This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The New Future Of Energy Policy

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Gregor Macdonald of Peak Prosperity,

Flood myths are common to human culture. Swollen rivers, tidal storms, and tsunamis make their appearance frequently in literature. But Hurricane Sandy, which has drawn newly etched high-water marks on the buildings of lower Manhattan (and Brooklyn), has shifted the discussion from storytelling to reality.

Volatility in climate has drawn the attention of policy makers for a decade. But as so often is the case, a dramatic event like superstorm Sandy – the largest storm to hit New York since the colonial era – has punctured the psyche of the densely populated East Coast, including the New York-Washington, DC axis where U.S. policy is made.

Not surprisingly, in the weeks since the historical hurricane made landfall, new attention is being paid to the mounting costs that coastal world megacities may face.

Intriguingly, however, this new conversation about climate, energy policy, and America’s reliance on fossil fuels comes after a five-year period in which the U.S. has dramatically lowered its consumption of oil and seen an equally dramatic upturn in the growth of renewable energy. America’s production of CO2 in the first quarter of 2012 fell to twenty-year lows. The country is using less coal, increasing its use of natural gas, and (like the rest of the OECD) is seeing its transportation demand migrate from cars and trucks to rail. While Europe is often cited as being at the forefront of renewable power, the U.S. has also started to produce very strong growth rates for wind and solar power:

The combination of declining oil use and a greater reliance on the global powergrid is going to shape energy and climate policy. Especially at a time when the concerns of climate change – or, rather, rising seas and the greenhouse dangers of fossil fuel dependency – are being increasingly raised. This will make for a rather muddled and complex array of diverging policy initiatives.

Moreover, as the oil-based economy (which was harder to meter) gives way to the electricity-based economy, policy makers will find there are more levers to shape energy demand in their economies. The Oil Age was a more natural fit for free-spirited individualism. The Electricity Age will see an era more comprehensively dominated by policy, as the powergrid becomes the mechanism for governments to shape the future of energy demand.

Rebounding to the Grid

The oil age went into decline roughly ten years ago.

Oil’s share of total global energy demand, which had been on the rise since the 1930s, peaked in the mid-1970s but held steady for over twenty years until the new millennium. But starting early last decade, through a combination of oil’s repricing and the industrialization in the Non-OECD, oil’s market share in the global energy mix retreated.

This decline of oil in the global economy explains perfectly why the weak rebound since the 2008 financial crisis has grown along the contours of the powergrid. It’s not just the United States. In Japan, and especially in Europe, oil use has continued to decline right through “the recovery,” as increasing numbers of car drivers are taken off the road, as jet travel declines, and as trucking has given way to higher deployment of freight rail.

However, this opens up a number of new constraints as well as new opportunities, because while there is high growth in solar and wind power, the growth of global electricity is largely driven by coal. That means awareness of coal’s role is going to widen among populations, and governments are going to be drawn into action over coal.

Carbon Taxes, Renewable Portfolio Standards, and Feed-In Tariffs

Global coal markets have recently sputtered in the face of slower growth in China as well as the rise of natural gas in the United States, which has dislocated consumption of its own coal. If glanced at quickly, this looks like an interruption in the supertrend. Alas, no such interruption is taking place.

Instead, the coal which Americans are no longer consuming is being exported to the rest of the world. Even Europe is taking greater volumes of U.S. coal, which in 2012 is on pace to see the highest level of exports in U.S. history.

But a more important phenomenon to understand regarding global energy consumption is that much of the upswing in Asian coal demand over the past decade, especially in China, is really just an offshoring of OECD manufacturing capacity. In other words, an increasing proportion of goods purchased by Westerners since the year 2000 is the result of goods made in Asia. And these goods are made in factories powered by coal-fired electricity generation. Clothing, appliances, electronic devices – yes, iPhones, too – are made in facilities powered by coal.

This is why, as policy is increasingly driven either by concerns about climate, increased distaste for dependency on fossil fuels, or both, the clamor for carbon taxation is going to grow.

In a recent essay, Forget Kyoto: Putting a Tax on Carbon Consumption, the author takes note of the emerging emphasis on the global trade of energy use:

China’s phenomenal economic growth has been based on exports, notably of energy-intensive goods, from steel and petrochemicals to a host of manufactured products. These have been bought largely by the U.S. and Europe, which together account for nearly 50 percent of world GDP. It is carbon consumption that measures the carbon footprint and hence responsibility, not the carbon production in particular geographical areas. Yet remarkably the Kyoto framework does not take consumption into account. Instead it focuses on carbon production, and mostly in Europe, where deindustrialization and the collapse of the former Soviet Union make compliance with the targets easy.

Politically speaking, carbon taxation has been a very tough sell, especially in the United States. Interestingly, there have been trial balloons since the election that the Obama Administration may even tie together (or try to tie together) new carbon taxes as a way to lower the U.S. budget deficit. That, too, is unlikely to have much political appeal, though it does signify the shift coming in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and this summer’s extraordinary drought.

However, there are interesting divergences about the effectiveness of carbon taxation among those who work in the areas of energy and climate policy.

Chris Nelder, writing in Smart Planet, Why America Needs a Feed-in-Tariff, makes the case that a carbon tax policy will not necessarily spur construction of renewable energy. Essentially, if getting renewable energy infrastructure built is the ultimate goal shared by both climate policy and energy policy, then why not pursue a national FiT (feed-in tariff), of the kind deployed in Europe?

Given the obvious success of FiTs as a policy tool in Europe, one must wonder why the U.S. has not embraced them. Germany already tried all the incentives that we’re using in the U.S., such as aspirational targets like renewable portfolio standards (RPS), rebates, and low-interest loans, and eventually turned to FiTs because they proved to be far more effective, simple, low-cost, and efficient.

But while it’s true that growth of wind and solar power is already growing at a very strong rate in the U.S. (as discussed previously), it’s not clear this will continue at the same rate.

California’s RPS (renewable portfolio standard) has triggered the construction of a great deal of new utility-grade solar power. However, this is small in comparison to California’s overall energy challenge, as it sees its own dependency on out-of-state power supply continue to expand. As I have addressed previously, California’s energy production from all sources is at 50-year lows. This comes at a time when, just as in the rest of the country and the world, transportation demand is switching over from cars and trucks to the grid as light rail is built out in its cities.

New Energy, Climate, and Urban Infrastructure

(image: Thames Flood Barrier, Greater London, UK)

Western cities are aging, and the forecast for rising sea levels may hold true regardless of any climate policy. In a recent post, Roger Pielke Jr notes that mitigation of rising sea levels through aggressive CO2 reduction may not change the current trajectory all that much:

One of the more reasonable discussion points to emerge from efforts to link Hurricane Sandy to the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions focuses on the role that future sea level rise will have on making storm impacts worse. Logically, it would seem that if we can "halt the rise of the seas" then this would reduce future impacts from extreme events like Sandy. The science of sea level rise, however, tells us that our ability to halt the rise of the seas is extremely limited, even under an (unrealistically) aggressive scenario of emissions reduction.

If cities like New York are compelled instead to construct tidal barriers, and other coastal cities in the U.S. follow, then changes in global energy consumption and in the public's perception of climate issues may see governments drawn in more closely than ever before to such policy making.

After all, the construction costs for mitigation through infrastructure will come through state and federal partnership. Indeed, the discussion about tidal barriers for New York has already begun. Given the extent of recent flooding, this is no surprise. And subsequent storms will only push such initiatives along further.

The New Policy Era

The decline of oil’s share in the global economy marks the end of a kind of free-ranging era in which individual discretion over energy use reached spectacular heights. Cheap oil gave rise to cities such as Los Angeles, where the freedom to drive all distances was a luxury enjoyed by most people. It’s not surprising that the cultural adjustment to a new era, where individual choice in energy use will be redefined, is proving cantankerous.

Moreover, as new oil supplies emerge from domestic American sources, the dream of resurrecting this cheap oil era will no doubt come back around several more times. But none of these new resource plays will change the trajectory of global oil supply much, nor will they lower the price of oil. So far, new oil supply mostly offsets declines elsewhere – but at substantially higher marginal cost. This should now be clear.

