Home/BlogRemember the amazing ice cover of last year on Lake Superior? Well, the coverage today stands at 93%, while last year on this date it was ‘only’ 82%.
Exactly one year before that is was (believe it or not) only 15%. Go figure.
Here’s today’s color enhanced satellite image, where blue is either ice or snow on ice:
The frigid weather and above normal ice cover is being blamed on global warming (of course). What would we do without Bill Nye to mislead us?
So, any guesses what will be blamed when we get a couple of warm winters and below-normal ice cover?
Hmmm?
Sometimes it’s good to remind people that weather — at least outside the tropics — is almost never “normal”.
Sometime this week or next Lake Superior will be 100% frozen, and the other lakes won’t be far behind.
I foresee next year to be a repeat, and the next, and so on, as solar activity diminishes for quite some time.
Solar F10.7cm flux has averaged 119 sfu/day for the past eight days, just below the threshold for solar warming/cooling of the ocean that I established last summer.
We are now headed into uncharted territory during the modern era. There is no going back to warming for any length of time until or unless solar activity rises above about 120 sfu for quite a while (notwithstanding the brief and occasional solar activity spike later in this cycle declining phase). “Warming” is not going to occur again until the next solar cycle, if it is strong enough, and perhaps not until the cycle following that, cycle #26.
The warmth in the oceans that peaked late 2014 due to solar flux being at an average of 163 sfu/day from Nov 14 to year end, and from 156 sfu/day since Oct 1 last year to year end, is dissipating under lower solar flux conditions as we speak.
We are close to on track with the SWPC solar flux forecast for the rest of SC24, as of today. I predict the January 2015 SST anomaly will come in a bit higher than last year’s year-end spike, as January solar flux averaged 142 sfu/day. February as of today is at 133 sfu/day, still high enough for warming. If the USAF 45day F10.7 forecast holds up until the end of the month (probably not – they’ve been too high lately), the daily average flux for February will then be 122, very close to cooling conditions, especially since the second half of the month is low, so February could be a wash for SST change.
NOAA’s SWPC F10.7cm March outlook already appears to be too high, indicating that flux is going lower earlier than they expected. Going by their forecast, it will be no sooner than April and no later than June when solar flux is expected to drop below 120 and stay below 120 (monthly average). From there it’s all downhill for SC24, SSTs, and the warmists’ big charade.
The warmists are going down hard this year. Count on it.
The Sun is going to do them in.
Hey what happened to Sal? :-))
Sorry Bob no disrespect meant, its just Salvatore Del Prete is the resident “its the sun” guy. He writes the same things as you have written……..so it was just a joke on my part.
For what it is worth i gree with what you say but some people cant get beyond TSI they dont understand how the sun can effect climate in many other ways.
cheers
crakar24,
You wrote: “they dont understand how the sun can effect climate in many other ways”. What are some of these other ways? Where could I find out what you mean?
Hi Mikw,
I am sure if Sal was around he would give you 100 links 🙂
You could start with this paper
google, cosmic-ray-driven reaction and greenhouse effect of halogen molecules: culprits for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change.
In short what they are saying is the CFC’s did it and the montreal protocal has fixed it. Re Ozone and GCR’s.
Also google for svensmark theory on cloud formation also based on GCR’s.
Gcr’s increase when solar winds drop and solar winds drop when the sun goes quiet and if it goes quiet for an extended period then it could/should have an effect on cloud cover. Our very own Dr Roy Spencer has produced a paper stating a small change in cloud cover can have a large impact on albedo hence temps etc.
Then there is Theodore Landschiet (check spelling) his theory was based on orbital parameters of the planets mainly Jupiter (Jovian orbit is 11.3 years and solar cycle is 11) so gradually they would go in and out of phase this modulated the length and strength of the solar cycles. He predicted cycle 23 with far greater accuracy than those in the game and also predicted sc24/25 would be very low. From this he began predicting weather events on earth etc.
There is also the UV theory, in that when the sun goes quiet the UV drops by up to 25%, this changes the temp in the stratosphere (interaction with O3) which some believe causes the jet stream to move as we have seen in the past few years. This one sort of fits wit the LIA type events i suppose.
Then there is the magnetic field theories when the sun is active our atmosphere puffs up so much we have to increase the hieght of sats in orbit opposite for a quiet sun, i havent looked at these too much to be honest.
Anyway there is a heap of info out there, some of it is speculative i suppose but some of it is quite solid.
Sal will have all the links you can handle or if anyone else some feel free to supply Mike.
Cheers
Mike, I know one way for certain without sun it we have no weather, zilch nada, none, or is that to had for you to understand?
Appreciate it crakar24. Salvatore and I have similar outlooks, but my approach differs, and we don’t say exactly the same things. My solar model has one parameter, whereas he has several, and his flux threshold is 90 sfu IIRC.
He’s been saying that it’ll be clear in five years (by 2020), whereas I say it’ll be a foregone conclusion 2015-2017 at the latest. There are technical reasons for this, to be explained further on my site when it opens.
At one time I thought it would take until 2020 also.
Salvatore is a great solar enthusiast who enjoys what he’s doing, and he’s open-minded too, from what I can see.
Hey, Bob…
Just had to come back here to see if you updated your report on Lake Superior or provided a new color enhanced satellite image. Of course not.
Your post from three days ago: “Sometime this week or next Lake Superior will be 100% frozen”. Hmmmmmm…
My scientific education was in another arena, but there are many things about the universe around us that can be learned from observation. Like, for instance: right now I see some ice by the shore… but beyond the ice I can see lots and lots and lots of water. That’s not a scientific report, mind you, simply “anecdotal evidence”.
For the last 40 years or so, I’ve been hanging around The Big Lake (as we like to call it). Since it is the largest freshwater lake in the world by surface area, and the third largest in the world by volume, it has some interesting characteristics.
This massive (approaching 3000 cubic miles) amount of water is almost constantly being churned up by the wind, such that it generally has a fairly constant temperature, year round, in the 40’s (F).
The old timers here say that it takes about three days of very cold air temperature, combined with little or no wind, for the lake to freeze over. Yup, we had that.
However, after your Feb 22nd post, we had some really strong winds up here. I could go look up the mph’s, but for several hours I saw the trees swaying… and heard the thunderous sound as the wind forced its way through the woods.
So, guess what happened. The lake returned to its normal winter state. It does only freeze over “completely” (that’s really only 90-something percent) an average of once every 20 years.
So I’ll be watching, Bob. I’m gazing out my window at The Lake right now as I key this post. I’ll keep an eye on it.
Your prediction of Feb 22nd: “Sometime this week or next Lake Superior will be 100% frozen”. So, let’s see… that looks like it covers the period through Mar 7th.
So, by March 7, 2015, those of us who have access to other sources will be able to determine if your prediction “holds water”, so to speak (pun intended).
Then, the accuracy of your long term predictions can be based upon the accuracy of your short term prediction.
I wonder if anyone coming to this website (other than those of us who stumble here accidently) has any interest in accuracy…
Oh… Bob: before you zing off a reply, you may want to consult some source which will explain to you the meaning of “sarcasm”.
