Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 Next
Comments 6651 to 6700:
-
John Hartz at 00:58 AM on 1 October 2020How Climate Change is Worsening California's Fires
Recommended supplemental reading:
Why we’re more confident than ever that climate change is driving disasters
The emerging field of climate attribution helps explain the wildfires and hurricanes of 2020.
by Umair Irfan, Energy & Environment, Vox, Sep 30, 2020
-
Eclectic at 15:44 PM on 30 September 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
Am wishing to donate, but running into trouble with Experiment.com
(and am not wishing to use facebook)
Attempt No.1 produced the Rotating Colorwheel of Death (or Capture?)
Attempt No.2 produced a Whoops Connection Problem.
For a klutz like me, one strike produces suspicion - and the second strike produces paranoia. Can friendly experts advise? Is there a Plan C (without Paypal) ?
-
scaddenp at 08:51 AM on 30 September 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
That is a worthwhile question. Good for you on persistance. Adding my ducats.
-
Doug Bostrom at 04:47 AM on 30 September 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
What harrowing rollercoaster ride, RedBaron. But here you are, on the other side, or at least successfully and solidly at the next stage.
I'd not revisited this thread since my original comment (thanks for the pointer, Baerbel). I have to say I was extremely dejected during the period of your narrative where it seemed experiment.com had ceased operations. It's a great outfit— I've "participated" in several projects there, always with a satisfactory outcome.
We'd be interested in publishing a guest blog post about this. Not only is your project quite interesting but the story of how you've persisted is pretty inspirational.
As well, for others it might be helpful to learn about how the process at experiment.com works, from a hardened veteran. In particular it would be fascinating to hear about the peer review process.
If you're interested and have the time, please contact us via the contact form.
For the rest of us: if you've got a few ducats to spare, head over and progress RedBaron's experiment. It takes only a few minutes of your time taken from tapping and swiping dismal headlines and the sacrifice of a deluxe but fattening pizza's worth of money to make the world better.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:28 AM on 30 September 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
Glad to hear you could launch RB, contribution sent.
-
RedBaron at 19:49 PM on 29 September 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
@4 doug_bostrom and all others who supported my efforts,
I have great news! It took a 6 month delay due to covid, and months in peer review by their science team, but I finally was able to launch the science fundraiser project! It went live yesterday.
What is the rate a new regenerative agricultural method sequesters carbon in the soil?
I would appreciate very much help from any of you that understand better than me how to share this, Advertising is unfortunately not one of my skills. It was hard enough for me to develop the methods and design the scientific tials!
Oh and BTW one of the first questions everyone asks me when they see this is why the grass between the crop rows? In this case a picture is worth a thousand words.
-
MA Rodger at 17:28 PM on 29 September 2020CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration
Gerard Bisshop @5,
The time for half a CO2 pulse to be drawn-down out of the atmosphere into oceans & biosphere is dependent on the size of the pulse. The graph you link to (from Joos et al 2013) showing 30yr is for a 100Gt(C) pulse, so a pulse equal to a decade's worth of anthropogenic emissions. Anthropogenic emissions are approaching 700Gt(C) and models for a 1,000Gt(C) pulse or 5,000Gt(C) pulse show it takes much longer to reach that 50%-of-pulse level, perhaps 150y & 450y respectively (eg Archer et al 2009), thus making the draw-down numbers more at odds with Af=45% (which means 55% is removed within the year).
The 'circle' is squared because Af is a measure of the annual draw-down compared with a single year's emissions. Draw-down value is of course dependent on far more than a single year's emissions, indeed dependent on the emissions accumulated over the previous decades. So that 55% comprises, say, 2% of Y(0), 1.5% of Y(-1), 1.25% of Y(-2), 1% Y(-3), etc, these all adding up to 55% of Y(0). If we did manage to zero emissions in 2021, draw-down would continue, the atmospheric CO2 would thus drop and the calculation of Af would require a division by zero.
GWP numbers by definition yield GWP(CO2)=1 and use the forcing resulting over a specified period (eg 100y) from 1t(CO2) released into the atmosphere after draw-down is factored in, a draw-down which is dependent on expected accumulative totals of CO2 emissions. The level of draw-down is not considered set in stone and still subject to research. For instance CarbonBrief have coverage of a recent paper reassessing the ocean drawdown. So far, the GCMs do not model the carbon cycle (and of course have to assume future anthropogenic emissions fo all GHGs) so the level of CO2 (and other GHG levels) are inputs assumed for each GCM run.