In Part II: Investing Strategies for the New Energy Era, we take a look at some of the risks but also opportunities that will present themselves to investors, as the global powergrid rises and comes under heavier scrutiny from government regulation.

While renewable energy is growing almost exponentially, coal still remains the global anchor for many of the most important electricity networks, especially in the developing world. The inevitable switch to the powergrid will draw two competing forces: 1) massive new investment, with many losers and winners, and 2) the attention of governments who will see the grid as a way to implement climate policy and to raise revenue.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 11/26/2012 - 22:55 | 3013313 FoolsAdvice
FoolsAdvice's picture

A 10-year trading plan: buy gold using dollars, buy oil using gold, then use oil to buy rare-earth metals and ag commodities. Durations of each phase could range from 3-5 years, but this is the trading sequence.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 22:56 | 3013314 Sockeye
Sockeye's picture

"coastal world megacities"
Maybe that's the issue, not climate change.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:05 | 3013330 Alea Iactaest
Alea Iactaest's picture

Maybe climate change. But I'm hard-pressed to see how curtailing greenhouse gasses by mandate will help. The article states we are in the midst of "a five-year period in which the U.S. has dramatically lowered its consumption of oil and seen an equally dramatic upturn in the growth of renewable energy." So help me out here. The US and other countries have been cutting back on oil consumption for the last five years. Somehow we're supposed to believe that even MORE cutbacks are the answer?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:04 | 3013476 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

AI, it's Agenda 21 implimentation time.

The technocrats want to know what muppets consume, every minute, every hour, how, where...

Cash, money, all this was just substitutes for what has always been an energy exchange economy. For ever.

Smart meters, dumb sleeple.

Technocracy, it's upon us/US.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 08:14 | 3013777 SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

"Especially at a time when the concerns of climate change – or, rather, rising seas and the greenhouse dangers of fossil fuel dependency – are being increasingly raised. "


Water vaport constitutes 95% of all "greenhouse gases".

The greenhouse effect is important to maintain life on the planet.

All plants use CO2 and give off O2 which humans need.

Climate "scientists" are political activists, not scientists, who have been caught manipulating their data.

"Sea Rise" has been under 8" since 1870!!!!  And there are MANY other factors that could account for this "rise".


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 08:39 | 3013812 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Hmmm, oil is infinite you say?  Hhmmmm, the attention span of the average human versus the geological time scale and the laws of Nature and Physics?  Just the same, I think I know who "wins" in the end.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 09:00 | 3013853 SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

Start with this article on abiotic oil theory, google and expand to others.  This "production" of oil well below the surface is a chemical reaction producing oil from common elements under immense pressure.  Now I'm not saying it will not become more costly to extract oil in the future under an ever increasing consumption, it certainly would.  But I don't buy the peak oil arguement in that we will "run out" of oil...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 10:25 | 3014066 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well maybe the Peak oil argument was *never* about running out of oil...

Abiotic oil is completely irrelevant, esp. given that there is zero evidence for it...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 11:47 | 3014299 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

There could be evidence, such as the proximity of major hydrocarbon deposits to impact craters, but that could also be explained if oil actually comes from Paul Krugman's aliens and their Interplanetary Economic Development initiative.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 11:54 | 3014315 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Show me just one field that the evidence for an abiotic origin outweighs the conventional interpretation....

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:14 | 3014367 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

I don't have any evidence, I'm not a geologist and my interest is entirely corollary as opposed to causal.  However, the Caspian basin does jump to mind, since, if oil originated from the breakdown of organic matter, then in antiquity the Paratethys would have distributed organic matter somewhat evenly between the Caspian Basin, the Black Sea Basin, and Eastern Europe, which it didn't. However, the Caspian did have a significant tectonic movement that the others areas didn't, furthermore the decaying Garden of Eden doesn't quite explain the high concentration of hydrocarbons in the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf, as opposed to other locations where there was organic material in antiquity, and hydrocarbons have never been found.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:19 | 3014389 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sorry, if you do not have evidence and fail to demonstrate the most basic grasp of geology, you really should just STFU...

As for the Arabian penisula, google anticline, non-permeable rock and get back to us,  throw in Ploesti as well (pun intended)....

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:09 | 3014515 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Money trumps geology in both energy mineral and mineral extraction.  At this point in time  the Romanians are now primarily refining oil produced from ever more eastward fields (towards the Caspian).  Domed or ridged strata of non-permeable rock (which have a funny correlation to tectonic pressure in a lot of places) explains why oil is found "there" but if fails to explain why oil isn't found "there."  Science is supposed to be infinitely reproducible, and yet even with the latest 3D survey equipment and the collective thought of a whole bunch of really smart and motivated people, the industry cannot sustain an success rate on exploratory wells much above 60%, and the barriers to entry for amateurs are rising not falling.  If the existing science had all the answers, then the exploratory well success rate should be higher.     

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:25 | 3014557 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

We know that at certain places in the earth, carbon is being pushed from the core to the surface, and that from a chemistry standpoint there is more than one way to construct a hydrocarbon chain, some of which are more desirable than others, from an extraction/profitability standpoint.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:29 | 3014582 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You do realize that you are babbling....

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:08 | 3014346 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

The funny thing about Agenda 21 is if its real is it that it is mostly self defeating. If they cut consumption down they will lose the only trump card they have over the masses. People will fall off the grid. Agenda 21 will only be "sustainable" if they build an arbritary hierarchy of consumption, enforce it in the name of enviromentalism and refuse to allow anyone to break off from that system. It can and will never be about the enviroment merely enforcing economics on people.

You can see it forming today. They hate these survivalists who in many ways are a model for sustainable living, going off the grid to take care of themselves sink or swim but revere mega corporations or climate lobbyists who want to restructure peoples lifestyles from the top down. 

I have a great deal of hope for the real Green movement who are more interested in producing agricultural output in a sustainable manner and switching over to renewable energy. If used correctly it will do a great deal of good for humanity in terms of making smaller groups more Independent and increase the scope for growth, progress and freedom. Agenda 21 is the exact opposite of this, harnessing this trend which is ubdoubtedly necessary to enforce moribund stagnancy, managed decline and oppression.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 08:16 | 3013781 Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

I don't know what "other countries" you are talking about, the BRICs consumption of fossil fuels has been rising steadily.  A more aggressive national program of conservation would help a lot.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 22:58 | 3013317 Midas
Midas's picture

So we ship the iron ore over to China, and they process it with electricity from coal we shipped over.  Next they ship back some punches for one dollar and we break them on the first blow.  What's not to like?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 08:17 | 3013783 SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

And the shipping back and forth requires more energy than would have been used if we had produced it and consumed it right here....

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 08:54 | 3013833 Debt-Is-Not-Money
Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

"What's not to like?"

Loss of productive employment,

loss of tax revenue,

loss of our economy.

Internationalists get rich(er).


Mon, 11/26/2012 - 22:58 | 3013319 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Gregor, good article, but really?:

"the largest storm to hit New York since the colonial era – has punctured the psyche of the densely populated East Coast, including the New York-Washington, DC axis where U.S. policy is made."

as my bretheren up nawth say: au contraire, Meathead.

No stories, no realization is at all wide extended.

- Ned

{or prove me wrong!}

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:52 | 3013447 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes, really...

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:03 | 3013322 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

eurostat is reporting major increases in north  & south American (columbian) shipment of coal to Europe.

For example The UK is turning back to coal for much of its base load.


But when yee US folks get Italian like oil consumption declines get back to us.



Italy has had much more drastic reductions in oil consumption but with little more then token systems put into place to capture any new future base money flows.

Y1998 (1.94 MBD)  

Y2010 (1.53 MBD) 

It current moving average consumption is probally near 1.33 ~ MBD in october (see current November oil market report)


I.e. the country has been destroyed by the regin of the two Marios.

Where has those 600,000 ~ KBD gone ?

Its as if 3 celtic tiger Irelands has been subtracted from the Italian economy


Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:01 | 3013326 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

"Western cities are aging, and the forecast for rising sea levels may hold true regardless of any climate policy."

So, let's see on this, Venice might have a skosh' more water?  We don't know what the fuck is going on so we ought to spend billions?

