The Autumnal Equinox has just occurred, at 2:40PM UTC (7:49AM PDT) marking the end of summer. Despite our Jay Zwally countdown to the end of summer reaching zero on the sidebar, the Arctic sea ice is still there and gaining fast.
That’s one more alarmist prediction that did not come true, even though we had a new record low on Arctic extent, while simultaneously setting new record highs in the Antarctic.
I’m going to take a few days off to be with family and practice some target and skeet shooting, one of my hobbies. After this week, I think I’ve earned it.
Moderators will check in periodically. Thanks everyone for your consideration. This might be a good time to think about inviting a friend to visit WUWT. – Anthony
Jo Nova still down. They really want us to shut the f up.
45% of the people are right 50% of the time and wrong 50% of the time.
45% of the people are wrong 50% of the time and right 50% of the time
10% don’t know and the other 10% don’t understand percentages!
I have spotted a problem, specifically, a glaring omission, on the Ocean. There is records of sea level for several years, yet there are no records of sea level before that, making it impossible to compare this level with past level to see how significant, or insignificant, it is.
Needed, sea level since the last ice age, to compare our current sea level and sea level rise to (shows that current rise is small by comparison, and not accelerating), sea level since the MWP including the LIA, to show whether our rise is “unprecedented” or happened 1000 years ago when it was just as warm, and to show the change from the LIA to now. Finally, and at the very least, sea level since the start of accurate modern measurements, to see if the current rate of rise has actually sped up with the rise in CO2, or whether it has stayed the same.
The simple fact is, if the world is warming, the ice will be melting, and the sea will be rising, specifically, the rise will be rapidly accelerating. If it is not, then we know the world is not warming. Simply put, we have a worldwide built in thermometer, sea level, which will tell us if the world is warming. Word of mouth says it is not, yet I see now graph here to show that to others. Add that.
Re: Zeke Sep 23 7:04pm Fossil Fuel Subsidies.
Here is a link to a WSJ comment thread to an Aug 17, 2012 The Energy Subsidy Tally
Comment #1
I started the thread with the question
The end result of the thread was that
$980 Million was for the difference between percentage depletion and cost depletion, a difference in tax treatment of mineral asset acquisition and evaluation cost that is available only to small royalty owners and small operators. Percentage depletion was removed from everyone else in 1976. Later on I remarked that this can only be some sort of estimate because if you are using percentage depletion, no one can know what your cost depletion would have been.
$70 Million in some government research programs, the lartest two of which were $26M in unconventional fossil energy tech and $24M in Natural Gas Tech.
$30 Million in passive loss carry forward.
That left us about $1700 million short. Back and forth a couple of comments and we concluded that the balance had to be Ethanol blending subsidy to refiners.
So there you have it. Oil and Gas subsidies in the US are
>60% Biofuel subsidy to blend into gasoline.
<30% a short-form tax accounting method
<10% government research.
Links and detail are provide in the comment thread.
Reply to Legatus September 24, 2012 at 11:47 am:
Re your “I have spotted a problem, specifically, a glaring omission, on the Ocean. There is records of sea level for several years, yet there are no records of sea level before that, making it impossible to compare this level with past level to see how significant, or insignificant, it is.
Needed, sea level since the last ice age, to compare our current sea level and sea level rise to (shows that current rise is small by comparison, and not accelerating), sea level since the MWP including the LIA, to show whether our rise is “unprecedented” or happened 1000 years ago when it was just as warm, and to show the change from the LIA to now.”
see http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
Pamela, Anyone who can even get close to a 300 yard target with a .38 revolver is one scary person. Remind me never to upset you.
DaveE.
Algore has spoken. He’s gonna do the dirty. Imagine a sex crazed poodle doing the dirty!
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/251167-al-gore-seeks-november-splash-with-dirty-weather-climate-event
Josh be ready.
Another 24 hours of fun on WUWT?
Anthony, skeet are not fit for the dinner table. There are warnings to not even feed them to swine. They are sometimes considered to cause a nuisance to my goofy neighbor when I attempt to reduce the numbers that sometimes occupy the shed.
A redneck approach is normally used to reduce the numbers. A 20 ga. is my choice with 1 oz # 7 1/2 in a Remington pump. The walk around approach is the preferred set-up. The shooter walks around a 30 yd circle beginning at the point where the skeets are flushed from. One box of shells is used per hunt which lasts about 4-5 minutes (Any more and the barrel gets too hot to handle). As the skeets are flushed and the shooter walks the circle they pass from varying angles beginning left to right , then overhead and close , and then ending flushing from right yo left. No time to call “pull” ’cause the game is to cause confusion to the shooter by the flusher. Split doubles, stacked doubles, fast singles, high and low ones. Score can be 30 or more out of 25 skeets thrown if you cripple one and then break the cripple again. Warning: Don’t touch that barrel! Points lost if the shooter gets hit by a skeet. Looser sometimes eats crow.
Pamela, if one doesn’t burn powder and try they will never do what may seem impossible. I like impacts on the football size rock at 800 yards w/ 7 mm mag and the 12 ga foster type slugs on a 5 gal size rock at 175 yards seems to draw profanity from the unbelievers. It will only happen if you try.
Stephen Rasey says:
September 24, 2012 at 2:22 pm
So there you have it. Oil and Gas subsidies in the US are
>60% Biofuel subsidy to blend into gasoline.
<30% a short-form tax accounting method
<10% government research.
Links and detail are provide in the comment thread.
That was an excellent thread. I will look forward to JoNova’s site coming back online to compare what you have here with her figures from Down Under. This is playing a little fast and loose with the word “subsidies.” But on the bright side, at least they know deep down it is a bad word. lol
Someone please help me understand this.
At http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=20#table1-2, IPCC mentions “emissions from land use changes… which include the net emissions from wood harvesting”.
But here http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=24, it says “[NBP] includes… other processes leading to loss of living and dead organic matter (harvest, forest clearance, and fire, etc.)… NBP for the decade 1989-1998 has been estimated to be 0.7 � 1.0 Gt C yr-1”. This is clearly the same as “net terrestrial uptake” as listed on the first link I gave.
And on the first link I gave, the two quantities are added together.
So the question is, if I clear a forest in order to harvest its wood, will it be counted as both “forest clearance” and as “wood harvesting”? Will it be double-counted?
So much for the drought doom and gloom a couple months ago.
Global grain production expected to record 2.4 bn tons in 2012
http://www.domain-b.com/economy/worldeconomy/20120926_expected.html