“Just had to come back here to see if you updated your report on Lake Superior or provided a new color enhanced satellite image. Of course not.”
Did I say I was going to do that? No I didn’t. This isn’t my blog. I just visit here like you do. I’m pretty sure Dr. Spencer, whose blog this is, will provide a final review of the Great Lakes ice coverage at some future date with a new blog article.
“Your post from three days ago: “Sometime this week or next Lake Superior will be 100% frozen”. Hmmmmmm…”
It’s only been three days! We’ve got eleven days to go…
If the lake reaches less than 100%, oh well, I’m not going to worry about it. If the local meteorologist tells us the temperature is going to be 20 degrees, and it turns out to be 19, I’m not going to condemn that person for being under by one degree, like you’re so eager to condemn me now, nor would it preclude me from watching the person’s next prediction/forecast. That’s the nature of predictions.
I know you want to have fun with that. Can’t blame ya!
Maybe you could explain why the warmists’ predictions of an ice-free arctic by 2014 didn’t pan out, or why their extreme shrill convictions of runaway AGW haven’t even come close to happening. That’s if you’re even-handed that is…
If Lake Superior freezes over on average every 20 years as you say, when might we expect a complete freezeover again?
Lets see, checking here http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/ice/atlas/daily_ice_cover/daily_averages/plots/superior/supgallery/
and yes, 19 years ago, in early March 1996, during the solar minimum between cycles 22 & 23, the big lake froze over briefly, 100%. It didn’t freeze over 100% any other year that I can see from eyeballing those plots, although it came close in 1994.
Is there any chance this could happen again under current conditions? Absolutely. The cold trend looks locked in place, and as I see no immediate increase in solar activity to change that, or any impending circulation changes in the offset polar vortex, I still expect more lake freezing.
One thing that could possibly interfere with this is the current northward lunar atmospheric tide that generally brings warmer air northward from the tropics when the moon is transiting northward, air tides governed by the luner cycle, where in this case, on Feb 27, the moon reaches its maximum north declination of 18 degrees 20 minutes.
Our local forecaster is calling for near 30 degree weather by the 1st. It usually takes a few days of turnaround time for the atmospheric tides to “go the other way” (southward), so it’s possible a brief warm-up from that could interfere with my prediction. We’ll see.
The northward lunar air tides this winter have been swamped by the strong polar vortex so far. The vortex will break down sometime in March, as it usually does, as the equinox draws near.
Just as an aside here, I recall all the concern in the 1990s about the Great Lakes water levels, levels that ultimately rebounded naturally.
I graduated from Michigan Tech with a BSEE, lived up there for 15 years, and spent a lot of time on the big lake.
I hope you’re enjoying your winter and staying warm BC.
What do you mean by that?
Roy, how much does last years late thaw and likely retention of cold water into the start of this winter play in the rapid ice accumulation this year? Any calculations available for the delta energy between years? It seems this feedback is interesting to study.
Bob Weber, Two points to make about your claims.
First: 2015 has a very high probability to be the warmest on record in surface temps even if a typical el nino doesn’t form. It may seem like a bold claim but ocean surface temps seem to be remaining quite warm and ENSO appears to remain atleast neutral to warm for the rest of the year. January was 2nd according to NOAA,NASA and JMA tied for warmest Jan on record. Feb is very hot according to GFS numbers for most of the month.
Second: Look at the increases in forcing from IPCC values updated to 2011. Then look at the typical 6-8 year decline in solar forcing from the current peak to a likely low point using NASA values. Believe it or not, the current increases in CO2 with business as usual will lead to a growth rate of GHG forcing that will now likely outmatch solar decline over the same 6-8 year period.
Variation in solar forcing is becoming an increasingly less significant influence compared to other factors. Aerosol decreases in China and possibly other Asian economies might be a much bigger change than solar variation in the coming years. This, in addition to any PDO, ENSO and volcanic changes in the coming years will be more influential for surface warming than the expected decline in solar variation.
2015 is only seven weeks old Bassman.
January was high as I said because temps were high at year end 2014 to begin with, and secondly, a slight increase resulted from 142 sfu/day solar flux in January, a flux level about 22 points higher than needed to warm the ocean.
Bassman, why would I look at the IPCC for anything authoritative on “forcing” when they haven’t gotten anything right yet? The IPCC “science” is a sick joke.
“Believe it or not, the current increases in CO2 with business as usual will lead to a growth rate of GHG forcing that will now likely outmatch solar decline over the same 6-8 year period.” is your claim, that I disagree with.
I consider your comment as extremely speculative based on what, warmist theology? Does this mean you actually attribute last year’s warming to CO2? You’re kidding me right?
Variation in solar forcing is the only thing of importance. Everything else you mentioned is speculation and of secondary importance, if that. CO2 is absolutely unimportant to “warming”, as CO2 levels always FOLLOW temperature increases.
Bassman, I am a solar forcing advocate and attribute much of the warming last century to solar forcing even if the link between UV and cosmic rays to climate have high uncertainty. There is little doubt that the suns hale cycle forces climate for me based extensive research showing the forcing. Look up respapov’ s research (but check spelling). We all know there are multiple variables that force climate and for me CO2 and solar activity are both factors and their relative strengths are highly uncertain. I am not so bold as to predict bc of temperature lags associated with ocean circulation (enso and pdo are examples as well as lower period processes). What i find ironic is that AGW advocates require a lag to explain the great hiatus, but deny lags associated with solar processes as the oceans unload stored heat from an exceptional period of high solar activity. The double standard is hypocritical and not logical. I think the phrase solar deniers is more appropriate than agw deniers.
IPCC 2013: “The IPCC report also says that warming near the Great Lakes, which lost more than 70 per cent of their ice cover between 1973 and 2010, could be 50 per cent higher than what is predicted globally.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/09/30/great_lakes_climate_expected_to_warm_more_than_global_rise_says_un_report.html
this is beyond farce now.
“The IPCC report also says that warming near the Great Lakes, which lost more than 70 per cent of their ice cover between 1973 and 2010, could be 50 per cent higher than what is predicted globally.”
They said could be, not would be! Either way, it’s Climate Change! 😉
If anyone doubts what I said, please look at the following two images several times
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-150215.gif
and
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-150222.gif
and you tell me, did SSTs get colder in the last week?
****
The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather events, not CO2!
Just remember who informed you of the reality of solar forcing on as short a time scale as one week!
What do you think is going to happen as the weeks go by with solar flux averaging under 120 sfu/day?
****
READ EM and WEEP WARMISTS – your BS days are over!!!!!!
Bob Weber, The MET office also suggests that 2015 is very likely to be the warmest on record. Your pretty convinced of the “its the sun” idea, I get that. I find that argument really bizarre considering how much less sunlight we get reaching the surface today because of aerosols. There is absolutely no reasonable explanation advanced right now other than warming due to GHG to explain the sudden rapid gain in energy over the last 50 plus years in the oceans, atmosphere and cryosphere. Solar just doesn’t cut it. There is a reason no serious scientist advances such a hypothesis these days.
