Week in review

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.


More reasons why India, not China, will be the wildcard to watch in #Paris [link]

So much for policy optimism: “EU member states agree common position on carbon market reform”, back 2021 start  [link]

A carbon tax would make global warming worse?   [link]

Most Nations To Miss Deadline For UN Climate Pledges    [link]

Carbon taxes should be 50% to 200% higher due to uncertainty around climate tipping points –    [link]

Science and Republican Presidential Wannabes: Do they pass, fail, or pander on the issues?   [link]

FEMA Tells Oklahoma to Do the Impossible … Or Else [link]

Can EPA Ignore Costs of This Very Expensive Regulation? Supreme Court to Decide    [link]

Only capitalism can save the planet, argues this CEO of an asset management firm.   [link]

@KenCaldeira says “we need to up our game by somewhere between a factor of 10 and 100” in climate change fight    [link]

Robert Bullard Interview: We Need Diverse Groups Funded to Address Racial & Climate Justice   [link]

The arrival of aid agencies in a humanitarian crisis can hurt local markets.  [link]

Climate change: The debate now is about how we adapt  [link]

Climate alarmists, without any scientific basis/evidence whatsoever, now claim a tiny 1.5C warming is catastrophic   [link]

It matters what climate scientists say and do. @cragcrest talks w/ @clequere about not flying:  [link]

What incentives should you provide your employees to reduce #carbon emissions? Read & find out:   [link]

Feeling ignored by government, Canadian academics offer their own climate policy  [link]

Richard Tol tweets: Earth hour: millions will switch off lights around the world for climate action, while billions wish they had lights   [link]

Energy, water, food

Oil producers sound retreat from China [link]

Understanding how China can be growing in “Green” technologies while still growing in coal use at same time   [link]

“Burning wood pellets releases as much or even more carbon dioxide per unit of energy as burning coal.” [link]

“Despite technological advances, many problems that have dogged nukes for decades loom as large as ever.”   [link]

California First State to Get 5 Percent of Power from Solar   [link]

#solar w/ battery storage could become one of the most disruptive influences to impact electricity sector in decades   [link]

Senator Alexander: End Wind Subsidies To Fund Science   [link]  … ‘It is long past time for wind to stand on its own’

Natural gas vs. coal on #climate impacts. Depends on timescale, leakage rates and comparison plants by @KenCaldeira   [link]

A way to get power to the world’s poor without making climate change worse [link]

UK households used 14% less energy last year but still paid more   [link]

A balanced discussion of home solar and utilities   [link]

California Drought: @LATimesSkelton says thirsty crops should require state regulation   [link]

How to Use Climate Finance to Promote Clean #Water [link]

UN Sees Global #Water Shortage By 2030   [link]

A Hidden Consequence of California’s Drought: It’s Making Energy Dirtier   [link]

How California drought became ammunition in climate policy debate

Discovery of beans that can beat the heat could help boost #foodsecurity as temps rise:   [link]

When climate sinks high-tech rice, older varieties may save the day. [link]

Science and research

New study shows global warming does not cause extreme winters [link]

Cosmic rays do not contribute to 20th-century global warming trend but do have impact on shorter times scales   [link]

Physicist Dr. Murry Salby: Man-made CO2 could only cause warming of ‘a few tenths of a degree  [link]

Climate change emitting more mixed signals   [link]

Ed Hawkins lays out the basics of changes in extreme heat and adaptation in the UK at @ClimateLabBook  [link]

The varieties of statistical analysis [link]

Climate wars

Ga Tech featured in Sci American ariticle: Political Football Over Climate Change Rattles Windows of Ivory Tower   [link]

New article on David Legates (one of the Grijalva 7)   [link]

Climate scientist John Christy claims Washington is trying to intimidate him  …  [link]

Elite reporters explain why they have no need for ‘balance’ on the global warming issue  [link]

The More Education Republicans Have, the More Likely They Are to Be Climate Change Skeptics.  [link]

Joe Duarte: Lewandowsky has been debunked in Psych Science. And they go easy on him. His use of SEM was absurd given his data:   [link]

Hype in Science. Must read for science/health researchers, communicators and experts [link]

Fossil fuel firms are still bankrolling climate denial lobby groups writes @NaomiOreskes   [link]

Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper   [link]

New paper examines the relationship between climate change concern and national wealth    [link]

Gallup: Climate change is bottom of the list of US environmental concerns  [link]

How should journalists treat candidates who deny climate change? [link]

Neil deGrasse Tyson to GOP climate deniers: “I thought as a nation we were above this”  [link]

The Smithsonian’s natural history museum will be naming its refurbished Dinosaur Hall for David Koch. Go figure.  [link]

Agree w/EPA or go to hell.  The path of climate denier is not righteous, says head of Episcopal Church.   [link]

Climate scam end days: Climate science’s lunatic fringe signs anti-Koch, anti-fossil fuel letter  [link]

.@RobertStavins on civil policy debates vs. smears. [link]

Pachauri’s raunchy 2010 memoir is being removed from circulation:   [link]

RK Pachauri hampering investigations: Delhi Police. Complainant’s lawyer to demand RKP’s arrest on Sat.   [link]



How dealing with climate change is like playing cricket   [link]


384 responses to “Week in review

  1. The 1.5°C proposed limit seems to be a rather obvious attempt to “move the Overton window.”

    • Ah. Yes.

      I think a smaller limit is negotiated because the 2.0°C is so much in future. Despite Hansen predicting much faster warming. IMO 2°C is little as such. Small change in vegetation and warming bill. Bargaining the limit down sounds desperate.

      The scare works best when it is based on ‘it is almost too late, but only with small margin.’ We will, to foreseeable future, have only few years to act.

      • Small margin indeed, especially when one considers that 0.9°C has already occurred. Apparently, we’re only 0.6°C from disaster.

      • I agree HarldW. 2C is way to much. Why not 0C – lets go all the way back to 280 ppm!

        That is clearly the only safe level – we should go back to what it was before people were on the planet.

        (Just kidding)!

  2. Ken Caldeira on upping the game – that’s odd because his press release on his recent paper on maximum warming allowed for a massive amount of misinterpretation. Some thought he had drained the pipeline and sold it as scrap metal.

    • They need to look on the bright side. They have #367 for the number of reasons for the hiatus. Got to keep mining those babies any chance you can.

    • Keep blowing air into a dead body. The General Franco of pauses is all but really dead.

  3. KenCaldeira says “we need to up our game by somewhere between a factor of 10 and 100″ in climate change fight.”

    Right. If I can just up my game a few hundred percent I might stop getting older every year. A few thousand percent and maybe I can fight my way back to 18. Wouldn’t that be a nice thing?

  4. “RK Pachauri hampering investigations: Delhi Police. Complainant’s lawyer to demand RKP’s arrest on Sat.”

    No doubt patchy considers it voodoo law enforcement

  5. Neil deGrasse Tyson to GOP climate deniers: “I thought as a nation we were above this”

    Stunning in it’s stupidity. It’s just so wrong on so many levels.

  6. Robert Bullard Interview: “We Need Diverse Groups Funded to Address Racial & Climate Justice”

    I weep for our species.

  7. “Climate change emitting more mixed signals”

    It’s like trying to predict stock market returns 50 years hence on the basis of 2 weeks performance.

  8. Danny Thomas

    This link is broken: Oil producers sound retreat from China [link]

    May be this: http://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-producers-sound-retreat-from-china-1427407192

  9. “Fossil fuel firms are still bankrolling climate denial lobby groups” writes @NaomiOreskes

    In music it’s called improvisation…just making it up as you go along. In psychiatry it’s called delusional disorder.
    I just call it lying.

  10. Could someone comment on the significance to the Great Climate Debate of the story at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm
    and the YouTube video of the data series at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yq1MFUQ0fI
    These graphs show carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at two locations on the Earth’s surface. The first graph shows C02 radiative forcing measurements obtained at a research facility in Oklahoma. As the atmospheric concentration of C02 (blue) increased from 2000 to the end of 2010, so did surface radiative forcing due to C02 (orange), and both quantities have upward trends. This means the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space. The seasonal fluctuations are caused by plant-based photosynthetic activity. The second graph shows similar upward trends at a research facility on the North Slope of Alaska. (Credit: Berkeley Lab)
    Original article at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.htm
    D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer, T. R. Shippert. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14240

    • It is just ground-truthing of the radiative transfer models that are central to AGW and climate models. If seeing is believing, there it is.

    • Curious George

      Paywalled, as usual. A great way to hide anything.

      • ==> “Paywalled, as usual. A great way to hide anything.

        Conspiracy theories? What conspiracy theories?

      • Curious George

        Dear Joshua: What a suspecting mind you have. I don’t suspect a conspiracy; you do. I am just disgusted after being asked $32.00 for a legible copy of a paper written with a help of my tax money.

    • Danny Thomas

      WR Church,
      You may be interested in this link (or not): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/almost-30-years-after-hansens-1988-alarm-on-global-warming-a-claim-of-confirmation-on-co2-forcing/

      I’d wondered why a study released in 2015 had data ending in 2010, so I wrote the author of the article you provided asking and receive this in reply:

      “Good question. We need a lot of different datasets in order to do this analysis. Some of those datasets currently do not extend past the beginning of 2011. Specifically the dataset with which we screen for clouds (called Active Remote Sensing of Cloud Locations). However, that dataset should be updated and available soon and extend to the present, so we can extend the analysis forward in time.”

      Seems there may be clue there in consideration of the variations between clear sky and clouds (and their locations) going forward.

      It should be interesting to see their extended analysis.

    • This is measurement of downwelling radiation at the surface.

      The concept of radiative forcing (RF) is a reduction of net ( up and down, long and shortwave ) radiance at the tropopause.

      The implication of RF is that a net increase in energy of a layer ( in this case, the whole troposphere ) will cause warming of that layer.

      The reason that the downwelling at the surface is not more emphasized is because 1.) the surface DLR is much smaller value than RF ( it’s close to zero in the tropics!) and 2.) the DLR at the surface becomes heat that is carried away from the surface by the general circulation.

      The RF at the tropopause is the more significant measure ( which can’t be mesured precisely enough, unfortunately ).

      • I’ve posted on my experience retracing the steps of calculating RF after the Myhre paper.

        Have a look if you’re interested.

      • Not sure it is limited to the domain of the tropopause, which also makes it more difficult to measure. Where do you measure? I don’t think there are easy answers.

      • Not sure it is limited to the domain of the tropopause, which also makes it more difficult to measure. Where do you measure? I don’t think there are easy answers.

        ‘Top Of the Atmosphere’ would make sense but also is confounded by the cooling imposed in the upper atmosphere.

      • Check to see if the appliance is plugged in. I suspect leaving the tropospheric components unperturbed is pertinent. It also seems to me that the calculations in vogue are too simple.

      • And Oh, Boy, the stratosphere has tricks up its long sleeve.

    • This paper claims to prove rising CO2 in the atmosphere increases down-welling infra-red radiation (DWIR), thereby warming the earth’s surface. The claim is based on observations from 2 sites, in Alaska and Oklahoma. Let’s examine the case made.

      Observation: In Alaska and Oklahoma CO2 and DWIR are both increasing.
      Claim: Additional CO2 is due to fossil fuel emissions.
      Claim: Higher DWIR is due to higher CO2 levels.
      Claim: Global DWIR is rising.
      Claim: Global surface temperatures are rising.
      LL Conclusion: Fossil fuel emissions are causing Global surface temperatures to rise

      Several issues undermine the report’s conclusion. Upon further analysis, the result comes out differently.

      The rise in CO2 is almost all from natural sources, not fossil fuel emissions.
      IR activity is almost all from H2O, not from CO2.
      Global DWIR is lower this century, and the surface heat loss is less impeded than before.
      Global surface temperatures are not rising with rising fossil fuel emissions.


      • Actually the rise in CO2 is only half the manmade emissions. Man is a net source, and the ocean is a net sink of only half of Man’s contribution. Acidification is further evidence of the ocean being a net sink. Salby got this wrong too. Think of the net flow direction, not the canceling exchanges.

      • Jim D, fossil fuel emission amounts are less than the uncertainties in measures of the natureal flux.

      • This kind of plot must be very surprising to you.

      • Emissions per year (solid), CO2 rise rate in atmosphere (dashed)

      • Jim D, emissions are estimates of estimates of consumption of fossil fuel products. The natural flux is even less certain, but is several orders of magnitude higher. You assume nature is static and man is the dynamic player affecting CO2. The sawtooth pattern in the paper under discussion says otherwise.

      • Jim D,

        Your graph only shows increases. That’s a form of cherry-picking. The increases are small as a proportion of the whole.

  11. Lauri Heimonen

    How to get a working solution for the problem of global warming?

    As I am aware, the prevalent confusion on potential causes of the recent global warming seems to make impossible find any appropriate solution concerning the the problem of global warming. The main difficulty seems to be how to adopt a due cross-disciplinary approach to the complex, multidisciplinary problem of climate change. Look for instace at an excerpt from my comment http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/14/week-in-review-43/#comment-674828 :

    ” . . . there is ‘a creativity decifit’ in the complex climate science. Even though there is appropriate knowledge available much enough, researchers have not been able to create any kind of working synthesis, whether or no there is any way to control the recent global warming. The one-sided focusing of IPCC on the ideological belief in anthropogenic warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions has replaced duly cross-disciplinary approaching, that is one of the main qualifications to find all potential factors essentially influencing climate warming. Even any other of one-sided focusings on the climate problem may be an obstacle to a working solution needed; only by chance an one-sided alternative can make a working solution be possible.”

    It is very complicated to assess shares of all potential factors on the global temperature. Instead, if we limit the the problem to the option of anthropogenic or natural causes, it is easier. As I have stated in my comment above, there is no significant threat of anthropogenic global warming. Even the recent global temperature changes have been controlled by natural reasons. An excerpt of that:

    ”I have expressed views of my own on the share of anthropogenic CO2 in the increase of CO2 content in atmosphere, and on the share of increasing CO2 content in atmosphere on global warming e.g. in my comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 :

    a) The present temperature plateau’ proves that a trend of global warming does not take place, although the content of CO2 in atmosphere is even exponentially increasing.
    b) The recent increase of CO2 contentent in atmosphere has been controlled by natural warming of sea surface, especially on the areas where sea surface CO2 sinks are.
    c) The anthropogenic share of the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere is about 4 % at the most. Even this 4 % has been caused mainly by the warming of sea surface on the areas where sea surface sinks are.”

    The only way available to get a working solution to threatening climate changes seems to be to learn how to adapt ourselves to natural climate changes, including extreme events of weather, too.

    • Curious George

      Lauri, are you sure that there is a problem of global warming? The last Ice Age has ended some 13,000 years ago, and we have experienced a global warming – with an occasional slowdown or a temporary setback – ever since.

      Models indicate a global warming problem, but the only models actually taking into account a temperature difference between day and night, or between summer and winter, are General Circulation Models. They are iterative models, usually taking a modeled state of the atmosphere and surface and computing the next modeled state one hour later. Should there be a little error in that computation (try to ask modelers about their own error estimates – they never told me, but I found a 2.5% error), let’s say 0.001% in this next state, the next step would add a 0.001% error of its own. After 100,000 steps (less than 12 years) you get a 100% error – the state is influenced by accumulated errors as much as by the underlying physics.

      We are being threatened by demagogues claiming an understanding of something that’s too complex for them, not by a global warming.

    • Lauri Heimonen | March 28, 2015 at 11:22 am |
      How to get a working solution for the problem of global warming?

      As I understand you argue that natural forces drive atmospheric concentrations or CO2, not the anthropogenic 4% contribution.
      You then state that
      a) The present temperature plateau’ proves that a trend of global warming does not take place, …
      Your last paragraph then states
      The only way available to get a working solution to threatening climate changes seems to be to learn how to adapt ourselves to natural climate changes,
      Did I miss where you identified what threating climate change we are experiencing? Or is this just a blanket statement that if we ever do have threating climate change our only recourse is to adapt.

    • The recent increase of CO2 contentent in atmosphere has been controlled by natural warming of sea surface, especially on the areas where sea surface CO2 sinks are.

      Oh dear. This is a bold statement which I liked to be true, and which I don’t believe since you did’t refer to peer-reviewed literature. Or literature of any kind. Sorry.

      If it was seas, the amount of co2 should go up and down, not just up.


  12. Also related to the question of how journalists should treat the Republican candidates. They propose some questions at the end that might challenge the candidates.

      • And that leads to this recent op-ed by George P. Schultz, which is very reasonable. What would Reagan have done? They had the ozone debate in that administration.

