skierinvermont

The size of this will make it almost as bad as Laura

I already refuted this lie as well.

This is a lie, as I have explained 11 times now. Still don't think this guy is a liar bdgwx? I've posted this 11 times now and he has continued to make the same false claim, with zero evidence. He is not here in good faith.

That's 4% of the state. Just guessing maybe half the state is burnable, which would be 8% of the burnable acreage. And then if you total up what has burned in the last 5 years, maybe 15-20% of the burnable acreage has burned.

Yes this a good point Don. Even without assigning a cost to the pollution of coal and natural gas, wind and solar are still equal in cost. If you assign a cost to the pollution caused by natural gas and coal, wind and solar are far cheaper economically.

As the numbers I posted just showed, everything you just wrote is a lie. Wind and solar are equally as cheap and efficient as natural gas, and getting cheaper, and the free-market does embrace them equally with natural gas already.

Yup, 70-80% seems about right by 2035 based on the technology available today and how other countries have been progressing. My guess (based on little actual research other than what's happening in other countries and the prices I see) is that 70-80% could be achieved for 50-100B per year in federal investment. The next 10% might cost as much as the first 60% to force by 2035.

This is a lie and you know it is. As I have explained 7 times to you over the last month, wind and solar energy cost approximately the same as natural gas, and much less than coal. This is why wind and solar are already being chosen by the free-market and comprise nearly 50% of new electric generation capacity over the last 5 years. In other words, when a power company has to decide what new power to build, they choose either wind or natural gas, and occasionally solar, because these are the cheapest sources. With a modest investment at the federal level, this process could be sped up dramatically without any increase in electric costs (with a small cost to the taxpayer). It would dramatically improve our ozone and PM2.5 pollution in addition to reducing future climate change. Countries like Germany have already succeeded in this with only 39% of energy coming from fossil fuels, while maintaining a very high standard of living. Your Haiti and economic destruction scare tactics are despicable, fly in the face of the most basic facts (that have been shared with you 8 times now), and reveal your complete lack of objectivity. Your lies do not fool or convince anybody. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

You just repeated what I said. I know what ln means lol. Who do you think you are? Make up your mind. Was there significant CO2 forcing before 1945, or not? The graph you posted said that the warming before 1945 can't be CO2 because almost all the CO2 was after 1945. Now you're saying the opposite. Such a joke. The reality is significant CO2 forcing occurred before 1945.

Yes I was going to point out the same thing. He's straight contradicting himself. And as he well knows, the radiative forcing of CO2 is logarithmic and so just because the large majority of CO2 emissions occurred after 1945, doesn't mean the large majority of the forcing did (still a majority, but there was significant CO2 forcing before 1945).

I’ll add to what don already said. As I have explained before and you have ignored, one of the ways scientists know ocean heat content back then is sea level rise. The primary cause of sea level rise has been thermal expansion, thus far. Go read some papers if you have concerns about how scientists measure ohc back then. You’re not the first person to think of this. Far from it.

So I'm rude and insecure but you don't resort to attacks. OK. You're leaving the forum but you're not. Make up your mind. You post blogs funded by political action committees and fossil fuels, most other posters post peer-reviewed literature. It's a credit to the patience and intelligence of Don, bdwx, and Chubbs that they are willing to take the time to try to reason with some of the gaping errors in what you post. I mean you didn't even understand the time of observation adjustment required in the USHCN temperature data so that we're not comparing temperatures from 3pm in 1900 to temperatures at 7pm today. Or don't adjust, just treat them as separate stations when the time of observation changes. To those of us who have been studying climate science for the last 15 years we know the details of these papers and methods like the backs of our hands and your posts aren't telling us anything we haven't heard 100 times before. I literally made the exact same arguments myself, word for word and citing many of the same sources and all the same authors as you, in campus newspapers and on my radio show until I realized I was an idiot. You could at least try to understand the level of frustration that incurs. The argument that USHCN adjustments are wrong is old old old news and has been debunked many many times before on this forum.

Just like you swore you were leaving the forum and came back about 18 hours later. Folks had a good laugh at that.

The answer to your question is yes. The coarseness of the proxies is taken into account when calculating uncertainty ranges displayed in the gray shading. This is the uncertainty for mean annual temperature. Not decadal or century scale temperature. Also if I am reading the graph correctly, it does show a modest MWP and LIA. with temperatures 150 years ago about .25C colder than 1000 years ago. What you are doing by fixating on one ice core from one particular location is called cherry-picking. The Kaufmann study uses data from all of these locations and sources to arrive at a best estimate with appropriate mathematical estimates of uncertainty.

As long as appropriate error bars are used and the author is open and honest about what is happening, there is no problem with stitching. You can have one graph of proxies, and another totally separate graph of instrumental temp, if you prefer. The conclusion is the same. Warming of the speed and magnitude recorded by instruments over the last 150 years would have been extremely unlikely given the proxy data.