- Ned

{dang, catch yourself Meat.  We don't know what the fuck is going on, so  the Polz are actually spending billions!  Who knew????}

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:09 | 3013338 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

If this post interests you, you might be interested in reading/listening to

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:14 | 3013348 glenlloyd
glenlloyd's picture

Two things I'm not convinced of:

1) that the changing climate is actually related to our behavior as humans versus a natural cycle that we should, as logical people, expect to occur on our planet, after all the planet is not static.

2) that we can morph an economy based entirely on oil into one based on other sources of energy without huge dislocations and negative consequences.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:57 | 3013556 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

1) take a harder look at the ice cores and their curious timing for recent rapid change

2) you're right

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 05:05 | 3013686 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

It's funny that even elementary chemistry textbooks that delve into solid state chemistry often mention that carbon dioxide is soluble in ice.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 11:33 | 3014250 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

The way those ass clowns write- sheeple could easily infer that a snowman melting in their backyard in a significant source of methane clathrate breakdown releasing methane into the atmosphere, at least on par with bovine flatulence.  Are the BBC whores really that stupid or do they have an alterior motive?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 08:35 | 3013808 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

As it turns out, most gases are indeed more soluble in water (ice when cold enough) at cooler temperatures.  This is just a simple physical property of gases and aqueous solution.  The laws of Nature and Physics are what they are and really don't give a shit either way.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:19 | 3013355 Money Squid
Money Squid's picture

Is there anyone left here at ZH that still believes in the global warming carbon taxation scam?

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:54 | 3013454 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

That the scam is a hoax?

Only the ones that are not afraid of heavy lifting...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:12 | 3013489 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Flak, have you heard the term "Technocracy"?

King Hubba-Dubba was an early technocrat.

Peak Oil is a Scam/Sham.

A 30% increase in efficiency....what would that do to all equations?

Our problem is one of efficiency. 10-15% average from burn to use.

And that does not even begin to count embedded energy.

You sound smart, but you've been had I think.

Your POV will buy you a seat on the upcoming Carbon-Table though, so there is that. ;-)


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:16 | 3013497 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sure thing... Do the math and tell me what 30% buys. Problem is that if you could you would not even bring it up in the first place...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:25 | 3013514 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

30% changes the shape of the Demand/Supply curve to such a significant degree that we can actually transition out of Oil, whose day/time in the Sun is done, instead of being shocked, again and again, as is the plan.

30% would be compounding on all new Oil based infrastructure coming on line.

The impact of a 30% net increase in consumption efficiency would turn the Peak oil lie on it's head.

Adn I don't need to do any math, I've got the science to DO the 30%. Alone.

All in good time.



Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:34 | 3013528 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

When you said 30% compounding you played your hand....

Sorry, ORI, you are making shit up or have been fooled by a charlatan...

You can start by reading up on Jevon's Paradox....

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:05 | 3013566 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Don't need "studies" by "experts" to tell me what is up and what is down Flak.

Mainstream science is a polluted river of Paradigm trapped, Normalcy Biased Closed minds.

Yes, 30% would compound over time, backward integration by retro-fits, current integration by re-fits and future by new designs that have greater efficiency built in.

Compounding is actually understating IF the vested interests were to allow a true re-evolution of this current madness we call engineering and de-sign.

You live in a world of statistics perhaps. 

All good though, clearly most people will change their mind-set only with hammer-blows. Till then, it's Echo-chamber time.

Also, in such a compounding scenario, Jevon's paradox would be moot.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:13 | 3013574 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"Mainstream science is a polluted river of Paradigm trapped, Normalcy Biased Closed minds."

LOL.  You are much too generous.  Mainstream science is bought off, controlled and completely corrupt.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 03:22 | 3013597 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Indeed BicycleR.

Calling them whores is doing whoring (a perfectly respectable profession in my opinion) a dis-favour.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 08:31 | 3013800 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Are you suggesting that the peer-review system isn't working?  Poor baby, sounds like you need a hug and a few more friends in high places.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 11:32 | 3014258 steve from virginia
steve from virginia's picture


Sorry kids, you never get more than 30%, the rest is lost as waste heat.


The taxman is Thermodynamics, it cannot be reasoned with ... it does not feel pity ...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:40 | 3014447 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"Are you suggesting that the peer-review system isn't working?"

Now just what does "peer-review" mean?  Think it through.  There you go.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:54 | 3014479 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Let me guess, are you proposing that the veracity of facts should be determined by the free market?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 21:13 | 3016082 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

I'm proposing that peer review between corrupt entities is an intellectual circle jerk.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 23:58 | 3016450 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So you are advocating ignorance then....

Somehow I am not surprised by this coming from you, you always were attracted by superstition and the like...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:58 | 3013557 Orly
Orly's picture

You mean the sham hoisted upon the world by Al Gore and David Blood, of Goldman Asset Management?

No.  No one believes that any more.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:08 | 3013569 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Blood and Gore, cannot make this stuff up eh, Orly?

Someone is laughing at us all, very hard too, methinks...


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 08:31 | 3013797 SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

Flak cannot deny these facts...


Water vaport constitutes 95% of all "greenhouse gases".

The greenhouse effect is important to maintain life on the planet.

All plants use CO2 and give off O2 which humans need.

Climate "scientists" are political activists, not scientists, who have been caught manipulating their data.

"Sea Rise" has been under 8" since 1870!!!! And there are MANY other factors that could account for this "rise".


And by the way, show the wind and solar chart to represent the percentage of over all energy produced.  It will be a flat curve under 5% instead of this exponential looking BS....

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 10:28 | 3014071 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you practice at being an idiot or did it come naturally?

The internal inconsistencies in your logic are appalling....

BTW, provide evidence of manipulation that has been verified... problem is you can't...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:06 | 3014508 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

Why should we trust climate scientists more than economists, doctors ,Police, lawyers, judges ,psychologists, travel agents politicians sexworkers etc? They all have systems in place to cover their own arses and no one is allowed to join if they don't sign up for this system. I know fuck all about science but I've heard alot of liars. The climate scientists are basically saying unless we hand over immense amounts of power and follow their plan we are going to get hell on Earth. I've heard it from clergy, I've heard it from insurance Salesmen. If you weren't being an idiot cheer leader you would understand why everyone thinks its dubious that we hand over so much power based on something most the world doesn't even understand. Humans only live 80 years we can only see 10 miles around us on a clear day, most people can not think on this scale. Its not fair for anyone to ask these people to do something based on evidence they don't have the inclination, the ability or the intelligence to understand. Ever if you are 100% right you are asking for 99.9% of the population to make a leap of faith on the competence of a tiny minority of climate scientists.

If you really beleive in it and you want things to work out well don't fucking ask for the keys to the palace. Get to work trying to fix things yourself go build a fusion reactor. If you can't, and we are all fucked, don't let cynics like me drag you down, go do a Noah's Ark with your climate scientists and a bunch of supermodels and save you and your people.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:19 | 3014538 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You should seek help if you really feel that way...

As for mediation of AGW, you really should try to listen to what the real experts are saying and not to what shills like Rush are claiming is being said...

BTW, Do you go to a plumber to get your car tuned up?

Very simply, scientific concensus works....

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:48 | 3014644 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

Its not about Rush or the Experts or whatever anyone says in some emails. I can barely remember all the lines of debate and argument about Argentinian glaciers, Oceanic acidity or or pissing more to regulate homeostasis. The problem is you are asking to do something that will effect every human being on the planet based on the views of a small number of people. Even if you beleive in AGW you can see we are setting an incredibly dangerous precedent. Even if it is 100% true and these scientists are going to save 95% of the human population the situation will just get hijacked by lunatics. You can already see it happening with the fear mongering, the misallocation of resources and how its being pushed on children.

The movement for AGW can and should not have anything to do with politics or money except at the very lowest levels of indivduals and perhaps local governments. I'm from the fire and brimstone camp, if SHTF its Karma for too many people making bad choices. By all means do everything you can to save yourself, move to Greenland. In terms of averting this situation though its hopeless unless someone can find more efficent ways of generating and using energy. Any other way and it will just become a stick for the status quo to beat the masses with........