      • Shultz was one of the most progressive members of the Reagan administration, with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush. Shultz was much more at home during the Nixon administration where he served in positions with more impact on economic policy. While voicing some opposition, Shultz helped implement Nixon’s wage and price controls, and the end of the Bretton Woods tying of currency to gold. That was probably why Reagan put him at State, where he would feel more at home, and have no impact on the economy.

        If you want to know what Reagan would do about anything, Shultz is one of the last people you would ask.

      • Seems Reagan was quite progressive too.

      • Jim D,

        Nope, he just worked with what was available. There weren’t enough genuine, three legged stool conservatives to fill his cabinet, let alone all the bureaucracies.

        Plus he always had Tip O’Neill and his Democrat House to deal with during both of his terms. They were a vocal and effective opposition, not like the GOP castrati who lead the Republican congressional delegation these days.

      • GaryM, I don’t usually get involved in political arguments, but your claim that Reagan apparently put Schultz in charge of the State Department, the single most powerful arm of the US administration, in order to relegate him to an unimportant role, is just nuts. (Remember that the SOS is 2nd in line, after the VP, in the line of succession. There’s a clue there somewhere.)

        As with the international negotiations over climate change—where we see John Kerry and the State Department being principle players in representing US interests—the the Montreal Protocol was a also international collaboration which featured the State Department playing an integral role in representing US interests.

        The idea Reagan ignored Schultz’s advice on the Montreal Protocol, or would have ignored Shultz’s advice on climate change, were Reagan running the country today, is I’m afraid just specious nonsense.

      • What I meant to say here was “Remember that the SOS is 2nd in line, after the VP, in the line of succession [for members of the administrative branch] “.

      • Carrick,

        Read my comment again and perhaps you can point out to me where I said the State Department is unimportant? What I wrote is that it does much less impact on the economy. In the Nixon administration Shultz was in the Treasury and helped create OMB, both specifically dealing with the economy.

        But I understand, it is easier to argue with a comment you have re-written to your liking.

        As far as Reagan taking anyone’s advice on decarbojnization? He would listen to anyone. But anyone who thinks he would favor this idiotic progressive policy after all we have learned is delusional. Margaret Thatcher initially accepted the ‘science’ of globalclimatewarmingchange, until she saw who was behind it, and the policies they were pushing, and saw the ‘science’ for what it was. Reagan would have been no different.

    • “There is some welcome introspection going on in the journalism profession about how to deal with political candidates who deny that human-induced global climate change is real.”

      Let me fix that so it’s honest.

      “There was some conspiracy ideation going on among journolists about how to attack politicians who don’t follow progressive dogma on the post-modern science of globalclimatewarmingchange.”

      There, that’s better.

    • “how journalists should treat the Republican candidates.”

      If it’s anything other than “report what they say”, it’s not journalism.

      But, Jimmy already knows that. Jimmy doesn’t like free speech.


      • The Rosen article has that as an option. “This person denies manmade climate change” and leave it at that. Good reporters might add context in some way, like saying most climate scientists think the opposite, or they might follow the money and give background to the statement like saying he is a fossil-fuel funded candidate.

    • Like, how does a missile hit an airborne target?

      • This was one question he thought it it would be nice to see posed to a Republican candidate. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 1990, ‘Emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases,’ leading to global warming. They said it again in 1995. They said it again, but more strongly in 2001. They were even more emphatic in 2007. And in 2014 they said they were 95 percent certain that human action was the primary cause of global warming. The World Bank has come to similar conclusions. The position you have taken on this seems to suggest that you have better evidence than they do. Will you be making that evidence public? And may we have the names of your science advisors so we can ask them where they are getting their information?”
        Another one as a follow-up was “Whether or not you agree that climate change is real, can a responsible public leader ignore the risk that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are correct in concluding that global warming is not only real but also dangerous and already underway? Do you believe that part of the job of the President and Congress is to help protect the American people from risks this large? If so, what is your risk management plan?”

    • Danny Thomas

      Jim D,
      Relating to the Essex discussion.
      From your offering:”On this particular issue, America is remarkably one-sided. What we’ve found is between two thirds and three quarters of Americans have endorsed the idea that the planet has been warming over the last hundred years, that it’s due at least partly to human activity, that it poses a threat to future generations, and that the federal government in particular should take actions to reduce the amount of warming that occurs in the future and to support preparation for the effects.”
      (Note, no data just opinion, but Pew might have an argument with this)

      “The pressure on government is quite substantial. And to the degree that we watch government policy move in the direction of what the public asks for, that will be evidence of effective representation,” Krosnick said. “If we do not see that movement happen, it raises a very interesting question about what other forces are operating and may be at work.” (Sure hope to see Joshua comments on “conspiracy”) (From here:

      And the crux (with built in assumptions and appeals to authority, but not altogether a bad final two questions):”Whether or not you agree that climate change is real, can a responsible public leader ignore the risk that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are correct in concluding that global warming is not only real but also dangerous and already underway? Do you believe that part of the job of the President and Congress is to help protect the American people from risks this large? If so, what is your risk management plan?”

      Seems to me, this kinda thing happens on both sides.

      • On “what other forces are operating and may be at work.” It seems clear to me that if people get elected that don’t reflect public opinion, the force at work is campaign money – who has it, and what they want the elected candidate to do on their behalf. The polling numbers, even on the Republican side, show those to be more moderate on climate change regarding taking action, than their elected leaders. You can wonder how that happens.

      • It seems clear to me that a lot of people vote for whom they believe to be in their best interests. What evidence do you have that net-net, campaign advertisements make any difference at all?

      • The Republicans are very monochromatic in their views, not just on climate change and policy, and it looks like the selection is done even in the primaries that ensures only candidates supported by larger national interests will prevail. This is probably incentivized by potential funding coming in for elections. Just a theory.

      • Danny –

        FYI – my recollection is that Krosnick does quite a bit of opinion polling w/r/t climate change.

        ==> “Sure hope to see Joshua comments on “conspiracy”

        to the degree that we watch government policy move in the direction of what the public asks for, that will be evidence of effective representation,” Krosnick said. “If we do not see that movement happen, it raises a very interesting question about what other forces are operating and may be at work.”

        I have two thoughts w/r/t conspiratorial ideation there . The first is that if there is a large gap between public sentiment and Congressional response, then it is certainly logical to wonder what forces are in play. That doesn’t seem conspiratorial there per se – although speculation about what those forces are could certainly take the form of conspiracy ideation.

        The 2nd thought is along the lines of that last point. If the further speculation is to say that the forces in play include a belief that addressing climate change is just difficult, or isn’t really needed for decades out, or likely to be costly in the short-term, or just similar to how people approach risk more generally with many issues when it seems rather distant, then that wouldn’t seem particularly conspiratorial to me.

        As long as those potential influences are address and accounted for, then it seems to me that also speculating about whether lobbying on public opinion by those who hold a minority belief, or by those who have enormous financial stake in maintaining the status quo, then that also would not seem to me to be particularly conspiratorial.

        However, if the speculation runs along the lines of arguing that “skepticism” or misalignment between some measures of public opinion can only be attributable to “big oil,” then yes, I would describe that a conspiratorial ideation.

        IMO, conspiracy ideation is not likely to be greater in general among either “realists” or “skeptics” – and conspiracy ideation related to climate change is not likely to be disproportionately associated with one side of the Great Climate Divide than the other. I think that the influences that leas to conspiracy ideation are attributable to underlying characteristics in the psychological and cognitive features in how humans, as a species, reason – and I don’t think that “skeptics” and “realists” are significantly different from each other when it comes to basic influences on their reasoning. IMO, there is much more diversity within each group than there are differences between the groups.

        However, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a lot of conspiracy ideation in these here threads.

        Sorry for the treatise, but you know, be careful what you ask for, and all that. :-)

      • John Carpenter

        “IMO, conspiracy ideation is not likely to be greater in general among either “realists” or “skeptics” – and conspiracy ideation related to climate change is not likely to be disproportionately associated with one side of the Great Climate Divide than the other. I think that the influences that leas to conspiracy ideation are attributable to underlying characteristics in the psychological and cognitive features in how humans, as a species, reason – and I don’t think that “skeptics” and “realists” are significantly different from each other when it comes to basic influences on their reasoning. IMO, there is much more diversity within each group than there are differences between the groups.”

        Joshua, I wonder whether the balance you display in this comment will be noted by those who only consider you to be nothing more than a “lefty liberal climate greenie”?

        Prolly not.

        Kudos Danny for engaging in good faith.

      • Danny –

        So you make a request and I take the time to write a book length response, and not reply?

        What’s up with that?

        And that reminds me, didn’t you promise a response on another topic a while back?

        I mean it’s all good, Danny – but….just sayin’

      • Danny Thomas

        I have excuses (lots of ’em).
        Seriously, I’m home for lunch as I work on Sun/Mon/Tues 8-8. So just checking in w/ya.
        And yes, I do owe ya work on the electric rate change anecdote from my sisters increase. I emailed her to set me up to access her account so I could check for usage variation, utility cost changes, etc. But she’s not quite as focused on this resolution.
        Plus I’m concerned I’m talking too much (and yet, here I go again). Those of us who seek good faith should provide good faith and I’m wanting to hold myself to that standard.

    • Thank you jimmy dee for pointing us to the rabidly partisan huffpo’s guidance to the hack journalists-Democrats on how to treat Republican candidates. I don’t think they needed to be reminded. Just do the same old biased hatchet job as always.

      Do you think you are doing the cause any good by promoting this crap, jimmy?

  13. Salby doubling down on the nonsense. All four of his bullet points are plain wrong, and probably even some skeptics would have trouble promoting those specific views.

    • Care to elaborate JimD? Otherwise, sounds like a rank ad hom attack.

      • Start by saying which of his claims you believe.

      • Jim D –

        Start by saying which of his claims you believe.

        The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-7 years, not hundreds of years as falsely claimed by the IPCC Bern model.

      • The residence time of water vapor is only weeks. This has nothing to do with air/ocean equilibrium levels. It takes the surface ocean decades to circulate enough low-carbon water to the surface to uptake the new CO2, which is why it can’t keep up even though the emission time scale is only 25-30 years.
        How about the other 3 bullet points?

      • Jim D –
        So you’re agreeing with Salby on this point?

      • No, because the draw-down time isn’t the residence time, and he seems to have these confused. When he talks about the Bern model, that is a draw-down time. They are right. He is either mistaken or confusing two things. What do you think?

      • By residence time I think he means that each molecule of CO₂ that is introduced into the atmosphere today will no longer be in the atmosphere in 4-7 years. What do you mean by draw down time?

      • The draw-down time is the time scale of removal if you suddenly double the CO2 for example. It is far longer than the residence time because the surface ocean will acidify and prevent a net flux until that carbon has been removed by the ocean circulation from the surface which is decades. The CO2 in the atmosphere is governed a lot by how much carbonate the ocean surface has. There is a chemical equilibrium between the dissolved and vapor phases of CO2 at the surface. It’s chemistry. It takes a large injection of carbon from deep fossil-fuel layers to change this surface equilibrium level, and the surface can’t remove all that new carbon easily with just the ocean circulation time scale.

      • Jim D:
        Here are Salby’s four points. They seem pretty viable. The residence time discussion is a complicated one and hardly seems open and shut as you suggest

        1- The man-made share of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a maximum of 30% (0-30%). The remainder is related to temperature changes, natural outgassing from the oceans, and to humidity.
        2- The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-7 years, not hundreds of years as falsely claimed by the IPCC Bern model.
        3- Man-made CO2 emissions increased a whopping 350% faster since 2002, yet the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere remained steady at ~2.1 ppm/yr, a “strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share.”
        4- “Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all. However, the known fossil reserves would be exhausted by then.”

      • Like I said, few serious skeptics have made any of those arguments because they are so easily refuted. Where does he get 350% and 30% from? These are plainly wrong. The saturation argument is also denied by even Lindzen, Spencer and Monckton. They all consider the forcing change to be the major factor in warming.

      • bedeverethewise

        Jim D,
        I have never really critically thought about the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. I have seen suggestions that it is tens to hundreds or maybe even thousands of years. I simply know that it is much longer than water. And I know it makes sense that water cycles through the system rapidly based on ambient temps and pressures. And CO2 cycles slower based on its pressure temp phase relationship.

        You seem to be suggesting that CO2 is removed primarily at the ocean surface, and it is limited by the surface water’s level of CO2, And that the rate is limited by the need to be overturned with ocean water with lower CO2 levels. Perhaps there is some amount of saturation at the surface

        Are you suggesting that the liquid water in the atmosphere does not take up CO2? What is the surface area of liquid water in the atmosphere and how does that compare to the surface area of the ocean? Wouldn’t a significant amount of CO2 be removed with water as it condenses and falls as rain?

      • bedeverethewise – the only time residence time matters for water is if we have a snowball earth, in which case there won’t be much.

        For purposes of current weather and recent climate, water is ALWAYS in the atmosphere and ALWAYS overwhelms CO2 in terms of GHG effect.

        For practical purposes, the residence time of water is infinite.

      • @Jim D…

        the draw-down time isn’t the residence time, and he seems to have these confused. When he talks about the Bern model, that is a draw-down time. They are right. He is either mistaken or confusing two things.

        AFAIK he’s talking about the draw-down time, although until I see a regular published exposition of his thesis I’m skeptical I know what he’s actually saying (or trying to).

        The draw-down time is the time scale of removal if you suddenly double the CO2 for example. It is far longer than the residence time because the surface ocean will acidify and prevent a net flux until that carbon has been removed by the ocean circulation from the surface which is decades…

        I thought they (“consensus”) were calculating it using calcium/magnesium ions from erosion?

        …The CO2 in the atmosphere is governed a lot by how much carbonate the ocean surface has. There is a chemical equilibrium between the dissolved and vapor phases of CO2 at the surface. It’s chemistry…

        IIRC the settling time for that surface equilibrium in the mixing layer is around a year (never seen peer-reviewed numbers, tho). The balance is a lot more complex than just “how much carbonate the ocean surface has”, just the balance of CO2, carbonic acid (H2CO3) bicarbonate (HCO3-) and carbonate (CO3-2) is fairly complex, then add in the effects of sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, silicate, and chloride ions, it’s hard to predict in detail, although it clearly does provide some buffering.

        It takes a large injection of carbon from deep fossil-fuel layers to change this surface equilibrium level, and the surface can’t remove all that new carbon easily with just the ocean circulation time scale.

        Pretty much true, in general, but AFAIK that’s not what he’s talking about.

        Again with the caveat that I’m not certain what he’s saying till I see it written with equations and references, my guess is he’s talking about a pseudo-equilibrium of some sort involving the behavior of a large number of biological sources/sinks, under conditions of changing temperature. Many of those sinks are effectively one-way, at least for short time-frames, such as the biological pump. An important issue here is that the marine carbon cycle involves two balancing effects:

        The marine carbon cycle actually involves the production and recycling of two types of carbon-rich materials: organic matter and carbonate (CaCO3). It turns out that the carbonate cycle processes about four times more carbon atoms than the organic cycle, and it is, in principle, like another pump working in reverse to the biological pump. The production of solid CaCO3 (that is, carbonate precipitation) occurs in the surface waters of the ocean, both organically – by organisms that build their shells from CaCO3 – and inorganically according to the chemical equilibrium in the oceans according to the following chemical equation:

        Ca+2 + 2HCO3- → CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O

        It may be surprising that the deposition of large quantities of calcium carbonate from the surface ocean tends to raise the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2. However, to understand this keep in mind that carbonate precipitation is closely coupled to the “real” organic biological pump we discussed earlier. Although the linking processes are rather complex, the net effect is that the carbonate cycle acts as a kind of drag on the biological pump. The amount of drag can be modified by changing the ratio of the number of carbon atoms that are involved in the carbonate cycle to those partaking in the organic cycle.

        Altering this ratio of carbon atoms can be done, for example, by changing the amount of silicate (SiO4) in seawater. If there is plenty of silicate, marine organisms called diatoms will grow more happily. They fix carbon into organic matter, and they take much of it down to deep waters because many diatoms, at the end of their life cycle, tend to settle out of the water where they grew. If there is very little silicate available, organisms called coccolithophores grow more readily than diatoms. Coccolithophores precipitate lots of carbon into carbonate, along with making organic matter, and they, too, tend to settle out. But they remove calcium carbonate from surface waters by precipitation, which makes these waters reject carbon dioxide and thus tend to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Thus any process which tends to favor the growth of organisms made from silicate, such as diatoms, over organisms made from carbonate, such as the coccolithophorids, will tend to lower the atmospheric CO2 concentration – and vice versa – even if the total organic biomass formed in the surface layer and sinking from that layer remains constant. Factors which control the diatoms vs. coccolithophorids species include temperature, nutrient levels and light availability, but the more subtle indirect factors are not yet understood.

