Well, actually Keeling didn't use lasers, (although today, the most accurate CO2 devices use <a href="http://www.lgrinc.com/analyzers/isotope/" rel="nofollow"> laser cavity ring down</a>) but a much simpler non dispersive IR instrument designed originally for medical measurements of exhaled air. This requires accurate reference standards, and creation of those standards is pretty close to witchcraft. Technique, technique, technique. The non dispersive instruments are still the ones being used at Mauna Loa.
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Eli Rabett
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Willard
Absolutely, Tom C. That Republicans are more knowledgeable about who controls Congress, where’s Israel, and how much is the Dow Jones was the knock-out argument that we needed to show that Dems benefit from the LIVs.
The picture gets even more defined when we turn within the party:
The paper suggests that on a large array of scientific topics, members of the Tea Party diverge markedly from more traditional members of the GOP.
“There are greater differences on environment and science questions between Tea Party supporters and non-Tea Party Republicans than there are between non-Tea Party Republicans and Independents,” says sociologist Lawrence Hamilton of the University of New Hampshire, who co-authored the paper with his university colleague Kei Saito. “As far as I know, that hasn’t been found before, and we found that standing out in our data analysis.”
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Eli Rabett
Callendar and later Keeling were able to go back through the literature and identify CO2 measurements that were reliable back into the 19th century. They also were able to identify ones that were determined by local conditions (center of Paris, in the middle of a field with growing plants, etc), and to an extent tease out those made by people with good technique and those made by those who were not ready for prime time.
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by gbaikie
I believe that already happened- depending how look at it, Or NOAA has the lead. Or you could some wanted NASA to focus more on it, and they failed.
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Matthew R Marler
Pat Casson: It does increase, but not by 12%. Does your household electricity bill increase by 12% if you’re spending 12% more time on the computer?
The increase in lightning frequency results from the increased upward flow of energy via convection; the CAPE is proportional to the integral over the full height of the column (from ground to the anvil or lightning level) of the difference in temperature between the rising air and the (descending) air around it (with respect to the log of pressure.) The energy flow from which the lightning is generated is estimated as proportional to the CAPE times the rainfall rate. Neither Romps et al nor you nor anyone has proposed a mechanism by which they can be correct without a substantial increase in the overall rate of energy transport through the rise of wet thermals that generate the energy for the lightning.
You have shown the energy increase necessary for the 12% lightning strike increase is much less than a 12% increase in the the overall energy flow rate through the thermals. However, you have not described a mechanism by which an increase in lightning rate can actually happen. According to the relationship used by Romps et al, the increased energy for an increased lightning strike rate results from an increased energy flow rate of the whole process generating the thunderclouds.
The energy flow through the computer can be controlled independently of the energy flow through the rest of the house. But a 1C increase in surface temp can not raise the lightning strike rate independently of increasing the rate of energy flow through the whole mechanism and process of the thundercloud. So your question is irrelevant.
Romps et al have the change in lightning discharge rate proportional to the change in CAPE times rainfall; it is the 12% increase in CAPE times rainfall that yields the 12% increase in lightning strike rate. I merely showed that a 12% increase in CAPE times rainfall implies a 12% change in total power.
If you are correct that a 12% increase in lightning strike rate can occur with a much smaller increase in total power, then the equation used by Romps et al can’t be correct.
↧
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Matthew R Marler
Pat Cassen, I apologize. I misspelled your name.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by kim
Let’s build a happy little cloud.
======================
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Lucifer
2 C (3.6 F) is 20% of an inverse ice age.
Global average temperature does not cause glacial cycles – local insolation variation does.
It would be more accurate to say that the global average temperature varied only 6C in spite of huge accumulations of ice.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Don Monfort
You are lost, kim.
“She made a quick and incisive point: if “I am Charlie,” then I should support Steyn et al against Mann. For obvious reasons.”
“She made a valid point. You don’t need an AK-47 to threaten freedom of expression.”
