It's the [Climate Polcy] Stupid!

[TimG]

That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

You must be one of the spoiled little rich kids in the environmental movement.

Thanks for stopping by.

Edited June 11, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The situation is this: the IPCC models predicted more warming than has occurred but there is a lot of variance within the models. This means some argue the lack of warming does not actually falsify the models. On the other hand, if trends continue the models will be falsified in 5-10 years. So we are really in a limbo period where one can plausibly argue that the models are both right and wrong. On the sceptic side we also have the ocean heat content (OHC) which has also failed to rise as predicted.

Much clearer. Thank you.

[sunsettommy]

The models have grossly under predicted the warming we are going to see in the next fifty years.

The 2001 IPCC projected temperature models to 2050 and beyond shows a wide temperature variation.But they show at the bottom end of the projected rise to be about .2 C for the first decade.

HadleyCrut

RSS

UAH

Cooling,Flat to a slight warming of about .1C

The IPCC are too warm by a lot and this is based on the AGW hypothesis.

The warming trend since the mid 1800's continues on a linear trendline.There is no accelerating warming trend ongoing at all.Still falls within the "natural" warming trend of the last 150+ years.

By the way how can you know it it is grossly underestimated,when those 50 years have not happened yet?

Edited June 11, 2011 by sunsettommy

[sunsettommy]

Ok but as I said, a correlation graph would be helpful.

I never said it wasn't.

However the point he makes is so obvious,that even YOU should be able to understand it.

There has been NO CHANGE IN THE TREND LINE SINCE 1880! The warming continues to fall on the trendline.

It is NOT accelerating or decelerating.

There is no discernible CO2 effect visible in the trend.Quoting Steve over what you fail to understand:

Without the sulfate cooling effect, the graph then shows constant warming since 1880 – despite the fact that very little CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere prior to the 1940s

That is the point he was making.

1880 to 1940 CO2 went from 280 ppm to about 315 ppm

LINK

That is only a 35 ppm increase in FIRST 60 years.Far less than the yearly rate of increase after 1940,which is more than doubled,to about 65 more ppm.That after the NEXT 60 years produced twice as much total increase.

Getting it?

[sunsettommy]

"Slight cooling" or zero ? The distinction is important. The trend fell short of 'significant warming' up until recently (2010?) but they weren't calling it 'slight warming'.

It's flat.

Hadley Crut shows a clear cooling since 2001.

But RSS shows a flat rate.

UAH shows a slight warming rate.

They are all well below the IPCC 2001 projected (based on the AGW hypothesis) modeled temperature increase rate to year 2050 and beyond.For the first decade ending later this year.It was projected to be a .2 C increase.This is the LOW end of the projected temperature increase.

UAH shows about half that.

That means the AGW hypothesis is failing.It is way too warm.

When will that ever sink into your head?

Very damaging ? I don't see that. If they change the degree of warming by some decimals then is that very damaging ? Only to the hopeful.

It take you have never read the IPCC reports making the temperature projections.They published it in 2001 and essentially the same projections again 2007.It is a list of climate models super imposed on a chart.Showing the projected temperature ranges.Based on the AGW hypothesis.

Try this LINK and see for yourself what a prominent Lukewarmer thinks about the temperature trends and the data behind it.

IPCC Central Tendency of 2C/century: Still rejected.

It is undeniably warming from the mid 1800's to now.But the last 10 years it is not.A data based refutation of the IPCC temperature projections for the first decade.

It's constantly being revised, so no concerns here.

Why give me this unsubstantiated B.S?

It is NOT "constantly" being revised.The IPCC reports are supposed to be the Gold standard and supporter of the AGW hypothesis.The 2007 report temperature models has not changed much from the 2001 report.

HERE is a link showing the small changes.

Hadley Crut is the favored temperature data center,by the IPCC group

2001-2011

[sunsettommy]

Why 'the source' ? They consolidate scientific findings and comprise a body of governance, I would say. I'm not even sure if governance is the word, it may just be a central body that reviews the science.

But why call them 'the source' ? The sources are the scientific papers.

I gather you have no idea what the IPCC is about.

I'm asking you honest questions and playing along nicely here, so I would thank you to do the same.

We got through the discussion of your cherrypicking examples well enough, let's continue to move forward in a positive way, I say.

You have been making a lot of replies,indicating that you know so little about it.Yet when I post links to base information.You seem to just blink and make mostly irrelevent replies.

Cherrypicking complaint is one example of your refusal to see the point I made.I had to repeat my point several times before you caught on.