        The site I linked goes on to rationalize a claimed positive feedback from “global warming”, which I find unconvincing, but at least I’m not quoting from a “skeptical” site.

        As for Salby, my guess is he’s using observations of some sort to propose that the overall behavior of various sinks and sources, including many that are both, is responsible for most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. This would include temperature, not as an average, but the total integral over various areas with variously behaving sinks and sources. Presumably it would include other factors, such as regional climate and its effects on aeolian nutrient deposition, water availability, nitrate deposition, and drainage (including human) in large areas of peat bog, and so on.

        NB: I would recommend against crediting, or even reading, anything Hockey Schtick has to say on the subject (or any other). No real understanding of the science there, IMO.

      • Jim D –
        So are you saying that if I put X amount of CO₂ into the atmosphere today those exact molecules of CO₂ will have been removed from the atmosphere in 4-7 years but for every molecule of CO₂ that is absorbed by the ocean, for example, a different molecule is released from the ocean into the atmosphere? But how is this supposed to work? Like billiards, where one ball is hit into a cluster and one ball exits the other side?

      • But how is this supposed to work? Like billiards, where one ball is hit into a cluster and one ball exits the other side?

        Maybe you should study enough chemistry to understand how an equilibrium works.

      • AK –
        “With the short (5-15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. Robert Essenhigh

      • @swood1000…

        The abstract looks like gobbledygook to me, and it’s paywalled, and I’m not going to pay to review something with a gobbledygook abstract, so I can’t comment.

        And how does this relate to your question about equilibrium?

      • AK –
        What point are you making about equilibrium?

        “Importantly, this also identifies the RT as independent of whether the inflow/outflow process is in (dynamic) equilibrium or non-equilibrium status.” Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide, page 2781.

        You can get a copy of the study if you email Dr. Essenhigh or I can send the PDF to you if you have a Dropbox location.

      • Can also be viewed at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r .
        ” this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (~100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”

        But needs to be read in conjunction with:
        “The aim of this paper is to provide an accessible explanation of why the short residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is completely consistent with the generally accepted anthropogenic origin of the observed post-industrial rise in atmospheric concentration. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the one-box model of the carbon cycle used in ES09 directly gives rise to (i) a short residence time of ˜4 years, (ii) a long adjustment time of ˜74 years, (iii) a constant airborne fraction, of ˜58%, in response to exponential growth in anthropogenic emissions, and (iv) a very low value for the expected proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.”
        For us lukewarm poorly-prepared fence sitters, who to believe? Ay, there’s the rub!

  14. “Drawing on both our scientific expertise and personal care for our planet and people, we believe that the only ethical way forward for our museums is to cut all ties with the fossil fuel industry and funders of climate science obfuscation.”

    I think these grandees of ‘climate science’ should cut all ties with the fossil fuel industry as an example to the rest of us. No cars, no jet travel, no internet access, no interviews on TV, no heat during the winter or air conditioning during the summer, no fancy energy intensive hotels, no cell phones. Of course, we would no longer get to hear their mindless blatherings about thermageddon and the beauties of central planning, but that is a price I am willing to pay for the sake of the planet.

    Imagine there’s no carbon
    It’s easy if you try
    No Cancun junkets
    In summer we will fry
    Imagine all the people
    Living without coal

    Imagine there’s no carbon
    It isn’t hard to do
    worth letting millions die for
    Get rid of oil too
    Imagine all the people
    Living in the dark

    You may say they’re dreamers
    But they’re not the only ones
    They hope someday you’ll join them
    And the world will freeze as one

  15. The oil producers-China link is broken. This one is working at the moment at least.


    • thx, fixed

    • Is there some way I can get to it without subscribing?

      • Google “oil producers sound retreat from china”, then click the link from there. Works on many paywalled articles.

      • kch | March 28, 2015 at 2:16 pm |
        Google “oil producers sound retreat from china”, then click the link,,,

        Thanks but same result: 3 lines than fade out.

      • kch | March 28, 2015 at 2:16 pm |
        Google “oil producers sound retreat from china”, then click the link..

        I stand corrected; It didn’t work when I used DuckDuck.Go but it did work on Google as you suggested. I need to learn how to follow directions.

  16. stevenreincarnated

    A paper claiming half the loss of Arctic sea ice is caused by horizontal atmospheric water flux and warm air advection. Sort of reminds me of ocean heat transport models that predict increasing dynamic water vapor with increasing ocean heat transport.


    • From the article abstract:

      ” Furthermore, we show that the Arctic downward IR increase is driven by horizontal atmospheric water flux and warm air advection into the Arctic, and not by evaporation from the Arctic Ocean. These findings suggest that most of the winter SIC trends can be attributed to changes in the large-scale atmospheric circulations.”

      What is the implication?

      • Do they say why the air is warmer?

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        In two parts: “This sea-ice decline is attributable to various Arctic environmental changes, such as enhanced downward infrared radiation (IR), preseason sea-ice reduction, enhanced inflow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean, and sea-ice export. However, their relative contributions are uncertain.”
        “it is shown here that a positive trend of downward IR accounts for nearly half of the sea-ice concentration (SIC) decline during the 1979-2011 winter over the Atlantic sector.”

      • So it is global warming then.

      • blueice2hotsea

        Jim D “So it is global warming then.

        Please elaborate.

      • blueice, Arctic melting is because warmer air and warmer water are getting there. The air and water happen to be warmer because of global warming. It follows.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim D has disproven the warming was at least partially caused by a change in ocean heat transport completely unrelated to CO2 or are we just hearing the world according to Jim D again?

      • JimD, “The air and water happen to be warmer because of global warming. ”

        You sure it isn’t climate change? According to some papers there has been an increase in organized deep convection in the tropics and an increase in latent heat flux in the Northern Hemisphere. The trend is lower than normal ENSO, that pause thingy, appears to be caused by increased surface winds related to higher North Atlantic water temperature which have shifted tropical storm patterns eastward which would be one feature of increase northern advection. That sounds almost like an AMO kind of deal. Oh wait! Where was my head? It cannot be AMO related because Mann says so. I guess that shoots down the whole variation in heat transport deal.

        I guess it has to the the Global Warming or unicorns.

      • There is that centennial cooling trend in the North Atlantic (Rahmstorf and also see for yourself on GISTEMP), which became more obvious in the 70’s, so I think the Arctic warming has to be more local based on that. The North Atlantic is cooler now than it was a century ago, making it hard to blame the melt on that, and perhaps it results from the Greenland melt.

      • JimD, Northern Atlantic greenland and westward.


        Northern Atlantic Greenland eastward.


        I believe there are some Labrador current reconstructions that are interesting to some.

      • captd, I would suggest that pattern is consistent with global warming and it would cause some melting. It is clearly not the area Rahmstorf was talking about.

      • JimD, there isn’t much that isn’t consistent with “Global Warming”, “Climate Change” or “Act or God”. Increased organized tropical deep convection is a bit more technical as is a shift in a low or high pressure region. Since a shift can push a current or sea ice, it would be nice if the models predicted, as in before hand mentioned, that CO2 related warming would cause that shift.

        I understand these are just ignorant nits in post modern science, but back in the day they were considered valid considerations.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Here you go Jim D, another paper stating that the difference between land and ocean warming is not (at least primarily) a difference in feedbacks to radiative forcing:

        “By using this framework, we first show that the land-sea warming contrast is explained by the asymmetry in the strength of the HET between the land and ocean and not by land-sea differences in radiative feedbacks. ”

        HET is horizontal energy transport.


    • stevenreincarnated

      Horizontal atmospheric water flux means the water vapor is being transported there and they state this is from changes in atmospheric circulation. For instance as would be expected from a change in ocean heat transport:


      • Interesting, but not surprising. From the paper:

        “Two important points must be addressed regarding the artificiality of the model experiments. First, in the real world, the oceanic and atmospheric circulations are part of a coupled system and not specified independently as in our model simulations. For example, the surface trade winds are essential in driving the ocean heat flux by both the meridional overturning cells and the ocean gyres. An altered OHT would give rise to altered at- mospheric circulations which would then feed back on the heat transport by the wind-driven ocean circulation. Second, the experiments we perform are highly theoretical in that they involve an unrealistically large 100% change in OHT. With the aforemen- tioned caveats in mind, the artificiality of the model experiments does have an advantage in that it enables us to isolate key components of the climate system and examine them in a controlled context.”

      • stevenreincarnated

        True their model was placed at a very large difference in ocean heat transport. An older model showed a 10% increase in ocean heat transport could cause 1C increase at the equator and a 2C increase globally. 10% is a much more practical number.

      • stevenreincarnated

        That may have actually been a 15% increase. I’ll have to look later if you are interested.

      • stevenreincarnated, thank you for the link. From the abstract: . In each model the warming is attributed to an increase in atmospheric
        greenhouse trapping, primarily clear-sky greenhouse trapping, and a reduction in albedo

        Is the reduction in albedo something that has been observed concomitantly with the declining Arctic Ice?

        A change in ocean heat transport can change the Arctic Ice, but only if something changes the ocean heat transport.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Sea ice has a pretty high albedo so it would be interesting if the loss didn’t reduce albedo, but I don’t really remember ever seeing a paper on actual measurements that it has. To be honest I’m not sure I would have paid much attention if I had since it fits my bias too well.

        There are a few good reasons to believe that there has been an increase in ocean heat transport during the last half century. For instance the changes in ocean heat content by ocean basin, the anticorrelation between cloud cover in the tropics and global temperature, and the pattern of emergence as displayed by Ed Hawkins



        http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Tropical cloud cover and global air temperature

    • blueice2hotsea


      Thanks for the links. I think this is interesting and puzzling. It seems that poleward heat convection increases with polar warming. It’s counter-intuitive.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Ocean heat transport models show the poleward heat transport causes the warming.


    Real Tragedy of ‘Science’: Public Faith Declines as Fakery Grows
    Staff News & Analysis – March 28, 2015
    The breadth of this scandal (see excerpt above) is extraordinary and comes not long after a top executive at Monsanto issued a plaintive tweet lamenting the West’s eroding faith in “science.” You can see our Monsanto analysis here: “Monsanto Laments Dwindling Faith in Science.” We wrote: As we have noted in the past, the current status quo emphasizes “experts” and “expertise.” In part this is because the foundational meme of modern society is based on central banking – and central bankers are … Read More +

  18. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html

    I would say the climate debate is over due to the fact that the data does not support AGW theory, while it does support factors other then greenhouse gases which indeed (as the data above does) show a strong correlation with the climate.

    So it is the other way around ,it is AGW theory which has been proven wrong not right.

  19. When is someone going to write an article asking how to deal with progressive politicians (and jounolists for that matter) who are doing nothing about the real CO2 problem, emissions in China, Russia and India. Why do they want to impose carbon taxes and energy restrictions on their own economies, when they know for a fact that those policies will have no noticeable impact on thermageddon without significantly greater reductions by the Chinese, Russians and Indians?

    What are they doing to reduce those emissions? How much of their budgets are devoted to reducing emissions in those countries? Where are the hashtag campaigns and Youtube videos directed at changing Russo/Sino/Indian energy policy?

    Gee, it’s almost as though they don’t really care about global emissions, and just want to implement progressive policies in their own countries. But we know that can’t be true….

  20. Am I the only one to find the link
    “Agree w/EPA or go to hell. The path of climate denier is not righteous, says head of Episcopal Church.”
    to contain a disappointing viewpoint from a leader of such an illustrious organisation.

    I can certainly subscribe to her quoted statement “… to deny the best of current knowledge is … I think … a very blind position.”

    The challenge is knowing what represents the ‘best of current knowledge’ !

    The other statements seem to imply that she at least is certain, albeit the language is both imprecise and emotive:
    ~ ‘climate change’ seems to be implied as being man-made and thus controllable;
    ~ ‘deniers’ is presumably anyone not agreeing her.

    From a selfish perspective, I am an older citizen and as such doubt I can be too badly impacted by the policies that are being implemented /promoted in the name of ‘climate change’.

    But I do fear for the welfare of my descendants.

    • That line of reasoning goes along with this quote “It
      is a lie to say that global warming poses no danger,” New York Times reporter Justin Gillis told the crowd as part of a panel after the screening.”

      He could have crafted his sentence in a way that reflected a more measured and accurate view, such as “Most scientists believe that it poses a danger” or any variant of that sentiment. Instead it is a lie to think different than the consensus. This kind of anti-science hyperbole is common.

      • I see where you are coming from – but in this case we have leaders of main-stream religion who seem to be implying that any disagreement with the ‘consensus’ has spiritual consequences.

    • ‘Am I the only one to find the link…”


    • It seems appropriate that a religious leader is spouting the global warming dogma.

  21. A way to get power to the world’s poor without making climate change worse [link]

    This is truly a novel idea. From the article cited:

    ” It is now possible to substantially improve the energy access of the global poor even as we reduce climate pollution, with a continuum of off- to on-grid technologies.”

    Another article mentioned better batteries. Wow, what a concept.

    What are the impediments to implementation? One just needs to reach and grab them off the top shelf. Those transformative technologies don’t exist, that’s all.

    Yes, there are LED lights so one could read a book (if there were such things) or sew or have a lively political conversation over a local brew. Let’s see. How about eliminating the corner of the yard open cooking fire pit and the progressive deforestation that open cooking enables? How about fossil fuel burning to cook a meal? No! Bad! Bad! Bad!

    How about solar cookers to cook a meal? All one needs: sun (not available during monsoons), equipment (simple to complex and costly with regards to income of <$1/day and a competing drain on resources, time (maximum temperatures 2 hours before noon and rice takes…4 hours), windless times for cooking otherwise cool undercooked foods, increased time to prepare food before solar cooking, education to begin cooking in an entirely, non-cultural way; i.e. a need to educate women to cook differently than their mother's did, and vegetables? well, one looses the bright green (get limp drab green) of many vegetables so popular with people who are reliant upon low calorically dense foods, etc. A cornucopia of solar cookers have been available for decades, and yet?…its "green" advocates have not seen these contraptions take the field by storm. Ideally, everything working just right to cook a days meal. And when the world is not ideal?

    The answer lies in…electricity. Electrons zipping around, either manufactured, or at least harnessed and distributed. What is there not to like? Oh, I forgot. To make electrons one needs to produce CO2 and CO2 is Bad! Bad! Bad!

    Back to the drawing board.

  22. The week that was in Ringberg wasn’t. Or was it?

    • Tweets very pertinent to the determination of ECS have been deleted from the Ringberg15 twitter stream. I suspect the deliberations were extremely delicate.

      • Ken Rice has vanished from the twitter stream as has Florent Brient’s comment about that paper. Andrew Dessler and Gavin Schmidt have had tweets deleted. I suspect consensus was forming around a nucleating point of low sensitivity, and we can’t have that.

      • I wouldn’t be surprised if the dropping sensitivity is what has generated the need for the talking point meme that 1.5 deg C of warming is too much. It is, of course, hogwash, and depends on a warped analysis of costs and benefits of warming.

      • No dissensus from consensus.

      • With a 3 C sensitivity, we are already committed to 1.5 C with no emissions starting tomorrow. It would be a tough target based on that ECS.

      • After reading Chris Colose’s comment yesterday, i think a lot of hubris is riding on at least 2°C.

      • Heh, what happened in Ringberg stays in Ringberg. My favorite image is Gavin’s tweet(now deleted) that Graeme Stephens had run out of blackboard space and time trying to chalk out all the cloud feedbacks.

        The writing on the wall.

      • Still here. And here. I suspect they just removed it from the search results of the search.

      • With a 3 C sensitivity, we are already committed to 1.5 C with no emissions starting tomorrow.

        The observed relationship is about 1.5C per CO2 doubling with emissions.
        Difficult to believe claims that vary so much from observations:

      • Even at 2-5 deg/C per doubling, we’d have to quadruple or octuple baseline to avert glaciation. And if energy is going into the ocean(I hope) instead of lost to space(I believe) then continued hydrocarbon use is a Win-Win; we can continue human development with cheap hydrocarbon energy and not risk overheating of our environment.

      • Well, it’s a Win-Win wherever the energy is going. We cannot burn enough hydrocarbon bonds to hurt us.

      • ET, they were fooling(meant) with ECS. TCS or TCR would be lower.

      • Just read one of the Ringberg guys estimated TCR at 2.33.

        If you think Lewis and low sensitivity took the day, so sorry.

      • They’ve been introduced to doubt. Gaia knows what happens next with that.

      • Heh, we can haggle over the price now and that will differ everywhere. Welcome to Paris.

