“Thanks…”
Michael, And yet I’ve asked you what you think, not told you since as I conceded, I don’t read most of your comments. Thanks to you for reminding me why.
Comment on The case for blunders by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW by Questioning Global Warming | Sonicsuns at Random
[…] IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW […]
↧
Comment on The case for blunders by Questioning Global Warming | Sonicsuns at Random
[…] The case for blunders […]
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by beththeserf
Virtually every liberal democracy in the west is heavily in debt.
Peter Drucker ‘Schumpeter and Keynes,’ 1983, cites Schumpeter,
‘The Tax State’ published in the year before the end of WW1,
arguing that through the mechanisms of taxation and borrowing,
the modern State has acquired the power to shift income and
through ‘transfer payments’, control the distribution of the national
product. To Schumpeter this was not Keynes’ magic wand to
achieve social justice and economic progress, but an invitation
to irresponsibility because it eliminated all economic safeguards
against inflation. In the past the inability of the State to tax or
borrow more than a small proportion of the country’s wealth had
made inflation self -limiting, now the only limit against inflation is
political self discipline. :(
↧
Comment on Climate change: what we don’t know by RobertInAz
“So why is it that we don’t just measure the energy radiating into the earth system, the energy radiating out of the earth system, and compare the difference between them to the concentration of CO2? ”
The satellite data does not go back very far and what we have has pretty large uncertainties.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/01/23/3412428.htm
↧
↧
Comment on Coal and the IPCC by WebHubTelescope
A much larger point is the possibility of exploiting the vast amount of oil shale (not shale oil) in the Green River deposits.
The kerogen in oil shale would produce an equivalent amount of co2 that has been released so far.
That is the fundamental question of slowing down AGW — at what low grade of fossil fuels do we draw the line and keep the carbon buried?
Continue with peat moss and methane clathrates and the emissions will continue to increase. Where do we stop?
It’s a question worth pondering no matter how much it pains the skeptics.
↧
Comment on Coal and the IPCC by Dave Rutledge
Paul S.
Thank you for your comments. I had gone straight to the numbers in that report and had tuned out the motherhood statements. Coal gasification is an old technology. I am not aware of any significant success in this area, so I will limit my comments to reserves.
“Unlike conventional oil and gas reserves, estimates of coal reserves can often be underestimated. Rather than a lack of coal resources, there is lack of incentive to prove up reserves. Exploration activity is typically carried out by mining companies with short planning horizons rather than state-funded geological surveys and there is no economic need for companies to prove long-term reserves.”
I think this is what the individual mine owners see. They might characterize the coal in the leasing area as reserves, resources, and potential. In the normal course of running the mine, there would be new surveys done to characterize the resources, and this coal would be re-classified as reserves in the company’s annual reports.
However, at the national level, the experience has worked out the other way. The US is a spectacular example. The US reported reserves of 4Tt for the 1913 conference, based on work by the USGS. However, over time, as surveys improved, three things happened, all of which reduced the reserves substantially. First, many of the western coal basins turned out to be much deeper than expected, out of the reach of the miners. Next, some of the coal fields had been identified only at outcrops, and people had assumed they were continuous. However, later surveys showed that large parts of the fields had been eroded away, and the area was much smaller than initially assumed. Finally, after some criticism from mining engineers, the USGS realized that its reserves criteria were too optimistic, and they tightened them up, requiring thicker seams, a shallower depth cut-off and a closer observation point. So now the reserves are 240Gt. This number is presumably more accurate than the early one, but it is 13 times smaller.
Dave
↧
Comment on Coal and the IPCC by Steven Mosher
Web
I have noticed something. As the standard model struggles a bit with the pause,skeptics –who were once mere doubters– start to float out more and more krank theories..
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by Don Monfort
The real climate scientists know how to deal with confirmation bias. They have added it to their toolbox, along with cherry-picking and spurious curve fitting.
↧
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by David L. Hagen
Currently<a href="http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/02/25/beginning-of-the-end-oil-companies-cut-back-on-spending/" / rel="nofollow"> 95% of models are too hot on 34 year projections.</a> (aka "wrong") vs 5% too cool.
Consequently we cannot have any confidence in their longer range predictions nor on anthropogenic attributions until that is fixed.
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by Don Monfort
I forgot the big one: lying by omission.
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by Jim D
Confidence comes from lines of evidence giving the same result: theory, models and observations. Also look at all the observations, current and past to paleo. If you are not going to come up with an alternative mechanistic explanation of the observations that fits as well as adding CO2, you generally won’t be listened to. For example the logic of the ocean warming argument was destroyed by Schmittner, an ocean expert, in the first comment on Paltridge. It’s good to have this kind of comment where people can see it. Unfortunately Paltridge hasn’t responded to defend himself, so we can’t call it a dialog yet.
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by Don Monfort
What do you imagine that joshie’s point is, Arnold? He does that every time Judith writes a post or a casual comment. He is here to harass Judith, because it makes him feel like a big man. That’s joshie’s game. It’s banal.
↧
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by Michael
“Good thing abolitionists didn’t listen to your strategy Michael. After all, their argument had a “just hearing”.” – k scott
Might go with John Stuart Mill over k scott..
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by Jim D
David Hagen, you link didn’t go anywhere relevant, but the only 34-year projection was pretty good (Hansen, 1981).
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2012/04/HansenProjection-thumb-615×368-84232.jpg
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by omanuel
Likewise, Jim.
I would be happy to post Chapter 2 of my biography for comments on the CCNF “thread for public comment and discussion.”
Exact rest masses of the 3,000 kinds of atoms that comprise the universe deny the whole AGW fable.
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Banal? I thought he was just plain anal.
↧
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by spartacus
Any climate modeler knows that the global mean temperature can remain flat or even decreasing for a few years in the output from their runs. But they’re betting on the assumption that in the long term the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases will take over and warm the planet, because that’s what the models are showing. It’s just how this discipline has evolved, and how this type of scientists has forgotten the distinction between assumptions and reality. The models are not evaluated for their accuracy in matching the current observations, but for how well they reproduce the forcings. Go figure.
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by Hank Zentgraf
Victor, How do you justify your statement that “Climatology is a mature field”? I don’t see it that way. Convince me!
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by Tony Duncan (@tonydunc)
Judith,
your suggestion that climate policy is due to the “dissenting” science, is patently ridiculous. Can you tell me what new evidence caused Newt Gingrich to remove his chapter on Climate change, JUST as he was running for president? what new info did ANY of the republican’s who used to support some policy action on climate change get. Even Huntsman had to grovel and beg some forgiveness. what new info did Lindsey Graham get to change his mind about ACC?. While there are some “dissenters” that are not willing to just flat our lie and completely misrepresent actual science, the majority of posts, opinions, etc that I see on MSM which oppose action on climate change are filled with garbage science even you could not possibly contend is valid science. Maybe ACC is seriously flawed and we will discover hardly any consequences, as unlikely as I think that is, the CURRENT policy position of the republican party ( and the dems who are ALL, oddly, from states dependent on fossil fuels) has nothing to do with science and everything to do with ideology and election campaigns
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