You went on and on over Steve's undeniable no change in the warming trend since 1880 point.You complained that he did not post the CO2 along with the temperature series.Anyone who actually read the information.Would already have known that CO2 rise from 1880 to 1940 was very small.Far less than the last 60 years.

Most AGW believers concentrate on the CO2 increase from 1970 onward,because that is the common dateline they say AGW is visible and accelerating.The dateline they think really matters.

You have a strong tendency to post replies that are free of data or relevance to what we are talking about.Just post nitpicking stuff is all you have.

How about you stop pretending that you what you are talking about and try discussing it instead of continually being adversarial in your factless replies?

[sunsettommy]

Sunsettommy originally wrote:

You need to see the link again.It shows the undeniable zero trend from 1979-1994.It is a GREEN line.

I already stated the parameters I used: global temperatures, full time scale. I didn't use a subset of years but the whole scale.

I DID post the GLOBAL TEMPERATURES data to make that chart.What the hell are YOU talking about?

This is what you originally stated:

No ! That's great. First thing I picked was HADCRUT global meanglobal mean - every sample. A warming trend is clear there.

To what I posted HERE

I posted using UAH data.You are talking HadCRUT.

???

You are a mess!

Since you never disputed the actual data and chart.I have posted.Why give me the B.S?

Here is the full post I made that you feebly replied to in the first place.

You need to see the link again.It shows the undeniable zero trend from 1979-1994.It is a GREEN line.

The 1998 event is a step up warming.Then from 2001 to now,it is back to about zero.That is the BLUE line.

This is based on the satellite data.

Most of the warming that significantly effected the trend.Occurred in 1977 and 1998.They are called STEP warming.Where the trendline was abruptly lifted upward to a new level.

YOU never factually disputed any of it.

Not only that it clearly states it is a WARMING trend.All I did was to show that most of the warming was in just a few years of the 32 years shown in the chart.The rest of the time it was almost flat.

I showed that using the UAH data from 1979 to 2011 as a warming trend.But Using HADCRUT data for just the years 2001 to 2011.It is cooling.

Yet YOU keep making dumb statements,that does NOT even dispute what I wrote.I posted valid temperature data and you post in replies with B.S. against them.

Why are you doing it Mike?

Edited June 11, 2011 by sunsettommy

[sunsettommy]

Wow. That was painful. It's hard to see what Lindzen is complaining about when all 4 reviewers - including the one he requested - determined that the paper wasn't of adequate quality to be published.

No it is your ignorance of the practice,that is being displayed there.

This LINK has Dr. Motl explaining what really transpired there:

Editors, reviewers, and bias

Selected excerpts:

When you look what was going on with the submission, you can have no doubts that Lindzen and Choi have received a "special treatment". First, it's normal for the PNAS authors to choose their reviewers. Obviously, this policy can't produce a full-fledged peer review. However, it's being used in a big majority of other submissions to PNAS.

Now, Chou (not to be confused with Choi) is surely competent when it comes to the very detailed content of the paper - energy fluxes in the atmosphere, and so on. It's clear why they didn't like it even though his "detachment" from Richard has safely exceeded those 4 years that PNAS requires.

Go ahead and read the link.

[Michael Hardner]

This 3- post reply is rather long, so I will have to reply later.

[sunsettommy]

This 3- post reply is rather long, so I will have to reply later.

Actually 5 postings.

[Michael Hardner]

Lots to get to here, S. Tommy:

I never said it wasn't.

...

There is no discernible CO2 effect visible in the trend.Quoting Steve over what you fail to understand:

It seems that you agree that a correlation graph would be useful and you don't see a CO2 effect visible. Ok, so let's look at a correlation graph to start then...

Here you go:

Hadley Crut shows a clear cooling since 2001.

But RSS shows a flat rate.

UAH shows a slight warming rate.

They are all well below the IPCC 2001 projected (based on the AGW hypothesis) modeled temperature increase rate to year 2050 and beyond.For the first decade ending later this year.It was projected to be a .2 C increase.This is the LOW end of the projected temperature increase.

UAH shows about half that.

That means the AGW hypothesis is failing.It is way too warm.

Some of this is your assertions (which I don't trust, since you're not a climate scientist as far as I know) and some of it are claims from others (which are more interesting to me) You also acknowledge that there is a LOW end of the project increase (implying that there is no absolute consensus on the warming rate) so I don't know how the hypothesis could be failing rather than just being adjusted downwards as you seem to acknowledge is happening now.

I suppose if it gets down to zero or insignificant numbers we can all declare warming dead - and celebrate.