      • Eddie, the CO2 change in that period was only 75% of the total GHG forcing change, so relative to CO2 increases alone you get a lot more like 2 C per doubling as an effective rate. If you want to talk in terms of effective CO2 we are already over 480 ppm (according to your 2.9 W/m2), then we can use your sensitivity with that. Either you use 400 ppm and 2 C per doubling, or 480 ppm and 1.5 C per doubling, but don’t blur the two methods.

      • Eddie, the CO2 change in that period was only 75% of the total GHG forcing change, so relative to CO2 increases alone you get a lot more like 2 C per doubling as an effective rate. If you want to talk in terms of effective CO2 we are already over 480 ppm (according to your 2.9 W/m2), then we can use your sensitivity with that. Either you use 400 ppm and 2 C per doubling, or 480 ppm and 1.5 C per doubling, but don’t blur the two methods.

        The plot is a simple correlation of RF from the NOAA GHG index ( all constituents ) and NCDC surface temperature index – no magic, around 1.5 C per the 3.7 W/m^2 forcing.

      • Thanks AK for your 3:30. It is easy to climb a mountain of doubt from stepping on a molehill of deleted tweets.

        It is a very sensitive topic, subject, with all of the uncertainty, to gross narrative manipulation.

      • It is easy to climb a mountain of doubt from stepping on a molehill of deleted tweets.

        You’re welcome. Paranoia is a highly adaptive state of mind. That’s why evolution selected for it…

      • Thus, when somebody starts making fun of “conspiracy ideation” the most adaptive response is to wonder: “What are they trying to hide?”

      • Yep, AK, you’ve put Lewandowsky in a nutshell.

      • Lucifer, yes, I could simply plot log CO2 against temperature and get 2 C per doubling, and this applies back to the 1800’s. CO2 is a good proxy for the total forcing, accounting for 80% of the total including aerosols, because what we have done has been proportional to it. The plot by Eddie, you may have noticed, excluded aerosol forcing and so may downplay the sensitivity since their effect is in the temperature but not in the forcing.

      • blueice2hotsea

        One thing to keep in mind, Jim D, as you calculate your sensitivity is that a significant portion of the late 20th century warming is delayed (ECS) warming from the early 20th century warming, which as we know, was naturally dominated.

      • Alarmism is checkmated. We cannot break enough hydrocarbon bonds to avert glaciation, and in the meantime the heat is being diverted, whether to the deep ocean(I hope) or deep space(I expect).

      • blueice2hotsea

        Another thing to consider is that, even if you attribute 100% of all warming since the 1800’s to anthro CO2, is that natural temperature changes are dominating CO2 forcing over every each and every change in the ~65 yr quasi-cycle. And spectral analysis indicates that the ~ 130 yr natural ‘cycle’ even dominates that ‘cycle’.

      • blueice, what you say is not correct, but should be no comfort either because the later part of the century had several times the forcing change of the earlier part, so by your logic we would be in for a heck of a response starting about now.

      • blueice2hotsea

        Secular – 100% Co2
        Zero Trend Natural
        Zero trend Residual

        I get 0.78, 0.67, 0.58 and 0.55 as the natural fractional absolute temperature change for the four 1/2 ‘cycles’. Natural dominates. woo. woo.

      • blueice, I can do that too. Could these trends possibly be related?

      • Lucifer: The plot is a simple correlation of RF from the NOAA GHG index ( all constituents ) and NCDC surface temperature index – no magic, around 1.5 C per the 3.7 W/m^2 forcing.

        Didn’t Chris Colose tell us the other day that increased CO2 will not in fact cause an increase in the surface forcing? I had rounded 3.7 to 4 in honor of the uncertainty, following the example of David Randall, in Atmosphere, Clouds, and Climate.

      • Matthew Marler:

        Didn’t Chris Colose tell us the other day that increased CO2 will not in fact cause an increase in the surface forcing?

        What he’s on about is the difference in forcing at the surface versus the tropopause (where RF is defined). You can see this from an earlier Hansen model. (note the difference at the surface and the black line around 200 mb in the upper left two images ):

        I had rounded 3.7 to 4 in honor of the uncertainty, following the example of David Randall, in Atmosphere, Clouds, and Climate.

        I’ve recently run some radiative model runs and found that, using IPCC definitions, the average value is likely 4.1 W/m^2 and not 3.7W/m^2 ( because Myhre used only three soundings instead of finer global coverage – in those days just a few decades ago, the processing power was probably a factor in using simplified data sets ).

        That doesn’t mean actual forcing is refelcted by RF. Read the IPCC AR5 and they’ve allowed an ‘out’ by now talking about ‘ERF’ – Effective Radiative Forcing. This goes hand in hand with what you have been mentioning – convective response to forcing will change what forcing is actually realized.

        I’ve got data and experience to share soon.

      • Turbulent Eddie: I’ve got data and experience to share soon.

        I am eager to read more. That was an informative post. Thank you.

    • blueice2hotsea

      Your saying too much. Remember, my (most likely wrong) assumption is that 100% of the warming is due to CO2.

      BTW, the equation I used for secular T(y) is a quadratic:
      Secular T(y) = 0.0000643707 * y^2 + -0.1193867 * y + 110.6938

      WHT and Pratt used cubic and exponential equations as I recall. The devil is in the details.

      Note: the secular T(y) eq. is intended for years 1878.25 – 2006.25. Just for fun, the projected temp increase from 2015 to 2100 is only 1.2C. (Less than 1.5C woo! woo!)

      • Pratt’s one was physically based on a log CO2 to temperature relation with an exponential in time CO2 increase approximating the nearly exponential 20th century emission rate. It fit surprisingly well as I recall.

      • JimD, “It fit surprisingly well as I recall.” When you subtract what doesn’t fit and call it saw or unicorns, you would get a pretty good fit.

      • The part left has a 0.1 C amplitude on a 60-year time scale, currently not contributing in either direction.

      • blueice2hotsea

        Yah Pratt did a great job.

        My approach was completely different. I developed a slope eqdetrend equation which turns out to have a R2 = 0.98 with GISS CO2. Still,

      • blueice2hotsea

        I was typing when my comment posted on it’s own!

        was going to say that a good fit with CO2 does necessarily mean CO2 what dunnit. i.e. Temperature increase is a proxy for human activity which is a proxy for CO2.

      • blueice2hotsea

        egads. sorry.
        a good fit with CO2 does NOT necessarily mean CO2 what dunnit.

      • JimD, After assuming the -0.4 C is “normal”, the SAW is less than +/- 0.15 C degrees.


        Based on the Oppo et al. 2009 reconstruction, -0.4 C might not be “normal”.


        If you assume that about 1 C per doubling is definitely related to CO2 but are a bit skeptical about the 3 times all positive feedback scenario, you would estimate a lower sensitivity to CO2 doncha know. Of course that opens the whole initial value versus .boundary value problem can O worms.

      • Pratt had 2 C per doubling, 3 C if you allow for a delay. Lovejoy did a similar functional fit with similar results.

      • JimD, “Pratt had 2 C per doubling, 3 C if you allow for a delay. Lovejoy did a similar functional fit with similar results.”

        Yep and they could be right, I however do not think Michael E. Mann’s paleo reconstructions are in the least bit useful. Focusing on the oceans which control the majority of the heat energy, there is evidence of long term persistent on the three century scale which matches the current estimated rate of ocean heat uptake and sea level rise which would explain the increase in organized tropical deep convection and associated changes in the rate of northern pole ward energy advection.

        As I understand it, most everything is supposed to fit, not just your pet.

      • blueice2hotsea

        Jim D the later part of the century had several times the forcing change of the earlier part, so by your logic we would be in for a heck of a response starting about now.

        There should be a response, but the doubling time of the CO2 increase from 1942 to 2006 is around 150 years. 2/3 of the response is eaten up with only a 70 years doubling time. So, not much left with that slow rise; about ~10%.

    • blueice2hotsea

      Opps. I mean Jim, your not saying too much with suggesting a relationship.

  23. #solar w/ battery storage could become one of the most disruptive influences to impact electricity sector in decades [link]
    Anyone who expects to draw power from the grid at any time should pay a grid maintenance fee every month whether the use any power from it or not. Otherwise, they get disconnected. That’s fair.

    • That fee should not be higher than the base cost for someone who didn’t use electricity that month. From my bill I estimate I would pay $10 per month for the electricity service even without using electricity. To raise the base rate to $50 per month for solar users is extortion just designed to deter.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        Interesting, but I’d not thought about this before. It seems you’re “skeptical” that one who’s received the benefit of solar subsidies (nearer to revenue neutral, but not actually close) in order to benefit financially should not be subject to a “base fee of $50 as being extortion” yet you’re a proponent of a revenue neutral carbon tax. Do you not see a bit of irony to that?

      • Danny, it is fair to have a service fee like $10 per month to maintain the grid. I don’t see the connection to a carbon tax which would also be proportional to usage rate, not added as a base rate.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        Fair? At $10 after having receive $10,000 in subsidies? Is that “proportional to useage”. In fact, at say $50, maybe $10 could go to the “base rate” and $40 to future subsidies. How would this not be nearer to “fair” (but yet still not close)? What’s nearer to revenue neutral for the goose………..

      • Danny, I really don’t get what you are saying. This would be in a state that is opposed to solar so they don’t give subsidies and utilities just up the base rate for solar users. The states and utilities have a wide range of behaviors from solar-friendly to solar-averse. I am just saying I am opposed to utilities trying to deter solar installations with exorbitant fees.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        “exorbitant fees”? $50/month after reciept of thousands of dollars of subsidies for a solar installation which allows one to sell surplus back to the provider (20 year payback assuming $10,000 with $40 contribution). Bundling that $40 to then generate additional subsides? There are federal subsidies even if a particular state doesn’t participate (are you aware of any? http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-rebates-and-incentives/). How is this not fair? As a taxpayer who’s funding those subsidies I’d appreciate the receiver of the subsidies benefits contributing plus they also rebuild the fund base, and the expansion continues. Like I said, closer to revenue neutral. If that works for carbon, why not solar?

      • If you have received an incentive, it is fair to pay it back. What if you didn’t, do you think the fee should still be applied? How do they separate those who received the subsidies from those that moved into a house with the installation complete? I don’t think the fees are connected to the subsidies? If they were, it would be better to make it a loan or lease.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        Travels with the house just like an HOA fee. If one accepts the subsidy, sells the house, the value remains as does the ability to return power in to the system and generate a ROI. Solar adds value in appraisals. Solar uses the grid. If a solar application does this then what would be the challenge for the utility to collect and manage those dollars? I’m not clear on the resistance as I see it as long term revenue neutral. As it stands today, I pay you to install solar on which you generate income for power returned to the system. You retain the enhanced value in the improvement to the property and the positive (when applicable) cash flow. $10/month doesn’t seem like much involvement on your part, but $50 (just an example) is a bit more.

      • Somehow this drifted from a blanket prohibitive fee from the utility company to an issue about who had a subsidy. If you get a tax credit for your solar panels, why should the utilities reap the benefit? There’s a lot more to this than trying to get payback. If the utilities are paying for your solar panels, great. I don’t know if any do that, but it would be a step forwards.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,

        “There’s a lot more to this than trying to get payback.” It’s not soley trying to get payback it’s sustaining a sustainability program. Those who benefit directly reinvest.
        There are utilities exploring using your roof with their panels. I’m sensing this is an area in which you’ve spent little personal research time.

      • Subsidies help both the consumer and the industry, in this case the solar panel businesses. It is a similar thing for fossil fuel subsidies, but this type is better for the environment, and a shift of subsidies in this direction is merited.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        Agreed. But I, as a taxpayer asking for the reciever of said subsidy (my tax money) and the associated benefits to participate in the perpetuation of said subsidies makes complete sense to me. Solar and it’s benefits continue. Closer to revenue neutral instead of soley coming from the taxpayer.
        We use gas taxes to pay for roads. More gas use, more use of roads (and associated benefits) while asking the receiver of those benefits to participate a bit more. Still not clear on your issue with the methodology.

      • Yes, I am less in favor of a fully revenue neutral carbon tax than one that actually does things like subsidize solar panels or renewable and non-fossil energy while also helping with fuel costs for the poor.

      • The entire socialist climate agenda: make energy too expensive for the Industrial Revolution, and build a new, huge, world-wide welfare bureaucracy to help “with fuel costs for the poor.

      • No, subsidies for energy come into it and would be a continuation of what was done for fossil fuels. Energy and fuel as a basic necessity is always subsidized as a priority. It probably takes very little of the government’s revenue to keep prices down, whether for fossil energy as in the past or clean energy as in the future.

      • It probably takes very little of the government’s revenue to keep prices down, whether for fossil energy as in the past or clean energy as in the future.

        Not if you impose enough of a carbon tax to make a difference. Why not just subsidize the fossil carbon-neutral stuff, including sea-floor methane hydrate (when mined using a straight CO2 swap), and forget making fossil energy more expensive?

      • They have kept prices down without a carbon tax, and they can do it with. Carbon taxes as a percentage of fuel costs are actually quite small compared to typical fluctuations in oil prices for example, and we can handle those.
        How do you plan to swap CO2 for methane? Where does the CO2 come from and where do you bury it?

      • How do you plan to swap CO2 for methane? Where does the CO2 come from and where do you bury it?

        See here

        Carbon dioxide can also form hydrates and this has become a very promising line of research for both carbon sequestration and for energy production. It is a well-documented phenomenon that injecting CO2 into a methane hydrate will release the methane and the carbon dioxide will take its place in the ice. Supercritical CO2 has been successfully used as a production fluid for releasing the methane, but only limited experimentation has been done to try and use hydrates for large scale CO2 sequestration.

        I would suggest strong funding of R&D and incubators towards replacement processes that use more molecules of CO2 than they get of methane. Along with subsidies and/or tax breaks for similar industrial processes.

        As for where it comes from, ask the Navy.

      • Easier just to leave the hydrates where they are and just go with wave or tidal power or something.

      • Depends on the cost of storage. Not to mention sunk costs in gas-fired power.

      • John Morgan has an economic analysis here. He’s looking at powering it with nuclear, but if the capital costs can be brought low enough, it could be run intermittently powered by ever cheaper solar PV.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        Think of it as a “revenue neutral carbon tax”.
        My perception is you’re all about “carbon neutral tax” for fossil fuels but that train of thought ignores the environmental impact of solar manufacture and transport.

      • Looks like $60 per month would cover the real costs of backup power. I say just disconnect them . Problem solved.


      • Jim D

        They have kept prices down without a carbon tax, and they can do it with.

        please explain how you can increase the cost of something by adding a tax to it and argue that that keeps prices down? That seem s to be the most ridiculous statement I’ve seen from you. The Carbon price in Australia increased electricity cost by 10%, and gas and transport fuels as well. Those costs flow through to the entire economy. Aluminium smelters have been shut down and a significant proportion of Australia’s manufacturing has been forced to leave Australia.

        Carbon pricing would be a massive negative to the global economy for this whole century.
        Therefore, it has no chance of succeeding, no matter how a tiny proportion of the world’s population – i.e. the rich greenie elites – push for such economically irrational ideas.

      • Peter Lang, for example a carbon tax might be 20 cents per gallon in the US. Prices recently have fluctuated by a dollar. It is in the noise. We can survive 20 cents per gallon.

      • What’s the point of a 20¢/gal carbon tax? How would it make a difference to solar, or wind?

      • Subsidies for one, including on necessities like home-heating/cooling Helps new energy industries and their peripherals. Win-win. The carbon tax would be on all fossil fuels.

      • Better yet, keep it all cheap, and help innovative new business models such as internet shopping (which depends on cheap delivery). Instead of building some sort of welfare bureaucracy to pick winners and losers.

      • Drop ALL subsidies. Give solar the same tax breaks as other businesses get – or better yet, put the corporate tax at zero.

      • So fossil fuels enjoyed subsidies all this time, and now just as they start to look bad, you want to drop all subsidies.

      • Fossil fuels get the same sort of tax treatment as other businesses with depletable resources. I’m not talking about doing away with traditional tax law. I’m talking about getting rid of subsidies.

      • And from my POV, fossil fuels including coal look wonderful.

      • JD may not understand that canard. Fossil fuel subsidies in the third world help the poor, ‘renewable’ subsidies in the developed world hurt the poor.

      • In the third world, a gallon of gas is a day’s wages (not exactly but you get the picture). They can’t afford it. Solar would be a better direction.

      • A 20c per gallon tax is nothing compared to what we pay in fuel tax here in the UK.

      • Exactly, and that would be a rate of $20 per tonne, which has a reasonable revenue generation rate too.

