Morano can’t jump the shark, because in his case it comes pre-jumped. But he does his best here. Nice to see Eli getting so much publicity, he deserves it. But why Morano is reduced to commenting on blogs, surely his golden rat award winning website is platform enough?
Oh, and there is KDPs version on wiki. For “prominent scientists”, there are an awful lot of redlinks.
Following in the tracks of DeSmog again. So, the $1.8B carbon capture and storage commercial scale demo has fallen apart [archive] due to excess costs (or possibly other things: here is what they say; there seems to be some dispute over the siting. Since this is probably largely a boondoggle, which town gets the jobs is probably an important part of the project). This is bad news for all the people (including Hansen) who are counting on CCS to rescue us from our woes.
[Update, 2015: it hasn’t got any less dead says Brian at Eli’s.
I must be getting old, I’m starting to seriously think of switching our paper order from the Grauniad to the Times. Which forms a lead in to: this piece which provides two interesting points: In the National Statistics omnibus survey, conducted in August 2006, 39 per cent of people thought that cars were the most environmentally damaging mode of transport, while 35 per cent selected planes. When the same question was asked in August 2007 cars had slipped to 34 per cent and planes had risen to 40 per cent. and also Young people were much less likely to be concerned about climate change than middle-aged people. Among 16 to 24-year-olds 69 per cent said that they were very or fairly concerned compared with 86 per cent of people aged 45 to 54. People living in London were more worried about climate change than those in any other region.
Continue reading “Cars and planes, young and old”
Well, he says so himself: This is probably the most provocative hypothesis I have ever (and will ever) advance: The long-term increases in carbon dioxide concentration that have been observed at Mauna Loa since 1958 could be driven more than by the ocean than by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. Most, if not all, experts in the global carbon cycle will at this point think I am totally off my rocker. Hmm, this pic applies (it can’t be rude, its Egyptian :-).
This isn’t an interesting idea, or a procovative hypothesis, its just w*nky (don’t worry, that link isn’t rude). Why? Well, you can try #5 on this list of myths if you like, and the refs to RC therein. There are all kinds of reasons why we know it, but the one I like best, that avoids having to know about C13 and stuff, I’ll copy from waht I wrote earlier: “To believe this, you have to believe that CO2 and other GHG’s were stable at pre-industrial concentrations for thousands of years, then suddenly, just as humans started emitting them, some natural process started emitting them, while at the same time removing from the atmosphere an equivalent quantity of the man-made GHGs”.
And no, I’m not going to deconstruct Spencers argument in detail, because I haven’t bothered read it. Why would I? Any more that reading the latest astrology or flat-earthism.
[Update: as G points out, the comments are worth reading, even if the post isn’t. Courtney is mad enough to want to claim priority on this nonsense, apparently he fooled the easily-fooled E&E into publishing it in 2005. Even funnier, he comes close to accusing Spencer of plagiarism: There are some surprising similarities between Dr Spencer’s article and my presentation. For example, his Figure 3 presents the same data in the same way as my Figure 1, and he draws the same conclusion from it as we do in our paper. I run out of adjectives to describe his later assertion that “there is no “build up” of CO2 in the atmosphere.”.
As FE points out in the comments there, another nice piece of evidence ignored by the wackos is the decline in O2 levels, which… oh well, they aren’t listening -W]
I’m sure Olivier can be persuaded to describe his set-up in more detail if any bee-keepers are interested 🙂
I’ve been putting off collating all the misc bets that came in. But here we go:
$333 (ie about 3p :-() against Joe Romm on an ice-free Arctic by 2020. P Farrington-Douglas, E200, same terms.
On next years Arctic sea ice being larger than this years record minimum: Nick Barnes, £10; Gareth, £20; Eli, £10 + 40 carrots; Steve Bloom, £20; Phil Hays, £10. And Raymond Arritt offers an indeterminate amount of beer. $100, Benjamin Franz.
Did I miss anyone? And is anyone else interested? – the book isn’t shut yet.
Well, its more interesting than CorbynWatch. So, Nature sez:
New power stations across Europe could be routinely fitted with carbon-dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology within two years under a proposal by the European Commission.
James is too busy worrying about his shares so I shall have to continue Corbynwatch. He’s popped up in the Times, making the implausible claim that his forecasts for November were correct. Quite where he is going to find -17 oC for January is a mystery – in fact we have record warmth. I don’t suppose that will stop him.
There I was, happily listening to R4 about some nonsense about obese kids, when suddenly I’m listening to a “Dr Stoat”. Good heavens. He does indeed seem to exist, it wasn’t my ears, e.g. here. He’s a GP, not a holder-of-a-doctorate, but its close enough.
Next step, anyone ever listened to a Dr Weasel? Dr Malaysian Honey Badger?
Is Fred Singer worth listening to(o)? It sounds unlikely – certainly when I heard him speak he provided nothing but disinformation. Sadly I may never know for sure, because their site was broken when I tried it. If anyone does manage to find Singer saying anything worth hearing, do let me know what is was…
wmconnolley: scienceblogs.com/stoat archive 