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 14:24 | 3014753 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

As I suspected, you have issues with the implications.... That is a very different kettle of fish than AGW itself.  You need to understand the difference, wishing that AGW isn't true is not much of a strategy...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 08:30 | 3013795 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Come on Orly, what you or I believe is fucking irrelevant to the laws of Nature and physics.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:26 | 3013369 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Carbon driven climate change is nothing more than a Central planners masturbation fantasy. Taxing air sounds like a great giggle for the ruling class, but the actual fact is that climate change is cyclical and has little at all to do with human activity.

I'm not claiming that we should not strive to minimize our 'footprint'. What I Am saying is that the climate control fantasy is off the rails and symptomatic of a serious control issue disease.

The programming is strong on this one......But also so absolutely blatantly obvious as to be beyond absurd.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:47 | 3013431 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

It is absolutely no coincidence that the "problem" is blamed on the common man and the solution is more authoritarianism.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:28 | 3013518 NeedtoSecede
NeedtoSecede's picture

I thought everything was the fault of the Zionists here at ZH. I bet if I read a little farther through the comments someone will step up with some truth about how global warming started back in 1947.

Bring on the down arrows!

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:28 | 3013519 Matt
Matt's picture

How have the countries that lead the way on fighting AGW with carbon taxes or cap and trade, applied those policies to their militaries and government oeprations? I think that sets a good indicator on the bullshit meter.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:51 | 3013551 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

What organization uses the most oil and is the biggest polluter in the world?  BS meter, indeed.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:24 | 3013371 alentia
alentia's picture

What credibility "" and "bp statistical review" have to base whole article upon?

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:24 | 3013373 Zer0head
Zer0head's picture

Volatility in climate has drawn the attention of policy makers for a decade. But as so often is the case, a dramatic event like superstorm Sandy – the largest storm to hit New York since the colonial era


not sure of the facts behind that statement perhaps the author could provide some legit backup

More importantly that and other statements in the article seem to go beyond an impartial observation of how global warming is percieved by society and the economic implications of that; it is as if the author subscribes to the Antrhopo Global Warming thesis. If in fact Gregor is a global warming / anti carbon advocate he should make his position clear. My guess is that since he did not state it in the article he doesn't have the  cajones to respond to this comment with a straight forward and clear declaration of his beliefs on this matter. 

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:24 | 3013375 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

That's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:37 | 3013404 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Did you breath or fart during that five minutes of reading? Jack Burton and Flakemeister will want to tax that carbon emission.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:55 | 3013456 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You really shouldn't try to put words in my mouth....

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:06 | 3013478 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I knew a global warming article would draw you out. You're like Dcfuser, for him it's electric cars and for you it's global warming. No go ahead tell us all how we are on the brink of death, and that the only solution is either to stop using all fossil fuels immediately or to depopulate the planet, which will happen anyway if we go with step one.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:13 | 3013492 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I discuss peak oil, AGW, precious metal miners, the rest is a bloody waste of time... The level of political naivite here is astounding.... It is like its own little version of the bubble that the Repugs lived in prior to the election....

Besides, at least two of the above topics are data driven and my background is empirical...

And I did think it was above you to simply make shit up... I guess I was wrong..

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:39 | 3013605 Augustus
Augustus's picture

The people here are certainly not politically naive.  They certainly are aware of the conspiracy involvement of the warmists to be the willing enabelers in helping the pols to have more control over the individual and the economy.

Peak Oil is now proved nonsense.  AGW has been discredited so thoroughly that only the true cultists carry on with it, hoping to be able to continue receiving funding for their computer modeling is they can create a loud enough scare scream.

Sure, I guess you were wrong, too.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 08:36 | 3013810 SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

Flak, you are the naive one here.  Go study up and come back when you can refute these facts...

Water vaport constitutes 95% of all "greenhouse gases".

The greenhouse effect is important to maintain life on the planet.

All plants use CO2 and give off O2 which humans need.

Climate "scientists" are political activists, not scientists, who have been caught manipulating their data.

"Sea Rise" has been under 8" since 1870!!!! And there are MANY other factors that could account for this "rise".


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 10:31 | 3014079 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I referenced a paper that was written about you below....

Why don't you write a paper showing that C02 is not a factor, I dare you...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 16:48 | 3014332 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Water vapor is indeed a less than minor minor role, that's why its relatively rapid and recent 4 percent increase in the atmosphere (due to expanding, warmer oceans, melting permafrost, the artic sea opening up going from reflector to absorber, melting glaciers etc) has a multiplying effect.

The greenhouse effect is important but think (for a second) it's the balance of the greenhouse effect, not too cold, not to hot (see...other planets). I could come up with a number of things that taken in moderation, are "good" for you but out of balance are dangerous, but there is not enough room on Tyler's server. That's kind of how natural systems (even free markets) work.

Climate scientists, more important, scumbag politicans relying on just about every profession, take advantage of everything. And yes, there are scumbag "scientists" on both sides of the table. (It's like lawyers). Are you suggesting the oil/ energy industry does not have lobbyists or have a big say in our international affairs like our "wars" and our "science?" Are you suggesting they don't have an incentive to "challenge" this phenomenon? Even the Koch brothers' funded study has confirmed what many, many scientists from many many disciplines have been worried over.

Sea rise is indeed mulitplying with the (greatly accelerating) melting of the two major land based ice forms - Greenland and Antartica. Everytime they look at the data, it is moving faster than they last surmised.

IN SHORT, those points are very much isolated comments that, taken out of context, (the oldest political trick in the world) have little objective and scientific basis value for this particular issue.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:25 | 3013379 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

Taxing carbon has to be the most foolish concept I ever heard. Are people that bad at math? Wanna destroy the last breath of the American ecomomy? Charge tax on carbon and be sure JPM and Al Gore get their kickbacks.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:34 | 3013529 Matt
Matt's picture

If it was not a matter of simply stacking more layers of taxes, but of replacing taxes, it could work out I think. i.e. carbon tax as part of consumption taxes, and abolish personal income and residential property taxes.

As for the banks and Al Gore, I think they are going for cap and trade, which is not like a tax, more like a complex financialization scheme like trading CDS, where the traders skim the profits.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:58 | 3013558 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"Cap and trade" is Enron-style energy trading writ large. 

Fuck that.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:20 | 3014395 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

well said

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:27 | 3013384 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

One has read for years about each new and fantastic oil discovery but the fine print always entails the fantastic production costs of these new mega finds. It simply means oil prices must rise.

Okay, I'll bite on climate change. I suggest that deniers get their heads into the sand quickly, or you will be run over by what is about to ring in your ears if you allow science to be heard. The evidence is coming in very fast now, and it does prove the models and most climate scientists to have been wrong. Very, Very wrong. The latest calculation is that there is a 20 to 1 odds that science has been far too conservative in it's predictions and that the real world has run way ahead of them.

This is why the arctic sea ice melt is about 50 years ahead of predictions. Greenland is in melt down. CO2 concentrations are at a level not seen in 15,000,000 years. Is that something of a natural cycle that occured in only 200 years?  Wanna figure the odds on that?









Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:43 | 3013420 prains
prains's picture

Jack you're shouting into a wind tunnel. unfortunately too many americans have been drinking exxon's koolaid and still believe this is a natural cylce. Talking about the arctic to many of them is like talking about mars, as far as many are concerned nothing exists above the 49th parallel. All their weather maps are drawn as such. It's the only straight line on the globe but it exists. If it doesn't effect the outcome of the football game it's of little or no consequence.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:48 | 3013436 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

If we phased it out over say 100 years id agree. But fantics want us to stop using carbon based fuels now. Im willing to risk a couple of degrees warmer to avoid complete collapse of the worlds economy.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:14 | 3013493 Apply Force
Apply Force's picture

And then what are the odds on the CO2 concentrations at a level not seen in 15,000,000 years and the antarctic adding record ice?  CHANGE is the natural cycle on this planet, and exists regardless of your opinions OR actions. 

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:26 | 3013584 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

there's a big difference between change and rate of change.  well said Jack

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:44 | 3013611 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Sea ice is building at Antartica.

The Arctic Passage has been ice free several times in somewhat recent recorded history.

There is no evidence that anything other than solar variation is causing any of the events you cite.


Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:31 | 3013389 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

But as so often is the case, a dramatic event like superstorm Sandy – the largest storm to hit New York since the colonial era – has punctured the psyche of the densely populated East Coast, including the New York-Washington, DC axis where U.S. policy is made.