Potter is saying that Judith says the obvious reason we should support Steyn et al against Mann is because you don’t need an AK47 to threaten freedom of expression. WTFreak does that mean? Can you explain? Do you agree with that nonsense?
WTFreak does a little run-of-the-mill tort lawsuit have to do with AK47s used to commit premeditated mass murder? They are about as equivalent as 7 and 42,807,027. Oh, but there are some sevens in the big number.
I asked you to rate a tort lawsuit and premeditated mass murder on a scale of 1 to 10, and you wouldn’t do it. I know why. I will have to help you. Let’s use a scale of 1 to 43,000,000. The tort lawsuit weighs in at 7 and the premeditated mass murder tips the scale at 42,807,027. Not even close. But you can call it somewhat equivalent, if you want to. I never took you for a Kool-Aid drinker, kim.
↧
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Pat Cassen
Matthew -
Why do you expect that an increase of .12 (P x CAPE) demands an increase of .12 (P x L), when L is much greater than CAPE? As has been pointed out to you, the increase in (P x CAPE) comes from the increase in CAPE, not P.
<em>Neither Romps et al nor you nor anyone has proposed a mechanism by which they can be correct without a substantial increase in the overall rate of energy transport through the rise of wet thermals that generate the energy for the lightning.</em>
There <em>is</em> a substantial increase in the rate of energy transport: .02 x (P x L) is much greater than .12 x (P x CAPE), despite the fact that .02 < .12.
Nowhere have you <em>showed that a 12% increase in CAPE times rainfall implies a 12% change in total power.</em>" It doesn't.
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Lucifer
Oh please……
Comparable to the Double Helix? or Darwin?
Yes, measurements are good, but what ground breaking scientific landmark is the ‘Keeling Curve’? CO2 is rising – we knew that for quite some time.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Steven Mosher
“I was hoping for something less cryptic. Which threat do you fear more? Rate the threats on a scale from one to ten.”
now you agree with Judith.
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Why.It's.Not.CO2
Yes, politicians need to heed science - but only the correct science.
A plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets is shown <a href="http://climateblogcritique.homestead.com" rel="nofollow"><b>here</a></b>.
In the above linked website (being visited by over 100 each day) you will see a plot derived from planetary orbits. There is a very strong correlation between world temperature data and the 934-year and superimposed 60-year cycles in this plot. I postulate that magnetic fields from the planets affect the Sun and cosmic ray intensities, and the latter can affect cloud formation and thus climate on Earth.
The whole debate lies firmly within the science of physics in which I am well versed. Most people don't understand thermodynamics, let alone radiative heat transfers. I have written about the latter in my paper <i>"Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics"</i> published on several websites in March 2012 and easily found with Google. That paper demolishes the false conjecture by James Hansen that back radiation can be added to solar radiation when calculating surface temperatures using the Stefan Boltzmann equation. All it can do is slow that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation, whilst having no effect on most of the cooling, which is not by radiation.
But the more important issue is the physics (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics) which does explain all temperature data in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons, and also explains the required energy flows to maintain the existing temperatures. Very, very few are aware of this physics, yet it is valid and correctly derived from the laws of physics which have stood the test of time.
Unless we attack the false physics in the greenhouse conjecture and present valid physics that does gel with reality, we don't have a hope of quashing the hoax.
I believe we can present the correct physics, and such is in my book <i>"Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All"</i> available from Amazon. If we don't satisfy the world that the physics in the GH conjecture is false, and that other correct physics does explain everything, then there will be more of the same when the 60 year cycle rises again between about 2028 and 2059.
Hopefully Australia can lead the world, for I believe there could be a class-action sponsored by major companies against the Government for all the costs which such companies incur because of the false claims regarding carbon dioxide. If the Government lost such a case they would be forced to act and take notice of the correct science, and it would get global attention. I am confident that I could defeat any scientist the Government might use as a witness in such a case. Many of you will know that I have argued with hundreds on climate blogs and never been proven wrong regarding the content of my book. I've even offered $5,000 if proven wrong.