-
Gerard.Bisshop at 10:45 AM on 29 September 2020CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration
Can you please explain more about the airborne fraction of CO2? The models of CO2's atmospheric lifetime show that half the original CO2 emission is taken up by the oceans and vegetation in about 30 years. But according to the global carbon budget and the airborne fraction, 55% or so is removed from the atmosphere each year.
So for emission scenarios of different sectors or gases, how is the airborne fraction factored in? GWP calculations, for example, rely on the AGWP or each gas compared to the AGWP of CO2, so is CO2's AGWP devalued by the airborne fraction when compared to, say, methane from fugitive emissions (leaks).
This would not be an issue for climate models I imagine (because they work on the CO2 in the atmosphere), but for any analysis of sectors or gases it must make a difference.
-
John Hartz at 09:55 AM on 29 September 2020How Climate Change is Worsening California's Fires
Recommended supplemental reading:
Climate change "increases the risk of wildfires", World Meteorlogical Organization (WMO) News, Sep 28, 2020
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:58 AM on 29 September 2020Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?
ray_climate:
It would be helpful if you provided a link to the diagrams you are pondering about, but...
...to provide a diagram of net flows between land and ocean would require that these values be calculated. I suggested a method that allows an approximation of the latent heat (water vapour) flux. No such simple method applies for thermal fluxes, and those fluxes are not rotuinely measured.
Weather and climate models would have such horizontal flux numbers imbedded in their calculations, but to sum them up in a land<-->ocean manner would require a lot of work - starting with outlining all the boundaries between land and ocean in a manner that would allow tracking of fluxes over time.
-
ray_climate at 04:35 AM on 29 September 2020Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?
Bob Loblaw @4. I appreciate that helpful and thorough explanation. Regarding the ocean/land analogue of the Trenberth diagram, I appreciate the fact that we live in a 3-dimensional world with 3-dimensional processes. However the same comment applies to the [land+ocean] Trenberth et al diagram, bu it is nonetheless very useful as attested to by the numerous times climate scientists reproduce it. So I would still like to see two side by side energy flow diagrams I referred to.
-
BaerbelW at 21:21 PM on 26 September 2020Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?
JWRebel @1
Thanks for the heads-up! The issue should be fixed now and the printable version of the blog post shows up again.
-
wayne19608 at 06:57 AM on 26 September 2020Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?
Quite frankly these numbers are useless for a large number of people that aren't sourcing their food that way(which is sort of acknowledged). I just don't see how the numbers can hold up. beef cattle vs dairy really? or sheep or chicken or pork? I've raised them all and can tell you that the energy inputs for beef cattle can consistently be way less than above. Sheep and goats might be slightly more efficient grazers but they make up for it in size comparisons and surface area to volume ratios
-
JWRebel at 06:47 AM on 26 September 2020Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?
The printable version is the wrong reference, produces empty page for interactive feature. This comment intended only as signal before being deleted.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:41 AM on 25 September 2020Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?
ray_climate @ 2:
The most obvious horizontal transfers of energy between oceans and land masses is related to the hydrological cycle.
- Preciptiation over land greatly exceeds evaporation from land.
- Evaporation from oceans greatly exceeds preciptiation over oceans
- The size of the difference can be measured by total runoff from rivers into oceans.
- Every bit of liquid water that runs off land into oceans need to be replaced by water vapour transported from oceans to land (and falls as precipitation over land).
- Evaporating water from oceans requires energy input.
- Condensation of water vapour to form clouds releases that energy.
- The end result is a transfer of energy from oceans to land areas (or the overlying atmosphere).
Thermal energy is also transported horizontally by atmospheric circulation.
All this happens in a three-dimensional world. One-dimensional or two-dimensional images can be limiting.
-
michael sweet at 10:28 AM on 24 September 2020Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?
Darinscoop,
CO2 gas is evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. The molecules do not form clusters but are evenly mixed. Heat is evenly absorbed according to the concentration of the greenhouse gasses. As you increase in height from the surface the pressure decreases and the concentration decreases. If you read a description of a layer of CO2 it was probably a simplification to make the idea of energy absorbtion easier to understand.
I am not sure what your question about boiling water is asking. It is possible to boil water by heating the sides or top of a container. The energy flow in the atmosphere is: Sun- surface- atmosphere- outer space.
-
ray_climate at 07:12 AM on 24 September 2020Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?
An excellent post! But the differential cannot go on increasing indefintely. Basic thermodynamics suggests a net transfer of flux from land to ocean.Is this via atmospheric circulation? what is its characterisitic? What is the approximate current value of this net flux?
We are all familiar with the wonderful Trenberth et al pictorial of the global energy budget. A variation showing two such diagrams, one for ocean, one for land, with the aforementioned flox indicated would be a great adjunct to this post. Does such exist? Any climate scientist willing to provide such?
