skierinvermont

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

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

You seriously want the landscape covered in solar and wind farms?  That is what would be needed. I don't. I like wildlife and nature. 

I already refuted this lie as well.

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

And one more thing, when the price of energy goes sky high because of wind and solar which now dots the landscape and degrades the environment, 

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.

On 10/4/2020 at 3:49 PM, skierinvermont said:

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.

 

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

From Politico:

The August Complex of wildfires surpassed the grim milestone Monday of over 1 million acres burned, the first blaze in recorded California history to reach seven figures of acreage.

The update by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection on the August Complex in the north coastal range of mountains came just after the agency announced Sunday that the state has seen over 4 million acres burned so far this year. That's more than the double the total destruction of 1.9 million acres burned in all of 2018, the previous record year.

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/10/05/california-has-first-million-acre-megafire-as-devastating-season-sets-new-records-1321356

 

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.

On 10/3/2020 at 7:59 AM, donsutherland1 said:

The implicit assumption of little or no increase in production of renewable energy to support the idea that California’s electric car mandate would be a disaster is almost certainly not the most likely outcome. Overall, California’s revised mid-range estimate for annual energy consumption growth over the next 10 years is 1.3% per year.

Cost advantages currently exist for fossil fuel companies, but not all for market-based reasons. First, the federal government subsidizes oil and gas activities with roughly $10 billion per year in assistance, through tax expenditures that include energy production tax credits, energy investment tax credits, expensing of exploration/development costs, and even modest royalty payments to coal companies.

Second, fossil fuel companies do not have to pay any of the cost associated with their carbon-related externalities. This leads to a significant underpricing for the companies, as society winds up bearing those costs through increased costs of disaster recovery, mitigation for rising seas, etc. Put another way, taxpayers wind up paying for the costs of pollution they did not cause.

Until those factors are addressed, the reported production cost figures come with a huge asterisk. The numbers are skewed, because part of the fossil fuel companies’ expenses are paid not by the companies, but by the taxpayers/society.

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.

On 10/3/2020 at 6:12 AM, blizzard1024 said:

Wind and solar are not nearly as efficient as natural gas. Natural gas probably is the best source of energy at the moment as it burns much cleaner than oil or coal.  Wind has to be blowing and the sun needs to be shining for wind and solar. That isn't always the case. Plus storing energy from these sources is problematic. Also the materials to make wind farms and solar farms takes energy. Where does that energy come from? Burning fossil fuels. The electric car mandate in CA will be a disaster. If the fleet of electric cars reaches 25% the amount of power needed to charge these vehicles will surpass the ability of renewable energy to power these vehicles. Fossil fuels will be needed to power these electric cars. Fossil fuels are positively correlated with an increased standard of living. Cheap reliable power leads to prospering economies. If we go to renewables too soon, it will be a disaster. I don't care how many times you tell me wind and solar are cheaper. That is your opinion. If they were cheaper and efficient the free market would embrace them to increase profits. Energy companies would adopt this new untapped energy source and make a fortune. Remember CFCs? Dupont made alternatives to CFCs and made a fortune selling the alternatives. Energy companies would do the same thing if it were profitable. But it obviously isn't. 

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.

2 hours ago, tamarack said:

If "going to renewables" means total elimination of fossil fuel use by 2035, IMO that would be a bridge too far - 70-80% seems more doable for this non-expert.  The transportation nut will be a hard one to crack.  I see moving to renewables for electricity generation as doable but creating the necessary technology and distribution system seems a bigger hurdle.  For one thing, we'd want/need batteries in vehicles that charge a lot faster than today - it's moving in the right direction and I'm confident there's lots of research but wonder how far (and soon) it can go.  We might need a nationwide effort in the same general manner as creating the interstate highway system.   

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.

17 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Going to renewables by 2035 would destroy our economy. 