People on here should understand how small the variation in solar energy really is compared to GHG forcing as of 2015. According to NASA it varies by about .25 Watts from high and low points. As of 2011, total GHG forcing (including neg and positive influences) was 2.29 Watts and growing yearly as I mentioned in the first comment. Solar is simply just another natural forcing that may cause variation over short timescales but like other natural forcings is simply being overwhelmed by the abrupt human caused increases in GHG emissions.
Bassman, the past 3 months of TSI falsifies your statement here “According to NASA it varies by about .25 Watts from high and low points.”
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
Where it is plain that the variation was from 1360.2 to 1362.3, a 2.1 watt difference, over eight times the range you mentioned. Why don’t you do your own research before spouting warmists’ talking points?
This is what I am referred to by .25 Watts (in terms of total solar irradiance)
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Solar/
Bassman, even you should be able to see that in figure A, where the claimed 0.25W is dimensioned on the right, does not match the actual variation shown by the graph, which looks to be around 2W +/- a few tenths, much like the recent TSI graph I linked to for you.
Are you paying attention to the details or not?
I’m keeping with the same units for simplicity and I think you know that. Stick with arguments in good faith. For more information in solar and other forcings see below:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-evolution-of-radiative-forcing-bar-charts/
Once again, you use false warmist information from the IPCC et al.
You may believe as the warmists do Bassman. I follow evidence, not BS.
I just wanted to establish how fringe some regular posters on here really are. I’m not denying your right to make such crazy claims. I just want to point out that your ideas/hypotheses go against just about every scientific organization imaginable. Understanding both natural and man-made factors influencing climate is hard enough for the average person. Your arguments don’t advance that understanding at all. For starters.. anyone reading this comment who hasn’t formed a firm conclusion, read this page from NASA, its very clear.
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
I am so glad that you said that. What is crazy is people like you who repeat what is false, even if from NASA.
Bob, your side lost the scientific argument long ago. The evidence was always on the “warmists” side, not the “anything but CO2” side that your clearly on. Deep Ocean Heat Content clearly shows unabated energy gain despite declining solar energy.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2513.html
Long ago I wasn’t “in” the argument for one thing. Secondly, where is your evidence that CO2 causes warming?
Abstract from the OHC paper you cited:
“Increasing heat content of the global ocean dominates the energy imbalance in the climate system1. Here we show that ocean heat gain over the 0–2,000 m layer continued at a rate of 0.4–0.6 W m−2 during 2006–2013. The depth dependence and spatial structure of temperature changes are described on the basis of the Argo Program’s2 accurate and spatially homogeneous data set, through comparison of three Argo-only analyses. Heat gain was divided equally between upper ocean, 0–500 m and 500–2,000 m components. Surface temperature and upper 100 m heat content tracked interannual El Niño/Southern Oscillation fluctuations3, but were offset by opposing variability from 100–500 m. The net 0–500 m global average temperature warmed by 0.005 °C yr−1. Between 500 and 2,000 m steadier warming averaged 0.002 °C yr−1 with a broad intermediate-depth maximum between 700 and 1,400 m. Most of the heat gain (67 to 98%) occurred in the Southern Hemisphere extratropical ocean. Although this hemispheric asymmetry is consistent with inhomogeneity of radiative forcing4 and the greater area of the Southern Hemisphere ocean, ocean dynamics also influence regional patterns of heat gain.”
If you Bassman think that 0.002-0.005°C yr−1 is something to hang your hat on, well, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Here’s the truth, the Sun warmed the ocean barely at all from 2006-2013 because solar activity wasn’t very high except during the recently ended cycle maximum.
Multiply those numbers by 100 for a hundred year rate, and what do you get, 0.2 to 0.5°C. Is that troubling you?
You have to admit that we can’t extend that rate out 100 years with any real confidence level. Or do you?
Nothing in that paper abstract is inconsistent with 100% solar forcing.
Next.
Bob, thats dishonest and you know it, were talking about 2000m worth of ocean covering much of the planet. How in the world do you think it would warm more than that over about a decade, we both know the high specific heat of water. The question is how much energy does it take to warm it by even that small amount… answer (alot!!), an enormous energy imbalance. And of course your really being dishonest by not mentioned how much more rapid the warming is at the surface and more importantly on land. We could go further and look at how much more rapid warming is occuring in the NH where most people live. Again, lots of “bad faith” arguments. Its dishonest not to mention those things. The top 2000m of ocean warming at that rate is incredibly relavent because of the evidence of an energy imbalance it provides (in addition to all of the other lines of evidence in the NASA link I provided). The planet is gaining energy at an incredible rate and absolutely nothing in the peer reviewed research offers any other explanation for it other than the current and growing GHG emissions.
What a another load of your BS Bassman!
“The planet is gaining energy at an incredible rate and absolutely nothing in the peer reviewed research offers any other explanation for it other than the current and growing GHG emissions.”
Define an “incredible rate”.
I just linked for you 200 papers relevant to solar forcing, and you dismissed them out of hand with a non sequiter argument.
It is you Bassman who is dishonest. Tell me your full name.
Bob, Solar forcing has been in decline at the same time surface temperatures have warmed rapidly. See the NASA quote below. “Tell me your name” I trust Roy Spencer will keep that confidential.
“Even if the Sun were getting brighter, however, the pattern of warming observed on Earth since 1950 does not match the type of warming the Sun alone would cause. When the Sun’s energy is at its peak (solar maxima), temperatures in both the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) become warmer. Instead, observations show the pattern expected from greenhouse gas effects: Earth’s surface and troposphere have warmed, but the stratosphere has cooled.”
-Taken from NASA link below
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
Its not really dishonest Bassman i think that is a poor choice of words.
Lets not forget the ARGO bouys cover an area of about 250,000 square kilometers, they sink as they drift in the currents get to a depth and then rise taking measurements as they go whilst they drift with the currents.
They are not like a land thermometer, they encounter cold and warm currents where ever they drift, there could be millions of square kilometers that are never measured.
Despite all this the data producers some how come up with a figure of +0.005C and +0.002C and where are the error bars?
With numbers this small there is a good chance you could put “-” signs at teh start and still be considered accurate and where would you be then Bassman? One thing is for sure you would have no argument.
I dont mined you debating these things in fact i welcome it but you cant debate these things with such conviction you need to broaden your mind a little to accept other possibilities.
Cheers
You must scared out of your mind to hide behind a fake name while tossing your grenades. Not my problem. Just thought I’d test you to see if you had any real backbone.
“Solar forcing has been in decline at the same time surface temperatures have warmed rapidly”
Show me your evidence.
crakar, sea level rise, glacial melt, surface temps, warming of the troposphere will documented here thanks to Roy Spencer and many other lines of evidence all show the same thing. The upper 2000m of ocean is warming and will continue to warm. I think NOAA provides error bars here.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index2.html
Click on the error bars option below the pic and then click on number 6 for 2000m yearly averages.
“There is a reason no serious scientist advances such a hypothesis these days.” says Bassman
Go through the following list and tell me which ones aren’t serious scientists
“Over 200 peer-reviewed papers demonstrating solar control of climate published since 2010”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/02/over-200-peer-reviewed-papers.html
Bassman, isn’t it time for you to admit that you’re just another hapless victim of warmist BS?