Lindzen has been paid by oil and gas companies and the Koch brothers. The paper is full of basic factual errors. He literally just makes stuff up. He made up the forcing number since 1900 for example. It reads like a high schooler wrote it. And it starts off with an overtly political statement that completely undermines his credibility. "eat me a live in a debate" lol.. what do you think this is a reality TV show? This is science, and Lindzen's paper is a political screed full of factual error.

"Not surprisingly, as Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs demonstrate in their Planet of the Humans documentary, those real agendas are money, power, ideology and control. Especially, control over our energy, economy, industries, living standards and personal choices. " Overtly political. He is who we always knew who he was. The self-promotion, politics, and fossil-fuel connections of Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen do not make for objectivity or good science.

Yeah which is why Curry has been published numerous times with conclusions at odds with most other climate scientists. Just one of the many examples I have given that are published and peer-reviewed against the consensus. But you ignore as usual and at your own peril.

Or a weakening of the Walker circulation

Funny.. even in the last hundred years there have been changes in circulation patterns. And yet you argue it couldn’t have happened in the past.

Let me make sure I understand. Your argument is that warmer oceans should show more specific humidity at 850, not 300. Since the increase in specific humidity is only at 300 (according to ERA5), this shows that the there is no feedback and the increase at 300 is due solely to convection, not warming? I can think of a number of problems with this but I want to make sure I understand you first.

It's a problem to you based on what actual evidence? It is based on observations, peer-reviewed for quality, and matches atmospheric theory that has been around for over a century. Where is your evidence of your problem?

Estimates of sensitivity based off of modern warming actually haven’t tended to confirm higher estimates of sensitivity. They have pointed to the lower estimates of 1.5-2.5. The ipcc addressed why they though these methodologies yielded lower results. So I don’t think each passing decade of warming has done much to constrain other than reaffirming above 1.5. It is other lines of evidence that point even higher. also the biggest problem with lindzens paper isn’t that it’s inconsistent with other lines of evidence. The biggest problem, as I pointed out before, is that he makes some of the numbers up out of thin air. Such as 3w/m2 of forcing total by 2010. Wrong and no evidence provided. He converts forcing plus sensitivity to temperature change with no evidence. Then he works backwards to say that well since we haven’t seen that much warming the sensitivity is wrong. Except it’s not the sensitive that’s wrong. It’s the forcing that he got wrong. And he got the transient temperature response to forcing wrong as well. His assumptions are just made up. Judith curry uses the exact same method but gets the numbers for forcing and transient temperature response per forcing correct and comes up with a higher answer.

If you don’t think he’s a liar you haven’t been paying attention. He’s literally claimed to have read a paper when he didn’t know what paper it was that he was saying he read. But he read it! Whether you want to say it or not, that is a lie. I used to teach middle schoolers, caught them in the same sort of lie all the time. Did you turn in your assignment? Yes. Which one? Oh I don't know. we might disagree on the productivity or civility of pointing out somebody’s lies. That’s fine. I've never been one to tolerate lying. But it doesn’t change the fact that his deliberate deceptions are quite clear and I will always point out when someone is here to lie, make political points, and ignore the scientific rebuttals to their statements. His statements that wind mills are devastating to birds are particularly dishonest especially given he has been informed of the fact 5 times now that wind turbines kill a very small number of birds compared to many other human causes. He has completely ignored these facts and continued posting that wind turbines are devastating to birds. He claimed that to power the U.S. would require a land area 4x the area of solar (a completely made up figure that doesn't even pass the smell test). When I provided evidence that the actual figure is 1/8th of that (to go 100% solar which of course nobody is proposing), he issued no mea culpa. It's quite clear to me that he made the 4x figure up and doesn't care what the truth is. I also found it disingenuous that when don and I presented evidence of the earths energy imbalance he ignored the merits of the evidence and quite clearly deliberately changed the subject. if he would like to apologize for these particular lies, I would be happy to stick to the merits or lack thereof of his other arguments. But as it stands I have no choice to point out that these are lies, and the deliberate intent is clear.

Lindzen has taken fossil fuel money his whole career. Besides the whole paper is flawed and reads as though a high school senior wrote it. His whole argument is premised that there was 3w/m2 of forcing by 2010, he based this off of nothing. No evidence was provided and I’ve read the whole paper. The actual figure is only 2.3. Then he does some magic without any evidence to convert forcing into temperature based off hypothesized climate sensitivity without any any serious consideration of how oceans absorbing the heat slow the warming down. It’s a bunch of hand waving and radical oversimplification written by a senile old man trying to collect his last check from the Koch brothers. It also had no formal peer review. And I’ve never seen a paper where the authors toot their own horn so much. The Judith curry paper - despite its flaws - was infinitely better than this one and comes to a much higher estimate of sensitivity with a central estimate of 1.55. Lindzen comes up with a hard maximum of 1.5 and a central estimate of like 1. But all his hand waving, false assumptions, oversimplification etc are all that really separates this from the Judith curry paper. It’s the same basic method of estimating climate sensitivity from current temp trends, he just has no attention to detail or getting the numbers correct. At least curry tried to appear scientific and didn’t just make stuff up in her paper. Its sort of funny but also quite sad that you think this is brilliant science