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

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

It is logarithmic. This is from the climate activist blog realclimate   RF = 5.35 ln(CO₂/CO₂_orig).  In math "ln" means natural logarithm in case you didn't know this. So indeed lower amounts of CO2 have more of an influence so the statement that CO2 was too low so other effects dominated the climate system and now it is dominating the system is false mathematically.  

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.

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

The timing in the sea-level chart is the same as the temperature+CO2 chart. Increases in all three started in the late 1700s.

 

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).

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

 What about the warmth of the 1930s? Did we really know what the ocean heat content was back then?

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.

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Well this statement clearly violates policy and this user is going. And your rudeness should not be tolerated either. This is very classic since you can't back up your claims or are insecure about the science (which is FULL of holes) you resort to attacks.  I don't attack you. You can believe what you want. That is your free choice. My scientific opinions ARE valid and really common sense. But you can see things your way. I won't attack you. Why should I? 

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.

11 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

You're done on this forum. You will get banned now. I will make sure of it. 

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

13 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

If there was a warming or cooling spike of similar magnitude as today's say in the 1300s would the proxy data be able to detect it given how coarse the dataset is and that it is in fact proxy data?  The proxy data shown in this first paper of this topic shows little change in global average temperature during the Roman Warm Period, Dark age cold period, Medieval Warm period, It does show LIA cooling to some extent. The greenland ice core data clearly shows these temperature fluctuations back for much of the holocene with an overall trend similar to the first paper's results. However as you can see there are a lot of rapid fluctuations. How can we be sure this wasn't global in nature?

 

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.

On 9/26/2020 at 4:21 AM, blizzard1024 said:

Use the proxy data into the 21st century. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Why not look at the proxy data to the 21st century?   I think there is a divergence issue around 1960 though when proxy data shows a fall in temperature. That was Michael Mann's hide the decline "trick".  He wasn't hiding a real temperature decline as is often portrayed on other blogs. For some reason tree ring data diverge from temperatures around this time. I have seen this stitching of 20th century data to proxy data for over 20 years. I will research this by reading those papers again. I didn't get it before back 15-20 years ago. It looks fishy to me. But I will approach it with an open mind. Thanks. 

 

 

 

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.

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

It's actually common sense.  A minor greenhouse gas which never dominated the climate system in the past now does.  Lindzen is a brilliant scientist. he would eat you alive in a debate. And no, they are not just siding with common sense to protect the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the mainstream climate scientists are protecting their billions of dollars worth of taxpayer funded research money. You can say the same thing for these climate "activists" who are supposed to be objective scientists. They own the peer review process.  If you don't conform, you either don't get your MS, PhD, or your tenure. President Eisenhower warned about this kind of behavior in his farewell presidential address back in 1961. We are living it today. 

 

 

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.

4 hours ago, bdgwx said:

People wonder why Dr. Spencer's reputation and legitimacy is being questioned. Well here you go...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/climate-hustle-2-premieres-this-evening-at-8-p-m/

"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.

13 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Overall century time periods, it is very unlikely that climatic features are "regional". There is also a lot of evidence of a MWP and LIA in the SH. I will dig those papers. But we know that Dessler and company are the gatekeepers of peer review which shuts down anything they don't agree with.   

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.

7 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Like what for instance....

3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The Arctic Dipole.

https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/arctic-sea-ice-movement-pattern-and-arctic-rapid-change-pattern-arctic-dipole-anomaly/973

Or a weakening of the Walker circulation

29 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

So basically the Arctic stayed extremely cold during the MWP because of a +NAO for centuries? Eventually this would break down. Likewise a -NAO for centuries would mean large high pressure systems up there which eventually by radiational cooling would break down. This shows a deep lack of understanding of the NAO and atmospheric fluid dynamics. 

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.