Now that the parasites in the New York DC axis have been impacted its time for them to get serious about ass raping the rest of the country with carbon taxes in their insane effort to control the climate.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:37 | 3013410 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Who is really insane here? We already exercise control over the climate. We are running the grandest experiment in human history, and the results can be measured and calculated. The laws of physics bat last. They don't care about anything but the inputs to the equations, they alays respond to inputs. Carbon in the atmosphere is running away. 1/2 of all carbon emitted is sucked up by earth and oceans. This sink is losing it's ability to do so as saturation is reached. Lets hope we get a good denier explaination on that day. These folks are truely creative, but then they are well paid by the fossil fuel industry, with all that money you can hire creative thinkers. I mean creative liars. The odds they are right are as near zero as one can get, they have no data, no science, nothing. If they had something they would present it. Since they don't they NEVER will. They will scream about old Al Gore, or something, but they never ever will present an argument that overturns the laws of physics. So best to name call, as that is their only substitute for facts.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:44 | 3013427 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

It's really too bad that all those green investments went up in smoke.  Did you lose a lot of money?  I certainly hope so.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:50 | 3013441 prains
prains's picture

investment implies the hope of a productive outcome. That was just typical corporate rent seeking on the backs of taxpayers aided and abetted by their bought and paid for congressmen.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:31 | 3013593 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Is up in smoke a freudian slip? 

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 21:09 | 3016078 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

No.  It's a figure of speech.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:48 | 3013434 prains
prains's picture

Who needs facts when there's infotainment. It's such a downer

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:58 | 3013458 MSimon
MSimon's picture

You parrot "physics" I earn my living with it. From considerable study I have come to the conculsion that the climate industry is a scam. Run on fools like you who parrot words without deep understanding.


BTW I earn a living these days writing about engineering. You can look me up.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:37 | 3013602 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

most "real" events create peripheral "scam" industries. it's two different things

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:21 | 3013504 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Are you sure the studies aren't funded by big agriculture since the are cited as a major cause for global warming?... Er I meant to say climate change. The solution is simple ... global depopulation.

Nature has a way of dealing with these issues one way or another. If we don't take each other out first I'm sure some asteroid or super volcano will take care if the issue and earth can go on for another 12 billion years without us.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:48 | 3013617 Augustus
Augustus's picture

When the Warmists are proved to have falsified data, they can be counted upon to call others liars.  It is easier than cooking up more falsified data again.

And Michael Mann would not really claim to have won a Nobel Prize, surely not.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 11:32 | 3014271 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Oh pray tell, what falsified data?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:29 | 3014408 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Almost as whorelike as the oil industry offering "scientists" $10,000 to challenge. Almost. The data was recently confirmed by a Koch funded study of all things. The data comes from not one source. We are dealing with the whole planet here. There is data from a large, large number of areas. As there should be.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:34 | 3013401 dognamedabu
dognamedabu's picture

Oh hey they could raise GDP this way. America can have 5% growth. Just tax carbon. You know there is a gov officai somewhere going oh hey good idea! Commies are running the show ppl. Damn. I was raised thinking be buddies to the south are defenders of freedom. Imagine my saddness when I found out they took you over from within.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:36 | 3013407 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

The Western countries are reducing energy use primarily because they exported all their production jobs.  They are all now headed into 3rd world status. 

Dollars are printed on paper which is carbon neutral.  That's why our money is green.


Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:52 | 3013450 MSimon
MSimon's picture

The real cost of oil depends on the cost to run the states that produce it. Saudi can't sell oil below about $80 a bbl for too long or it will go tits up. Iran is in worse shape.


The cost of production has zero to do with the cost of oil these days. The cost of running a petro state is almost all there is.


And "green" energy? I'm an engineer. I can run those numbers. Don't make me laugh.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:56 | 3013457 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"The real cost of oil depends on the cost to run the states that produce it."

Candidate for comment of the year.  And that, my friend, is why the USA is "out of oil".

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 23:57 | 3013460 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Oh goody, what form of strawman will you create? Inquiring minds want to know...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:00 | 3013465 MSimon
MSimon's picture

Straw man? I will burn it in a furnace and extract the residuals as electricity. According to Carnot - minus the usual losses.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:08 | 3013485 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep, those losses are a bitch eh... what is it, taking into account transmission, IIRC 20-25% makes it to the toaster...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:31 | 3014430 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

Amazing point. Even the wealthiest petro-states economies are completely insane. Saudi Arabia employs millions of workers from all over the Islamic world while their own highly educated population languish in unemployment or politically aligned government work schemes. 30 percent of "Saudi Arabians" are migrant workers. Same situation all over the gulf. Of the 16 million natives half a million are unemployed. Not too bad but this is ignoring the fact the Saudi Arabians get free tertiary education up to PHD level and few women are counted in unemployment statistics. Were talking about 10 percent unemployment amongst a very very well educated largely male section of socitey. These aren't basket weaving degrees either, they go for the Theology and chemical engineering degrees, not the kind of people you want with too much time on their hands. The oil money had the effect of making anything in the real economy useless and to sustain these programs and there way of life they need oil prices as high as possible. Its subsidizing inefficeny on a massive scale. The Saudi's know this and some of them are trying to fix things.

Its not just Saudi Arabia either I've seen something similar in Malaysia and heard the same about Libya. I think Nigeria and Algeria have the same problem but go to immense lengths to keep the oil money in the hands of a very small group and have the bulk of the population taking up the role of migrant workers. The petro dollar has created some really ugly situations.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 17:00 | 3015280 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Good post. Saudi Arabia has been turned upside down in a short time. Oil has made everyone and everything insane. It has redrawn the entire middle east, it is the wild card in the US Israel / Arab positioning, it directs our wars, prevents us from intelligent economic behavior and has changed the earth's atmosphere in the geologic blink of a second. Nothing in the history of the man has had this kind of effect (except the Iphone).

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:06 | 3013480 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  This pretty well sums it up:

From 1991 to 2012 there were 13,950 peer reviewed articles, 24 rejected Global warming...

By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.


The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through 9 November 2012.)

Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:23 | 3013511 Apply Force
Apply Force's picture

And since we have other planets to reference in regard to the sun that heats us all -what have they been up to lately?  I'm petty sure science has a better grasp of the real temp on Mercury, Saturn or Venus over the last 50 or so years compared to what Earth climate was 200,000 or 2,000,000 or however many years ago... What's the planetary trend?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:31 | 3013524 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well if you were really interested you could spend 5 minutes and google up a few reputable sources, but we do know that you are not interested in any real scientific facts, right?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:37 | 3013532 Apply Force
Apply Force's picture

Facts are facts - totally agreed - and perhaps you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:42 | 3013538 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What facts do you have?

Here are some of mine

Here is a pretty picture of the past 400,000 years using it

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:39 | 3013606 Apply Force
Apply Force's picture

Forest for the trees... Things are heating up as of now (which could quickly be countered by a large volcanic eruption or two and resultant cloud cover, but never-the-less) and you harp on and on of AGW, and yet you appreciate Jevon's paradox... Are you really simply suggesting we buy more tank tops and flip-flops? 

It's OK to yell "wolf", but are you suggesting something other than how you think we'll be eaten?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 02:39 | 3013642 Boondocker
Boondocker's picture

wikipedia and quoting stats from those who make a living based on AGW??  go to bed you are a moron and way out of your league.

yes look at those ice cores and the tropical climate on the poles 50M years ago....sure it is all mans fault.....way past your bedtime

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 10:38 | 3014107 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Really, is that all you got?

And if you think NOAA is about AGW, you are even a bigger fool than you are currently showing...

What fraction of the planet was habitable by H. Sapiens 50 M ago?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:32 | 3013526 Money Squid
Money Squid's picture

"From 1991 to 2012 there were 13,950 peer reviewed articles..."