-
Darinscoop at 05:28 AM on 24 September 2020Why does land warm up faster than the oceans?
As far as CO gasses creating a shielded heat layer between the the surface and the earths atmospherer, it's difficult to think of molecular clustes chaining together unless the gasses lie on a 2-dimensional plain. Wouldn't heat tend to escape through any means of CO gasses if clusters exists at differing elevations? Also, have you ever try to boil water from a heat source that either came from the top or the sides of the container? I'm still trying to understand this logic.
-
michael sweet at 01:52 AM on 24 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
This Guardian news article describes a poll where 70% of voters were in favor of climate action. The article claims that this result indicates that in the upcoming election politicians who are climate deniers will suffer from voters who want climate action.
I hope that is true. Even if it is not true this election, this is a much stronger result than polls in the past about climate action. More politicians are discussing renewable energy and other climate actions. Hopefully we will start to see real action with the next presiident.
Vote Climate!
-
MA Rodger at 22:52 PM on 22 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Keithy @10,
Luckily there are many folk who consider it useful to provide an answer for such a basic question. And if you were to search the wonderous world-wide internet you would quickly encounter the results of their considerations.
-
Keithy at 15:20 PM on 22 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
So, what is net zero emissions?
-
Keithy at 15:29 PM on 21 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Nigelj, are you the only person in the universe who doesn't respond well to having other people's words put in your mouth?
Moderator Response:[BL] Off-topic snipped.
You have been warned several times. Stick to a topic. avoid throw-away snipes, and at least try to engage in some constructive dialog.
Once again: Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
-
John Hartz at 08:10 AM on 21 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
nigelj: I respectfully choose not to answer a hypothetical question. :)
-
nigelj at 06:36 AM on 21 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
John Hartz ha ha yes perhaps. However M Sweet started the bickering. I am normally a very easy going person and very forgiving, but I dont respond well when people deliberately put words in my mouth or repeatedly accuse me of doing or saying things Im not doing or saying. How about you John?
-
John Hartz at 04:13 AM on 21 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Michael Sweet & nigelj: Your recent exchanges remind me of the old-time radio show of my youth, The Bickersons.
Per Wikipedia:
The Bickersons was a radio comedy sketch series that began September 8, 1946, on NBC, moving the following year to CBS where it continued until August 28, 1951. The show's married protagonists, portrayed by Don Ameche (later by Lew Parker) and Frances Langford, spent nearly all their time together in relentless verbal war.
-
nigelj at 11:54 AM on 20 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
michael sweet @4
"In your comment you suggest people will think that 1-2 trillion dollars per year is expensive for a renewable energy system."
I did. Its obvious because $ 1 trillion dollars sounds a lot to the average person. It needed to be put in context that it is only 1.5% of gdp, and right at the top of the article. However those people who read the whole article would see that it isn't such a large sum, so your comments are not really connected to the point I was making.
"You do not consider what fossil energy would cost....."
Where do I not consider that? I know perfectly well what a fossil fuel system would cost, a great deal as you correctly point out.
Please stop telling me things I already know. Please stop implying Im not aware these things, or that I disagree with these things.
It might help if you had said "people should consider...." Is that what you meant?
"In the report cited they say that a renewable energy system will cost less than a fossil fuel system. "
I have read the report. I said its "a good report". So obviously I agree with the report.
I mean with all due respect, what the hell are you going on about?
-
michael sweet at 10:30 AM on 20 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Nigelj:
In your comment you suggest people will think that 1-2 trillion dollars per year is expensive for a renewable energy system. You do not consider what fossil energy would cost. If fossil energy costs 3 trillion dollars per year and renewable energy costs 2 trillion dollars per year than the renewable energy is a bargain. In the report cited they say that a renewable energy system will cost less than a fossil fuel system. In addition, the reduction in pollution from using renewable energy will save trillions of dollars in costs, especially health costs and climate costs.
You cannot look at just the cost of renewable energy. You have to compare the cost of renewable energy to the cost of fossil energy. This is a common mistake people make when looking at energy systems.
-
nigelj at 09:04 AM on 20 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Michael Sweet @2, what possible relationship does that have to anything I wrote? Where did I imply continuing fossil fuel use is free?
-
michael sweet at 08:34 AM on 20 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Nigelj:
Keep in mind that even if we continmued using fossil fuels energy would not be free. It would cost about the same to keep using fossil fuels except there would be all the health and environmental damage from fossil fuels. In addition, fossil fuels are starting to run short and prices would increase by 2050.
-
Keithy at 08:26 AM on 20 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
John, are you just deleting posts now? ????