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

Again, the 850 mb specific humidity declines from the late 1970s to 2000, a time of warming. This is within the convective mixed layer. Warming oceans should lead to more evaporation. This doesn't make physical sense. At upper levels, temperature and specific humidity are almost 1:1 correlation. What process would cause that other than changes in global convection? Increased global convection leads to vertical transport of heat and moisture and hence this basically linear correlation. You don't need peer review literature here. You think for yourself. This is very basic meteorology. That is why most meteorologists don't buy all the hype related to this so-called climate crisis. Most if not all meteorologists I know agree CO2 doubling will lead to modest warming but not the hyped up scenarios portrayed by the mainstream climate scientists.  These folks are looking out for their careers, egos and fame. I have followed this topic for 30 years and I have seen many folks in atmospheric sciences leave research because of this scientific "corruption". The climate emails of the late 2000s were classic and really the tip of the iceberg in this field. So to answer your question, there is no peer review on this. The atmospheric theory for upper tropospheric moistening in the ERA5 is global convection changes. And the ERA5 data is flawed in that there should be more evaporation off the oceans with a warmer Earth from insolation and the convective mixed layer. This is really basic stuff here. I attached the 300 and 850 mb q and T, q by the way is specific humidity if you didn't know that. 

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.

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

I don't like that ERA5 is inconsistent in its specific humidity in the lower atmosphere and that it is so well correlated to temperature at high levels. This is a problem to me.

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?

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

In 1997 he put the 2xCO2 sensitivity at 0.3-0.5C (see Lindzen 1997). There is some equivocation in the paper above, but it sounds like he is now entertaining a value on the lower end of the IPCC range at about 1.5C. The rate at which his estimates have increased is about +0.45C/decade...faster than the actual warming rate.

I will say that at least Lindzen proposes a legitimate hypothesis for supporting lower climate sensitivities...the iris effect. The question is...does Earth really have a mechanism like this that makes it resistant to climate change? The paleoclimate record seems to suggest that the Earth is quite amendable to large changes given the proper nudge and with each passing decade in the contemporary warming era we are constraining the lower the bound of sensitivities to higher and higher values. Each passing decade of warming is making Lindzen's iris effect and change resistant hypothesis appear less and less likely.

BTW...A recent comprehensive style study puts the lower bound at 2.6-3.9C and 2.3-4.7C for 1-sigma and 2-sigma confidence respectively (see Sherwood 2020 and free). 

Also, I just want to say that I do not condone the tone and rhetoric used against you. I do not think you are a liar, troll, or Russian (not that nationality matters). And while I do not think the body evidence supports the position you advocate for I still think you've handled yourself respectfully nonetheless. I think if you and I sat down for a beer (or coffee) we'd probably get along just fine. I still think you're wrong about climate science though

 

 

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.

6 hours ago, bdgwx said:

In 1997 he put the 2xCO2 sensitivity at 0.3-0.5C (see Lindzen 1997). There is some equivocation in the paper above, but it sounds like he is now entertaining a value on the lower end of the IPCC range at about 1.5C. The rate at which his estimates have increased is about +0.45C/decade...faster than the actual warming rate.

I will say that at least Lindzen proposes a legitimate hypothesis for supporting lower climate sensitivities...the iris effect. The question is...does Earth really have a mechanism like this that makes it resistant to climate change? The paleoclimate record seems to suggest that the Earth is quite amendable to large changes given the proper nudge and with each passing decade in the contemporary warming era we are constraining the lower the bound of sensitivities to higher and higher values. Each passing decade of warming is making Lindzen's iris effect and change resistant hypothesis appear less and less likely.

BTW...A recent comprehensive style study puts the lower bound at 2.6-3.9C and 2.3-4.7C for 1-sigma and 2-sigma confidence respectively (see Sherwood 2020 and free). 

Also, I just want to say that I do not condone the tone and rhetoric used against you. I do not think you are a liar, troll, or Russian (not that nationality matters). And while I do not think the body evidence supports the position you advocate for I still think you've handled yourself respectfully nonetheless. I think if you and I sat down for a beer (or coffee) we'd probably get along just fine. I still think you're wrong about climate science though

 

 

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.

6 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

This is an excellent paper by two brilliant atmospheric scientists... 

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/CO2 coalition Lindzen On Climate Sensitivity.pdf

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