Bob, Not going to get into it any further. The very name of the blog you linked to “hockeyschtick” is mocking Michael Mann’s famous climate reconstruction that has been verified many times over. The actual name of the blog is implying that the “hockey stick” rise in temps ins’t real but it is and has been verified through many independent approaches. Your being very dishonest with such links. The average reader would have no idea are non mainstream your ideas are.
See:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2261531/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/
I can see why you’re running away like a scared chicken. You are losing the argument. Who cares what the “mainstream” is when it’s wrong!? You are a conformist and nothing else.
Yes sometimes being mainstream is really “uncool”. Its always better to be non mainstream like being against germ theory or landing on the moon. Its hip and rebellious. Makes perfect sense to me.
The best Bassman statement so far
I find that argument really bizarre considering how much less sunlight we get reaching the surface today because of aerosols.
Do we actually know how much aerosols there are in the atmosphere? Even if we did do we actually know what effects they have on the climate?
Bassman i think you will find aerosols are a bit like clouds when it comes to modelling them………..we dont we just add a fudge factor at the end.
Ergo you are basing you belief in AGW on a fudge factor, reduce the fudge factor and you have nothing to believe in……that must be scary for you.
Cheers
crakar, There is a large uncertainty with aerosols, I’ll admit that. But that uncertainty goes both ways. I hope the IPCC estimates are dead wrong with aerosols because it implies that emission cuts in China and other countries will still result in more warming. And by the way their influence on cloud formation is what makes them a strong negative forcing (temporary unfortunetely).
Look at the top chart of this link for current estimates of aerosol forcing.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-evolution-of-radiative-forcing-bar-charts/
What a load of BS – not surprised considering the source.
Hold your horses there Bassman, lets try and knock over one myth at a time.
Thanks for the link but i think tab 3 is the one to look at, we are talking about ARGO data afterall, previous to this the coverage was even worse.
As expected the error bars are 10 times the actual measurement so it is possible the oceans have not warmed or even cooled a little from 0 -2000M (tab 3).
As i said you need to keep an open mind.
cheers
Bob, all of the sneaky and dishonest inquiries into climate science has certainly improved the science, no question. Like evolutionary science, the evidence has only grown from such “bad faith” attacks (its the sun, climate has changed before, its good for the planet, it won’t be that bad etc). The downside to all of your crazy ideas is that your delaying the solutions and confusing the public.
“The downside to all of your crazy ideas is that your delaying the solutions and confusing the public.” Comes pretty close to what Barack is telling you fellow travelers in his messages, to stoke the animosity you already have against people like me, MINDLESSLY. Bassman, you are simply a repeater of warmist propaganda.
You are as out of your mind as Barack is on this subject.
The proposed “solutions” are not going to make one bit of difference to temperatures. What PROOF do you or any warmist have that is based on real facts and not ASSERTIONS?
Bob, not saying the solutions will work at this point but its the only planet we have so its worth at least seriously trying to transition off of carbon fuels.
Why? They work. They do the work people and animals used to do mostly. Your perceptions of carbon fuels are completely formed from the shallow ineffective unworkable warmist theology, the center of which is a hatred of people so strong, that you willing dupes are ready to turn off the lights and heat for billions without good reason, just because you’re not smart enough to evaluate the evidence.
When you or someone else has can show me where I can get an alternative fuel engine for my F850 Super Duty dump truck to replace the 534 gas hog that it has, I’ll start to listen, until then, you’re all just talking a whole lot of smack.
Bob, Bob, Bob:
Most of your exchanges are not worth commenting on, but this one struck me: Bassman did not say he wanted to take your truck away!
I’m sure that there are people who are “ready to turn off the lights and heat for billions”… however:
(1) everyone who disagrees with you is not “one of them”
-perhaps you could learn from “The McCarthy Era”
(2) an extremist view is not better than another extreme
-obesity being bad doesn’t make malnutrition good
My perceptions of carbon fuels are completely formed by my analysis of all kinds of different factors. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I am brainless.
Many years ago, I worked with clients to help them implement computer systems. The accounting staff dug their heels in and tried to sabotage the new system. By golly, their way worked just fine, thank you very much, and they were hell-bent on resisting change.
Sure, carbon fuels work. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t find a better way. There are many ways that we can find to be less dependent upon fossil fuels.
But it’s OK, Bob… you can keep your truck!
Bob I”m sure I”m as guilty as you in terms of my own lifestyle and its carbon footprint. I’m just saying we need to start trying something and being honest about what the peer reviewed science shows.
Goodnight
If you were honest Bassman, which you aren’t, you would acknowledge there is another side to this, that there are peer-reviewed papers within the past few years to back this up, and you wouldn’t be so eager to dismiss what you haven’t researched.
You are fooling yourself, as are all warmists.
“I’m as guilty as you in terms of my own lifestyle and its carbon footprint”
That tells me that bassman doesn’t really believe in AGW either. If he did he would be off grid with his own solar or wind system and would be driving an electric vehicle charged from said solar/wind system.
A solar electric system costs about as much as a Doge Ram pickup and electric cars only cost %10-20% more that conventional models. It’s a small price to pay for saving the earth from total destruction.
It’s interesting how unwilling TRUE believers, like bassman, are to spend their own money or change their own behavior to avoid the imminent catastrophe in which they so vehemently profess to believe. The truth is that people like bassman expect other people to bear the cost of their folly.
bassman,
You state “all of the sneaky and dishonest inquiries into climate science has certainly improved the science, no question.”
I will question the improved the science. Every severe weather event gets blamed on AGW. Moscow heat wave, Boston snow, drought in California, drought in Texas a few years ago, floods, Sandy. All these events are blamed on climate change.
What type of science is this? No linking mechanisms. In order to save the theory they keep coming up with new crap that was not presented in the original ideas (like the low ocean heating ever so slightly and who can verify this? What science is there in that, a few thousand buoys across the whole ocean maybe detecting some very tiny increase of temperature in the deep ocean and that is strong convincing evidence?”.
I would like to see climate scientists and their models do real science. Predict things that will happen. As one who studied chemistry I can state that if you mix oxygen and hydrogen in a 1 to 2 ratio and add heat you will get an exothermic reaction that forms water and I can even tell you how much energy will be generated from the reaction if you give me the initial amounts of gases.
If the climate models give a prediction on how much Arctic Ice will be left at the end of the 2015 melt season and how much Arctic ice will refreeze by March 2016 and they are correct and consistent and have mechanisms to explain why they believe these amounts would occur and logical thinking follows these mechanisms I would agree with you that the science in improved.
What region will have a drought this year, how long will it last, how intense will it be and why will it take place. What rivers of the world will flood? Will there be heat waves this summer and where? Prediction is the sign of good science, predict was is going to take place. Then the doubters will become believers and your solutions will have their support. Waiting for the next bad weather pattern to come along and blame it on AGW is very horrible science. I think you and Doug Cotton should get together you both have the mysterious keys to truth and anyone who questions the godlike authority you two possess should be damned.