Your problem is that you have made up your mind because you want to be part of the in crowed. Many of those peer reviewers and authors have stated and continue to state that they do not agree with the global warming claims and wanted and demanded to have their names removed from the bullshit articles supporting global warming. Many resorted to suing to get their names off. Many who wrote their comments rejecting the false, inflated and flat out wrong "evidence" supporting global warming had their comments totally ignored and their names attached to published articles anyway as if they agreed with the data when they did not. I know its a waste of time for you, but anyone who is interested in science and the scientific method can easily learn about the global warming scam.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:40 | 3013534 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Look, we can have a discussion, but the primary ground rule is that you are not allowed to make shit up....

In my case it is not about making my mind up, it is about understanding the physics and knowing know to interpret data, it comes from having a Ph.D.....

So, if is such a scam why can't some of the those really smart people who don't think it is real simply write a paper that shows it is wrong, which explains the observed present and paleo-data and which stands up to any reasonable level of scrutiny... They have not and they can't... So either they are fools or liars...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:09 | 3013562 Money Squid
Money Squid's picture

First of all - if I do not get my way I going to make shit up. Let's get that straight. Second, if I feel threatened then I start calling you names. Third, the authors flat out state they have written papers arguing against man made global warming over and over and they can not get their papers published. Right from the mouths of the authors whose names appear on the papers touting them as experts in support of global warming. Its easy for a relatively small group of people to control the money for grants, which controls the research. Researchers need grant money and they write the proposals that are likely to get funded. Why write a proposal that will not get funded? Do not take my word for it, there are plenty of vids on youtube documenting this with these experts.

Also, about a year ago there was an article from a group of scientists at CERN regarding the link between cloud formation and cosmic rays. There was another related article about how these CERN scientists had to carefuly word their paper in order to get part of it published and the key graph representing their work was  not published as part of their paper, but could be found at another website for the more detailed attachments. What a pain in the ass just to get the damn graph for the article. The link between cosmic rays, cloud formation and temperature change was also demonstrated by an English scientist decades ago...I seriously can not recall his name at the moment but after a few more cocktails I can find it again. The cosmic ray-cloud formation relationship is a serious blow to the climate change group who need humans to be responsible so that a global taxation scam can be implemented to solve a crisis that does not exist.

whoops, time for another pint.


edit - her be a link to a vid with interviews of some of these experts

here is a link to the CERN page

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:22 | 3013585 Orly
Orly's picture

Hopefully that'll shut him up for a little while.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:49 | 3013618 Apply Force
Apply Force's picture

And Svensmark on the Cloud Mystery... just Google if link does not work:



Tue, 11/27/2012 - 11:45 | 3014294 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Re: CERN, when you publish a scientific paper, as opposed to making shit up for a blog, you cannot make claims not supported by the data.... The CERN result is not serious blow to anything....

The CERN experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays. At least two of the other requirements (strengthening solar magnetic field, fewer cosmic rays reaching Earth) have not been met over the past 50 years. The lead scientist in the CERN CLOUD experiment explicitly stated that the experiment "actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate."  Many other studies have concluded that cosmic rays play a minor role in cloud formation, and have not contributed in any significant way to the global warming over the past 50 years.


I'll repeat what the spokeman of the experiment said

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:34 | 3014435 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

waiting for their amazing comeback

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:38 | 3014446 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

No need to even argue about it. Shit is supposed to be hitting the fan real real soon. We can all wait and see if Mother Nature flips out and destroys everything over the next decade. Only thing I want to keep in mind is for those armchair climate scientists is the population is growing rapidly.Ergo just because more people are getting hit by more enviromental weirdness doesn't mean there is more enviromental weirdness happening. No one who gave a shit was there to report bad harvests in Central Africa or floods in Australia 300 years ago.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:53 | 3013621 Dennis Mack Gyvner
Dennis Mack Gyvner's picture

"From 1991 to 2012 there were 13,950 peer reviewed articles, 24 rejected Global warming..."

And of those 13,950 articles, the probability that 95%+ were on the public payroll is 100%. They live off the public "tit" that requires them to keep the "Al Gore" lie alive so they can keep taxpayer monies stuffing their pockets.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 07:26 | 3013750 Peterus
Peterus's picture

There are also additional motifs.

If AGW pans out consumerism will be assaulted and forced to make room for some form of conservationism (backed by totalitarian power to implement it, but lets leave it for now) and for many lefty people this is most glorious gole in itself (think teachers - many of them are willing to lie in "good causes"). Being included in it's execution and paid for it is a cherry on top. Fanatics have very strong reason to "fight for it" even if it's a lie, while pragmatic people might just do it for the money - or do actual science but make a little bow to AGW so that they get more funds. With this kind of interests lined up honest effort would have to be put to account for possible bias. Where is this effort if year by year predictions are more grave while actual results more divergent from them?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:51 | 3014466 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

For shits and giggles, do you even know when AGW was first predicted?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 01:55 | 3013622 Augustus
Augustus's picture

All you have done is to exhibit the control of the Warmists over the academic environment.  Jones even wrote some of his emails describing how critical articles would never be published.  They all like getting their checks as members of the club of Warmists.  Can you tell us the amount that the Indian fellow got for including the claim that there would be no snow on the Himalaya Mountains?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 03:03 | 3013650 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Gawd, Mr. Pachauri is a major embarassment to India. 

AS a matter of fact, those glaciers are GROWING.

There is a big chill coming, not a hothouse.

The whole IPCC thing/Nobel Prize is such a shit show, it's beyond sad.

It's like between the TIme Person of the Year and the Nobel prize, "they" try to legitimize their desired dominant view.

Current Peace Prez as case in point.



Tue, 11/27/2012 - 05:36 | 3013704 IamtheREALmario
IamtheREALmario's picture

They lied to the kids in the schools that polar bear would all die because their local habitat would go away and they would all be stuck on little floating ice cubes with nothing to eat. Pre-school propaganda is shameful.

Obviously the fact that the polar bear population is thriving has not been included in the sociopathic propagandist texts.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 12:52 | 3014471 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Umm... ok, whatever...

Let me guess, you listen to Rush in the afternoons?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 06:08 | 3013701 IamtheREALmario
IamtheREALmario's picture

There are several things that I find very interesting. The most intersting is that apparently the peer review crowd, to maintain its power, is always seemingly slow to accept new and accurate information because by maintaining the status quo they maintain their power.

1. In the 1970s the publish or perish crowd, who must please the "peer reviewers" almost uniformly claimed that we were entering a mini-ice age ... because that is how you got publushed

2. The most recent reports that I have seen indicate that global warming stopped 16 years ago

3. There have been multiple reports that indicate that the other planets in our solar system have been warming (must be man-man carbon, right?)

4. The common thinking amongst the peer review lemming is that C02 causes warming and that S02 will counteract it. Someone really needs to thing this stupidity through before they pump more of the chemical that they blamed for acid rain into the atmosphere. It makes absoltely no sense to me.

5. Everything that I have seen indicates that the original data that all of the policy has been based around was found to be a blatant fraud.

6. The peer review crowd insisted that the earth was flat

It sure seems to be the case that they are trying the old "if the lie is big enough and you shout it long enough and loud enough then eventually the idiots who cannot think will believe it" will work to allow them to put forth some other agemda under a smoke screen ... similar to a false flag attack. Unfortunately for the control freaks, people have been waking up to the scams in record numbers and while there is no one who denies that renewable energy, maintaining green space and better air quality is a good thing for human beings (something S02 pumping does not provide) the fact that the agenda uses a falsified man-made global warming as its core argument reduces its credibility and undermines the good agenda so that scammers such as Al Gore, et al can profit monetarily.

Maybe you should sell your big lie to children. They will believe any crap, no matter how blatantly untrue. Oh, wait the sociopathic control freaks are already teaching the global warming lies in the schools ... that is how they get a bazzilion peer review papers that need to reinforce the same lie.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:30 | 3013521 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Ah hell, I thought this would also fit.... too bad the paper is behind a paywall...

Here's the abstract of this paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and Klaus Oberauer, published in Psychological Science.

"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scienti fic evidence.  Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r about 0.80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientifti c fi ndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists."

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 05:54 | 3013712 IamtheREALmario
IamtheREALmario's picture

ROFLMAO .... typical propagandist trash. They put out something true first: "that the peer review crowd agrees that human C02 emissions are altering the world's climate"... yes they do AND odd they don't say causing global warming since it has stopped AND gosh, it must have some effect, even if that effect is smaller than the eruption of one volcano... still some effect.

