Pielke Pere has been pounding the land use drum for a long time.
========
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
The doctor you wanted to keep,
The climate you couldn’t keep.
Hear how the dopes roar.
Just behind the green door.
==================
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
PA, That is off of Climate Explorer. They also have pasture land fraction. I stuck with 30 to 90 North because there is a larger long term hydrological impact.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
One of the problems with land use is there is an initial cooling effect in most cases that turns into a warming after erosion and compaction unless there is added consistent irrigation.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by JeffN
“And I continued to behave as if there was nothing wrong with the shiny card in my wallet attesting to my “elite” frequent-flyer status.”
From September through November, Klein will be in most major Canadian cities, New York, Washington DC, Seattle, Los Angeles, Wisconsin, Chicago, London, Amsterdam, Belgium, and Berlin.
http://www.naomiklein.org/tour-dates-2014
Klein is on a “world tour” to relentlessly hawk her anti-capitalism/pro-environment book like a used car salesman at a compulsive buyers convention. According to greenies, this world tour should, in terms of CO2 emitted, just about beat out the carbon footprint of everyone reading this blog, for this whole year.
And FAN wishes to highlight her noble stance on air travel. Good on ya FAN, I couldn’t have described your philosophy on global warming any better than you have!
It’s just too easy when they parody themselves.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by PA
I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the sentiment behind the trial.
If scientists could be brought up on legal charges when they are wrong they would be right more often and peer review would be taken more seriously (peer reviewers could be named accessories after the fact).
If scientists could be brought up on charges when they are wrong CAGW proponents would be very nervous now.
↧
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Danny Thomas
Bill, Kim,
I used this at Realclimate “Correlation does not mean causality.” in trying to get anyone to state that there was no chance that our current changing climate was not good old Mom nature at work, and I can do the physics no better there than I can here. Just trying to get an understanding as even though I’m no scientist I am a voter and therefore a decision maker if one step removed. I’m persona non grata now.
It was either that, or when I asked for their scientific proof that “big oil” is funding “skeptics” (which I count my undereducated self as one) as why would any self respecting scientist make such a statement without substantial back up unless that person was just being political.
Kim, I address this to you as I’m still thinking of your comment about my behavior being a “shtick”. I’m no different here, there or anywhere and am an unintentional Pyrrhonist (which I was unaware of until recently). My philosophy class is school was logic, but that was many years ago (and I made an A! :). As I’m early in my journey to an understanding of our changing climate I’ve found that by asking questions of both sides I’m learning. So, again, if I in any way stray inappropriately I invite any/all to please address it with me.
I find this to be an important venue and in no way wish to wear out my welcome.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Danny Thomas
Shoot. Forgot to set up the notification, so using this post to do so.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Wagathon
The linked article concerning the CO2 limit, growers keep CO2 levels at 1,000 to 2,000 ppm in Earthly greenhouses, which is about the level you’d find in a lecture hall full of students and pretty much what has been normal over most of Earth’s 550 million year history.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Peter Lang
Beta Blocker, you obviously did not understand my response to Planning Engineer’s point in his final paragraph that I quoted, nor my comment addressed to you. What part did you not understand.
I didn’t bother pointing out how unrealistic your premise is. Surely you realise that your ‘Grand Experiment’ to destroy California’s electricity system is not going to happen. And you didn’t define who “we” is. So it is all a bit silly unless it is taken as I thought you meant it – a way to consider the consequences of different options to achieve an end – but apparently not.
As I said, nicely, trying to mix rational analysis with ideological constraints such as nuclear not permitted, is not much use. However, I gave the estimated costs and CO2 emissions for scenarios with nuclear permitted and nuclear not permitted with approximately 50% renewables versus approximately 50% nuclear. The nuclear option would be about half the cost and 3 times as effective at cutting CO2 emissions. That’s the rational part. Send that message to the voters of California and they won’t be favouring renewables over nuclear for long.
I hope this is clear.
↧
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by PA
<i><b>mosomoso</b> | November 9, 2014 at 11:18 pm | Reply
Maybe put “define terms so people are agreeing or arguing about the same things” at number one.
Do I “hate climate change” (an expression actually used in an article linked on previous post)? Do I “believe in global warming”? Why not ask me if I’m for baby kingfishers, or believe in sunrise, or I’m against rain?
I can’t answer those questions in any sensible fashion, especially when they are posed in nonsensical and crudely manipulative fashion, quite often by people pretending to scientific specificity.</i>
Well... this isn't that big a problem. Unscientific questions should be answered unscientifically.
1. <i>Do I “hate climate change”</i> I love climate change. I want it warmer. The projected climate change is 1°C (driving 60 miles south) to 2°C (driving 120 miles south). It usually is listed as 90 and 180 but from examining Brazil temperature data the warming effect is 2/3 at night. So a 1°C rise in temperature is only a 60 mile drive. The only people that are marginally effected are people that can't drive further south (people near the equator). Living further south without moving is good.
2. <i>Do I “believe in global warming”? </i> This question needs context. I don't know if they are asking if:
a. Am I a member of the Cult of Anthropomorphic Global Warming? (NO),
b. Do I believe it is getting warmer? (I used to but I quit believing it was getting warmer 17 years ago when it quit getting warmer),
c. Do I believe CO2 warms the atmosphere? (some, but not as much as people would like you to believe).
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Wagathon
I don’t look at it as “causation” necessarily but I am getting a couple of million per year to question AGW. Isn’t everybody? But, my next SUV will be a green diesel so… I’m willing to do my part in saving the globe from evil America… if it doesn’t mean the Third world is forever destined to live in energy-poverty. I must be a liberal!