Crakar24, the orbital period of Jupiter is 11.8 years, not 11.3 as you wrote.
And so it is, i stand corrected (i blame fat fingers).
Thanks Jean
Well Jean Meeus, I suggest Jupiter takes exactly one year to circle the sun.
Speaking of evidence, NOAA shows the Eastern US as, relative to the average, the coolest place on the planet.
The rest of the planet is warming. It would be interesting to hear your explanation of how the Sun is causing the Great Lakes to freeze.
Personally I prefer Jennifer Francis’ explaination.
Etntropic man,
Why do you prefer Jennifer Francis explanation? It is completely opposite of how scientists had if figured out before. It lacks driving mechanism. The pressure to drive air deep south has to have a force behind it. Air density differences is what drives wind. Stronger pressure makes stronger winds. Greater temperature difference allows cold air to move further south (it is heavier than warmer air).
“Rossby waves are more vigorous in winter than in summer. They exhibit fewer waves of longer length and greater amplitudes in winter than in summer. This is because of sharp temperature contrast, and therefore strong north-south pressure gradient in winter.”
From:
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~tokay/chapter11new.html
Etntropic man,
This may better explain why the Eastern half of the US is cold in winter. The normal jet stream pattern summer vs winter.
https://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.JetStreams
Dr Spencer says:
“Weather – at least outside the tropics – is never ‘normal'”
And, as one Textbook puts it:
“Abnormal weather conditions are very important, for the possibility of a long or severe frost, or of a prolonged drought in a region which is usually adequately watered, is the final consideration which may override for the practical affairs of life the mean conditions.”
The Climates of the Continents,
W.G. Kendrew,
Formerly Reader in Climatology, Oxford University,
Fourth Edition p 19.
Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
Lake Superior looks very frozen, we’ll see what another week of February can do to it.
Your bickering sounds like children in the back seat of a car.
Data is data. It may be accurate… may not. There may be confounding variables in any “results”. What data is considered… and that which is discounted (or ignored)… is used to form hypotheses. Since none of you have the ability to manipulate the environment, to determine cause and effect, then you are ALL guessing… oh… excuse me… I meant proposing theories.
You are arguing about which theories are more valid… but your statements sound like you all think you have some omniscience.
Since a “fact” is merely what most people hold to be true, it used to be a “fact” that the world was flat. As we now know, it was actually a theory which did not prove to be true.
You can argue all you want, insulting each other, but only time will tell which theories are more or less valid.
The only matter that I believe is relevant is: What might be the consequences if we act in a manner that flies in the face of a theory that may prove to be true?
If the earth really was flat, then sailing across the Atlantic could result in a few lives lost as they sailed off the edge (or perhaps they could abort when they saw the edge approaching)?
But what are we risking if we guess wrong on “global warming”?
B Collins – your comment on bickering is noted. I came here to make a point. The other guy was doing the usual routine warmists do, and I hope you’ll understand why I wasn’t going to roll over, even if you don’t agree with me (…yet… 😉 ).
You are not aware of the data and facts supporting my position, and I don’t blame you for that.
“But what are we risking if we guess wrong on “global warming”?” you ask.
We risk losing control over our lives and future lives IF carbon fuels are erroneously curtailed needlessly.
You are too eager to believe something that HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN in over two decades since the CO2 scare began.
As such, you are promoting, whether unknowingly or not, the so called “precautionary principle” the warmists promote. My position is ‘if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.’
You must also realize that people yearn for freedom, always have, always will, and people will continue to resist attempts to restrict freedom. The entire UN IPCC CO2 warmist charade is an attempt at reducing the freedom and choices of all peoples of the world. How can you construe their motives otherwise?
Perhaps you could read up on Agenda 21 and see for yourself who the radicals really are – the ones who want to devolve the human civilization, who wish to exterminate as many as possible, who plan to move vast numbers into packed cities that will ultimately be hellholes of violence and statist control systems under constant police state authority at all times.
Are you really willing to give up the hard-won progress humanity has made on a flimsy theory that has no basis in reality?
The warmists have no regard for real science or truth – they are ideological and malicious.
I’m not guessing at what I talk about wrt the Sun. Extended low solar activity has always resulted in cold climates.
You asked: “What might be the consequences if we act in a manner that flies in the face of a theory that may prove to be true?”
What are the consequences going to be when temperatures go down from reduced solar activity, when people like you are planning on more “C02 warming”, and there isn’t any such warming, and if you and your type have successfully restricted the availability of carbon-based fuel, and have driven the price out of reach for many? Are you willing to take the rap for that?
You are fooling yourself. The people you are backing have no regard for your life or mine. They want as many of us to disappear as they can manage, and like all “good” tyrants, they want you to feel those actions are justified, which is why the warmist propaganda is as thick as their thinking.
Humanity deserves better leadership than what the warmists are offering. A warm world is a nicer more productive world, and the opposite is also true – a cold world will be a cruel world if there isn’t readily available energy to mitigate the cold.
The real risk is following the warmists’ wrong-headed thinking. Following their imperial dictates would be INSANE.
I find it difficult to take a commenter’s scientific opinions seriously when they segue into political rants.
I live in the real world, which includes politics. Understandably, you are entitled to your purist POV.
Perhaps Entropic Man, you could take your POV to the US government, and tell them to take the politics out of science first. When they do that, I will too. Until then, it’s GAME ON!
Bob Weber:
Your reference to me and my “type” tells me that you are a person who jumps to conclusions without having sufficient data. Why did you form the invalid assumption that I support restricting availability of carbon-based fuels? I support innovation, to improve instead of to stagnate. I support making cleaner energy more affordable, so that MORE people can afford it and will choose it with their pocketbooks.
Utilizing fossil fuels removed from our planet was “hard-won progress” many years ago, but to cling to same-o, same-o is not what I consider “progress”. Making renewable energy sources cost effective would be what I would call “progress”.
Many years ago I lived in a state that de-regulated electricity. I highly espoused having more FREEDOM to CHOOSE … so I chose to purchase my power from a company that generated all of its electricity from wind turbines. At that time, wind power was more expensive, but I was willing to put my money where my mouth was (and could afford the increased cost). Over the years the costs equalized, so I ended up paying slightly less than the fossil-fuel based power companies.
I understand that wind turbines do have an impact upon our planet, but I appreciated having the freedom to choose what I considered to be a less damaging alternative. And wind energy will not leak from pipelines to contaminate a water source, or explode with a trail derailment, or trap miners underground. (Sorry, birds!)
Many years ago I learned that freedom must come with responsibility. Any time I want to enjoy a “freedom”, I need to take responsibility for how my “freedom” will impact anyone or anything in the universe around me. Or would you condone my having the “freedom” to kill you at my whim?
ANY laws or rules by ANY authority reduce freedom and choices. If armed robbery is illegal, it certainly does reduce the freedom and choices of armed robbers.
Would you prefer to live in a society with no laws and no rules? Probably not. Your tirades indicate to me that you would like to live in a world where everyone else has rules… just not you.