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints snipped. Your previous comment was removed for sloganeering, a violation of this site's Comments Policy. Not reading it is unacceptable, as is not constructing comments to comply with it. Had you have read it, as you were counseled several times previously, you'd have known that.
-
nigelj at 07:29 AM on 20 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
The editors choice article is really good but one nit pick. It starts out by saying "The world must get to net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century, and can make it happen for a cost that is relatively small in global terms, $1 trillion to $2 trillion per year, a new report has concluded."
Most people will go WTF $1 trillion is not small. And we know many people only read the title and first couple of paragraphs in articles.
It would have been better to include the text from further into the article that this is only 1.5% - 2% of gdp. Get this right at the top of the article.
Think of your audience! -
PapaWhisky at 03:18 AM on 20 September 2020Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
Yes, I had read the report. It's why I posed the question.
You need to go to the appendix to see their discussion of "IMPACT OF HIGH ELECTRIFICATION"
"In our modeled cases, we assume future load shapes will be
similar to today’s, largely driven by commercial activity (work
hours), seasonal changes, and especially by air conditioning
demand in the summer."They do a sensitivity in the Appendix on 'High Electrification". Instead of 1200 GW of cumulative new additions to 2035 they forecast a need of just over 1600 GW.
Also:
"Note that we do not consider any load flexibility, which
significantly underestimates the overall system flexibility
available in the model."I am guessing they did not consider Vehicle to Grid
Moderator Response:[DB] Shortened and activated link breaking page formatting.
-
John Hartz at 01:27 AM on 20 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy asserts:
My point was Al Gore baited the denialists: he sparked the fire of debate that was necessary to solve the problem which, as a politcian, he knew required long lead times from a practical pov.
Keithy has it backwrds. The denialists made Al Gore into their whipping boy because he was effective in sounding the alarm about man-made climate change to audiences around the world — a campaign he began long before the premier of an Inconvenient Truth.
-
Keithy at 13:31 PM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
My point was Al Gore baited the denialists: he sparked the fire of debate that was necessary to solve the problem which, as a politcian, he knew required long lead times from a practical pov.
Business, lol... Where does the rubber hit the road again? The answer is in long lead times.
I ask you: should I be moderated for suggesting such a tepidly moderate argument?
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaint struck with warning.
Final Warning
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Keithy at 13:28 PM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
nigelj, I haven't read his book: like most normal people.
You have to admit I was attacked for my very reasonable points of view and then moderated whilst my attackers were not.
Atleast you understand I have valid points. If you find them contendable fair enough but none-the-less you have still found them valid unlike your moderators who are obviously biased.
Going to your first paragraph: I'm basically saying it was a deliberate strategy and that seems to be the very point I was attacked for by multiple opponents and then finally the moderator himself. How can anyone have a discussion on this forum when there is no discussion allowed?
Sure you can say there would have been discussion anyway... that doesn't take one iota away from my reasonable pov? Only to an extremeist would it nullify my pov, which you seemingly seem to agree with to aleast some degree- unlike others.
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaint struck through with Warning #2.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
[BL] additional moderation complaints and inflammatory statements snipped.
-
nigelj at 12:59 PM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @53, Al Gore may well have helped motivate the denialists in America, to an extent, for the reasons you suggest. Im not so sure it was a deliberate strategy.
And I would suggest the denialists would have been very active anyway even if he didnt exist, given the media have run numerous articles on the science, and given there are plenty of denialists in other countries where his book and movie have only been seen by a tiny minority of people.
Do you see it differently? If so why? Its just that its hard to understand where you are really going. What do you think of his book?
-
Keithy at 12:36 PM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
michael, are you saying I started with the insults? The moderators here don't know what ad hominem attack is...
Snip
Moderator Response:[RH] Moderation complaint removed. Please read commenting policies.
-
michael sweet at 11:31 AM on 19 September 2020Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
Papawhisky:
On page 21 of the report they say:
"Our modeling approach represents a conservative strategy for
achieving 90% clean energy. Various complementary approaches
could help achieve this deep decarbonization, with potential for
even lower system costs and accelerated emissions reductions.
Demand-side approaches include demand response and flexible
loads, such as flexible electric vehicle charging and flexible water
heating—which could play a large role if building and vehicle
electrification occurs more rapidly than envisioned in our core
cases." My emphasis.It appears to me that they have some transportation electrification (I did not try to find out how much transportation electrification they use). They say this electrification could progress faster and more renewable energy could be accomodated.
According to Connelly et al 2016, when larger parts of the economy are electrified it allows a greater percentage of electricity to be renewable and less storage is required. Connelly et al use electromethane for storage which would complement the proposal described in the OP.