↧
Comment on Week in review by aaron
Isn’t that what Justice Roberts said… It’s not constitutional, but I’m going to let it stand because the voters need to learn a lesson.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Rob Ellison
Easy – practically in my backyard.
↧
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Matthew R Marler
betablocker: Mr. Planning Engineer, could you do it? From a purely technical perspective, could you get California to 50% renewables by 2030 if you didn’t have to worry about where the money was coming from, or about the economic impacts of The Experiment on California’s energy consumers?
Just because you are not worrying about where the money comes from does not guarantee that it will come. Say for the sake of argument that you plan to take your 15% from California’s profitable businesses — they’ll increase the rate at which they move out of state and hide their incomes out of state, and you won’t have the money. Indeed, the cheapest way to get to 50% of electricity from renewables is to close down enough businesses that the electricity demand declines.
California is performing an experiment in public, and there is no real need to formulate a thought experiment that has infinite money.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by bobpraus
While Sagan was clearly a leader in the field, he did not always lead by example in the ethics of science. He put forth in the public arena ideas that he knew would be misinterpreted in such a way as to make the ideas more significant. Specific examples are nuclear winter and the likelihood of finding life on other planets. Nuclear winter was just bad science, plain and simple (no oceans on Mars). The likelihood of finding life on other planets doesn’t sufficiently contemplate discrete statistics or uniqueness (there is only one number pi). Nonetheless, striving for excellence and correctness should be in all of us. I was once in the office of one of the denser scientists that I knew. The fact that he had written on his whiteboard a set of goals directing him to better science gave me hope for him. So, the fact that the author of the rules may not have always followed them, doesn’t make the rules any less valid (kind of like the Bible). It’s a lot easier to be right when you are writing the rules. Its a lot harder to be right while following them.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Beta Blocker
Peter Lang, for the last several years, I have been listening to various advocates of the renewables claim they can build a very substantial renewable-powered electric utility infrastructure at costs which are competitive with nuclear.
On paper, we can estimate the probable costs of their policy vision all day long, but the real proof is in the practice.
Californians are firm in saying they want a renewable energy future for their state, and that they don’t want nuclear. This makes them ideal candidates for testing the theory that a very substantial portion of a state’s energy consumption requirements can be supplied by the renewables at costs which don’t totally break the bank.
The costs of nuclear are well documented and can be very precisely estimated for any given nuclear power project.
If the claims of the renewable advocates are defensible, then the experiment I propose for California shouldn’t raise the price of electricity too far above what might reasonably be expected if the state went 50% nuclear by 2030 rather than 50% renewables by 2030.
Give the renewable advocates their day in the sun by setting up a renewable-friendly technical and regulatory environment in the state of California. Let’s then see what actually happens as the experiment moves forward.
↧
Comment on Week in review by D o u g C o t t o n
Yes well your “fundamental” equation does not work for the transparent thin surface layer of the oceans unless you also deduct the flux that is transmitted to deeper layers. At least half of that heat absorbed in cooler regions may well transfer by conduction, diffusion and convection down into the cooler regions below in non polar latitudes. From there it may well exit only in polar regions, thus not affecting sea surface temperatures where most of us live.
I don’t have time to go into why there are differences between emissivity and (1 – reflectivity) but there are. If I were wrong then everything would be heated to the same temperature and your bare feet would not feel any hotter on black asphalt than on grass or white concrete or a beach towel which is protecting you from the hotter sand underneath.
In any event, the minimum mean temperature (with simplistic flat disc calculations) would be 287K because the radiation reaching the surface through a transparent atmosphere with nothing to reflect or absorb the incident radiation most certainly is not less than a quarter of the solar constant which is at least 1362W/m^2. So 340.5W/m^2 has a black body temperature of 278.4K which is only 9 degrees cooler than the estimated mean surface temperature.
There is no “33 degrees of warming” as claimed by the IPCC.
What would actually happen is that regions directly under the Sun would receive the full blast of 1362W/m^2 which has a black body temperature of nearly 394K and much of the “heat of the day” would then be trapped by conduction, diffusion and convection into the nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere, thus probably preventing the surface cooling below 300K before the heat of the next day struck again.
One way or another the world would be a far hotter place if there were no greenhouse gases, especially water vapour, keeping us far cooler in the real world. To claim, as Pierrehumbert did, that 10% water vapour would make the temperature 350K is ludicrous.
↧
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by timg56
Michael,
Robert Goddard pre dated NASA by a considerable margin.
You would be up to your ears in your own poop if someone didn’t wash out your stall from time to time.
↧
Comment on Week in review by D o u g C o t t o n
Sorry – typo: …
“In any event, the minimum mean temperature (with simplistic flat disc calculations) would be 278K”
(The correct figure appears further down,)
↧
Comment on Week in review by D o u g C o t t o n
Yes <b>Curious George.</b>
<b>Rob Ellison</b> fell right into my trap and cited what climatologists think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation" rel="nofollow">Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation</a> says. But what it actually says is <i>"For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power."</i>.
That "perfect black-body" is perfectly insulated and so does not gain or lose thermal energy in any other way than radiation. It should be obvious that the Earth's surface is not such a black or grey body and so may not necessarily transfer thermal energy to the atmosphere at the same rate at which it receives it from the Sun. Where would it get the extra energy for evaporative cooling, just for starters?
<b>The extent to which they over simplify physics in Climatology Carbonland is ridiculous and totally misleading. They completely overlook the existence of the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient and argue like hell to try to convince people it doesn't exist or is of no consequence. Well it is.</b>
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