It amazes me how so many want LESS government regulation for themselves, but MORE government regulation for others. The position of wanting fewer rules and regulations… oh… except don’t let gays marry… and don’t let people smoke pot… and don’t let women get abortions… really? Really?
We have lost so much control over our lives with gasoline prices fluctuating so drastically at a moment’s notice. There’s not one other item that I purchase that is priced so erratically. I can’t even stock up when the prices are low!
Since you jumped to an erroneous conclusion about who I am, I can only assume that your scientific conclusions are equally flawed. If you have taken Science 101, you should know that your theories HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN either.
Also, I do think that in addition to scientific data, it behooves us to consider other factors. (I would also include “common sense”, although, in today’s “mis-information age” that sense does not appear to be so common.)
We can look back to many past behaviors, and with hindsight realize that it was not wise to plant the same crops each year. Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it. There are many, many examples of how we have “messed our nest” on this planet.
A warm world COULD be a nicer more productive world, at least for those who did not live in the high plains during the Dust Bowl, or who will live at an elevation above a rising sea level. (And I take it you did not spend August 2012 in Dallas, Texas, where the average high temperature for the entire month was 103F.)
My life experiences have taught me that extremes do not bring good fortune. Obesity is unhealthy, but so is malnutrition. Both floods and droughts have negative consequences. A warmer planet AND a colder planet would have impacts that would affect many. (Extreme positions in politics are also fraught with ill effects… but that’s another story!)
But since your position is ‘if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it’ and you do not believe in a “precautionary principle”, then I assume you do not ever change the oil in your car. How does that work for you?
And your tirades against the motives of the “warmists” does not speak well of YOUR sanity. Pardon me, but your paranoia is showing.
B Collins – you accused me here: “you are a person who jumps to conclusions without having sufficient data’, then you say “then I assume you do not ever change the oil in your car. How does that work for you?” You jumped to conclusions here.
I have three vehicles that I regularly service. How does that work for you now hypocrite?
What you consider my arguments to be tirades? If you don’t like arguments, don’t come to a skeptic blog expecting anything else, especially when you bring the argument with you.
– Motives of warmists and my sanity, OK, let’s go there.
A sane person will look around and objectively review the situation, as I did, and continue to do so. Objectively, there is no man-made global warming – never has been.
Objectively, solar activity has never failed to either warm under high activity conditions nor failed to cool under low activity conditions. So what hasn’t been proved there?
If you think otherwise – PROVE IT! Maybe you’re not aware of the failings of the so-called CO2 science. Perhaps you don’t realize that all the high-faluting climate models aren’t even close to reality.
Perhaps you’re not aware how the UN IPCC has continually backpedalled and shifted their goalposts as the REAL situation deteriorates away from their failed predictions.
Perhaps you’re not aware of their plans on the books at the UN regarding Agenda 21. If not, read up before accusing someone of paranoia for SIMPLY REPORTING WHAT THOSE PEOPLE SAID!
I believe in objective reality, not consensus reality like the UN. My position is sane. The UN’s plans are insane.
You seem like a well-intentioned person, and you seem willing to give the warmists the benefit of the doubt, because it seems to me, you consider them well-intentioned also, do you not?
“Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it,” you said.
If you understood history at all, you’d be far more skeptical of the government’s coercion in climate science.
I understand human and solar history enough to recognize the snow job called CAGW/AGW. The warmists are not well-intentioned. If they were they would not be so rabid in their attacks on people that disagree with them.
If you or Bassman didn’t like how I talked to you, then reflect back on the BS you both laid down on me.
What’s insane is how you and Bassman think you’re getting somewhere or accomplishing something by coming here to fight with the “deniers”, when it’s clear you’re both not up to the task.
You and Bassman have nothing of value to contribute in this conversation. I wish you did, then you’d be interesting.
Both of you are not facing the reality and consequences of low solar activity, and as such, you both blather on, trying hard to use rhetorical tricks to undermine the reality of solar forcing.
Reality supports my case and undermines yours.
Both of you could have stayed away and none of these comments that you don’t like would have ever been made. So who’s at fault here for stirring up the pot? You warmists.
You are simply mindlessly programmed to make fools of yourselves here and other places by the manipulators in the White House and elsewhere that are encouraging people like you to go out there (here) and “take it to the deniers”. Aren’t you?
Freedom has it’s responsibilities, no doubt, and the warmists are the irresponsible party here, when they offer nothing in return for everything. It’s all smoke and mirrors. There would be little freedom left in their proposed future for us.
If you don’t want another argument from me, then don’t comment back.
Well… I’m sitting here looking at the ice covering Lake Superior, and your URL popped up when I used google to find out how much of the lake was covered so far this year…
I had no idea I landed at a “skeptic blog”. I brought no arguments. Coming here to fight? Hahahaha! I was simply looking for information… obviously I ended up in the wrong place for that!!!
The heading on your website had the appearance of being an actual source of information. If this is a “skeptic blog”, then why do you pretend to be legit? Boy, was I fooled.
After I read about the ice cover on the lake, I kept on reading and became intrigued by the insults lobbed by know-it-alls… each of whom had access to the TRUTH…
Reminds me of people of different faiths, each of whom KNOW for SURE that they are privy to the one true right religion… and all others are going to hell…
So I was commenting on the inane series of posts, and you chose to respond…
I think it is hilarious that you ignored everything else in my post and jumped on my oil change comment. Have you ever heard of sarcasm? Obviously that was too subtle. So let me rephrase my remarks in simpler terms, so that you might understand:
You said ‘if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it’. Changing the oil in your vehicle is PREVENTATIVE maintenance. When you change the oil, the car is not broke, but you are taking action to insure that it will not break.
You said you do not believe in a “precautionary principle”. Changing the oil in your vehicle is a PRECAUTION that you take to insure that your car will not break.
If you change the oil in your vehicles, then you are concerned enough about your vehicles to take PREVENTATIVE and PRECAUTIONARY actions to make sure your vehicle does not break.
I am concerned enough about my planet to take PREVENTATIVE and PRECAUTIONARY actions to do what I can to make sure our planet does not break.
Since the above statements are apparently too subtle for you to draw any conclusions, let me spell it out for you: obviously, you care more about your vehicles than you care about our planet.
So certainly you can have the last word here… that is important to you. I merely posted my comments because I made the rash assumption that there were intelligent, rational people on this site. No sense attempting to speak reason, since there ain’t none of that here.
By the way… I am not a “warmist”. Scientifically speaking, neither side has PROOF… only theories.
However, your words have totally discredited your side. If this is the best you have to offer, then you surely haven’t swayed me a bit… to the contrary.
You appear to be educated. I’ve heard of an “educated idiot” before. Thank you for the opportunity of having an exchange of words with a prime example of such a person.
Bye-bye!
It was you who engaged with me. If you aren’t willing to take responsibility for your part of the communication, that’s on you. If you came here and didn’t find the information you thought you’d find, then why’d you stick around to argue?
Your comment on the legitimacy of this site in unwarranted.
You come here and stir up trouble, then come back and claim you’re all so innocent, and was just being sarcastic. I’m not buying it BC.
You only saw the tip of the iceberg of evidence anyway, and from reading your words, no amount evidence will make any difference to you, will it?