      • They can’t afford it. Solar would be a better direction.

        Probably. What about storage, though? Maybe H2, but I’m skeptical small-scale stuff could be made cost-effective. Not to mention fuel cells to get the energy back out. That’s why I favor H2+CO2→CH4+H2O (technically 4H2+CO2→CH4+2H2O).

      • Fuel tax here simply goes into the general taxation pot, and does not contribute towards renewable subsidies.
        And it’s ineffective at reducing fuel use as well.

      • I think people get cars with high fuel efficiency to make it affordable in Europe, so it has an effect on emissions.

      • We always have used fuel sparingly, because we can’t afford to do otherwise. But that’s apparently not good enough for our political masters.

      • Jim D – it’s a lot more complicated than that. Billing is a very crude way to allocate costs that works roughly across limited ranges for the business model for current usages. But much more is going m than just one fixed and one variable cost number. For example the transmission component is dependent on the peak hour- in an area where it’s wiinterpeaking but only one day a year- if you might be on (solar likely zero at winter peAk) you are a ful contributed. Gen and distribution have nuances as well. I think 10$/month is way low, but in any case it’s not a number easily extended from billing approaches adopted under circumstances that were different then where the system is going.

      • No captain, jim2, you dont understand. People like Joshua only preach those incredibly expensive “renewable” technologies for other people, preferably third world peasants. Not for themselves of course, too expensive and cumbersome.

      • The Carbon price in Australia increased electricity cost by 10%…

        And yet the carbon price contribution was but a small part of the massive increase in the cost of electrcity over the last 10 years.

        You see, it was an industry campaign to massively upgrade infrastructure in order to harvest fatter profits from an anticipated creation of greater demand that was responsible for most of the increase in electricity price. Contrast the relatively small contribution that the carbon price made to price increases with the 11-17 millions tonnes reduction in CO2 emissions whilst the carbon price was in operation – “Direct Action” has yet to save a single tonne…

        And the electricity price increase is a long-term phenomenon, starting around 2006 and still in effect. One only has to compare this year’s power prices with 2013’s to see that. Further, purchasers of coal power had better get used to ongoing price increases as more people wise up to the ever-cheaper cost of renewable energy and ditch the carbon grid. These power utilities will expect to continue to rake in their minimum annual profits and if they lose customers they’ll just have to charge the remaining ones more.

    • jim2

      Service fee smervis fee.

      I am a seasonal resident and I have never paid as much for electricity usage as I do for the “distribution” fee. Currently the distribution fee is $60/3 mos. CAD. My highest electricity usage was for late Fall electric heaters at $25 CAD. I pay a distribution fee every 3 months whether electricity used or not. Then I pay for the “greens” closing and Conservative’s restarting of Bruce Nuclear Power plant, and then a variety of fees plus taxes on all the previous fees and distribution charges. $250 CAD a year to be “connected”.

      I pay connection fees gladly as electricity makes the “cabin-in-the-woods-by-the-shore” a realistic destination for my family instead of its previous attraction as a wilderness experience for those who enjoy cutting, hauling, splitting, stacking wood for the charming cooking fireplace requiring removing ashes every so often. Many-a-meal has been burnt on that fireplace. Ah, I remember.

      • Have you thought about a generator?

      • jim 2

        No actually I haven’t thought about a generator. Hmmmm

      • I don’t know what your vehicle is like, but a portable generator could be hauled to the house and taken back for possible backup power elsewhere.

      • Nothing says bucolic “cabin-in-the-woods-by-the-shore” quite like the hum of a generator in the early morning.

      • he XP4400E features a heavy duty steel frame roll cage with four-point fully isolated motor mounts for smooth and quiet operation.


      • Joshua

        “Nothing says bucolic “cabin-in-the-woods-by-the-shore” quite like the hum of a generator in the early morning.”

        Now why would you go and say that? interrupting a perfectly good afternoon fantasy image with such a sensory input, provoking in me yet another thought of the smell of exhaust mixed with the dewy cedar on a still summer morning as the sun rises.

        Do you think the hummingbirds would mind?

      • Exhaust is just CO2 and water … just sayin. Of course, if you are prejudiced against CO2 …

      • RiHo08 –

        ==> “Now why would you go and say that?

        Because a little while back I was looking at properties that were in the woods and quiet and away from roads and without neighbors in the sightlines (one of which we bought, in a spot popular with humming birds), and I looked at a couple that were “off the grid,” and thought they might be good choices until I heard the generators running..

      • jim 2

        The generator looks like it would fill the bill. Maybe using a propane fuel generator is another option; gas at $1.43 a liter CAD last time I looked, not economical to run all day.

        Do you think my free Gevalia coffee maker would run on batteries?

        As for the plant food CO2? along with a little water? now that sounds like a winning combination to me. Put them back together and voila, food for you and me. Now, we have to find a way to cook the darn things.

      • It’s a terrible post experience to sweat in silence permeated by your neighbors gas generator. Good news is after the first day they realize how much it’s costing and they opt to use it sporadically.

      • Post hurricane

      • Joshua, “Because a little while back I was looking at properties that were in the woods and quiet and away from roads and without neighbors in the sightlines (one of which we bought, in a spot popular with humming birds), and I looked at a couple that were “off the grid,” and thought they might be good choices until I heard the generators running..”

        Since you are on the sustainable and alternate energy side of the debate a noisy generator shouldn’t be a problem, it should be an opportunity for you to show the fossil fuel addicts how things should be done.

        You could go with Plug Power or Ballard Power and install a stand alone fuel cells that can run on all the cellulose methanol that is so widely available, reformed natural gas or install your own electrolysers and use wind/solar to make you own hydrogen.

        I would recommend some of the companies started by MIT, but for some reason most of those tank pretty early even with Microsoft and Google backers. Ballard and Plug have been “plugging” away in the specialty markets for years and actually have products for sale and in use doing things like material handling (fuel cell fork lifts) and backup power for remote cellular towers.

        You are on the solutions side of the debate so show us yer stuff dude.

      • Yeah, Joshua. At $36,000 it’s a steal.

  24. “Despite technological advances, many problems that have dogged nukes for decades loom as large as ever.” [link]

    From the article:

    In Washington state, legislators are considering a host of pro-SMR bills, some of which have already passed the state Senate. Meanwhile, in New Mexico, the state Legislature has passed a resolution on SMRs that could be a precursor to giving extra support for nuclear power.

    These states could be getting in on a trend early. With the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requiring states to cut CO2 emissions and nuclear energy standing out as perhaps the only baseload source of CO2-free power, “I think we are going to see more of that inclusion of nuclear in clean energy standards going forward,” according to Paul Genoa, the senior director of policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the main political organization for the industry.

    SMR technology could be an alternative to traditional, large-scale nuclear plants by providing a more compact, portable nuclear reactor that could be easily installed at former coal plant sites. But there are still questions around whether policies like these are a big enough “enabler” to get over the hurdles facing SMRs.

    A commercial SMR is at least about eight years away based on estimates from NuScale Power LLC, now seen as the frontrunner SMR developer. While SMRs promise to be cheaper and simpler to build than currently operating reactors, those projected cost savings have not yet been proven, said Edward Kee, a nuclear economics expert with NERA Consulting. SMR proponents claim the technology can have completely passive safety systems, such as air cooling, to avoid the complex jumble of safety equipment that makes nuclear plants so expensive to construct. If they can change the design of a light-water reactor in that way, they can be cheaper, Kee said.


    Thorium Energy Facebook page:


  25. From the article:

    As terrible as the meltdown was, the radiation did not have significant public health consequences, much less the catastrophic ones that many feared and some continue to claim.

    On the fourth anniversary of the tsunami, earthquake, and meltdown, journalist Will Boisvert investigates and unearths five public health findings from Fukushima that you’ve probably never heard.


  26. michael hart

    “FEMA Tells Oklahoma to Do the Impossible … Or Else ”

    Or else the wind will come rushing down the plain?

  27. Remember, come Earth Hour:

    It is better to extinguish one candle than to curse the house fire.

  28. From the abstract of Effect of residential solar and storage on centralized electricity supply systems:

    At the same time, solar photovoltaic power has begun to make a material contribution to reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions. Viable electricity storage solutions are now on the cusp of a rapidly declining price trajectory. When coupled with solar photovoltaic systems, battery storage could become one of the most disruptive influences to impact the electricity sector in decades,

    The title of another link is California First State to Get 5 Percent of Power from Solar. Am I missing something here? Are there really prospects for this battery storage? How about a plugin hybrid airplane?

    • Their faith in a ‘rapidly declining price trajectory’ is based on their understanding that costs are too high now for the revelation of their vision.

      Maybe they could try prayer. Naw, much easier to formulate a new narrative.

  29. Note, this was an analysis of metadata, not phone conversations.
    From the article:

    One experiment from Stanford University examined the phone metadata of about 500 volunteers over several months. The personal nature of what the researchers could deduce from the metadata surprised even them, and the report is worth quoting:

    Participant A communicated with multiple local neurology groups, a specialty pharmacy, a rare condition management service, and a hotline for a pharmaceutical used solely to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis.

    Google knows what kind of porn each of us searches for, which old lovers we still think about, our shames, our concerns, and our secrets.

    Participant B spoke at length with cardiologists at a major medical center, talked briefly with a medical laboratory, received calls from a pharmacy, and placed short calls to a home reporting hotline for a medical device used to monitor cardiac arrhythmia.

    Participant C made a number of calls to a firearms store that specializes in the AR semiautomatic rifle platform. They also spoke at length with customer service for a firearm manufacturer that produces an AR line.

    In a span of three weeks, Participant D contacted a home improvement store, locksmiths, a hydroponics dealer, and a head shop.

    Participant E had a long early morning call with her sister. Two days later, she placed a series of calls to the local Planned Parenthood location. She placed brief additional calls two weeks later, and made a final call a month after.


  30. WTI oil hit $50 briefly this week due to hostilities in Yemen. The year-out contango is still around $10 and inventory is still building; these put a downward pressure on oil prices.

    Professional opinions on the direction of oil prices are all over the map. Any time there is any reason for optimism on price support, buyers swoop in keeping the price supported.

    The rig count decreased by only 12 rigs this week, the lowest drop in recent history. So, this could be bad news for keeping the price up.

    Only the future will tell.

    NAT GAS_____4.22
    RBOB GAS____1.91

    NAT GAS____2.684
    RBOB GAS___1.3641

    NAT GAS____2.686
    RBOB GAS___1.6192

    NAT GAS___2.839
    RBOB GAS__1.8819

    NAT GAS___2.727
    RBOB GAS__1.7623

    NAT GAS___2.639
    RBOB GAS__1.798

    • Now that Obungles has gotten the Middle East into free fall violence and is now in the process of blessing Iran’s project to get a nuclear bomb, the problems continue to spread. From the article:

      Saudi Arabia says it won’t rule out building nuclear weapons

      Saudi Arabia will not rule out building or acquiring nuclear weapons, the country’s ambassador to the United States has indicated.

      Asked whether Saudi Arabia would ever build nuclear weapons in an interview with US news channel CNN, Adel Al-Jubeir said the subject was “not something we would discuss publicly”.

      Pressed later on the issue he said: “This is not something that I can comment on, nor would I comment on.”


    • Also, if the deal goes through with Iran, their oil output could lurch up, putting even more downward pressure on oil prices, especially Brent.

  31. Judith –

    FYI – “kim” is up to about 108 of the most recent 1,223 comments…

    Don’t get me wrong. I certainly don’t want you to put him/her into moderation. Even though hardly anyone responds to kim’s comments, I still think they add to the je ne sais quoi of Climate Etc.

    I’m just wondering if you might find a way to be less capricious in your moderation policy?

    Should the lesson I be learning from this is not to post comments that provide information that blow holes through Springer’s comments?

    And Judith – have you figured out yet whether David in Texas – you know, the dude who went nuts posting insulting comments under other people’s screennames , is one and the same as David Springer, who lives in Texas and makes it a habit to post insulting comments?

    • That’s your evidence, joshie? Springer lives in Texas and blah…blah…blah? It couldn’t be somebody using that handle to make it look like it was Springer. Couldn’t Springer think up a better disguise, if he were the culprit? You really should be begging Judith to put you back in moderation.

      • lol!

        Yeah, and him posting as a sock-puppet with my name, and the “ban Joshua” handle (paraphrasing), and the fact that Springer is obsessed with me and constantly calling for me to be banned and/or moderated? ‘Prolly just coincidence.

        Too freakin’ funny. Thanks for the contribution, Don. Your contributions are always so precious.

      • And the fact that I was put into moderation after posting a comment blowing holes in Springer’s comment.

        And the fact that Judith Zambonied that response to Springer before she put me in moderation.

        And the fact that Springer writes emails to Judith to whine and ask her to ban/moderate people?

        ‘Prolly just all coincidence.

        Oh. My sides.

      • Joshua, you get put into moderation when you comment to much. It is not appropriate for any one person to dominate the conversation here. If you inappropriately attack another commenter, I will delete your comment.

      • Of course Dr. Curry should spend time chasing Joshua’s petty grievances. He’s the Merchant of False Equivalences. A subtle method of lying.

      • Of course, she has never put Springer in time out. Of course not.

      • Judith –

        Your blog, you have the hammer

        ==> “If you inappropriately attack another commenter, I will delete your comment.”

        My point, exactly.

        jim2 | March 28, 2015 at 4:55 pm |
        Of course Dr. Curry should spend time chasing Joshua’s petty grievances. He’s the Merchant of False Equivalences. A subtle method of lying.

      • =========> “lol!”

        Indeed. You are losing it, joshie. Why don’t you plead with Judith to put you back in moderation? You just embarrass yourself with this foolishness. Did the cleaners lose your big boy pants? Watch out for Springer. He’s a mean un.

    • richardswarthout


      Kim’s comments are more than comments. I suggest you listen to the picture.


  32. Dear Ms Curry,
    about india in paris,
    you should read the Peer-reviewed journal of fair level , associated with Indian academy of Science, volume 108, issue 04

    dig a little, there is good reason that the indian will simply don’t care of what is said. not even oppose.

    • Do you mean page 480 or the general overview? I can’t get the pdf for p. 480 to display.

  33. I see where Nature Climate Change (now that’s a name when you’re serious about being smug!) is not only managing to turn the most harebrained speculation into maths, charts and graphs till it looks totally sciency…but can pull $199 (not $200!) for a subscription to read its mad slop.

    If anyone needs some really convincing labelling for a new energy drink or ab exerciser, go for the best. Get the guys from Nature Climate Change.

  34. John Smith (it's my real name)

    I think Global Mean Surface Temperature might not be a meaningful construct. (I recall Steven Mosher saying much the same here at CE.)
    Also, I think the data for GMST has lots of problems.
    Therefore, I am skeptical of dire warnings of impending doom.
    Especially since I have heard so many of them in my longer than expected life.

    But for the insidious propaganda of the evil Koch brothers I would have a different opinion.
    Those two guys are so sneaky.

    If I weren’t an uneducated mass exhibiting ‘conspiracy ideation’, I’d sign a letter demanding the Koch’s stop warping my mind.
    Wait, I have tin foil hat for that.

    I still need those really smart science people to help save me though.

  35. Check out the Indian take, one of them, on LENR.

    In any case, all that we are trying to place before the
    scientific community is that the phenomenon of LENR is
    real and by all accounts appears to have the potential for
    practical applications in the not-too-distant future. The
    continued assertion that ‘cold fusion/LENR is unproven’
    is not justified anymore. It would be unwise to ignore or
    boycott this field. LENR research deserves the support of
    Government funding agencies, professional scientific
    academies and also the private sector. Most importantly
    we need to encourage the entry of young blood into this
    field. This however is a challenging task given the stigma
    attached to the field by those whose sense of ‘rightness’,
    pride, academic position, and/or financial interests is at

    In this context, we would like to draw the attention of
    Current Science readers to a paper in this special section
    on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP,
    see http://www.quantumheat.org). The MFMP ‘Live Open Sci-
    ence’ project was initiated by a few youngsters of the Fa-
    cebook/Twitter age. Since normal funding agencies have
    been avoiding LENR, these youngsters decided
    to appeal to their generation directly through Facebook
    and organize ‘crowd funding’ for initiating basic and
    simple experiments in the field of LENR. See website


    • Jim2, wrote anout this in Arts of Truth. There is sufficient evidence from SPAWR (US Navy) and Toyota replicating MHI, to think the phenomenon is real. Widom and Larson published the probable physics in 2009. It is a weak force phenomenon working through ‘heavy’ electrons converted to ‘cold’ neutrons with large capture cross sections. Hydrogen to helium in four steps, the last being standard beta decay, with a net energy gain of at least 5x in an ordinary nickel lattice. No Coulomb barrier to overcome. Turns out Nobel laureate Julian Schwingers early speculation in his 1991 MIT talk was right about resonant amplification (Schwinger studied resonant sonoluminescence as an analog).
      What nobody knows is whether the LENR phenomena can be harnessed commercially. The laser/phonon approach NASA is experimenting with for sure won’t scale, although it would provide a robust experimental platform. I had some hope for Brillouin Energy at the end of 2012, but they have since gone dark, which is never a good sign when so much VC money is chasing green/clean tech. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is still supporting Iwamura transmutation research, but there is no public indication of more resource being devoted to commercialization.
      LENR and Siluria’s OCM and ETL catalysts are two of the energy technologies worth following closely. Both potential game changers.

