That graphic shows that since my childhood the average summer temperature over Europe, and my native England has risen 3 degrees.
This is why anomalies are used, as if they stated real temperatures we would be able to quickly nail down such outright lies.
Comment on Root Cause Analysis of the Modern Warming by DocMartyn
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Ryan Maue tweets: Nasty feedback: cold weather caused by global warming leads to more CO2 emissions due to increased heating demands.
*****
The best Hollywood writers couldn’t make this stuff up.
↧
Comment on Week in review by vukcevic
This article might be of transitory interest only to a tiny minority interested in a possible geo-solar magnetic connection.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
a fan of *MORE* discourse: http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.607997013860876438
The link is to a photo of Gloria Steinem.
What exactly is your objection to the photo of Naomi Oreskes? We agreed some comments were bad, but there is nothing wrong with that photo. You wanted her glammed up beyond recognition, maybe?
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Dr. Curry commented on the Planning Engineer post that people are dismissive of external costs numbers even though they haven’t really looked into the methodology.
I am somewhat dismissive of them, but not altogether. The reason that I am somewhat dismissive of them is that I never seem them presented in context and also I suspect the methodology used to determine the external costs are rife with assumptions and leaps of logic.
As to the context part, we never see the external costs of say, petroleum, compared to the benefits of same. The external costs of a fossil fuel is presented in a vacuum.
It would be much more instructive to determine the external costs associated with an end use of fossil fuels with and without the fossil fuel externality cost.
For example, use the same methodology to determine the external costs of a 10,000 acre corn farm in Iowa. The, one could compare the external costs of the farm with and without diesel fuel. Even if the external cost methodology is flawed, at least we could compare apples to apples, rotten or not. Then we could look at the benefit of the farm vs external costs of the farm. We could look at the benefit of the farm with and without diesel. We could look at the direct cost of running the farm with and without diesel (meaning use of some other energy source.)
Same for building a skyscraper. Same for operation of skyscraper. Building a highway. Operating a highway.
I think the context supplied by these exercises would give policy makers more realistic guidance of whether fossil fuel externalities are truly a problem compared to other externalities.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
“I never seem” should be “I never see”
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
This is obviously more BS from FOMBS. Everyone in the political arena gets slimed. Men and women.
What about this FOMBS. Why aren’t you up on your snooty-snoot soap box about this? :
WASHINGTON – Following widespread criticism, CNN anchor Carol Costello apologized in a written statement on Thursday for joking on-air about an alleged altercation involving Bristol Palin and a man at a party accused of pushing her younger sister.
“Over the past few days I have been roundly criticized for joking about a brawl involving the Palin family. In retrospect, I deserve such criticism and would like to apologize,” Costello said in a statement.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/24/cnn-anchor-apologizes/
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Barnes
Another point on wind that I found at AWEO.org. Can anyone comment on the validity of this info? From http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html
Energy consumption in wind facilities
Large wind turbines require a large amount of energy to operate. Other electricity plants generally use their own electricity, and the difference between the amount they generate and the amount delivered to the grid is readily determined. Wind plants, however, use electricity from the grid, which does not appear to be accounted for in their output figures. At the facility in Searsburg, Vermont, for example, it is apparently not even metered and is completely unknown [click here].* The manufacturers of large turbines — for example, Vestas, GE, and NEG Micon — do not include electricity consumption in the specifications they provide.
Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:
†
yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) — the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
heating the blades — this may require 10%-20% of the turbine’s nominal (rated) power
heating and dehumidifying the nacelle — according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, “power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds”
oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) — 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
magnetizing the stator — the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a “large” amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous “cage rotor” that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine’s rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more
using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours or noise testing (keeping the blades feathered, ie, quiet)) — it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§
Could it be that at times each turbine consumes more than 50% of its rated capacity in its own operation?! If so, the plant as a whole — which may produce only 25% of its rated capacity annually — would be using (for free!) twice as much electricity as it produces and sells. An unlikely situation perhaps, but the industry doesn’t publicize any data that proves otherwise; incoming power is apparently not normally recorded.
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Barnes
The other point about renewable subsidies, at least for solar, is that subsidies are provided directly to consumers in the form of tax credits to install and use solar panels. The subsidies don’t stop there either as many if not all states pay residential consumers retail rates for electricity they “sell” back into the grid, as opposed to wholesale rates that utilities pay to other suppliers. To my knowledge, no government – state, local, or federal – have ever offered consumers tax credits to incent them to increase their use of fossil fuels.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by markus
sure physics is all a lie and no amount of temperature increase will cause problems will it? It’s all a big conspiracy theory right?
↧
Comment on Week in review by markus
↧
Comment on Week in review by markus
wait doesn’t Judith and many other bloggers refuse to allow skydragons to debate the greenhouse effect on their blogs?
↧
Comment on Week in review by markus
30,000 climate scientists? I don’t think so.
↧
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Barnes
Peter – there is also a new book coming out in November written by Laex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress titled “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” that likely addresses many of the same points as does the policy analysis. The first chapter is available to download for free – just google the title or go to CIPs web site if you are interested.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Pierre-Normand
I think the main reason is because they spam all the threads (like me recently!) and spawn an continuous stream of new sock-puppets.
↧
Comment on Week in review by sunshinehours1
Try to understand markus. Despite a huge increase in CO2 temperatures did NOT go up for over 15 years.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Pierre-Normand
“30,000 climate scientists? I don’t think so.”
It allegedly included Posh Spice, Michael Jackson and Mickey Mouse, so it’s multi-disciplinary.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Pierre-Normand
The surface temperature variation over 15 years is the sum total of many forcings and is also influenced by ENSO. Most of the non-CO2 factors were cooling factors. Only CO2 was a warming factor.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
The correct answer is: clueless left wing hack.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Barnes
PN – I thought co2 was THE control knob and nothing else mattered? Did you not get the memo?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