I gather you have no idea what the IPCC is about.

Yes I do - and as I said you need to separate policy (as in government, as in intergovernmental - the 'I' in IPCC) from the science.

You have been making a lot of replies,indicating that you know so little about it.

You don't seem to be picking up on my points. For example, you mix up the messages of advocates and those of scientists, and when I point out that I'm talking about the SCIENCE, you ask me if I know what the IPCC is about.

You have a strong tendency to post replies that are free of data or relevance to what we are talking about.Just post nitpicking stuff is all you have.

As I have pointed out, you mix up your own assessments with those of reputable scientists. I'm not sure if what you type is from you - your comment on the data - or from the referenced material. If it's just your words, then I feel comfortable just replying without reference. But, I'll try to pay more attention to the links you provide - please help me out by using the quotes feature, next to the link referred to.

I DID post the GLOBAL TEMPERATURES data to make that chart.What the hell are YOU talking about?

This is what you originally stated:

Quote

No ! That's great. First thing I picked was HADCRUT global meanglobal mean - every sample. A warming trend is clear there.

To what I posted HERE

I posted using UAH data.You are talking HadCRUT.

???

You are a mess!

Since you never disputed the actual data and chart.I have posted.Why give me the B.S?

I went to the link, and found a tool that I can use to examine the data, so I did. I ignored the time period and methods you provided and plotted everything. I don't like being provided with little time slices, such as the 1998 anomaly. I'm still waiting for you to follow up on your claim that Mann was cherry picking with that one. Was he ?

----------------

No it is your ignorance of the practice,that is being displayed there.

This LINK has Dr. Motl explaining what really transpired there:

My ignorance ? Then you proceed to post a link to a multi-page catty gossip sheet with stuff such as this:

His most cited paper on optical pumping has over 1,000 citations which - together with lots of other influential papers - makes him an order of magnitude more successful a research than mediocre scientists such as Andrew Dessler. Happer has actually studied fluid dynamics, too.

Still, Andrew Dessler finds it appropriate to call Happer "incompetent".

Dessler DIDN'T call him that in any of the links you posted, so is it ignorant for me to not know that when you haven't posted evidence ? This amounts to a gossip column, except the subjects of gossip are far less attractive.

So, moving forward:

- How about 1 post in response to 1 post ? Brevity is close to godliness.

- Cut down on the nastiness, because it makes me less interested in wanting to play.

- Follow up on my points as I follow up on yours. For example, your statement:

"DR. Mann et al.stated that 1998 is the warmest year in last 1,000 years." I said that it sounded like cherrypicking to me, but was it him who said it or ScienceDaily gleaning it from the reports ? We never found out. (I will modify my views on these folks when they misstate things.)

[Avro]

You must be one of the spoiled little rich kids in the environmental movement.

Thanks for stopping by.

Watt an amazing come back...bravo retard.

[Michael Hardner]

Watt an amazing come back...bravo retard.

Let's step up the quality a little bit everyone, ok ?

[Michael Hardner]

On 6/10/2011 at 6:21 PM, TimG said:

The situation is this: the IPCC models predicted more warming than has occurred but there is a lot of variance within the models. This means some argue the lack of warming does not actually falsify the models. On the other hand, if trends continue the models will be falsified in 5-10 years.  

4 1/2 months to go.  @waldo

Also adaptation is argued here

[Infidel Dog]

People are freezing to death in Texas.

No. This isn't a 'weather is climate' post.

People are freezing to death in Texas because Windmills froze up and some power grids failed.

This in a state that has more natural gas than any other place on the continent.

Apparently this happens in California too. I hear about Brown and Blackouts in Europe a lot too.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6232518760001#sp=show-clips

I hear Biden wants more windmills and an end to Fracking for natural gas.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

People are freezing to death in Texas.

No. This isn't a 'weather is climate' post.

People are freezing to death in Texas because Windmills froze up and some power grids failed.

This in a state that has more natural gas than any other place on the continent.

Apparently this happens in California too. I hear about Brown and Blackouts in Europe a lot too.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6232518760001#sp=show-clips

Seems like a pretty complicated topic to discuss - ie. risk adoption for different power methods.  I'd be interested in what the experts say.  It might, in fact, be some political response that caused risky adoption of green energy (in Texas ?) and I'm definitely open to that.

But we should ask for some people who know what is going on to help with this.  Green energy is among the stupidest topics covered by the MSM.  Ostensibly, it should be a straight math problem to consider the options but it tends to be draped in caricatures of angry oil men and sandaled hippies.