If you aren’t a warmist as you claim, and you don’t believe either side has “proof”, then why are you embracing warmist “solutions” to a non-problem that you imply hasn’t been proved to exist? Your duplicity betrays you.
“Since the above statements are apparently too subtle for you to draw any conclusions, let me spell it out for you: obviously, you care more about your vehicles than you care about our planet.”
I CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE and our need for energy. The planet is not being destroyed because we use fossil fuels, and I don’t have to care about that any more or less than my vehicles.
Your assumption that care must be given to “the planet” because we use carbon fuels is a dead giveaway.
BC, you are already betrayed by your own words. Only warmists talks like that.
You are simply not willing to confront the central issue that we humans are not causing temperatures to go up, that the Sun does that, and therefore all the talk of “caring for the planet” is just happy talk meant to MANIPULATE my emotions, and that of others, a classic warmist trick.
No doubt you’ll come back and accuse me of not caring for “the planet” because I don’t agree with your desired “precautions”. Regular people and scientists with common sense know your precautions wrt to carbon fuels won’t make a whit of difference to the temperatures.
If you’re having trouble with the idea of solar forcing of the climate, please spend some time educating yourself before knocking the idea.
Here’s a good start: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/02/over-200-peer-reviewed-papers.html
If you treat info that the same way Bassman did, well, it’s another giveaway… your choice.
You also give yourself away by attacking the man first and not the idea presented. Very weak argumentation. Have a nice day and I hope you’ll get over your afflictions soon.
If you really aren’t a warmist as you say, then why get offended?
I would not pay too much attention to Bobbie, they actually think that when they paid extra to get wind power, wind power was all they got. It never occurred to them that there are times when the wind dont blow but yet their big 60″ TV kept on going.
If someone is as stupid as that when it comes to understanding power generation on large scales then what hope do they have of understanding the finer points of a scientific hypothesis?
Crakar:
Sigh.
Living in a state which allows freedom of choice for electricity, I didn’t get a special power line that connected directly to a wind turbine. That’s not how it works.
I use x units of electricity. My provider contributes x units to the grid. The grid servicer (a separate company) collects electricity from all providers and distributes it to all customers on the grid.
Doesn’t matter WHEN the wind blows.
It’s kinda like if I deposit $10 in the bank one day, then withdraw $10 the next, the bank doesn’t hand me back the same $10 bill that I gave them.
Before calling me stupid, you may want to get your facts straight. Or not.
And, just for the record, I don’t have a 60″ TV.
Bob, I am so glad you exchanged post with Bassman, because you said essentially everything I would have said. Now I do not have to EXPLAIN to him. (lol)
We are close in our outlooks and I have average low solar parameters which I think need to be at least approached and have a duration of time of staying power, in order to show a more definitive climatic /solar impact.
I also believe that thresholds are out there and if not crossed ,although that force is having an impact on the climate it will often be lost to noise in the climate system.
I also believe the impact of solar variability upon the climate at a given time with given solar variability will differ due to these items.
Land /Ocean Arrangements
Elevation Of Land
Initial State Of The Climate- how close climate is to
glacial/inter-glacial phase.
Mean State Of Climate – temp. gradient equator to pole.
Milankovitch Cycles -where earth in respect to this cycle.
Random terrestrial/extra terrestrial events.
Geo Magnetic Field Strength
The sun will always have an impact but can vary due to the items I have mentioned which can enhance solar variability or oppose it.
I am confident however, that the prolonged solar minimum is intact and as you said we will be finding out sooner rather then later.
I am watching those S.H. sea surface temperatures which have been showing a cooling trend as well as the N. Atlantic of late to name two areas of the globe that stand out.
AMO -now in negative territory.
Hi Salvatore! The F10.7cm solar flux has averaged 118.7 sfu for ten days now. Today it was 117. Every day I check the USAF 45 day forecast just to see what they’re thinking, link here http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/text/45-day-ap-forecast.txt.
Their 45 day ahead average from today is 124 sfu/day. They are usually off after a while, but it’s the only forecast of it’s kind, and it serves as a rough guide. It’s best to look back 27 days, one solar rotation, and see what the flux was when the same area of the Sun was last facing us, and see what the trend was, what spikes and valleys ther were, etc.
The SWPC SSN & F10.7 SC24 prediction is here ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/weekly/Predict.txt if it helps you.
You and I have been waiting for this time for a while, the point when activity would diminish to low enough levels for noticable temperature changes.
One of the questions I’ve had was how long will it take to cool off under the threshold flux value. A week is barely noticable. I am really hoping flux stays under 120 for a month straight so we get more SST anomaly plots under our belt.
On the lookout for a possible El Nino this year, but I’m dubious on that for the moment.
Keep up the good work Salvatore!
The “gig” has been over for the “Warmists” for several years. The AGW cult followers just haven’t figured it out yet. They won’t know until “Hollywood” starts making jokes about all the people that believed the oceans were going to boil. Once that happens, you will see the them “jumping ship” quickly.
But, they’ll just go on to join the next scare hoax. They never learn….
Dr. Spencer,
Is this proof of climate change or is it just weather?
The climate is always changing and fool knows that. the question always remains how much, how long, and which way. No one in the last 50 years know the answer to any of those three! If you believe some who thinks they know the answer you are a really fool! If you such a fool please send me you dollar now, after all I can tell you exactly what going on! Hint look up watch the movie the Music Man. Life was much simpler when fools debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, at least those fools did not cost my ancestor any money, can’t say that about the church of global warming can you!
Bob, it can not be said better.
Oh come on Bobbie you intentionally paid extra to get wind power so how much wind power did you get? Did you get it 24/7/365 or did you only get it when the wind blew? Or did you not get any at all? Surely you must know down to the KW as you did pay extra? Your bill should have two listing X number of KW’s at non wind prices and X number of KW’s and wind prices or did they just rip you off and charge it all at wind prices? By the way i very rarely make comment here (last two days is an exception) the reason why is because i would rather read the info presented and learn from it. You claim you came here seeking answers and “shock horror i had no idea it was a skeptic site”. Please Bobbie your first comment was designed to trigger a reaction when you came here you knew exactly what you were doing and now its time to play the innocent victim LOL.
Craker:
I’ll try to explain how de-regulated electricity works by providing more specifics.
I lived in Texas for 30-some years. When “dereg” was legislated in 2002, I chose to buy my power from Green Mountain Energy, a Retail Electric Provider (“REP”).
Oncor Electric (had some name changes in the interim) was my Transmission and Distribution Service Provider (“TDSP”).
My REP had other customers. Collectively, we used X units of electricity during an interval of time. So my REP bought X units of wind power (wholesale )from a wind power generation company. That electricity was fed into the “grid”, then my TDSP fed the electricity into my home.
My REP set prices/unit, gave me wind/hydroelectric/solar choices (at different rates), offered me optional contracts (if I wanted to lock in a rate), billed me, and collected my payments.
My TDSP owned/maintained the poles and wires, handled service outages, and read my meter. A portion of what I paid each month to my REP was disbursed to my TDSP (so I would not have to pay two bills).
