Comment on Week in review by mosomoso

November 24, 2014, 6:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by steven

$

0

0

It beggars belief. November gales (Witch of November) which have been a dangerous feature of the Great Lakes since people began to make records (at least 25 major events since 1847) are now posed as a novelty and proof of CAGW. Get cold air coming south over lakes in autumn, with maybe some warm stuff going the other way, and you have to get Lake Effect. Abolish cold air and huge lakes and abolish autumn (with extra fines for November) and you won’t get Lake Effect. Is there a tax for that?

And while Buffalo’s snow dump has been spectacular, check out November 1913 for some real Lake Effect. Hurricane winds, lashings of snow and a huge maritime disaster.

Lake Effect. About as new as Polar Vortex. Good try, warmies. (Actually, it wasn’t a good try.)

---

Comment on Week in review by climatereason

November 24, 2014, 6:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by mosomoso

$

0

0

Steven

The trouble is that everything is seen as either unusual or unprecedented. However when looked at in context with the historic record it doesn’t appear to be
tonyb

Comment on Week in review by PA

November 24, 2014, 6:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by ceresco kid

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by climatereason

$

0

0

From “Avoiding Static Ignition Hazards in Chemical Operations”, By Laurence G. Britton pg 37.

The electrostatic breakdown voltage of major air components (except for oxygen and carbon dioxide) is pretty much all the same. Oxygen and carbon dioxide have 85-90% of the breakdown voltage of dry air. Dry air has a breakdown voltage at a 10 cm length of 27 kV/cm.

Lightning strikes only require a field strength of 4 kV/cm (from wiki). The average (rule of thumb) number for average air is 10 kV/cm and the number for 80% humidity is 1.4 kV/cm.

So… since the total oxygen+CO2 to air ratio hasn’t changed… lightning strikes could be due to more humidity, more convection, more atmospheric particulate contamination, dryer stratosphere (more charge storage) or some other cause but from a casual analysis CO2 per se shouldn’t have a direct measurable influence on lightning strikes.

Vacuum has breakdown voltage in the 10E18 range. Vacuum tubes have a heater that causes thermionic emission from the filaments (free electrons) or they wouldn’t work.

Comment on Week in review by ceresco kid

November 24, 2014, 6:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by PA

$

0

0

FOMBS

Nice to have you back. Especially when you remind me about 2 giants of economic thought-Friedman and Rand.
My spirits need a boost after witnessing the utter failure of the Japanese attempts at Krug-Keynesian economics over the last 20 years resulting in a 230% Debt to GDP ratio. Spend yourself into oblivion, I always say. :)

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

November 24, 2014, 6:53 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by ceresco kid

$

0

0

It’s hard to make the polar vortex argument, but the skeptics seem to buy short-term statistics (aka the pause), so it is worth putting to them.

Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

November 24, 2014, 6:58 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$

0

0

tonyb, “The trouble is that everything is seen as either unusual or unprecedented. However when looked at in context with the historic record it doesn’t appear to be.”

Yep, weather amnesia plus selective interpretation of “projections” tends to make things more “unprecedented”.

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

November 24, 2014, 7:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$

0

0

“Judith why don’t you save your time and spend an hour reading my book…”
—
Her eyesight and time is too valuable to waste on pseudoscience.

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

November 24, 2014, 7:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by nickels

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

$

0

0

“We can see in all sorts of accounts apparent SSW’s/Polar vortexes and jet stream activity.

Someone needs to demonstrate that todays climate with regards to these events is being influenced by man.”
—-
There are solid physical reasons why increased energy in the system would influence these phenomena and solid physical reasons why human activity is adding more energy to the climate system. It does not mean that these did not occur before, but what the data would need to show is an increase in severity and frequency as net energy in the system increases.

---

Comment on Week in review by nickels

November 24, 2014, 8:01 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

$

0

0

+1 FOMD. I’m all about slammin the religious nutjobs.

Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

November 24, 2014, 8:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Curious George

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by nickels

$

0

0

No the extra work improves the fidelity at small spatial scales. So adjustments will nudge the USA up
In specific areas for example but the global impact is small.

