<a href="https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/28645" rel="nofollow">GC21C-0566 Details</a>
V.Pratt, hope you can share the poster as a head post at CE.
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by blueice2hotsea
↧
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by eadler2
The Arctic is about 5% of the earth’s surface area. One can expect a lot of noise in annual average temperatures over a small segment of the globe.
Recent research has shown that temperature changes in the Arctic are magnified by feedback over and above the effect of changing albedo due to reduced snow and ice cover.
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-temperature-feedback-magnifying-climate-arctic.html
“Normally, they explain, changing weather patterns (such as thunderstorms) in other parts of the world keep atmospheric air churning, which in turn allows heat closer to the ground to be moved higher, allowing some of it to escape into space. Things are very different in the Arctic—there is very little churning, which means that warm air close to ground (just one to two kilometers thick) remains where it is, trapped by a heavy layered atmosphere.”
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by SkepticGoneWild
O M G. Tyndall did not measure “absorptivity”. Based upon his 1861 paper and the description of his apparatus, he was measuring “opacity’, not absorption. Secondly, Tyndall held to the discredited theory of aethereal heat transfer. Sure, there were estimates of climate sensitivity in 1896, but these were just hypotheses that were never rigorously tested per the tenets of the scientific method.
One of the alleged pioneers of AGW theory is Guy S. Callendar. He published a paper in 1937 entitled:
“THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TEMPERATURE” [//onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf]
Of course he predicted that global temperatures would rise with increasing CO2 concentrations.
At the conclusion of his paper, he stated:
“The course of world temperature during the next twenty years should afford valuable evidence as to the accuracy of the calculated effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” – G.S. Callendar, 1937
To his credit, his statement accurately reflects the requirements of the scientific method, something that is completely missing in the modern world of climate psuedo-science. But back to his paper. Let’s look at the “valuable evidence” that would reflect the “accuracy” of the calculated effect of increasing CO2 per Callendar’s hypothesis. Here are global temperatures from 1937 to 1957:
Hey wait a minute! Let’s give the “Guy” a break. He really meant 30 years!
40 years?
//woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1977/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1977/trend
As the great physicist Richard Feynman stated:
” It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it [the hyothesis] disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”
Callendar’s AGW hypothesis examined a time period when CO2 increases were marginal. The 20 to 40 year period after his paper was published saw marked increases in CO2 concentrations, yet global temperatures fell.
It does not matter what is “universally accepted”. The scientific method does not concern itself with the “consensus”. No, the burden of proof remains with scientists proposing their hypotheses. And so far their hypotheses do not hold up under the rigors of the scientific method.
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by wayne
“Clearly statistical analysis does not indicate that the long term anthropogenic warming trend has been broken …”
Well, it is very hard to break something that has never existed but as hypothesized in a conjecture.
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by tonyb
Rgates
We can see co2 versus temperature in better context with extended CET (note CET has risen again this year)
Also note that the first three years of the reconstruction are probably the three warmest consecutive years in the record.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by Hugh Jass
↧
Comment on All megawatts are not equal by Peter Lang
Planning Engineer,
I’m not sure what you re getting at with this comment. Did you read the two links I gave? They are factual information. The paper by Graham Palmer is excellent. A wealth or real-world information and costs from an experienced consulting engineer in the industry.
↧
Comment on All megawatts are not equal by Peter Lang
Johnfpitman
Typically, anything over 30 years payback cannot be justified using commonly accepted practices. This was the point of the climate activist that came up with such discount rates and such high costs of carbon.
True. The economic models such as DICE accumulate costs and projected benefits out to 300 years at unrealistically low discount rates to attempt to make their case. But plot the costs and benefits out to 2100 and the costs greatly exceed the benefits for the whole period. And this is using assumptions that are highly favourable to the CAGW alarmists case – such as ECS=3.2, high damage function, RCP8.5, Copenhagen ‘optimistic’ participation rate (which is completely unrealistic and virtually impossible to achieve).