    • What do you think about Rossi? To me, it smells a bit.

      More on CF:


      • In my opinion, Rossi ECat is a scam. I wrote that into the last book also, with two separate distinct proofs (legal liability insurance). The claimed process nickel to copper transmutation was the last straw. Not physics, wrong isotopes! BS. Also provided indelible evidence on two other related scams, Blacklight Power hydrinos (took in over $60 million) and Zenn/Eestor CMBT capacitors (took in over $40 million). Energy research is an interesting place, where many manifestly know little. I have invested much, and suffered ‘slings and arrows’.

      • Heh, the slings and arrows of outrageous energy. Why can’t it be still?

  36. Craig Loehle

    About 4 million years ago (just prior to our current Ice Age), according to the latest (either Sci Am or Discover) research, both trees and mammals including camels were found in Canada above the arctic circle. Amazingly, this degree of warmth did not cause the world to end.
    The claim that burning wood for fuel is worse than using fossil fuels is based on a short time-frame. Wood use substitutes for fossil fuels and after the trees grow back (about 30 yrs in the South of US) the CO2 is taken back out of the air so it becomes carbon neutral. Opponents want to classify the wood burned as good or bad wood–ok to burn waste/scraps, bad to burn logs. As a business decision, good vs bad wood doesn’t make any sense. If doing it for climate change, of course, it may not be justified in any case, but that is a different question.

    • Craig, as you know harvesting time depends on the species, region, and purpose. SYP for pulp in Alabama, yes 20-30 years. SYP for plywood peelerblocks/2x4s, 40-50 years. Douglas fir in the Pacific Northwest for saw lumber, 100-120 years. My understanding is that the Drax chips are mostly second growth mixed hardwood from North Carolina wetlands.
      On my farm, we have three major stands of hardwood timber. No clearcutting, but each parcel is selectively logged about every 30 years to maximize total forest productivity. Mostly oaks, maples, hickory, some black cherry. Average age of harvested oaks (white, red, black) is 150-200 years. The best boles go for furniture and flooring. The rest goes for pulp in Wisconsins tissue mills (most tissue -Charmin, Kleenex–is made from hardwod pulp). In the past, the crowns were just left, or got scavenged for commercial firewood and charcoal. Those crowns make good wood pellet candidates, although there is hardly enough to replace fossil fuels, and the economics are dubious.

    • “both trees and mammals including camels were found in Canada above the arctic circle”

      I would guess given the speed of trees and camels that those conditions arose over many thousands and therefore are not a good guide for the impact of the much greater rate of human caused temperature increase today.

    • The ridge that was over California visited us today.
      Low 42F warmed to a high of 89F a hour ago.

      The birds and butterflies in the back yard seemed to flutter about as usual and didn’t fall dead from the sky.


  37. I notice the clueless division of WUWT and steven goddard are yet again trying to kick the same old can down the road.

    This time making ridiculously broad FOI requests in order to fuel their silly conspiracy theories about temperature records when those unrealistic FOI requests aren’t granted.


  38. I was rather amused to see the letter to the museum Board of Directors demanding that the Koch Bros. funds (as well as the that from oil companies) be refused. The letter was signed by the leading scientists of the world including several Nobel Laureates (hmmmmm: I wonder which ones?). The letter was written because of the concern for the planet and the people. I have two suggestions:
    (i) Check out the Smithsonian displays on climate change. Are you not satisfied with these exhibits? Point to what the Koch Brothers have changed.
    (ii) Make a pledge to replace the funds the energy companies give to the museums.
    (iii) And if you really are concerned for the poor of the world, do something about it. Give up preaching for a bit and go to Bangladesh, India and Pakistan and work with the people at hazard prediction and mitigation.

    Sorry, sanctimony, especially collective sanctimony, makes me ill!

    • Liberal want the government to take money from tax payers and spend it on their desires. Doing it themselves it a bit much.

    • John Smith (it's my real name)

      Peter Webster
      I see Koch brothers got to you
      and sell your beachfront property

  39. “Physicist Dr. Murry Salby: Man-made CO2 could only cause warming of ‘a few tenths of a degree”

    what a fool

    • “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years – Non-physicist, non scientist, Al Gore 2008

      “The interior of the earth is extremely hot – several million degrees” – Non-physicist, non-scientist, Al Gore 2009

      “Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within as little as 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization” – Non-physicist, non-scientist, Al Gore 2006

      In addition to 99 percent of the scientists and all the professional scientific organizations, now Mother Nature is weighing in – Non-physicist, non-scientist, Al Gore 2015

      what a brilliant man

    • David L. Hagen

      lolwot ad hom attacking the man not the argument

  40. richardswarthout

    Dr Curry

    One of the items that caught my eye this week was this:

    “I think I’ll have a thread on Sunday discussing preferences for future topics”

    Wanting to first in line, here are my preferences:

    1. I would like a primer in paleo reconstructions; what’s available and a brief description of each, and what are the limitations of each. I am also curious as to why limitations are sometimes ignored and publications proceed when this is done.

    2. Cloud Dynanics; there appears to be some new research. Is there any hope of new knowledge in this area? Is there a cloud research overarching plan?

    Thank you


    • I would like Judith to explain how science can provide the inputs needed for rational policy analysis. I’d suggest pdfs for the following would be a significant contribution:

      pdfs of:

      – time to the next abrupt climate change event
      – direction of the next abrupt climate change (to warming or cooling)
      – duration of next abrupt climate change event
      – magnitude of the total change
      – rate of change
      – damage function

  41. Berényi Péter

    Only capitalism can save the planet

    True, but only if intellectual property is abolished as soon as practicable.

    The case is similar to the abolishment of slavery worldwide. Human beings as capital asset was perfectly compatible with capitalism, but in other respects it was intolerable. Turning those masses into free actors, with the capacity to enter the job, consumer and later even the capital markets transformed capitalism into a more benign system, without robbing it of its spirit.

    On January 31, 1865 some 15% of the national wealth of the U.S. of A. was destroyed with a single legislative move. However, in the long run, it had no ill effect on the US economy, quite the contrary. During the next century it propelled the country to superpower status.

    That’s how the Republican party was born.

    There is no divine power behind intellectual property, as there was no such thing behind slavery either. “Thou shalt not steal” is one of the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt not make unauthorized copies” is unheard of in this context.

    Capitalism is indispensable in managing scarce resources, but intellectual goods, once created, can be copied and distributed at a negligible cost. Making such goods artificially scarce by something like DRM, supported by legislation and even multilateral international treaties is utterly stupid and detrimental.

    Development of the Linux kernel does not require huge amounts of taxpayers’ money, although it is released under the General Public License, therefore it is owned by no one. On the contrary, it is supported by private entities, who established excellent service industries, even products on a shared code base and make good money on it.

    If all intellectual property were liberated like that, it would also prevent the return of patrimonial capitalism, while preserving its power to deliver solutions to real issues at an affordable price.

    • +10

    • The whole “patent” system began as a subsidy. First for opening trade secrets in return for a limited-time exclusive monopoly, then for invention, then R&D. The period is certainly too long, and it needs to be tweaked considerably, but IMO the subsidy can still benefit everybody, properly re-designed.

    • Folks, rethink. The notion of intellectual property is enshrined in the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Now, what that exactly means was left by them to us. But that it means something important was not. There is, as legislation on the precise meaning of 1.8.8 has evolved, an ingenious tradeoff.
      First, a discovery of nature herself is not patentable. (So, patents should never discourage basic research. Ah, that is the great question behind BRACA and most other gene patents. Unresolved. But I think things like gene drug targets (or, in Jolies case, diagnostics) are not patentable. EU agrees, US still a mess.
      Second, a clever invention based on such a discovery (Franklin’s bifocal lenses come to mind, although invented before the Constitution) should have a limited period of exclusivity, incenting such innovations. Brilliant.
      Third, the tradeoff for that limited monopoly period was full disclosure, so that thereafter everyone would benefit at no additional research cost.

      The huge economic barnacles encrusting this simple vision are badly in need of scraping off. Said as holder of 14 issued US patents in 4 separate fields. Simple translation: patent idea good. Present patent law, not so much.

      • I honestly think our medical costs would be far less if drug patents were perpetual. I also think we would have better medicines.

  42. With respect to Earth Hour, it’s hard to improve on Ross Mcitrick’s essay: “I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. […] The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity. Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness.”

    • ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Earth Hour demonizes people having a better life.
      Kinda Stupid, Really! More Stupid than just kinda, Really!

    • The entire concept of independent human use of energy is being demonized: Fossil fuel ~80%, Nuclear ~ 15%.
      Classification: agitprop; Proposed solutions: Political allocation of energy (as in Energy Credit Cards); other variations of the Turnover Tax.

  43. {previously posted on wrong thread]


    A balanced discussion of home solar and utilities

    Yes, it is balanced and good once you get past the first half (which is presenting what the PV advocates argue). It’s also worth reading the excellent comment by Mark Harrigan, the second last comment: https://theconversation.com/why-rooftop-solar-is-disruptive-to-utilities-and-the-grid-39032#comment_630021

  44. [previously posted on wrong thread]

    This article raises some important points – but does not, I think, go far enough

    Actual California Solar PV share of electricity generation is tiny. Latest official data from the site http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/index.html#table shows solar in state generation in California for 2013 to be a little over 2% of the total in state generation and less than 2% of the total use (including imports). It is just under 4% of installed capacity. If you go the EIA you can find preliminary figures for 2014 that show this has grown to around 5%.

    That hardly seems to square with the Author’s comment “California has substantial solar on its grid” – but in a sense he is not “wrong” – it is just the comment needs interpretation.

    It’s actually hard to get hold of reliable capacity figures for installed solar in Calfornia. One industry site http://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/california claims it is 9,977 MW but official government statistics http://californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/ say 2,365. WTF? The National Renewable Energy Laboratory gives a different figure again https://openpv.nrel.gov/rankings – 1,893 MW

    Confusing? But if you pull this apart it seems to boil down to the difference between Rooftop private PV (not all of which is viable to the grid), Utility PV and, yes, some CST.

    What does seem reliable is this figure from the California ISO


    And this shows the real problem. It shows solar producing 15% of total capacity dropping to zero later ( as it gets dark). Sometimes wind takes up some of this slack but sometimes it does not.

    There’s more nuance to this here http://theenergycollective.com/hermantrabish/356771/solar-usage-shattering-records-california-new-capacity-comes-line (from which the duck curve graph above comes)

    Here’s the real issue for grid operators. Not only does it become uneconomic for them to deliver power from synchronous sources (e.g. coal, gas, hydro, nuclear) given that variable renewables typically get priority despatch at peak generation times (eroding grid operator margins and their capacity utilisation) – but also the RAMP requirements when solar disappears and wind dies too creates significant challenges to frequency stabilization (and if that drops you get brown outs).

    Without significant storage (which does not yet exist and despite the myths about elon musk are unlikely to exist any time soonhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2013/12/04/electric-vehicle-myths-6-volume-lowers-costs/without a breakthrough which seems distanthttp://www.technologyreview.com/review/534866/why-we-dont-have-battery-breakthroughs/

    The frequency stabilisation issue is a majot challenge- which most 100% RE advocates are not even aware of, let alone understand – and certainly no so called 100% renewable scenarios have even examined the problem. Yet it is real – it exists – and it is a major problem for any sort of grid management

    There isalso signigicant evidence that the real cost of wind and solar on the grid can more than double as their share approaches their capacity factor – which is when their systems LCOE comes into play http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544213009390http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148114005357

    SO – before we just assume the grid operators are big bad guys just looking to protect their margins (which, by the way is no different from sellers of wind and solar systems – they are all entitled to operate their businesses in the way that maximises share holder value within the legal and ethical framework in which they exist – indeed we need them too if we wish to continue to enjoy their offerings) – it behooves us to properly understand what the real issues are.

    This article touches on them but goes nowhere near in depth enough

    • The comment above is a copy of the comment by Dr Mark Harrigan on ‘The Conversation’ here: https://theconversation.com/why-rooftop-solar-is-disruptive-to-utilities-and-the-grid-39032#comment_630021

      • “By installing solar panels, a consumer pays the utility less and, for the first time, becomes an energy producer rather than a consumer only.”

        The sun has usually been set for some hours by 9 pm around here. Those lucky duck head dodgers with all night suns! They can thumb their noses at greedy utilities. Around here it’s all duck belly production, with the wind dropping after duck belly, as well as the sun.

        If only, if only, if only.

        Though I don’t have an all night sun to for selling into the grid at 9 pm duck head, if I had lots of money I could cord cut, since I have plenty of space for arrays of panels and batteries. And because people who mine, transport, manufacture, wholesale and retail panels and batteries are not motivated by greed we could all have a party and thumb our noses at greedy utilities. Who needs an all night sun when you have banks of batteries?

        Of course, we might need some fossil fuel power for all that mining, transporting, manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing…and partying. But no need to talk about all that, so close to Earth Hour.

      • Mosomoso,

        I think you may have misunderstood the point of the article on The Conversation and Dr Harrigan’s comment.

      • Peter, the Conversation article is pointing out the grand negative, namely, intermittency. I suppose that’s progress for the Conversation. But shouldn’t it be obvious that we are piggy-backing novelties and afterthoughts on to an old but reliable system designed around orderly and centralised supply? The author is portraying a bungle as some sort of commercial/technical evolutionary problem we need to solve. No, it’s a huge bungle.

        I keep getting told that solar works. I’ve lived with solar, and it worked. I spent a pleasant last Thursday evening in an all solar home. I’ll be spending Easter Sunday at an all-solar home. The potential of solar in a lot of contexts is huge. But none of this justifies its implementation as a fussy, expensive afterthought for the grids of the world. Grids need to run on the non-intermittent sources they were designed for: luscious Aussie black coal if you are lucky enough to have some, brown coal if you aren’t so lucky, gas, hydro, nukes etc.

        Electricity is at the heart of modern life, which, even though I live rough in the scrub, is the life for me. The grid is there, the coal is there. The only thing lacking is more ambitious and more frequent modernisation and updating of the grid and of coal power. (I don’t mind carbon emissions, but I wish our Green Betters would stop wasting carbon by depending on an old system they refuse to improve – like hippies driving an old bomb car.)

        My feeling is that the comment made by Mark Harrigan should have been the article. It wouldn’t be a bad thing to copy and file away.

        Coal is king, and nuke is the crown prince. I wouldn’t expect that particular monarchical arrangement to be around in a hundred years time, but for now it’s just great.

        The only lesson of Earth Hour is that everybody hurriedly turns the lights and power back on after a lousy sixty minutes without. And when they flick the switch after their Orgy of Ingratitude, the coal does its thing for them, instantly. And the nukes which many like to demonise might well be at their service in that moment.

        Wind and solar are like the popular uncle at the family reunion who doesn’t have to take the responsibilities of a parent.

      • Mosomoso,

        I agree with most of your comment. I feel the article was fairly well balanced. it presented the advocates’ argument first and then showed what’s wrong with it. Dr Mark Harrigan’s comment goes much further in explaining the issues.

        I don’t agree with this sentence in your comment: “The potential of solar in a lot of contexts is huge.”
        I doubt that is true. Solar is not sustainable. it requires far too much non-renewable material and do much energy. Therefore, t is not sustainable. it is never likely to be. it cannot survive without either fossil fuels or nuclear. If you haven’t read this before, I think you’l find it very interesting: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

        Also read John Morgan’s response to critiques here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/#comment-350520

    • **And this shows the real problem. It shows solar producing 15% of total capacity dropping to zero later ( as it gets dark). Sometimes wind takes up some of this slack but sometimes it does not.**

      It seems the policy should that for every new watt of solar power there should be a new watt of hydro power. And hydro power should be local [not Canada. Or added hydro power should be within 500 miles of the added solar.