Let's just have two points of view (one pro, and one against) with knowledge on the topic discuss it dispassionately so we can make up our minds.

I have no idea who those people would be, but I certainly don't accept a shitmonger like Tucker Carlson to guide this conversation, any more than you would let Greta Thunberg do it.  

[Infidel Dog]

Tucker at least investigates the problem. He doesn't just spew teenage angst.

But here you go. Here's weather expert Anthony Watt's explaining what the problem is in Texas.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/15/texas-frozen-wind-power-outages-ensue-electricity-now-at-unheard-of-9000-per-megawatt-hour/

Feel free to find an expert to tell us why Texas needs more wind turbines and less natural gas.

[Infidel Dog]

Now I imagine you'll be rushing over to some place like Wikipedia, Mike. The first thing you'll discover is they don't think much of Anthony Watts. 

I don't care. You requested an "expert." He's trained in the field has decades of study and experience and he says this:

Quote

The folly of chasing renewable energy as a means of mitigating “climate change” is making itself abundantly clear today in Texas. When will politicians wake up and realize that renewable energy almost always equates to unreliable energy?

And as I've told you before another name you should look up concerning the mitigation versus adaptation debate is Bjorn Lomborg.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Tucker at least investigates the problem. He doesn't just spew teenage angst.

But here you go. Here's weather expert Anthony Watt's explaining what the problem is in Texas.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/15/texas-frozen-wind-power-outages-ensue-electricity-now-at-unheard-of-9000-per-megawatt-hour/

Feel free to find an expert to tell us why Texas needs more wind turbines and less natural gas.

I mean to have them actually on the thread. 
 

Quote

Willard Anthony Watts (born 1958) is an American blogger who runs Watts Up With That?, a popular climate change denial blog

 ...nope...

[Infidel Dog]

Is that all it says now? Used to be full lying paragraphs.

I know Wikipedia (especially the sections on climate) has been taking a lot of flak for awhile now about how leftist editors have taken over to only let the Greta Thunberg version exist on Wiki pages. Maybe they fixed that. I doubt it though.

I notice they slipped the "denial" lie in there though. So it looks O'Donnel's boys are still there even if he's gone.

BTW Watts up with That wins awards for best science blog. Most popular too.

Do you know who Bjorn Lomborg is yet?

[Cannucklehead]

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Tucker at least investigates the problem. He doesn't just spew teenage angst.

But here you go. Here's weather expert Anthony Watt's explaining what the problem is in Texas.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/15/texas-frozen-wind-power-outages-ensue-electricity-now-at-unheard-of-9000-per-megawatt-hour/

Feel free to find an expert to tell us why Texas needs more wind turbines and less natural gas.

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2021/02/12/302028.htm

 

The cold is also weighing on the state’s sprawling energy infrastructure. Natural gas pipes and processing plants are starting to shut, disrupting output of the heating fuel.

“It is going to be a mess,” said Jason Dunn, a National Weather Service meteorologist in Fort Worth. “This is extremely unusual. I would go as far to say that it could be a historic event.”

 

Would more natural gas help anyone?  

Also note the date on that article was last week.  

Edited February 16, 2021 by Cannucklehead

[Infidel Dog]

Curiously enough, I just noticed there's a post on Professor Lomborg at WuwT right now.

And seeing as you wanted expert opinion posted here, here ya go:

Biden’s climate ‘fix’ is fantastically expensive and perfectly useless-Bjorn Lomborg

Quote

Across the world, politicians are going out of their way to promise fantastically expensive climate policies. President Biden has promised to spend $500 billion each year on climate — about 13 percent of the entire federal revenue. The European Union will spend 25 percent of its budget on climate.

Most rich countries now promise to go carbon-neutral by mid-century. Shockingly, only one country has made a serious, independent estimate of the cost: New Zealand found it would optimistically cost 16 percent of its GDP by then, equivalent to the entire current New Zealand budget.

The equivalent cost for the US and the EU would be more than $5 trillion. Each and every year. That is more than the entire US federal budget, or more than the EU governments spend across all budgets for education, recreation, housing, environment, economic affairs, police, courts, defense and health.

 

Tellingly, the European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans recently admitted that climate policies would be so costly, it would be a “matter of survival for our industry” without huge, protective border taxes.

Climate change is a real, manmade problem. But its impacts are much lower than breathless climate reporting would suggest. The UN Climate Panel finds that if we do nothing, the total impact of climate in the 2070s will be equivalent to reducing incomes by 0.2-2 percent. Given that by then, each person is expected to be 363 percent as rich as today, climate change means we will “only” be 356 percent as rich. Not the end of the world.