And then they go off and try to discredit the people who see the truth by stating that those not fooled by the big lie believe things that are perceived to be obviously false and laughable ... to the peer review crowd and so it is designed to discourage people from both publishing contrary information and for giving people who believe the truth any credibility. All cleverly masked as a credible study, I might add.

By the way, I don't know about the the CIA killing MLK, but as for JFK, one of the doctors who was present and originally sworn to secrecy says that the exit wound was in the back of JFK's head, which explains Jackie's odd behavior ... scooping up bits of brains and all. While this completely rules out the original whitewashed Warren commission fantasy it clearly did not make the mainstream news or the peer review journals.

Go  back into your hole, shill.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 11:47 | 3014298 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sorry if you can't deal with reality...

People that deny AGW may be safely grouped with the whackadoos...

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:31 | 3013523 Theos
Theos's picture


lol renewable energy.


too little too late. 

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:35 | 3013531 redrob25
redrob25's picture

The problem I have with the energy problem is that we have alternatives available, we just don't use them (or use them appropriately).

  1. First, natural gas, when used as a transportation fuel (and not as a primary grid fuel) would last us 250 years at current usage and growth rates. If the third world middle class explodes like we hear about, then this number shrinks. But then if the world economy collapses as we hear about, this number balloons. You cannot have it both ways (meaning having the end of the world economically and simultaneously having economic expansion, and therefore the rise of the third world middle class, at the same time. depleting all known earthly resources. Duh.)
  2. The Peak Prosperity articles (and to be fair, most 'fearful' energy articles by other authors) don't discuss thorium in detail. We have literally millenia of thorium grid energy available at current growth rates (not just usage rates, but accounting for hockey sticks also). If Flibe gets their reactor design working (not a stretch considering the tech already exists, it just needs refining), then we have a super efficient, nuclear proliferation tolerant, almost meltdown proof, scalable, and cheap grid energy solution for the entire world. Why doesn't this ever make the energy fear articles? Because it doesn't sell to the fearful public!
  3. Oil and coal are still in relative abundance when you consider we can switch to alternatives fairly quickly (5-10 year transition). We have just chosen not to. We are in a endless loop where we only discuss what is the current predicament, and not how to actually solve it using existing resources reconfigured in an intelligent energy policy.
  4. We apply the coming economic armageddon to everything else in life and become chicken littles. Everything is a hockey stick at the same time, OMGWTFBBQ! The Mayans were right. Ahhhhhhhhhh! Run for your lives!

I get being informed. I get that we need to work together. I don't get the tunnel vision around energy and the lack of will to use the given resources the best way we can. The market WANTS to do this, but the politicians interfere and the people hide in the corner waiting for Mad Max allowing the elite to dictate policy. Frankly, I am tired of it.

Read and be educated about true energy alternatives we have before us now and in the very near future.


I would also like to point out that numerous voluminous studies have shown that solar cannot be a scalable solution to our energy problems given current materials. The only reason it works in localized instances now is because of subsidies (meaning stealing of people's money to pay for an energy solution that would fail in the market on its own for obvious reasons).

Secondly, rail is not an efficient means of travel. Economically, many studies have shown that it's a disaster. I have no problem with public transportation in general, but just realize that the hidden costs of taxes and exhorbitant building and maintenance fees make large scale public transportation a non market friendly solution. Only in socialist societies that thrive on inefficient solutions to problems.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:47 | 3013546 Orly
Orly's picture

"Secondly, rail is not an efficient means of travel. Economically, many studies have shown that it's a disaster."

The Japanese have a 360mph train.  A maglev that is very fuel efficient, as well.

I'd rather do that than wait an the airport to be groped by a TSA screener any day.  That could be the solution for more local travel, like Dallas to Houston or Chicago to St. Louis.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 06:04 | 3013716 IamtheREALmario
IamtheREALmario's picture

The elitists (they are not elite in any way ... if you have met them, but think they are and have dubbed themselves as "elite") will just have the puppet government grope you at the train station. The purpose is to create fear and alter behavior, not to provide security. It is the preparation before the assault, similar to the 5 years that the CIA spent leading up to 9/11 when they were sending cruise missile strikes into Iraq and Afghanistan (they would send in one missile to blow up a target, then when people were out helping the wounded they would hit them with a second missile in the same spot). The tactic was designed to enflame the locals and create terrorists. It was not especially successful. It created a lot of hatred, but not a lot of action.... just like the TSA.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:23 | 3014552 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

Does anyone know the indepth details of Thorium reactions? Would they need to build an entirely new nuclear industry complete with mines and centrifuges alongside the conventional nuclear industry?

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:43 | 3013537 klapper
klapper's picture

Time is running out for the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. It hasn't warmed globally now for going on 12 years, despite Obama's comment in a recent press conference that it was warming even faster than the predictions from only 10 years ago. It's not warming faster, in fact it's not warming at all. This is apparent in all major atmospheric datasets be they global surface air temperature (GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4) or tropospheric temperature (UAH, RSS). A lot of reason are being postulated: Chinese aerosols, natural variability on the decadal scale, lower solar activity, ENSO in dominantly cool phase, heat hiding in the deep ocean, and higher than expected to weak volcanic events.

How about this one: the models have too much sensitivity to CO2 forcing and forecasts based on this sensitivity are wrong. has a post from Nov. 1 titled "Short term trends: Another proxy fight". Look at the bottom-most figure showing the actual surface temperature record vs. the GCM forecast ensemble. Notice how 10 years ago the record was in the middle of the ensemble but is now at the bottom of the forecasts. If this pause in temperature continues, catastrophic AGW theory will not survive the next 5 years.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 00:52 | 3013548 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep, and what did the discussion say about trends?

Could you remind us of how long does one have to observe a trend for it is be significant given the intrinsic variablitity in the data?

Do you even understand the question?

Also, would you care to comment on OHC? You know, where all the heat goes?

Hint: Look at

or here

Edit: Since you probably cannot estimate it, I thought I would link it for you

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 02:02 | 3013626 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Evidently looking at recent changes that do not match your loved computer models is not considered satisfactory.  You only believe in what term for modeling?  Something such as 150 years or so?

However, if we extend the lookback period to be 30,000 years, there are several periods of higher temperatures and of lower temperatures.  Current temperatures are somewhat on the cool side as we are still recovering from the last ice age.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 11:48 | 3014304 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Making shit up again... please cite your sources...

We have records going back 800,000 years that say otherwise....

Google Vostok Ice core data....

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 18:01 | 3015505 klapper
klapper's picture

The 2002 to 2008 OHC is a nice cherry picked trend. Look at the big dip in 2002 in a data plot of the 0-750m OHC. However, the data show distinct inflection and flattening of the OHC slope after 2003. In the period 2003 to now, heat gain would work out to only about 0.2W/m2 of ocean area, nowhere close to the model prediction of 0.7W/m2.

Taminos calculations on what's required indicate a trend with the variability of the GISS SAT dataset would need 15 years to 24 years to "prove" a trend. Well we're fast closing on 15 years and the trend looks to be zero; if not zero then no where near the model predicted 0.2C/decade. A recent paper lead authored by Ben Santer looked at the variability in model hindcasts and came to the conclusion you would need at least 17 years of trend length to identify the anthropogenic signal in the noise.

The bottom line is it needs to start warming very quickly if the temperature record is to achieve the model warming rates within a trend length of 15 to 20 years. If you cherry picked a 20 year trend starting in the beginning of 1999, it would give a slight edge in meeting the IPCC forecast of 0.2C/decade for the first 3 decades of this century. This is because you start the trend with 2 very cool years thanks to La Nina.

However, do the math on what the anomaly would need to be for you to achieve 0.2C/decade in this period. I used the HadCRUT4 database, using annual averages, and found the anomaly would need to be +0.72 for years 2013 to 2018 inclusive. Or you could start with an anomaly +0.66 in 2013 and add +0.02 every year after ending in 2018 at +0.76. In HadCRUT4, the current record year (2010) is only +0.54.

Either way I can't see there is any possibility the record will match the forecast by the time we get to a 20 year trend, hence my comment on this hypothesis not lasting 5 years longer.

