Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

fao John Hewitt.

Have added the fullist of LIsbon attendees
http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/01/climate-change-debate-reconciliation-in-lisbon/

Jan 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Doese anyboby know much about Robert A Brown (Bob A Brown) is in the scheme of the debate?
(an Emitus Professor of Atmsopheric Physics..)

He did a drive by on my blog, and on his blog quoted me, and labelled me a deniar blog.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/robertbrown/archives/235719.asp?page=2#comments

Without the courtesy, of linking, or showing my response to his question.
http://www.realclimategate.org/about/

I only just discovered this and have responded on his blog.

Jan 27, 2011 at 1:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

When we were discussing Shale Gas it was difficult to find an unbiased view, I just came upon this piece in the FT (not behind a paywall for once)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/705f4cf0-d307-11df-9ae9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1CEus0fUG

Debate over shale gas decline fires up

By John Dizard

Published: October 10

(this has a familiar ring to it)

"The science of modelling shale gas deposits is getting better, but is still under-developed given the capital and policy commitment to the industry."
=====================
context

"Today’s high-tech shale wells combine complex horizontal drilling with perhaps a couple of dozen “frac stages”, or high pressure fracturing of gas-bearing rock.

The high initial production and decline rates represent the fruits of this work. Once those fractures are drained, though, the inherently denser shale deposits give up much less gas than the sandstones that provided the original model for the industry’s decline curves. The science of modelling shale gas deposits is getting better, but is still under-developed given the capital and policy commitment to the industry.

Of course, many investors are happy to commit based on some dealer’s PowerPoint with little cartoon gas rigs. So shale gas now takes well over half of the US industry’s capital expenditure budget. That is only the ante on a very large gamble on our energy future."

Jan 27, 2011 at 1:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Californian court lists the faults of wind power normally kept away from the public

"We reject the application because we find that the Manzana Wind Project is not cost-competitive and poses unacceptable risks to ratepayers. We find that the proposed cost of the Manzana Wind Project is significantly higher than other resources PG&E can procure to meet its RPS program goal. Moreover, it will subject the ratepayers to unacceptable risks due to potential cost increases resulting from project under-performance, less than forecasted project life, and any delays which might occur concerning transmission upgrades and commercial online date. As a proposed utility-owned generation project, ratepayers would pay a lump sum cost rather than a performance based cost for the Manzana Wind Project. Therefore, ratepayers would be at risk if the project underperforms. In particular, if the Manzana Wind Project fails to achieve production as expected for any reason such as construction delays or curtailments as a result of a collision with a California condor, shareholders face no risks while customers could incur increased costs. In contrast, under a power purchase agreement, project owners rather than ratepayers bear the risk of project performance...."

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/25/wind-energy-deal-blows-away

Jan 27, 2011 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Someone in comments on WUWT posted this link. If this is for real, its ominous and frightening

http://www.appgopo.org.uk/documents/TEQ_18Jan2011.pdf

Jan 26, 2011 at 11:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Guardian publishes GOOD NEWS story:

Greenland ice sheet is safer than scientists previously thought

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/26/greenland-ice-sheet-climate-change

But contains obligatory scaremongering filth:

Shepherd said his work was helping to reduce uncertainties about the consequences of climate change. Asked if he thought his work suggested the wider risks of global warming could be discounted, he said: "Not at all."

Comments are off. Darn.

Jan 26, 2011 at 10:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterSayNoToFearmongers

Barry

I saw the list of participants at Lisbon that you listed, on Judith Curry's blog. Do you know if there is a list of all 28 somewhere out there?

Jan 26, 2011 at 7:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Hewitt

The water temperature in the subtropical Atlantic Ocean has cooled down since 1998, oceanographers report. Measurements since 1957 had shown a rise of more than ¼ of a degree up to that point, but between 1998 and 2006 the ocean stopped warming and cooled by 0.15°C in the same area.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/26/atlantic_ocean_cooling/

Published paper:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JPO4410.1?journalCode=phoc

Jan 26, 2011 at 4:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

An interesting quote from David Willetts, the UK Science Minister on a BBC report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12276822

"That painful debate on the climate change data involving the [University of East Anglia] researchers reminds us of the damage that can be done when - rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly - people lose confidence in measurement and the reliability of data."

Jan 26, 2011 at 12:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

"Embrace radical solutions"

"Cutting emissions while keeping the lights on is possible, says Friends of the Earth's Head of Climate Change Mike Childs – but we need to be willing to embrace radical solutions"

"the USA would need to cut emissions by 95 per cent by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels) and the EU by 83 per cent (again, compared to 1990 levels). China, too, would need to peak its emissions by 2013 followed by a decrease of 5 per cent per year."

"Finally, we must develop negative emissions technologies – i.e. take carbon out of the atmosphere as well as stopping them entering it in the first place. The rate at which we'd have to reduce emissions to give a good chance of avoiding a 2 degree increase in global temperatures is eye-watering. Given this, it is difficult to see how dangerous climate change can be avoided without removing carbon from the atmosphere through artificial trees and biomass power stations with carbon capture. Although the technology is as yet un-developed and we need to avoid significant risks of negative impacts on food prices and biodiversity, steering clear of investigating this is no longer an option."

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=15692

Jan 25, 2011 at 11:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>