Climate policies could end up hurting much more by dramatically cutting growth. For rich countries, lower growth means higher risks of protests and political breakdown. This isn’t surprising. If you live in a

 

burgeoning economy, you know that you and your children will be much better off in the coming years. Hence, you are more forgiving of the present.

If growth is almost absent, the world turns to a zero-sum experience. Better conditions for others likely mean worse conditions for you, resulting in a loss of social cohesion and trust in a worthwhile future. The yellow-vest protests against eco-taxes that have rankled France since 2018 could become a permanent feature of many or most rich societies.

 

Yet politicians obsessively focus on climate. Growth-killing “fixes” would delight a few job-secure academics, but they would lead to tragic outcomes of stagnation, strife and discord for ordinary people.

Most voters aren’t willing to pay for these extravagant climate policies. While Biden proposes spending the equivalent of $1,500 per American per year, a recent Washington Post survey showed that more than half the population was unwilling to pay even $24.

And for what? If all the rich countries in the world were to cut their carbon emissions to zero tomorrow and for the rest of the century, the effort would make an almost unnoticeable reduction in temperatures by 2100.

This is because more than three-quarters of the global emissions in the rest of this century will come from Asia, Africa and Latin America. These nations are determined to lift their populations out of poverty and ensure broad development using plentiful energy, mostly from cheap fossil fuels.

The last 30 years of climate policy have delivered high costs and rising emissions. The only reliable ways to cut emissions have been recessions and the COVID-19 lockdowns, both of which are unpalatable. Expecting nations to stop using cheap energy won’t succeed. We need innovation.

Take the terrible air pollution in Los Angeles in the 1950s. It wasn’t fixed by naïvely asking people to stop driving cars. Instead, it was fixed through innovation — the catalytic converter allowed people to drive further yet pollute little. We need to invest in research to make green energy much cheaper: from better solar, wind and batteries to cheaper fission, fusion and carbon capture.

We should spend tens of billions to innovate the price of green energy below fossil fuels. Spending trillions on enormous and premature emissions cuts is an unsustainable and ineffective First World approach.

 

[Infidel Dog]

Now as to the Bloomberg writers claim it's natural gas lines that are freezing and not wind turbines. Thats fair I asked to see something like that and you found it. 

Now let's ask ourselves, which story makes more sense.

It would be interesting to know how natural gas lines versus windmills fair up here in Canadian winters. Do they shut one or the other down?

[Cannucklehead]

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/energy-sources-distribution/renewables/wind-energy/wind-energy-cold-climates/7321

Wind turbine manufacturers are increasingly recognizing the impacts of cold climate operation and are building turbines better equipped to handle winter conditions. With the installation of “cold weather packages” which provide heating to turbine components such as the gearbox, yaw and pitch motors and battery, some turbines can operate in temperatures down to -30C.

 

Natural gas or propane will not freeze at any normal conditions on earth. ... But if water gets into gas pipes, it can obviously freeze and cause problems. Plumbing codes require “drip legs”: short dead-end pieces of pipe extending down at low points, to catch any moisture that gets into the gas lines.

 

[Infidel Dog]

Yeah, I was reading up on what it takes to winterize wind turbines too. Sounds like an expensive process. In more ways than one.

Quote

The conservative think tank Center of the American Experiment has revealed that wind turbines in Minnesota and North Dakota built by Minnesota Power, Otter Tail Power and Xcel Energy will not only stop producing electricity but may also start consuming it.

In order to prevent damage to the motor, the turbines are heated to keep the components and their fluids from freezing. During the 2019 polar vortex, that safeguard drew 2 megawatts from the power grid.

Even for solar panels, which actually perform better in colder temperatures, the problem of ice and snow blocking out the light with no efficient way to clear each panel could render them useless.

https://www.westernjournal.com/polar-vortex-proving-exactly-green-energy-disaster-americas-power-grid/

Might be worth rebuilding to winterize the vast network of Texas windmills though. I hear it costs about 900 dollars to charge up a Tesla in Texas today.

Be cheaper just to go back to coal though. And no, I don't believe Ercot's BS that coal doesn't work in the Texas cold spell either. That doesn't make sense. Coal works all over the world in much colder regions. As does natural gas for that matter without expensive renovations. Ercot didn't want to invest in back-up supply of coal and natural gas because the bulk of their investing was going to their new toy - windmills. And now they're going to have to winterize them.

Hey...remember John Kerry telling out of work Keystone people to find new jobs? Maybe he should take his own advice.

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by Infidel Dog