So, if anyone has any suggestions, or knows someone in an Australian law firm who may wish to take this on, let me know.
↧
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Wagathon
Speaking of forcing, Nicola Scafetta (‘Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications’) observed, “there are many studies that have suggested a possible influence of the Moon upon climate [e.g., Keeling and Whorf]… After all, the phenomenon of lunar tides and their cycles are well known and clearly present in the ocean records. Thus, the Moon may alter climate by partially modulating the ocean currents via gravitational forces through its long-term lunar tidal cycles.”
How many models include lunar forcing? Zero. Does that mean Keeling and others was totally or possibly wrong? We just don’t know all of the possible things that all the makers of all of the toy climate models have been left out; nor all of the possible things that have possibly been left out; nor all of the things that have been included that are only possible.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Don Monfort
Can you be a little bit less cryptic, Steven? Explain? Should I have asked for a rating on a scale of 0-10? If this is just a driveby, I am going to spray some herbicide on that little patch of philosophical weeds that you call home. I suspect that Eli the silly Rabette is in there with you.
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Lucifer
in 30 years “if present trends are any sign, mankind’s world, I judge, will be in greater immediate danger than it is today.”
Keeling, like many doomsayers, didn’t identify the “immediate danger”.
So, in his thirty year follow-up, didn’t admit the lack of immediate danger.
Were he here today, we could point out to him the increased wealth, increased longevity, increased education and just about every other standard of living, nearly world wide, nearly all facilitated with fossil fuel.
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by izen
@-climatereason
“Scientifically accurate measurements to the standards we currently demand date back only a bare few decades. That period gives far too small a picture to infer anything.”
We may desire accurate scientific measurements to a certain standard, but to demand them when they do not actually exist seems a recipe for perpetual frustration.
Pragmatically we have to employ all the many methods we have to provide a consilience of evidence.
@-“We need to run the data for the next fifty years before we can possibly know if anything unusual has been going on.”
Such a profoundly binary assertion seems unlikely. I suspect it is more probable that while the absence of 2000 years of instrumental data decreases the accuracy of our knowledge, it does not reduce it to zero. There are ways of estimating the odds in the face of incomplete information.
@-“At present it doesn’t appear that today is anything out of the ordinary in terms of what we imperfectly know of the last 2000 years and somebody needs to prove otherwise to a much higher standard than has yet come forward”
For many people, and apparently the vast majority of mainstream scientists working in the field, the standard required to ‘prove'(?!) to them that today IS out of the ordinary has been exceeded for some decades.
Could you explain on what criteria you WOULD judge the evidence is sufficient to persuade you that CO2 emissions causing climate change IS a probable risk?
Or is the evidence required to change your mind pragmatically impossible to obtain?
↧
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Bill_c, “captian, I know you don’t like linear no threshold models but I think the problem you’re describing is not restricted to that set of models.”
No, it is “restricted” to LNT, but the general precautionary principal tends to revolve around linear extrapolation of doom to make worst case scenarios sound scientifically likely. No matter how much evidence builds that catastrophic warming is unlikely they have their fat tail trump card. What better way to fatten up a tail than with LNT?
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
eadler2, ” It turns out that McIntyre did not know how to use centered PCA and made the mistake of using only the first principle component. Keeping the correct number of PC’s creates a Hockey Stick out of Mann’s Hockey Stick Data.”
So that is all it was? Well, my goodness. Much ado about nothing since other people have used similar methods that look kinda like Mann’s Hockey Stick.
I cannot believe the nerve of that Canadian hack bringing up silly things like inverted proxies, not using the full data available, unusual weighting and averaging methods and such. Heck he has dozens of posts on nothing.
I guess Marcott is a whiz kid too?
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Willard
Want to guess what percent of the terrorist attacks there were committed by Muslims over the past five years? Wrong. That is, unless you said less than 2 percent.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
