I hope against hope the next Congress can put leggin’s on the EPA.
Comment on Open thread by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
Looks like someone re-discovered polywater. This should be interesting.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Michael
David Springer | July 5, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
“An open ocean limit temperature is observed at 30C. The math burden is on you to show how the observed limit may be exceeded.”
No maths required.
Just obs- in northen Australia we regularly see sst’s of 31 deg C in the summer.
So what’s with the 30C thing????
↧
Comment on Open thread by Jim D
Robert Redford in a July 4th comment on climate change. Basic message is “Yes we can, and are. Don’t wait for Congress”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-redford/addressing-climate-change_b_5556735.html
↧
Comment on Open thread by Time For An Ob
A little goofy because a lot of coal producing states are blue or toss-ups ( Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia ).
A lot of coal using states are blue as well.
Like any good political move, the rules don’t take effect until after O is out of office.
Probably doesn’t matter all that much – natural gas is waging a lot bigger war on coal than the government can.
But the irony that D.C. is power by one of the oldest and dirtiest coal plants is a little much.
↧
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by steven
Jim, I wasn’t aware that just because land was warming more than SSTs it automatically made the rest of your far reaching hypothesis true. Do you have a reference that states natural variability can’t cause land to warm faster than the oceans or not?
↧
Comment on Open thread by Time For An Ob
Is this El Nino a bust?
It started with promise, but wind anomalies have faded as has the subsurface heat anomaly in the Pacific.
I planted trees counting on a wet fall.
If this ENSO’s a bust I will not be pleased.
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Jim D
steven, that is what the observations show, and skeptics need to figure out why. I don’t have any ideas of how that could happen except for forcing where it is a natural consequence. How about yourself? Any ideas? Land has short time scales because of its low effective heat capacity. Maybe you can imagine some scenario where the heat is welling up from below?
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by steven
Jim, everything near the Arctic circle could easily be explained by a reduction in sea ice:
Quantifying the Influence of Atlantic Heat on Barents Sea Ice Variability and Retreat*
M. Årthun and T. Eldevik
“Based on the simulated ocean heat budget it is found that the heat transport into the western Barents Sea sets the boundary of the ice-free Atlantic domain and, hence, the sea ice extent. The regional heat content and heat loss to the atmosphere scale with the area of open ocean as a consequence. Recent sea ice loss is thus largely caused by an increasing “Atlantification” of the Barents Sea.”
That is unless you also have a hypothesis that the air the water warms is for some reason stuck above the water where it gets warmed up. As for the rest I already invoked the magical properties of clouds. I could have said changing ocean currents may change wind patterns. There are plenty of reasons why a change in heat transport could warm land more than SSTs.
↧
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by steven
Jim, here you go. I knew I had seen this reference but I didn’t bother to save it since I never expected to be having this argument:
Oceanic influences on recent continental warming
Gilbert P. Compo, Prashant D. Sardeshmukh
Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.
↧
Comment on Phunny Physics by ROM
Fossil fuel use of all types including coal are increasing at a rapid pace world wide.
Percentage wise the use of coal is slowly falling but tonnage used for power generation and cement and steel and aluminum production is going up.
Where ever there has been an introduction of the so called renewable energy generation systems of wind and solar it has led to a very significant decrease in the reliability of power supplies. the rapid complication of ensuring a stable power supply, a large and for some, no longer affordable increases in energy costs, the creation of severe biological consequences with the wholesale destruction of bats in particular plus severe bird kills which are all still mostly hidden by the wind industry if personal anecdotal information from within the wind industry is correct. Plus the fact that there is little or NO reduction in fossil fuel generator capacity. wind and solar do not replace fossil fuel generation, as that has to be maintained at and close to previous levels to cater for power needs when the unreliable, unpredictable wind and solar generation systems go off line or fail or just don’t produce much power.