-
michael sweet at 11:03 AM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy,
If you complain about the moderation they will delete your posts, If you continue to complain they will ban you. If you want to continue posting try to stay on topic and don't insult other posters.
-
nigelj at 07:10 AM on 19 September 2020Highlighting some expert interviews from Denial101x
Thank's for these splendid videos!
-
PapaWhisky at 05:28 AM on 19 September 2020Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
The report does not seem to account for a significant increase in EV usage ... which is the entire point of decarbonizing the grid, right?
Moderator Response:[JH] Here's the url for the report: https://www.2035report.com/
I also embedded the url into the title of the report in the first paragaprh of the OP.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:09 AM on 19 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Pretty much textbook trolling technique, and zero substance. Seriously, this is not worth bothering with. To all, again, I advise DNFTT.
-
MA Rodger at 23:47 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @48,
It would be good if you could be specific about what Gore did to 'light this conversational fire'.
If it is the 2007 'An Inconvenient Truth' film then you will have an uphill battle getting any agreement here as this is very late. Perhaps you do have some specific denialist response post-2007 in mind, but we idiots here are not mind-readers.
My 'touch of unreasonability' was prompted by the possibility that you were putting the Gore 'ignition' at an earlier date. He had run for the Democratic nomination for President in 1988 and was a well-kown AGW campaigner through the 1980s and, of course, did become vice-presidential candidate in 1992. But again, if that is the period you have in mind, along with some resulting girding-up of the denialist effort, we are not mind-readers and without any assistance of what you actually mean, I for one see no such earlier process at work.
And I'm at a loss where the wind turbines come in to all this.
-
michael sweet at 22:27 PM on 18 September 2020Siberia’s 2020 heatwave made ‘600 times more likely’ by climate change
Luiz:
As the OP states "the methods used in the analysis have been published in previous attribution studies." The methods used have been validated. It takes 6 months to a year to get published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scientists have found that if an article is published in 2020 that says in 2019 there was record heat no-one pays attention. They have developed methods to analize data in real time. Then they are able to get the news out while the problem is still ongoing.
Citing a study of a conservative hoax and comparing it to established science does not really make much of a point. The point here is that science was able to rapidly evaluate the conservative hoax and determine that it was incorrect. By contrast, the climate claim was based on a method that has been peer reviewed.
-
Keithy at 21:24 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Great, MA Rodger, but don't you think you're becoming a touch unreasonable, if not abstract yourself, as toward my argument?
I just said Al Gore lit the conversational fire and the deniers kept it going by forced move... now we have multi megawatt wind turbines as a result- plus much more- to thank him for!
I thought my idea was quite straight forward to follow actually, instead there seems to be a whole team of idiots on here set to bark at anyone daring to have a brain cell that dare deviate from the whistle blown song sheet.
Moderator Response:[JH] Argumentative ad hominem attack stuck with warning.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
MA Rodger at 20:56 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @46,
We can actually go back further than 1976. Gore was aware of AGW science from his university days (so back in the 1960s) when he was taught by Revelle. And there is the incident of Revelle's name on the Fred Singer 1991 Cosmos article which has often been wielded by denialaists against Gore. And I do recall some saying the reason for Singer getting the aged Revelle's co-authorship on Singer's article was actually because of Al Gore's prominent AGW activism within the politics of that time and Gore's association with Revelle.
-
Luiz19760 at 20:17 PM on 18 September 2020Siberia’s 2020 heatwave made ‘600 times more likely’ by climate change
"The findings are yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal."
Why not wait before posting and avoid the embarrassment of a retraction?
Like this pathetic one:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
-
Keithy at 19:36 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Well, MA Rodger , I give you credit for not concluding I'm a machine or whatever those other blokes seem to have summised - but I will check out that link... I never knew Gore was into that far back. 1976 is when I was born....
Oh yeh, Motorhead and the LX Torana came out that year!
Moderator Response:[JH] Off-topic struck.
-
MA Rodger at 19:04 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Addressing the assertion that "Al Gore sparked the deniers" is made more difficult by the term "deniers" being used as a euphemism for 'industry actively preventing AGW mitigation' (although not always and not always obviously so) and also because Al Gore has had such a long record of calling for AGW mitigation. As a Congressman in 1976, Gore held the "first congressional hearings on the climate change." So the 'sparking' alluded-to could be referring to events as far back as the 1970s.
-
Eclectic at 18:58 PM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Philippe , sadly you are right. Many signs, from the very beginning.
An interesting mix of DK and WUWT.
A machine? No. Even a Romanian programmer never aims so low.
Prev 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 Next