Do the math. The land is only 30%. Of the total.

Change or adjust the land by . 5c.

Guess what? The global metric moves by. 15c

Decrease the US record by 1 c.. Increase it by 1c..

Guess what the impact on global temperature is??

Do the math.

Comment on Week in review by Curious George

November 24, 2014, 8:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Curious George

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Would it be possible to limit the length of a comment? Let’s say to a “display equivalent” of 100 lines of text, with a longer comment automatically going to moderation?

Comment on Week in review by Curious George

November 24, 2014, 8:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Curious George

$

0

0

Joshua – what is the first day of a week?

Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

November 24, 2014, 8:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Jonathan Abbott

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Curious George

$

0

0

There are solid physical reasons why increased energy in the system would influence these phenomena and solid physical reasons why human activity is adding more energy to the climate system.

This statement represents a fundamentally flawed understanding.

The energy of motion in the atmosphere is determined in large part by pressure gradients.
Pressure gradients are determined by temperature gradients.

It is not the thermal energy of the planet as a whole that determines atmopsheric motion.

Indeed, if hypothetically, the temperature of the earth were 10 degrees warmer, but the same temperature everywhere, there would be no motion.

The formation of temperature gradients is a natural consequence of the spheroid earth orbitting the sun and rotating about a tilted axis.

While CO2 warming might impact gradients, particularly gradients around 500mb, it would appear to be marginal compared to the more important factors.

Comment on Week in review by Jonathan Abbott

November 24, 2014, 8:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

$

0

0

It is very regrettable to see Mosher attacked in this way, with anonymous insults. He and Zeke have convinced me over the last few years that the adjustments that are done to the raw data are justifiable. Before that I was very suspicious.
(I still think the quality of a lot of the raw data is much worse than advertised, but that isn’t Mosher’s problem.)

He has defended himself again and again from the same tired attacks and I am yet to see anything remotely substantial stick. He’s right. Check the code, do the maths and post up a proper critique or shut up. I disagree with a lot of what he says about climate in general, but he has absolutely put his balls on the line on this. That is admirable and an example more of us should follow.

Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

November 24, 2014, 8:28 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Jonathan Abbott

$

0

0

Reminder:

China is now hitting the wall, and will be experiencing CO2 emissions decline, not because of government action, but because they’re getting old and aging slows economies. So, India will now be the focus, until they too follow suit.

---

Comment on Week in review by climatereason

November 24, 2014, 8:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Lucifer

$

0

0

Jonathan

I agree with your post. Mosh has worked hard to provide a temperature record and he shouldn’t be attacked anonymously for using his best endeavours.

However your comment here is pertinent;

“(I still think the quality of a lot of the raw data is much worse than advertised, but that isn’t Mosher’s problem.)”

Many of the historic records that constitute the temperature raw data are little different to the anecdotal written accounts of the weather that Mosh is so suspicious of.

We can basically say that in this modern era of warming that temperatures have been rising for some 300 years or so. At times they rise (and fall) at a faster rate than other times. It is doubtful if modern temperatures are any higher than the MWP, the Roman warm period or the Bronze Age.

tonyb

Comment on Week in review by climatereason

November 24, 2014, 8:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Canman

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by climatereason

$

0

0

Rgates said

‘It does not mean that these did not occur before, but what the data would need to show is an increase in severity and frequency as net energy in the system increases.’

Ok, prove this then.

tonyb

Comment on Week in review by Canman

November 24, 2014, 9:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by nickels

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by climatereason

$

0

0

FOMD, where is all this market fundamentalism that you’re talking about? Check out this graphic:

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/_external/2013_10/-1.png?h=643&w=500

Comment on Week in review by nickels

November 24, 2014, 9:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Canman

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Canman

$

0

0

I fear the influence of corporations and greedy wealth might be past the tipping point which only revolution and decline can reverse….time will tell…. sucks.

Comment on Week in review by Canman

November 24, 2014, 9:22 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by brent

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by nickels

$

0

0

<a href="http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/_external/2013_10/-1.png?h=643&w=500" rel="nofollow"></a>