Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by jim2

$
0
0

Looks like industry agrees with you, Fernando.

From the article:
White said he supports the Keystone XL, but also noted that despite the political hurdles facing that project, the American pipeline sector overall is booming.

“We’ve seen more pipeline construction in the U.S. over the last seven years than in the history of the history of the United States,” White said.

“I’m not saying this to minimize the significance of Keystone or anything,” White said, “but by historical standards, we’re moving pretty fast on midstream.”

Pickering said he doesn’t expect the boom in production from shale to slow in the near future. “The next big thing is the current big thing,” Pickering said. “We’re 10 years into the shale story… and it’s probably a 20-year or 30-year thing.”

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/09/23/panel-dont-expect-high-natural-gas-prices-any-time-soon/


Comment on Week in review by AK

$
0
0

Don’t forget sea-floor methane hydrates. The robotics needed to operate on the ocean floor aresubject to “Moore’s aLaw”. And if there aren’t any people present, the very high pressures aren’t really a problem.

Comment on Week in review by Skiphil

$
0
0
Interesting article on Judith Curry: <a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060006489" rel="nofollow">SCIENCE: A woman in the eye of the political storm over climate change</a>

Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn

$
0
0

ah, the large number of volcanics eruptions over the last 17 years and dim sun is to blame.
How low can you go Ben?

Comment on Challenging the 2 degree target by rishrac

$
0
0

We are getting along wonderfully with the people in the mid east, and at protecting the US from ebola.

Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Let’s pull the pieces together!

A woman in the eye of the
political storm over climate change

“Curry and the other scientists agree on the basics of the science. They are quibbling over the uncertainties.”

Belief, bias and Bayes

Cohort I  If you have a prior assumption that modern life is rubbish and technology is intrinsically evil, then you will place a high prior probability on carbon dioxide emissions dooming us all.

Cohort II  If your prior bias is toward the idea that there is a massive plot by huge multinational environmental corporations, academics and hippies to deprive you of the right to drive the kids to school in a humvee, you will place a much lower weight on mounting evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

Cohort III  If your prior was roughly neutral, you will by now be pretty convinced that we have a problem with global warming.

FOMD allies with Cohort III … along with an overwhelming majority of the world’s STEAM professionals *and* common-sense citizens.

Pretty much *EVERYONE* appreciates these POLITICAL realities, eh Climate Etc readers?

Meanwhile  The seas keep rising, the oceans keep heating, and the polar ice keeps melting … all without “pause” … all without obvious limit … all showing us a Hansen-style reality of sustained energy imbalance.

Pretty much *EVERYONE* appreciates these SCIENTIFIC realities, eh Climate Etc readers?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Week in review by johanna

$
0
0

“Big Smug” – good one, Mosomoso. :)

A while ago I wandered over to Kahan’s site and read a few of his articles and the subsequent comments. What a load of twaddle! He is your classic academic obfuscationist, never uses a short word when a long one (or phrase) will do; regards disagreement as a failure of communication instead of a genuine disparity of viewpoints; and has brought the art of condescension to a whole new level.

He’s a fairly successful con artist who is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. Hilary Ostrov shredded him a few times while simultaneously trimming her cat’s toenails and cooking dinner.

Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Terry Oldberg

$
0
0

Amen to David Wojick’s contention on September 26, 2014 at 5:23 pm.


Comment on Week in review by rls

$
0
0

AK: Mobile phone got it start, not as a replacement for land lines, but as an extra source of communications. Also I’m uncertain regarding the envisioned future of solar. Is it going to be a consumer product or an industrial product? My original comment assumed that the customers would be the power companies.

Comment on Week in review by Skiphil

$
0
0

FOMD, nice but your “Cohort III” is mis-described. Plenty of us had priors (me for instance) that ranged between neutral and “there probably is a problem since there is so much noise about a problem” — yet do not end up in your camp that there is evidently any (serious) problem that can and must be dealt with by concerted state actions. In other words, your set of cohorts form a “straw man” type of analysis…. but the comment is entertaining, I’ll give you that.

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

It is difficult to imagine that climate is at all predictable against a backdrop of vigorous natural variability – and it is not as if the rate of warming is all that striking. I am inclined to take the high point of the early century warming – 1944 – as a starting point and the late century high point – 1998 – as the finish. This accounts for both a multi-decadal cooling and warming period. Surely – there is an obvious rationale there. We may even assume that all of the warming between 1994 and 1998 was anthropogenic – unlikely as that is – to give a warming rate of 0.07 C/decade. Well short of 2 degrees C anytime soon – especially as the oceans are contributing to surface cooling for decades seemingly.

I am inclined to just move on entirely from the rhetoric of catastrophe. There are plenty of things to be getting on with. Trade, development, progress and and ecological and soil conservation all bring environmental benefits – but are clearly not the prime objective. Targeting greenhouse gases would send entirely the wrong message. We might also for economic reasons encourage energy innovation. We might then see more progress on social and economic development and some on biodiversity.

Comment on Week in review by xanonymousblog

Comment on Week in review by omanuel

Comment on Week in review by beththeserf

$
0
0

‘have kids with environmental green lawyer/vegan.’ Surely not!
Are we not an abomination to an already overpopulated Gaia?
‘… Overpopulated by humans, that is.

Comment on Week in review by Alexander Biggs

$
0
0

Antarctic sea ice increasing.

There are more people and more industry in the N hemisphere, hence more waste heat. But total global heat output is roughly in equilibrium with total heat from the sun, so as the N hemisphere gets warmer, the Southern gets colder.


Comment on Week in review by GaryM

$
0
0

Not only are skeptics to be ignored, but those who read or listen to them are to be culled from the herd as well.

We can’t have our sheep paying attention to banned thought.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$
0
0

Their 2007 statement was “The evidence is incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring”. I think today this is less incontrovertible, even by skeptics who disagreed back then, so it could appear in the new statement too. Koonin says “We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth’s global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.” So it is still incontrovertible, but the difference is that the skeptics have shifted since 2007 to allow this to be said.

Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

$
0
0

Jim D: Their 2007 statement was “The evidence is incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring”.

Believers continue to disparage the distinction between “has warmed” and “is warming”. The evidence for “global warming is occurring” is definitely controvertible.

Comment on Week in review by xanonymousblog

$
0
0

damn it ……forgot climate tourism…….

Comment on Week in review by mosomoso

$
0
0

And don’t forget “green jobs”; an invisible phenomenon which occurs in the wake of industrial self-harm.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images