Now I never got down to the detail level of knowing who owns which wind turbines, nor how they deliver the units of electricity, nor how they store it, but I’m sure you could find those details if you wished.
And since I can’t visualize units of electricity, I use the dairy industry as an analogy. The self-employed farmer would be analogous to the wind turbine owner; the dairy would be analogous to the REP, and the self-employed milkman (like my brother-in-law) would be analogous to the TDSP.
So if I buy a carton of milk, it didn’t come solely from Bossy’s udder. And it doesn’t matter when Bossy was milked, or what time the dairy truck showed up at the farm. (OK… so I pay the supermarket, not the dairy… the analogy isn’t perfect, but hopefully you get the drift.)
If I bought my milk directly from the farmer, then Bossy could affect MY milk supply. But since wholesale and retail are efficient source-to-consumer systems, I can purchase 100% wind power and get 24/7/365.25 electrical service, on demand, whenever I want/need it.
Now I am fully aware that if my REP’s “wind” customers use X units of electricity in a month, that there would be a delay in purchasing those X units of wind powered electricity, but that, to me, is a nit that I don’t need to pick!
I took that time to explain all of this to you because I took you at your word: that you come here to learn. Your comments indicated to me that you would be open to receiving new information that you had not previously received.
I think that how electricity “dereg” works is fascinating.
If you would like to learn more, try this link:
https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/2014/08/texas-electricity-market-work/ (I haven’t read it because my curiosity is satiated with the info I have.)
By the way, if you look back at my first comment here, note that I started by referring to two kids. I wouldn’t call myself “innocent”, but I certainly was naïve. I thought I had found a website where people were exchanging different opinions with each other, and did so in a childish MANNER.
My entire post was directed at the manner in which BOTH sides disagreed with each other. If you go back and re-read my original words, please note that I was pointing out not the merit of each side, but HOW they expressed their views. It was only with my very last line, where I posed a question, that I shared my concern.
Until “Bob” replied to my initial post, I did NOT know that this was a website only for those who agreed with each other… and that anyone with different opinions was an unwelcome interloper!
And, just for the record, I am not a “warmist”. Ever since a childhood experience from over 60 years ago, I have lived my life with a “waste not, want not” mentality. I believed in reduce/reuse/recycle long before that phrase was coined.
I am enthralled with nature, but accept that “civilization” is also important, so strive to seek a balance between the two opposing forces. “Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footsteps” is my mantra in “unspoiled” places, but since I don’t live in a cave, my day-to-day focus is on treading gently upon my marvelous planet.
Before you label me a “tree-hugger”… I must admit that I am merely a “tree lover”. I love the trees alive and growing where they will, but I also love the wood that was harvested to build my abode. It’s all about the balance.
If we are to invoke the precautionary principle then it is far more sensible to declare war on aliens as the correlation is far better than co2 as Dr Spencer has pointed out:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/do-aliens-cause-global-warming-the-data-say-yes/
As for not realising this was a sceptic site the sidebar is quite instructive with Dr Spencer’s book
“The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists”
or indeed
“My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies”
Craig:
As I said, I came here to find out how much ice cover was on Lake Superior at the time of my first landing here.
The top of this website looks pretty. I saw an ad on the top of the sidebar and thus ignored the sidebar. I read the part about Lake Superior and just kept reading.
I didn’t notice a warning: “STOP READING HERE IF YOU ARE NOT A DENIER!”.
Perhaps the website heading should be changed to include “WARMISTS NOT WELCOME HERE. KEEP OUT.” That way you wouldn’t have to deal with people like me wandering in uninvited.
I absolutely do NOT agree with waging any kind of “war” on aliens. I change the oil in my car as a precaution. I don’t know that it is a FACT that regular oil changes will prevent engine failure, but I’m willing to take that precaution regardless.
Thanks Bob.
Bob Weber:
Thank you for the courteous reply to my post. I truly appreciate your civility.
Please excuse my ignorance, for I am not a “blogger”. I have occasionally posted comments online, but am really not sure what is… and what is not… a “blog”. I didn’t realize that you were just a “visitor”. Since I don’t know how blogs work, I don’t know how a new blog article gets started, but since yours was the first name posting, I thought that you were somehow designated by Dr Spencer to run, conduct, moderate, or whatever it is that one does who has a blog. Thank you for explaining the distinction.
You keep thinking that since I have offered opinions different from yours, then then therefore I must be a “warmist”. Because I AM not, I never heard of the 2014 ice-free arctic prediction. I am skeptical of all alarmist predictions. Whether the world is supposed to end on a certain date, or Y2K will bring about Armageddon, or Chicken Little says the sky is falling… my response is “yeah, right… we’ll see about that”.
But I really do like short-term predictions and/or those with exact dates, because they are so easy to track. (I tend to forget about the long-term ones, so they are not nearly as much fun.) And average only works for evaluating past data. When can we “expect” another freeze over? I don’t “expect” an AVERAGE of past events to predict the next occurrence. If I have had an “average” of X flat tires over the last Y years, that gives me no useful info to use to “expect” my next flat tire. I try to keep my predictions to the level of “the sun rises to the east and sets to the west”. And I don’t waste my money at casinos.
But I do believe in having “concern”. Concern tells me that there is a potential problem here, one that merits observations, evaluations, and consideration of options. Like when my car started making a clunking noise. Sometimes there is a need for alarm… as in, the wheel is about to fall off. Sometimes action is appropriate… as in, take the car in for repair. The wisdom is to “know the difference”!
When a couple splits, their stories usually are a night and day difference… what happened is usually somewhere in between. When two extreme positions are proposed, the best solution is usually somewhere in between. (Unfortunately, none of us can have “hindsight” before the fact.)
I am enjoying my winter, because I am toasty warm inside, with a spectacular view of The Big Lake. I love how The Lake is ever-changing… today the sunshine glistens over the sparkling water. I should really bundle up and venture down to see the ice sculptures along the shore, but it is cold and I am way too comfortable.
Alas, I do not have the FREEDOM to CHOOSE the source that supplies my electric heat, for there is no “dereg” here. However, as much as practical, I keep my wood stove (which burns at over 75% efficiency) fueled with wood that died a natural death.
Hi BC. I am glad you’re not a gambler at the casinos. What a waste. We burn wood here too. Ten cord so far this year. Someone I know called me and wants me to get her some wood this week, and it’s just been too cold to conceive of spending a whole day outside doing that – I’m hopeful for tomorrow as she’s almost out.
Speaking of gambling – that’s what the warmists are doing I think. Thank you for clarifying your position on that.
Interesting how Bob could predict 100% off such figures of 82% in 2014 and at 93% in 2015 for same date. Now if you would have looked at % three days before one might come to a different conclusion. 19Feb14 Lake Superior was at 95% and then on 19Feb15 at 91%. 1Dec14 at 3.68 degrees centigrade is coldest lake has been in over a decade. 1Dec13 lake was at 4.04 degrees C which is second coldest. Possibility was here this year that there could be a lot of ice coverage, but there also has to be sustained cold weather. And really hasn’t been that cold this year.