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 19:53 | 3015623 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Regarding the OHC, are you tryiing to make my argument for me?

The 2002-2008 regime was selected to try and show a change in the rate in this paper


As for your other comments, we both know who is doing the cherry picking...


Nice try buddy....

Tue, 11/27/2012 - 20:02 | 3015889 klapper
klapper's picture

The table at Skeptical Science in your link previously shows the W/m2 calculated from 2002 to 2008 using OHC for 0-700 at 0.44W/m2 forcing. I take it this is Nuccitellis number. Just by a quick back of the envelope cross-check using the latest OHC data, I get a number very close (0.47W/m2). So I agree if these are the endpoints, you get a high number. Adding 700-2000m OHC estimates you end up with 0.73W/m2 total input, which matches the model forecast. My problem is the endpoint of 2002 and 2008 cross the inflection point of 2003, so I guess I would disagree slightly with the Douglass et al paper about where the transitions are. Anyway, even if you use 2002 as the start point and not 2003, the trend from then to now is getting shallower, not steeper.

Anyway my main point from above is that there is little chance by the time we get to 2015 or so, the surface air temperature trend will be anywhere close to the model forecast. The longer you walk on a flat road the steeper the climb must be at the end to get to the desired elevation. The problem is the temperature climb that needs to happen to validate the models is just getting to be not believable.


Tue, 11/27/2012 - 20:25 | 3015962 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Are you seriously trying to convince me that using the 1998 El Nino as starting point is anything but cherry picking?

Compute the trend from 1950 to 1998 and the trend from 1950 to 2012.... which is larger?

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 00:59 | 3016543 klapper
klapper's picture

Actually no. I will say that if the global warming signal is robust enough it will shine through the noise of El Nino and La Ninas regardless, as the trend goes to 15 years or more. However, I cheated on your behalf by starting in 1999 which is a strong La Nina (cool) year. This juices the trend with a little leverage having 2 cool years at the front end. Skip the comparisons of trends starting in 1950. What counts is what is global warming doing for us now, and how short of a trend can we use to figure that out.

Let's refine the numbers a bit, using the Santer et al 2011 number of a minimum of 17 years to calculate a trend. 17 years from the start of 1999 is the end of 2015, or only 3 years from now. If the surface temperature trend is not close to the model prediction of 0.2C/decade by the end of 2015, especially with a cool 2 year starting point, skeptics will converge on the lack of strength shown by the anthropogenic signal. Right now the trend from 1999 to Sept 2012 is about 0.07C/decade or only 1/3 the model forecast warming rate. Not good right? However, the credibility of the forecasts might be salvageable, if you can pump out 3 very hot years from 2013 to 2015.

Now we arrive at the just how hot those years need to be to hit the magic 0.2C/decade warming rate and prove that warming was as the models forecast, i.e. catastrophic. I've done the math for you. The anomaly numbers for 2013 to 2015, would need to be .72, .74 and .76 to make the 0.2C/decade warming rate over 17 years. How likely is that when the all time record in an El Nino year is only .54?

Not very likely at all is my guess, the implication being you have a huge PR problem looming in your future.


Wed, 11/28/2012 - 01:07 | 3016554 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Is this the kind of math a denier does to make himself feel better?

You have to look at far more data than what you are doing...  If you tried to write a paper on this basis of this argument you would be laughed at, you would have to explain this for example

Talk about losing sight of the forest for the trees....


Wed, 11/28/2012 - 02:26 | 3016617 klapper
klapper's picture

I'm well familiar with the Foster&Rahmstorf 2011 paper, which I like to call the "it's warming even if it's not" paper. The Skeptical Science website did a prediction for 2012 and 2013 based on their interpretation of the F&R 2011 empirical equations based on ENSO and TSI levels going forward (this was done in March). As it turned out, the 2012 forecast isn't looking too good, to be honest they have zero hope of making it. However, keep your hopes up for 2013. Skeptical Science predicted a GISS anomaly of 0.73 for 2013. Keep in mind the GISS record anomaly is about .64, so this is going to be a new record by a lot, assuming it happens.

I don't think it will, but let's revisit same time next year.

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 10:09 | 3017123 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Re: F+R What you like to call it has very little to do with reality...

Instead of posting hearsay, why don;t you provide links so we can fully appreciate the level at which you are trying to manipulate things...

You are also tying to create a strawman where C02 is the only driving mechanism for global temps...sorry that dog don't hunt....

And I see that you are still avoiding the question about the trend from 1950-1998 and 1950-2012?


Wed, 11/28/2012 - 11:22 | 3017418 klapper
klapper's picture

The Skeptical Science prediction for 2013 is easy to find. But to help you out here it is:

As for using the trick of starting the trend in 1950, it's what I call a "fool's gotcha" since you are crossing the inflection point of the start of significant global warming and using a really long trend comparison because it's what you need to do to show 2012 as warming faster than to 1998. We're told we need a 30 year or 17 year or some number like that to detect the global warming signal (or lack thereof I suppose) so we shouldn't need to go back to 1950 to "prove" it's still warming. If you're so confident of the fact it's still warming, then try the comparison with a shorter trends say 1975 to 1998 and 1975 to 2012. Or maybe pick 1970 as the start point. Doesn't look so good now does it?

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea I'm trying to create a CO2 is the only force driving climate. Certainly I don't believe that myself. What I'm trying to say is that the models make CO2 the main driver of climate, especially since the 1970's. However, now with CO2 rising faster than ever, the modellers are somewhat at a loss to explain that global surface temperature is not following closely behind.

In the last IPCC report the models hindcast to 2000 and then forecast from that point forward. We are now have almost 13 years of data into that forecast and so far the results are not looking good for the models. The proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic global are running out of time for the empirical data to catch up with the models. For now you can argue the no warming trend isn't long enough to be statistically significant, but how much longer will that be true?




Wed, 11/28/2012 - 12:57 | 3017699 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Thanks for the link...

BTW, it is Nucitelli's own prediction not SKS (as noted in the article) I picked 1950 at random, it works for every year I have tried up to 1990.... Once again, nice try...

One last comment on Nucitelli's prediction, once the MEI and TSI indices for 2012 are known, we can talk....


Wed, 11/28/2012 - 17:34 | 3018541 klapper
klapper's picture

You're doing something wrong in your fixed endpoint trend calculations. I've tried both GISS and HADCRUT4 using all months from Jan 1950 ending in Dec 1998 and October 2012 for GISS and August 2012 for HadCRUT4. Here are my comparison numbers to those end dates from Jan 1975:

GISS to 1998 trend = 0.173C/decade

GISS to 2012 trend = 0.164C/decade

HadCRUT4 to 1998 trend = .192C/decade

HadCRUT4 to 2012 trend = .170C/decade

I ran rolling trend calculations month by month. The trends converge from 1950 to 1970. After that in HadCRUT4 the trend ending in 1998 is always stronger than 2012. In GISS it crosses back in the late '70s but after about 1982, the trend to 1998 is always stronger.

Actually you're wrong on your last comment. The lag between the MEI and surface temperature is 5 months. Therefore, you would take the MEI average from August 2011 to July 2012 to create a MEI adjustment for the 2012 calender year temperature average. So we already know the MEI input to the formula. I've already done that cross-check. MEI average from Aug 2011 to July 2012 is -0.29. Using Nuccitelli's conversion to the C adjustment (.075) that works out to -0.022. Nuccitellis estimate was -0.024 so the MEI adjustment is pretty much the same, maybe even a litte warmer.

Likewise TSI has a lag. Only one month however we already pretty much know that number is too. I've tried to reverse engineer Nuccitelli's tables, and I think he's using 1361.83 as the TSI baseline, calculating the average, for a year, subtracting the difference to this baseline and applying the 0.07 factor for TSI. My guess the TSI from Dec 2011 to Nov 2012 will average about 1361.50. Muliply the difference -.33, by .07 and you have a TSI adjustment of -.023 vs Nuccitelli's -.015. Likewise, I think he's using a baseline of .645 for the anomalie baseline. I won't bore you with further calculation details, but my corrected estimate using his method is about 0.64 for calendar year 2012, pretty much the same as Nuccitelli's. However, the number is probably going to come in at 0.56 or 0.55 so a big miss.


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!