The red line here shows the net costs and benefits for 1/2 the Copenhagen participation rate (which is still unrealistic):
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by beththeserf
O that 1997 meme! Put the bleme on meme, boys!
↧
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by beththeserf
Response ter PMHinSC gone wild.
↧
Comment on All megawatts are not equal by Peter Lang
FP –
==> “But I would argue, like point of uncertainty, neither side makes it a practice to include assumptions, estimates, etc that weaken their case. ”
Aye. There’s the rub.
Catch you on another thread.
What an example of picking the cherry that appeals to his ideological biases and avoiding all the relevant and important points JFP made. It is a very clear demonstration of the closed minds, bias, motivated reasoning of the extreme Left bigots and idealogues, like Joshua.
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by mosomoso
Long Renaissance!
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by Re: Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? | Kirk M. Maxey: Blog and Website
[…] blundered so badly for the last 20 years will be rehabilitated? Again, to get in ahead of the data, a recent post on the blog Climate etc. throws a preemptive strike at the possibility that the next flip of the global climate coin comes […]
↧
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by steven
JCH, maybe. If you look at the year of emergence as derive by Ed Hawkins, it appears the warming starts in the Indian Ocean and then goes into the Atlantic.
This matches up fairly well with the model study by Lee et al 2011
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Lee_etal_2011_grl_amoc.pdf
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by phil brisley.
Thanks SGW, great post! I like your style too.
↧
Comment on All megawatts are not equal by Planning Engineer
Peter – I’m not disagreeing with the perspective you provided at all. I just was emphasizing, something different, that their are operational issues (do you set the inverters on power factor control or voltage control?) that can impact the economics (at least the economics of todays subsidized conditions) perhaps fairly or unfairly. It’s a side issue that I thought was more on point with the document AK provided. None of what either of us provided was/is contradictory. Just talking about different things. Maybe you were already aware of that – and I pointed it out unnecessarily.
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by pokerguy
Hey josh,
Nice to hear from you. I love the ‘realist.” label. Suitably preposterous.
↧
↧
Comment on All megawatts are not equal by Planning Engineer
I would take issue with this quote “But I would argue, like point of uncertainty, neither side makes it a practice to include assumptions, estimates, etc that weaken their case. ”
In generation planning it is a standard CYA (Cover your A##) move to include all assumptions that weaken your case. That and generally, and 100% from my experience, the goal is to pick the best most robust plan from the available options so we are not usually on a side. Up front we point out all the weaknesses and places the plan might fail (and the magnitude of those failures) in the various scenarios. There may be some cases where a utility wants to employ a particular technology, because they are “true believers” or some other motivation, but that has not been my experience. If something might work – most want to say they gave it full and careful consideration and also that they were aware of the drawbacks of the unselected options.
A while back large Combined cycle additions we had planned came on line serving a significant portion of the system need. As it was being brought up to speed, some might say the natural gas bubble broke. Natural gas costs increased significantly above our expected scenario. Stakeholders were not happy, but we could pull our documentation and show that scenario was anticipated as a potential likelihood and also our findings that it was still was a “good” option in that scenario, superior to coal which many felt we should have stuck with. Subsequently natural gas has declined and coal plants have faced hurdles. At first we looked stupid, later genius – but in truth just wise to look broadly at a range of assumptions and scenarios.
The question with today’s renewables, typically is do they work in any scenario – let alone across a broad range of assumptions. Finding a “reasonable” scenario where they work is the first challenge. The true test is will they hold up across a broad range of assumptions. When costs and changes support such findings, planners will not want to dismiss renewables.
↧
Comment on All megawatts are not equal by Planning Engineer
A critical typo there. We want to be aware of the drawbacks of the selected option. (Also not overlook the benefits of the unselected alternatives).
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by anng
bob droege,
15th & 16th century Renaissance – followed by 17th century Enlightenment
↧