    • Conversion to Green Energy would be expensive. Much easier to go Green with fewer people. The legislation is already in place: IPAB in ACA.
      (Just make it mandatory: “Everything not permitted is compulsory.” Great savings in Social Security and Medicare.)

  45. Have you seen this one, Judith?


    Tru dat. Raise your hands, if you have seen Merchants of Doom? Jimmy dee has been 47 times.

    • Bottom line:

      “So if you haven’t been able to win over the public over in 25 years of intense political and cultural pressure, you are probably down to two options: You can revisit your strategy, open debate to a wide range of ideas, accept that your excited rhetoric works on a narrow band of the Americans (in any useful political sense), and live with the reality that most people have no interest in surrendering prosperity. Or, you can try to force people to do what you want.

      Democrats, it seems, are going to give the latter another try.”

  46. David L. Hagen

    DOE – Drill Arctic for Oil
    Energy Department study: Shale won’t last, Arctic drilling needed now

    But the government predicts that the shale boom won’t last much beyond the next decade.

    In order for the U.S. to keep domestic production high and imports low, oil companies should start probing the Artic now because it takes 10 to 30 years of preparation and drilling to bring oil to market, according to a draft of the study’s executive summary obtained by the Associated Press.
    . . .Environmental advocates say the Arctic ecosystem is too fragile to risk a spill, and cleanup would be difficult or perhaps even impossible because of weather and ice.
    But global demand for oil, which affects prices of gasoline, diesel and other fuels everywhere, is expected to rise steadily in the coming decades — even as alternative energy use blossoms — because hundreds of millions of people are rising from poverty in developing regions and buying more cars, shipping more goods, and flying in airplanes more often.

    In order to meet that demand and keep prices from soaring, new sources of oil must be developed, the council argues. The Arctic is among the biggest such sources in the world and in the U.S.

    The Arctic holds about a quarter of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil and gas deposits, geologists estimate. While the Russian Arctic has the biggest share of oil and gas together, the U.S. and Russia are thought to have about the same amount of crude oil — 35 billion barrels. That’s about 5 years’ worth of U.S. consumption and 15 years of U.S. imports.

    What are climate scientists going to do without oil – when paying to import oil takes all available cash? Leaving no funds to model the earth warming twice as fast as reality?

    • So the report is by the National Petroleum Council. What else would they suggest?

      • David L. Hagen

        FLAG – ad hominem genetic fallacy – attacking the group origin rather than the argument.

  47. William Palmer

    question to anyone:
    Marcia McNutt, Editor in Chief, Science Journals, in leading editorial, 3/20/15 Science,p1293, “Ignorance is not an Option” ( the editorial is criticizing man’s modifying the earth’s albedo] said this:

    “The committee also advocates the need for improved capacity to detect changes in radiative forcing (the difference between solar energy absorbed by the Earth and radiated back into space) that are associated with changes in albedo, and the resulting effects on climate.”

    I’m a medical scientist but doesn’t the amount of solar energy absorbed by the earth have to be essentially exactly equal to the amount radiated?…except for a minuscule percentage as climates change an equilibrate? The solar energy can be converted temporarily into carbohydrates but these eventually decay and emit infrared as they are oxidized. But can we actually measure the difference between solar insolation and total bond albedo? This would be an extremely small percentage would it not?… I mean we have increased the equilibrium point by 1 degree C in a hundred years. If we found a difference of even 1%, the earth would boil or freeze in a year, wouldn’t it?

    • The balance is between net solar (incoming minus reflected) and outgoing infrared. The outgoing longwave far exceeds reflected solar, but knowing all these components accurately is important. Yes, they do balance long-term, but the surface temperature depends on both the albedo and atmospheric composition that affects the IR part.

    • [… B]ut doesn’t the amount of solar energy absorbed by the earth have to be essentially exactly equal to the amount radiated?…except for a minuscule percentage as climates change an equilibrate?

      Not really. I once calculated the excess energy claimed to have entered the deep ocean since ~1970, IIRC it came out to several weeks worth of total insolation. Those were “back-of-the-envelope” calculations, never published and since lost, but perhaps somebody with a greater stake in “global warming” will re-do those calculations, with links?

      If my memory is correct, this is hardly “a minuscule percentage”, not at least in terms of its potential effect on climate evolution.

    • David L. Hagen

      William Palmer
      Yes. An astute observation.
      To measure it see:
      The oceans as a calorimeter by Nir. Shaviv

      It turns out that one can use the Earth’s oceans as one giant calorimeter to measure the amount of heat Earth absorbs and reemits every solar cycle. . . .
      given the consistency between the energy going into the oceans and the estimated forcing by the solar cycle synchronized cloud cover variations, it is unlikely that the solar forcing is not associated with the cloud cover variation.

      For causes of variation in that, see:
      See: Cosmic Rays and Climate By: Nir J. Shaviv

  48. Re: Earth Hour:

    • Protest? CounterProtest: Switch your lights ON. Inexpensive response to propaganda.

      • I shall light up the darkness, a serf’s celebration of
        earth’s bounties, sunlight, sun flowers, fire, fossil fuels…

      • True, Beth. After others turn them back on, propagandists will not even throw them a fish. 8-)

  49. Regarding “A carbon tax would male global warming worsehttp://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/new-arguments-on-a-carbon-tax.html

    That’s true. But far more important is that carbon pricing is highly unlikely to succeed. This explains why:
    ‘Why carbon pricing will not succeed, Part I‘: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/
    ‘Why The World Will Not Agree to Pricing Carbon, Part II‘: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/
    Summary of the two main reasons:
    1) for carbon pricing to succeed, around 80% of global emissions need to be included in the scheme, otherwise the cost to the participants to achieve a given amount of emissions reduction is prohibitive, so the scheme cannot be sustained even if started. But to 80% participation rate across the whole world is impracticable; even the EU, the most advanced and longest running of all carbon pricing schemes includes only 45% of EU emissions, the USA monitors 49% of emissions, and the short lived Australian carbon pricing scheme included 53% of emissions. So there is no realistic probability of getting all countries to include 80% of global emissions.
    Carbon pricing and other regulatory approaches are the wrong approach. Instead we should be deregulating to allow markets to select the least cost technology. Appropriate deregulation of the nuclear industry is what is needed. Allow the industry to compete. Allow innovation and competition to do what it does. If we deregulate there is the opportunity for enormous cost reductions, accelerating rate of roll out leading to an accelerating rate of competition and innovation. Costs will come down faster. As nuclear advocates know, there is enormous opportunity for costs reductions; e.g. there is the potential for up to a factor of 100 improvement in efficiency of using the nuclear fuel. With faster rollout we save more lives and get electricity to more people faster. Cheaper electricity will also mean electricity more quickly substitutes for fossil fuels for heating and transport fuels (e.g. unlimited transport fuels from seawater and nuclear power: http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/ )
    2) The cost of carbon pricing greatly exceeds the projected benefits for all this century and beyond: http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2014/10/Lang-3.jpg )
    – See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/new-arguments-on-a-carbon-tax.html#comment-158466862

  50. 5% of California’s electricity generation comes from solar? 1st state to do it? But…

    While solar power now provides less than one percent of California’s electricity, the state has adopted policies to increase its use. Some solar technologies use photovoltaic cells to convert sunlight into electricity. Other technologies use the sun’s thermal energy to run large turbines…

    … the IEP apparently didn’t get the memo.

    • Witness one of the greatest government transfers of wealth from the poor to the wealthy via California’s newly implemented carbon tax on fuels. As a result, CA gasoline costs about 80 cents more per gallon than the national average, so every working poor person pays about $16 extra for a regressive tax so that they can drive to work and take their kids to school. Meanwhile, the tax has generated, in two months, a billion dollars for a slush fund to be distributed wealthy elite friends of the Democratic party in CA under the guise of “clean energy”. Despicable.

      Note also that the governor thinks that this will “encourage” people to drive less. Since he can assert that without proof, I say that is bullpucky and that very few people drive anymore than absolutely necessary. Driving on California’s poorly maintained and crowded roads is already too expensive in time and money.

      As a side note, I wonder if the price of CA gasoline is included in the national average. If so, wouldn’t that induce an upward bias?

      Watch California and you will see the results of a disastrous experiment.

      California, the nation’s most populated, and gullible, state has been fooled again.

  51. “A way to get power to the world’s poor without making climate change worse”

    Is effectively irrelevant for reducing global GHG emissions. Off grid electricity is a tiny proportion of global electricity and the proportion si shrinking. It;s important to do all we can to get electricity to everyone as this article advocates, but let’s not fool ourselves that this is the main game for reducing global GHG emissions. It isn’t. It;s virtually irrelevant. It’s a distration.

  52. Judith,

    Why do you post this anti-nuke rubbish?

    The economics of generating electricity with hulking nuclear reactors are as challenging as ever, especially in a world awash with cheap natural gas and increasingly competitive renewable energies like wind and solar power. And in a world rattled by the specter of nuclear confrontation, the spread of civilian nuclear power programs to a gaggle of new countries sparks fresh fear about the risks of proliferation.

    Judith, wouldn’t it be more helpful to educate your followers rather than propagate such nonsense?

    Nuclear is:

    1. the safest way to generate electricity (fatalities per TWh)

    2. has the potential to reduce costs is enormous – by up to a fact of 100 with fusion, without even getting to fission

    3. the least cost and fastest way to reduce global GHG emissions

    4. does the least environmental damage per TWh

    The reason the costs of nuclear are higher than fossil fuels are because of 50 years of irrational, dishonest scare mongering like this article you’ve promoted.

    • Nuclear power is the least cost and fastest way to substantially cut GHG emissions from electricity

      1 Energy supply requirements

      The most important requirements for energy supply are:

      1. Energy security (refers to the long term; it is especially relevant for extended periods of economic and trade disputes or military disruptions that could threaten energy supply, e.g. 1970’s oil crises [1], world wars, Russia cuts’ off gas supplies to Europe).

      2. Reliability of supply (over periods of minutes, hours, days, weeks – e.g. NE USA and Canada 1965 and 2003[2])

      3. Low cost energy – energy is a fundamental input to everything humans have; if we increase the cost of energy we retard the rate of improvement of human well-being.

      Policies must deliver the above three essential requirements. Second order requirements are:

      4. Health and safety

      5. Environmentally benign

      1.1 Why health and safety and environmental impacts are lower priority requirements than energy security, reliability and cost:

      This ranking of the criteria is what consumers demonstrate in their choices. They’d prefer to have dirty energy than no energy. It’s that simple. Furthermore, electricity is orders of magnitude safer and healthier than burning dung for cooking and heating inside a hut. The choice is clear. The order of the criteria is clearly demonstrated all over the world and over thousands of years – any energy is better than no energy.

      2 Nuclear better than renewables

      Nuclear power is better than renewable energy in all the important criteria. Renewable energy cannot be justified, on a rational basis, to be a major component of the electricity system. Here are some reasons why:

      1. Nuclear power has proven it can supply over 75% of the electricity in a large modern industrial economy, i.e. France, and has been doing so for over 30 years.

      2. Nuclear power is substantially cheaper than renewables

      3. Nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity; it causes the least fatalities per unit of electricity supplied.

      4. Nuclear power is more environmentally benign than renewables.

      5. ERoEI of nuclear is ~75 whereas renewables are around 1 to 9. An ERoEI of around 14 is needed to support modern society. Only nuclear, fossil fuels and hydro meet that requirement.

      6. Material requirements per unit of electricity supplied through life for nuclear power are about 1/10th those of renewables

      7. Land area required for nuclear power is very much smaller than renewables per unit of electricity supplied through life

      8. Nuclear power requires less expensive transmission (shorter distances and smaller transmission capacity in total because the capacity needs to be sufficient for maximum output but intermittent renewables average around 10% to 40% capacity factor whereas nuclear averages around 80% to 90%).

      9. Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited.

      10. Nuclear fuel requires a minimal amount of space for storage. Many years of nuclear fuel supply can be stored in a warehouse. This has two major benefits:

      • Energy security – it means that countries can store many years or decades of fuel at little cost, so it gives independence from fuel imports. This gives energy security from economic disruptions or military conflicts.

      • Reduced transport – nuclear fuel requires 20,000 to 2 million times less ships, trains etc. per unit of energy transported. This reduces shipping costs, the quantities of oil used for the transport, and the environmental impacts of the shipping and the fuel used for transport by 4 to 6 orders of magnitude.

      There is no rational justification for renewable energy to be mandated and favoured by legislation and regulations.

      2.1 Nuclear cheaper and lower emissions than renewables
      Renewables v Nuclear: Electricity Bills and Emissions reductions by technology proportions to 2050

      The CSIRO ‘MyPower’ calculator shows that, even in Australia where we have cheap, high quality coal close to the main population centres and where nuclear power is strongly opposed, nuclear power would be the cheapest way to reduce emissions: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

      MyPower is an online tool created by CSIRO that allows you to see the effect of changing the national ‘electricity mix’ (technologies that generate Australia’s electricity) on future electricity costs and Australia’s carbon emissions.

      Below is a comparison of options with different proportions of electricity generation technologies (move the sliders to change the proportions of each technology). The results below show the change in real electricity prices and CO2 emissions in 2050 compared with now.

      Change to 2050 in electricity price and emissions by technology mix:

      1. 80% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 0% nuclear:
      electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions increase = 21%

      2. 0% coal, 50% gas, 50% renewables, 0% nuclear:
      electricity bills increase = 19% and emissions decrease = 62%.

      3. 0% coal, 30% gas, 10% renewables, 60% nuclear:
      electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions decrease = 77%.

      4. 0% coal, 20% gas, 10% renewables, 70% nuclear:
      electricity bills increase = 17% and emissions decrease = 84%.

      5. 0% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 80% nuclear:
      electricity bills increase = 20% and emissions decrease = 91%.

      Source: CSIRO ‘MyPower’ calculator

      Points to note:

      • For the same real cost increase to 2050 (i.e. 15%), BAU gives a 21% increase in emissions c.f. the nuclear option a 77% decrease in emissions (compare scenarios 1 and 3)

      • For a ~20% real cost increase, the renewables option gives 62% decrease c.f. nuclear 91% decrease in emissions (compare scenarios 2 and 5).

      • These costs do not include the additional transmission and grid costs. If they did, the cost of renewables would be substantially higher.

      3. Conclusion:

      Nuclear is the least cost way to significantly reduce the emissions intensity of electricity.

      The difference is stark. Nuclear power is far better.

      But progress to reduce emissions at least cost is being thwarted by the anti-nuclear activists.

    • Peter, what are prestigious journals for these days, if not for jesuitry in the service of green religion?

      Of course, the gas is “natural” (not so fossilish?) and we don’t separate out the “renewable” which doesn’t suck, the one which powers Norway, BC, Paraguay etc. As opposed to the wind which fails to power Spain. Which does suck. And those German solar panels at 50+ degrees north. Which suck.

      Hydro, “natural” gas, wind, solar. It’s all one bundle, right? And they have other things in common: eg there are the same number of letters in the word solar and the word hydro – so why separate them on the technicality that they are completely different technologies? Both renewable and both with the same number of letters…although I wouldn’t fancy doing the renewing of the wind and solar renewables with EU money taps etc in the OFF position.

      Nor do we mention the serviceable nukes which power France, which have converted her from energy pauper to top electricity exporter since the 1960s. If someone mentions France we talk about the foie gras.

      It’s all in the jesuitry…or investigative journalism, I should say.

      • [Repost response to Mosomoso
        Mosomoso, I agree. You make the points very well.

    • Peter, in Week in Review Judith links to a vast array of pertinent material that has caught her eye. That is in no way an endorsement, indeed, there are usually at least several items which many here might see as at odds with truth, beauty and rational policy, etc. One of which has prompted your post.

      Though I fear that you are preaching to the converted and the unconvertible (opposite of a drop-head).

      • Michael Cunningham,

        That argument doesn’t make sense to me. Climate orthodocy has dominated the media and propaganda coverage for 20 years. Those who question it get villified and called deniers. But Judith doesn’t try to show the errors by repeating the extremists’ scaremongering nonsense.

        The media coverage has been dominated by anti-nuke scaremongering for 50 years. You can read it all by going to many sties such as Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, Australia Conservation Foundation and the like. What is lacking is balanced, rational, factual, honest reporting of the facts.

        So why do you argue it make sense to explain the truth about climate science in a balanced, rational way, but propagate the anti-nuke scaremongering message about nuclear energy, instead of publicizing the credible, authoritative, balanced, factual information about nuclear energy?