Consequently with the dramatic decrease in efficiency of fuel burn in the standby fossil fuel generators there is sweet FA practical reduction in CO2 emissions with the introduction of wind and solar power generation systems particularly when the energy costs of the producing and building the so called renewable energy systems are added to the grossly inefficient running of the ready to go to full generation capacity in minutes, fossil fuel powered standby generators which in many cases must be kept running at low or zero power generation to be able to come on line in minutes when the so called renewable energy systems fail to produce power ,
If power generator owners and governments had decreed that the most inefficient and most unreliable, most costly power generation systems that could be conceived to generate power for our modern civilisation were to be the norm then the so called renewable energy systems of wind and solar along with highly inefficient fossil fuel burning idling generators as standby’s when the renewables fail to produce power then it is doubtful that a more hopelessly inefficient and unreliable system could be devised for a civilisation that depends so utterly on having dead steady, totally reliable, at call power every second of every day to run that civilisation’s entire very sophisticated structures
↧
Comment on Phunny Physics by Jim D
Some people might prefer China’s urban climates which are prime examples of runaway coal. Even China doesn’t and plans to do something about it. These are things of the past that are not worth clinging to. Modern cities, transportation and new energy are the growth industries now, not to say they can replace coal tomorrow, but that is the trend in the developed world who also are leading the way in the required technology advances. Even a stop-gap of nuclear energy is an available option if needed. Sensible planning does involve thinking ahead of consequences. The easy route isn’t always the best one.
↧
Comment on Phunny Physics by Jim D
RACook, there is no excuse for fuel poverty when the UK energy industry makes so much profit. This seems to be an issue with having a Conservative government who won’t help the poor people out. However, I only read up on this now, so I don’t really know why the government lets that happen. The normal number of UK winter deaths is more than 20000, mostly among the elderly, so it is hard to judge what the fuel poverty number is.
↧
↧
Comment on Phunny Physics by JimReedy
They are not ignorantly doing it.. now they do it with full knowledge that it wont cause much of a problem
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Teddi
You comment is just plain wrong. Run away warming was predicted and it hasn’t warmed in over 17+ yrs. The AGW theory is an abject failure and that’s significant – not “only little”. Give it a rest Victor…
↧
Comment on Phunny Physics by ROM
China , India and those still to come will clean up their air and their environment just like the english did after the great killer smogs of the 1950′s.
And as the English have done and as the Chinese and the Indians and etc will still do, they will use coal, lots of coal plus gas and oil for power generation until some capitalist somewhere with a very good idea on how to reduce costs and still make a fortune comes along and devises / discovers or restructures an old technology or a new power generation technology that is more efficient, lower cost, more profitable, just as reliable as fossil fueled, those coal, oil and gas generators
Perhaps it will be Fusion or even that far outlier, Cold fusion technology.
The English got rid of wind power in the 1600′s at the start of the Great Industrial revolution as they learnt to tame and use steam power with coal as the fuel source.
They got rid of the three thousand year old wind power as fast as they could for damn good reasons, it only was of use for power if you didn’t have anything else.
Now the western climate alarmists are so damn dumb that they think that somehow wind has got more reliable after 400 years of getting rid of wind power for the very reasons of it’s abysmally low and completely unpredictable and unreliable power output in what was an industrializing society.
And solar.
They think you can run a 24 hours a day civilisation on a sometimes 6 to 8 hours of unpredictable and unreliable solar energy per day.
And my question remains unanswered;
After 25 years of very expensive, ever expansive publicly funded climate research, could somebody somewhere please point out one single example where climate science as currently practiced has been of ANY visible, perceivable or useful and useable benefit at any level to our national and global societies and industries ?
↧
Comment on Phunny Physics by Don Monfort
Don’t worry. The thrum won’t be incessant.
↧
↧
Comment on Phunny Physics by Don Monfort
Has cc graduated?
↧
Comment on Phunny Physics by Jim D
Wind and solar energy become more feasible with energy storage technologies, so you may want to look at it from a more current perspective than what they did centuries ago. Things have changed since then, and still are. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if you consider how far we came in 50 years, you would be more optimistic that this can significantly progress in the next few decades to where you won’t recognize it. Cleaner air is a side-effect that will also come from improved transportation, and China’s fuel efficiency plans are at least as ambitious as the ones in the US. This is a tangible benefit, along with not relying on resources that are running out anyway, and which many advanced nations would have to import.
↧
Comment on Phunny Physics by GaryM
“This seems to be an issue with having a Conservative government who won’t help the poor people out.”
Progressives in the UK implemented their CAGW-based energy policies. But it is conservatives fault that the resultant, inevitable, completely foreseen impacts on energy as far as scarcity and cost, are the fault of the current conservatives.
I, surprisingly, agree. Not because they “don’t care about the poor,” but because they are too cowardly to undo what the progressives have done. This is the problem with “me too” progressives who cal themselves “conservatives” like the British “conservative Party.. They rob voters of a real choice, and end up getting conservatism blamed for their impotent efforts at “conservative” central planning.
It’s not surprising that a default progressive like Jim D doesn’t understand economics. It is tragic that “conservative” leaders throughout much of the west don’t.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
