened in the last billion years, and is in fact closer to the earth’s average state in that time. Humans evolved in an unusually cold climate that we are about to leave. That’s the big picture.

We had no polar ice, before, when CO2 was 700. If we get to 700 again, with plenty of polar ice, that is very different. An Apple is not an Orange.

It is extremely consistent that now is different from before we had polar ice.

We do not have polar ice now and not then because of anything to do with CO2.

The arrangement of land and ocean currents and ocean levels caused the polar ice and CO2 did not have anything to do with that.

CO2 is a trace gas and it is responding and not driving.

Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by manacker

January 10, 2014, 2:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is global warming causing the polar vortex? by phatboy

≪ Previous: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by Herman Alexander Pope

$

0

0

Max_OK

In case you missed it, the Russian ship carrying AGW scientists did get stuck in all-time record high year-end Antarctic sea ice extent (14% above the 1979-2000 baseline level).

Probably another “polar vortex” problem, caused by (you guessed it) AGW.

How dumb do these guys think the general public is?

Max_not from OK

Comment on Is global warming causing the polar vortex? by phatboy

January 10, 2014, 2:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by manacker

$

0

0

Would that be the truly humongous amount of energy already stored in the oceans, or the relatively tiny amount of energy (the bit you keep banging on about) added over the last few decades?

Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by manacker

January 10, 2014, 2:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on Is global warming causing the polar vortex? by phatboy

$

0

0

Mah granpappy tole me long time ago that when the facks ain’t workin fer em, sum folks start slingin mud (er wurse).

Reckon he wuz rite.

---

Comment on Week in review by lolwot

January 12, 2014, 1:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change by manacker

$

0

0

“And, if you believe the several solar studies, which have attributed around half of the warming to the unusually high level of 20thC solar activity, you arrive at a 2xCO2 TCR of 0.8C.”

The 20th century increase in solar forcing has now been entirely wiped out.
Solar activity now is lower than it was back in 1850.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:132

“The case is further weakened by the fact that over the past decade it should have warmed by 0.2C (according to your 2xCO2 TCR), but it actually cooled by around 0.04C.”

As mentioned above solar activity has plummeted in the last 10 years, wiping out the forcing built up over the 20th century. Just 0.04C cooling would appear to weaken the solar theory.

Comment on Week in review by manacker

January 12, 2014, 1:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by lolwot

$

0

0

Jim D

This “natural phenomena” argument is silly.

Huh?

Our planet’s climate has been changing since the beginning of time, from balmy tropical climes to ice-ball Earth conditions – all due to “natural phenomena” (at least up until the Industrial Revolution, we are told).

So the “natural phenomena” argument is the “null hypothesis” for climate change.

This “null hypothesis” has yet to be falsified by empirical scientific evidence, Jim.

Max

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

January 12, 2014, 1:42 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by manacker

$

0

0

That ‘most since 1950′ argument hits the “skeptics” when they try to deny that the IPCC confidence is merited. Yes, the CO2 and temperature rise since 1950 is consistent with 2 C of transient sensitivity, and even the skeptic-favored 1.5 C gives 75% which is ‘most’ by any measure, yet they try to complain that the IPCC is too confident in their attribution, when mathematically they say the same thing and haven’t realized it yet. Do you agree? Attribution to CO2 using the post-1970 warming period (including the recent natural variation known as ‘the pause’) give you 2.5 C per doubling, so that is not going the skeptics’ way either. The land is warming even faster, and the central Arctic has been warming by a degree per decade during the pause.
Science provides hypotheses for which the best they can do is consistency with Nature. Science isn’t Nature. It is Man’s tool for explaining it. It is not mathematics either, there is not always a solid proof of a hypothesis, just a comparison with others that try to explain the same thing in a different way. A strong hypothesis will also have predictive power, and explanatory power in other paleoclimate periods.

Comment on Week in review by Pekka Pirilä

January 12, 2014, 1:42 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$

0

0

The case of Ireland is particularly unfavorable for wind power in this respect, because practically all regulation is done with natural gas fired power plants while peat powered plants do not participate in regulation. Thus plants that release less CO2 do the regulation.

Power systems that have hydro power and sufficient reservoirs that allow its regulation fare best as practically all wind power leads to reduction in outflows from reservoirs. The extra water can then be used at a time of little wind and/or high consumption. Reduction in fuel use can then also apply to coal (or peat) which are not as flexible to regulate as natural gas.

Comment on Week in review by David Springer

January 12, 2014, 1:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

If the moderator would delete the text inside the comment instead of deleting the comment the threading wouldn’t break.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

January 12, 2014, 1:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by David Springer

$

0

0

manacker, where do you draw the line for “natural phenomena” as an alternative “explanation”. Does it have to be an “explanation” first or just a word for “I don’t know” but not CO2. That’s what I am complaining about. It is like saying “it can’t be CO2, but I don’t know what else it could be either.” This is just lazy denialist talk, the way it comes across.

Comment on Week in review by David Springer

January 12, 2014, 1:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$

0

0

If modertion is done by deleting the text inside the comment instead of whole comment the threading won’t’ break. As I recall however it’s a few extra clicks to do that which if there’s a lot of deletia takes up more time.

---

Comment on Week in review by manacker

January 12, 2014, 1:52 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by David Springer

$

0

0

lolwot

The solar studies I mentioned conclude that the unusually high level of 20thC solar activity (highest in several thousand years) was responsible for around half of the warming we saw.

There are many studies of solar activity from the 19th century to today. Here is a link to one:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

The study shows the average Wolf Number for solar cycles as follows:

SC 10-15 (1858-1928) was around 90
SC 18-23 (1945-2008) was around 148 (peaking in SC19 at 190)
(i.e. a 64% increase)

Other longer-term studies conclude that this solar activity was the highest in several thousand years.

SC23 had already slowed down to 120 and current SC24 is starting off very inactive, but who knows what the future will hold?

A paper by De Jager and Duhau does not expect that there will be another Grand (Maunder Type) Minimum, but that SC24 will have a maximum sunspot number of 62±12, IOW be a fairly inactive SC.

Whether or not this has already affected global temperature (i.e. the “pause”) and how long this will last is anyone’s guess, lolwot.

But to write it off as insignificant would obviously be foolish.

Max

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

January 12, 2014, 1:54 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by bob droege

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by manacker

$

0

0

I did not mean to imply that NW was lying. He doesn’t strike me as the sort. Apologies extended.

My implication is that his description of Steyn was rather absurd – strained credulity.

Comment on Week in review by bob droege

January 12, 2014, 1:55 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by NW

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Joshua

$

0

0

Skippy, can your special cows handle 95 F wet bulb temperatures?

Comment on Week in review by NW

January 12, 2014, 1:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by bob droege

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by bob droege

$

0

0

Chief, it’s ok. Freedom is its own punishment.

Comment on Week in review by bob droege

January 12, 2014, 2:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by maksimovich

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by NW

$

0

0

Skippy,
You realize you are providing evidence for my concerns that the cows are indeed leavin Texas.

Thems american cows that have already left.