      • Michael, thanks for reminding that things I post in week in review do not constitute an endorsement. I find them interesting, provocative, or they are otherwise receiving a lot of attention in the twit-o-sphere. I try to provide some balance also, so when I spot different perspectives on the same topic, i link to both

      • Peter Lang,

        “So why do you argue it make sense to explain the truth about climate science in a balanced, rational way….”

        As per Michael Cunningham and Jim2, the Week in Review posts are links to numerous articles and blog posts, the point of which is to encourage discussion by denizens of those items that pique their interest (or p*ss them off).

        From her About page:

        “Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.”

        No filtering, well, not on climate anyway.

      • Judith,

        Michael, thanks for reminding that things I post in week in review do not constitute an endorsement. I find them interesting, provocative, or they are otherwise receiving a lot of attention in the twit-o-sphere. I try to provide some balance also, so when I spot different perspectives on the same topic, i link to both

        You do a great job of that. But I can’t help noticing that you frequently post your own comment suggesting support for renewable energy and I can’t recall you posting informative, authoritative articles or papers to help your readers understand the facts – as distinct from the standard, well worn anti nuke propaganda that can be found in an enormous number of sites on the internet.

        For those who are seriously concerned about human caused GHG emissions, surely it would be valuable to provide educational, informative, factual, authoritative links to relevant and newsworthy articles in your Week in review.

        India is asking for help from the developed countries to reduce it’s GHG emissions. What the need more than anything is cheap small modular nuclear power stations. USA could ramp up to make those available – an not just for India. USA has set the world back 3 decades with the blocks to nuclear power. It could turn that around and lead the world to rapid progress. No other country has the ability to lead this as the USA does.

        Can I suggest you consider this. This approach is the opposite to a wicked problem. It applies the Pareto Principal – put most of your effort into solutions that will have the biggest and earliest effect. This can be done at little early net cost, quickly becoming no coat and them massively beneficial to societies across the world for ever forward. Can I urge you to look into this seriously.

    • Peter, I think she is posting this crap so that you can rip it apart and you do it well. This stuff needs to be exposed as crap. You’re both doing the world a service.

    • Correction, point 2 should have read:

      2. nuclear fission has the potential to achieve enormous costs reductions – by up to a fact of 100, and then there’s the many time greater power of fusion (and the potential cost reductions as we start using it eventually).

  53. Mosomoso, I agree. You make the points very well.

  54. I meant to post here, but it’s at the end of the Chris Essex, thread, Christopher Booker’s column “No one is talking about our utterly mad energy policy.” One for Peter Lang.

  55. Michael Cunningham,

    There is lots of informative information that could be posted on what is clearly the best policy for reducing global GHG emissions fastest. Why not encourage posting topical, educational information like the following instead of anti-nuke propaganda?

    US government pushes for small reactors

    Clean energy sources, including small modular nuclear reactors, must make up at least 25% of the energy consumed by US federal agencies by 2025 under an executive order on federal sustainability issued by the President. As the federal government is the single largest consumer of energy in the USA, the order – Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade – aims to promote federal leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while fostering innovation and reducing spending. Federal agencies are instructed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% over the decade. Initial priority will be given to reducing energy use and cost, followed by “finding renewable or alternative energy solutions”.

    The order defines energy from new small modular reactor (SMR) technologies as an alternative energy source, alongside renewables and CCS. The US Department of Energy is supporting the accelerated development and deployment of NuScale’s 50 MWe self-contained pressurized water reactor, with a five-year funding package of $217 million signed in May 2014.
    WNN 23/3/15. http://world-nuclear-news.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=140c559a3b34d23ff7c6b48b9&id=74f3eeb93e&e=a3b55276e6

  56. bedeverethewise

    any comment on this potential presidential candidate?


    • thanks for spotting this. i generally don’t watch videos (too time consuming), i will take a look to see if i can find anything in print.

      • Judith –

        Here’s another candidate you should add to your list:


        His comment came in an exchange between the neurosurgeon who’s likely to mount a bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination and his chief adviser, Armstrong Williams, captured by a GQ reporter on the night of this year’s State of the Union address.

        Williams had said Obama looked “elegant” that night.

        And Carson responded: “Like most psychopaths. That’s why they’re successful. That’s the way they look. They all look great.”

        Dude would fit right in as a Climate Etc. “denizen.”

      • A sampling:

        No more wiretapping of citizens

        Mr. Ayers as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” but “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
        News Busters

        I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps
        United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

        Obama campaign would accept public funding

        Minimum Wage will increase to $9.50/hr
        A Socialist

      • If you’re confused about the Saudi Arabia-led air attacks against Islamist rebels in Yemen and can’t tell one group of head-choppers in Iraq and Syria from another, don’t despair. All you need is imagination.
        Close your eyes and imagine that those countries and terrorists have nuclear weapons. Imagine their barbarism going nuclear as they blow up cities, wipe out ethnic and religious groups and turn the region into cinders.
        Now open your eyes and realize you’ve seen the future, thanks to President Obama’s policies. It is a future that will be defined by Obama’s Wars. Yes, plural.


      • bedeverethewise

        I watched the Ben Carson video you posted, but I couldn’t find any information related to climate change. Did you have a point?

    • Another ‘moderate’ Republican. With her prior business experience she would be welcomed with open arms by K Street and the Chamber of Commerce. Rightly or wrongly (and I think rightly) she would be expected to continue the Democrat/Republican substitution of crony capitalism for the free market.

      • The partnership between business and the government works well for them spying on us and passing laws to prevent us from starting businesses that compete with theirs; or simply throttling competitors so we have to pay through the nose.

        Businesses need to be forced to deal with the government at any level in public. In return, zero corporate tax.

        This would make the US the most business friendly country and would bring a lot of jobs to the US. Jobs give us money to spend and then we would be able to support the government through our taxes.

        Since we the voters would be paying the taxes, we might collectively come to the conclusion that government is too big, because we would have a much better idea how much money is getting burned there.

    • bedeverethewise

      I thought the Fiorina video was primarily interesting because she seems to acknowledges the scientific consensus, but seems to favor a different approach to solving the problem. (As much as possible in a 2 minute clip) And for this the video is subtitled Carly Fiorina Denies Climate Change.

      What scientific fact is she denying?

      • Acknowledging the consensus isn’t agreeing with it, and she doesn’t. She keeps saying it is half the science, and the bottom line is that she punted on the issue of climate change, saying a policy is no good if it is not global, and global is too expensive anyway.

      • bedeverethewise

        The half she was talking about was the what to do about it half. The what to do about it half is not settled science. Climate scientists tell us we need to “do something” and “act now”. When Ms. Fiorina says we need to innovate our way out of this problem, it tells me she accepts that it is some sort of problem and that her solution falls into the category of “do something”. Perhaps you feel she needs to be more specific in that we need to start innovating now, then she would satisfy climate science.

      • While her talk about innovation implies that she thinks that there is a problem, she did not articulate what that problem was, and she knows how much damage it would do to her backing if she said that there was any problem with not replacing fossil fuels going forwards. She is tiptoeing diplomatically and trying to thread a needle here.

  57. Here at CE, CAGWs are bashed for their “doom and gloom”. But when it comes to Renewable Energy (specifically solar) Catastrophic Straw Man Arguments are the norm as the “Truth”.

    While outnumbered by 99% to 1%, R.E. Supporters occasionally try and provide lacking objectivity in the one-sided dialogue here at CE.

    When it comes to reliability, the RE Doom and Gloom Group just refuse to acknowledge things like the SAIDI index — where under this accepted international engineering metric (that so called engineering experts here at CE obviously don’t even know about), Germany has one of the most reliable Systems in the World. Can we ever talk about Texas (ERCOT)?

    It’s fine to talk about problems like the Duck Curve. What’s not OK is to cherry-pick and accentuate examples (like Hawaii which sure isn’t integrated like the Mainland) as a Gotcha.

    What’s also not OK is not to recognize what is being done to address concerns like the Duck Curve — such as the tremendous number of flexible natural gas combined cycle units being installed which can track load (not just in California but throughout the entire U.S):


    People who read comments here at CE need to ask themselves a question. Is the opinion from a Good Faith Skeptic or a Bad Faith Contrarian?

    With solar representing point zero 23 percent (0.23) of the U.S. electricity mix. Nudge me when this number increases say, 20 times to ~5% and SAIDI and catastrophic outages are occurring throughout the U.S.

    Also, the “R.E. Doom & Gloomers” will get my attention when they are consistent in their arguments and that all energy subsidies should be reviewed and put on the table — not just Solar and Wind (as the Republican Senator from Iowa, Chuck Grassley says). People go ballistic over Solyndra, but can we ever talk about the same loan guarantee to the Vogtle nuclear units? Can we talk about Price/Anderson, which was not enacted to be permanent?

    • Catastrophic Straw Man Arguments.

      That’s a keeper.

      Or perhaps even, Catastrophic Straw Man Arguments as the Truth.

      Or perhaps, Straw Man Arguments Catastrophized Knowingly Every Day As Stupid Silliness? (SMACKED ASS).

    • SS,

      Your team – the steal from the poor and give to the rich – is winning, so why the angst? Why bring up the subsidy issue unless you are up for a self-immolation? Subsidies for “clean technology”, gosh, where do we begin?

      Ok, I give up. Take Tesla, for example. Tesla gets free carbon credits that they turn around and sell for $80,000,000 (note the zeros) so that they can lose money selling luxury electric car toys to rich people that get a tax credit to buy those cars which emit carbon dioxide at the power plant that burns fossil fuels. Whew! This is hard work!

      Guess who pays for the carbon credits!

      Thanks for reminding me about Solyndra and Hawaii. What with all the latest scams I almost forgot about those.

      Here’s some news for you:


      Cry uncle when you give up (Apple up next), ITMT watch out for your foot.

      • Justin Wonder — Is there any tax credit or subsidy to fossil fuels or nuclear power that you think should be reviewed/debated in Congress? Or is it just Renewables?

      • All susidies. Any subsidy will be subject to political patronage and will distort the market.

      • Justinwonder — Then you are a Ron Paul supporter on this topic, that all energy specific tax credits and subsidies should be eliminated.

        While I disagree with you and Mr. Paul, your position is one that can be certainly respected (Libertarian) — as long as you are consistent in your views to always include fossil fuels, nuclear, AND Renewables.

      • “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

        ― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

    • Stephen – I don’t want to pay for your clean energy. Any money you take from me is taken from my retirement fund. I guess you don’t see that as a catastrophe, but I do.

      • Jim2 — Senator Grassley says that all “energy specific” (not for general business that energy companies take) tax credits and subsidies should be put on the table for debate (which Congress doesn’t want to do) — not just wind and solar. Do you think Senator Grassley is correct or incorrect?

      • Yes, all should be on the table except nuclear. Nuclear is a reliable, 24/7 energy source that is cheap when done right. In my mind, it deserves some support from society at large.

      • Jim2 — Could you tell us why you feel U.S. subsidies to Nuclear are warranted — given the low cost of natural gas? I agree with Nuclear subsidies — but I don’t think our reasons are the same. I have the same argument that every pro-nuclear electricity CEO makes to Congress.

      • Natural gas won’t last forever, although we do have a lot of it. To me, just making sure we continue to develop safe and reliable nuclear power is a worthy goal. With the right fuel cycle, it will last a thousand years, and that not including thorium or fusion.

      • Stephen Segrest,

        Jim2 — Could you tell us why you feel U.S. subsidies to Nuclear are warranted

        That’s easy to answer. The electricity market has been massively tilted against nuclear over the past 50 years. Regulatory ratcheting has increased the costs of the current generation of reactors by about a factor of eight. Meanwhile,since the 1980’s we’ve been giving huge subsidies to unreliable, high cost, near valueless renewable energy. Even if all the regulations that are distorting the electricity market were removed overnight, it would take many decades for all the impacts of those distortions to be worked out of the system – e.g. all existing power stations replaced by new technologies that have not been negatively impacted by 50 years bad government regulations and irrational interventions in the relevant industries.

        Therefore it is entirely justifiable that society offset the costs they’ve imposed in order to get the markets leveled as quickly as possible and get innovation, competition, and the rate of roll-out of nuclear power back onto the accelerating trajectory that began in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

        Stephen, I’ve written this answer to your question for other CE readers. You know the answer already because you’ve asked the same question many times before and received the same answer many times before – and usually ignored it and moved straight onto asking some other question or making some other unsupported assertion.

  58. + 1000000000 on yr contributions to the energy debate,
    Peter and jim2

  59. Here’s an interesting twist on carbon credits. I do have to wonder why nuclear plants weren’t included in the first place.

    From the article:

    The biggest player in the beleaguered nuclear power industry wants a place alongside solar, wind and hydroelectric power collecting extra money for producing carbon-free electricity.

    Exelon Corp., operator of the largest fleet of U.S. nuclear plants, says it could have to close three of them if Illinois rejects the company’s pitch to let it recoup more from consumers since the plants do not produce greenhouse gases.

    Chicago-based Exelon essentially wants to change the rules of the state’s power market as the nuclear industry competes with historically low prices for natural gas. Dominion Resources Inc. recently closed the Kewaunee Power Station in Wisconsin for financial reasons, and Entergy Corp. likewise shuttered its Vermont Yankee plant.

    Plans for a new wave of U.S. nuclear plants have been delayed or cancelled, aside from three projects deep into construction at Plant Vogtle south of Augusta, Georgia; V.C. Summer Nuclear Station north of Columbia, South Carolina; and Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in eastern Tennessee. Electric utilities in those states do not face competition.

    Nuclear plants provide about 97 percent of the electricity supply in Exelon’s Midwest market, according to company filings.

    “We’re not looking for a bailout from market conditions,” said Joseph Dominguez, executive vice president for governmental and regulatory affairs at Exelon. “We are looking for policy support that every other technology receives in Illinois that produces zero-carbon electricity with the exception of nuclear.”

    Though it wants financial assistance, Exelon will not release detailed information about the cost of running the three Illinois plants in Quad Cities, Byron and Clinton that company officials say are most at-risk. An analysis by state agencies estimated the cost of producing power at those plants may exceed the payments they get, though they could not be certain.

    Exelon and other around-the-clock plants sometimes take losses when wind turbines produce too much electricity for the system.

    Exelon remained profitable overall, making $1.6 billion last year.

    “If the question is, ‘Are they under economic threat?’ I don’t think there’s any question they are,” said Paul Patterson, a utility analyst for Glenrock Associates LLC, who referred to nuclear plant closures elsewhere as evidence. “Will they shut down? I think it depends at what plant you’re looking at.”


  60. Graphene light bulbs no longer futuristic, consumer version ready


  61. “Climate alarmists, without any scientific basis/evidence whatsoever, now claim a tiny 1.5C warming is catastrophic [link]”

    Yes, I saw this movement of this goalpost. Very important. It’s now obvious that the catastrophists are losing the battle. The TCR has become so small now that the likelihood of +2C ever happening is becoming so vanishingly small that the only way to preserve the catastrophe is to reduce the temperature at which the catastrophe occurs.

  62. Group of Physicists

    This week the number of comments on Roy Spencer’s February data thread passed the 1,000 mark. This has probably been the most comprehensive discussion of the physics of the atmosphere that has ever been all brought together in a single climate blog thread.

    There is a summary on a new thread starting here and I recommend all should read the author’s comments in that newer thread.

  63. Has anyone read this study by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology:

    “Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing”

    see here:


    It is paywalled for those of us who are not members of the AMS

    The abstract claims that areosol forcings have been misjudged. Would this have an effect on CO2 sensitivity?

  64. Danny Thomas

    Looking for further insight. Ran across this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1373930/-Massive-Glacier-Melt-and-Fresh-Water-are-Pouring-into-the-Gulf-of-Alaska?
    From which this came: “Once these glacial rivers pour out into the larger body of water, they’re picked up by ocean currents, moving east to west, and begin to circulate there. This is one of the primary methods that iron — found in the clay and sediment of the glacial runoff — is transported to iron-deprived regions in the middle of the Gulf of Alaska.”
    Which lead me to this: http://www.npr.org/2012/07/18/156976147/can-adding-iron-to-oceans-slow-global-warming
    then to this study:
    Money shot (last line in abstract):” Thus, iron-fertilized diatom blooms may sequester carbon for timescales of centuries in ocean bottom water and for longer in the sediments.

  65. Group of Physicists

    This week the science was settled …




    International Journal of Modern Physics B (Impact Factor: 0.46). 01/2012; 23(22). DOI: 10.1142/S0217979209052893
    ABSTRACT Thermodynamic deduction and experimental results both demonstrate that gravitation causes temperature gradient in an adiabatic system, i.e., gravithermal effect: The higher altitude the lower temperature.

    Source: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/263879139_TEMPERATURE_GRADIENT_CAUSED_BY_GRAVITATION