The fact that Dr Curry cites an article in her “week in review” posts does not mean that she endorses it, as anyone who has been reading here for more than a couple of weeks should know.
Comment on Week in review by johanna
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
↧
Comment on Climate psychology’s consensus bias by stan
No, it’s not possible to read the science and conclude that CAGW is a real threat. It’s not. The science fails to close so many obvious gaps that it is not possible to exercise any normal logical process and get to CAGW. At the most, the science might be read to suggest that lots and lots more work needs to be done. And only then if one were strongly disposed to want to believe in CAGW.
Logic, the kind still used in the real world, does not support a scientific view of CAGW. At all.
↧
Comment on Week in review by phatboy
Steven, the offending sentence was: “The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere” (my bold)
“The finding” being the one about melting ice contributing to increased volcanism, not the rise in sea level – which was an aside.
And, btw, the word ‘trouble’ was used once, and not in the context of sea level or anything global.
I suggest you read a bit harder.
↧
Comment on Week in review by JCH
True again. You have to be a complete Mbillseal to disagree with Mosher.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by JCH
Can’t argue with logic, but on what Santer said, what is the meaning of “at least”?
↧
Comment on Week in review by JCH
You would have funded a Mars rocket if you had to pay a royalty to NASA for every time you have linked to that article.
↧
Comment on Week in review by phatboy
And not to mention the gratuitous straw man about the magma not causing the ice melt – apparently put there for no other reason but to take a side-swipe at ‘deniers’
↧
Comment on Week in review by Hugh
‘Thus, because PE varies with altitude, we have a temperature gradient.’
If you have a bare temperature gradient, it doesn’t sound stable equilibrium in the first place.
For example, protostars are hot from inside but they radiate and cool down eventually, if they are not massive enough.
↧
↧
Comment on Towards mass marketed electric vehicles by Rob Ellison
The ICE is not that simple when you add gearboxes, differentials, pollution controls, engine management computers, oxygen sensors, oil and fluid pumps, various chains and belts, etc.
Replace it all with a battery and in hub motors – and keep the centre of gravity ultra low.
The DLR range extender converts mechanical directly to electrical energy without a crankshaft.
The limiting factor is battery cost and durability – the latter in terms of power capacity retention on cycling. The battery is sufficient for most journeys people usually take. Can be recharged overnight for $2 to $4.
It is a simple concept – charger, battery, motor – but with application of leading edge tech. Just the sort of thing I have specialised in as an engineer.
↧
Comment on Towards mass marketed electric vehicles by JustinWonder
Here’s what the free market in the USA tells us, as of July 2014:
1. Top 3 selling cars: Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nisan Altima
2. Of the Top 4 selling vehicles of any class 3 are pickup trucks.
3. Number 1 selling vehicle of any type ( for the 37th consecutive year), the Ford F – 150
All of the above are powered by gasoline ICEs.
The Prius came in at 16, I think. There are cars that have close to the same fuel efficiency as the Prius but are ICE powered and have a lower sticker price. They are probably easier to service, but I am just guessing.
Gasoline has a high relative power density. It is tough to beat. For commercial applications like mining, shipping, and construction, diesel rules. There has to be a reason for that.
Anecdote:
A colleague of mine from farming country in Podunk, Idaho, who’s father is a mechanic, says the farmers, ever practical and frugal, buy 2-wheel drive Ford F series trucks and leave them out in the weather, no garage, all year for DECADES.
Tales from the marketplace…
↧
Comment on Towards mass marketed electric vehicles by Rob Ellison
The internal combustion engine is not that simple when you add gearboxes, differentials, pollution controls, engine management computers, oxygen sensors, oil and fluid pumps, various chains and belts, etc.
Replace it all with a battery and in hub motors – and keep the centre of gravity ultra low.
The DLR range extender converts mechanical directly to electrical energy without a crankshaft.
The limiting factor is battery cost and durability – the latter in terms of power capacity retention on cycling. The battery is sufficient for most journeys people usually take. Without the attendant noise, smell and pollution. Can be recharged overnight for $2 to $4.
It is a simple concept – charger, battery, motor – but with application of leading edge tech.
It is a better mousetrap – even without factoring in climate and peak oil.
↧
Comment on Towards mass marketed electric vehicles by Rob Ellison
The ‘radiation’ is an electromagnetic field – and not ionising radiation. So it won’t be picked up by a Geiger counter at all.
Include a ferrous metal shield and the ‘problem’ is effectively dealt with. .
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
And yet a couple of leading climate scientists and the imprimatur of NASA doesn’t penetrate the quaint belief systems of true believers. Take it as a starting point.
↧
Comment on Towards mass marketed electric vehicles by tonyb
Justin
An uneconomic brute of a vehicle such as the F150 (best selling Really? Why?) could only thrive in a wealthy country like the US that has absurdly low gasoline prices.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/aluminati-official-2015-ford-f-150-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-released/
It is difficult to see how e/v could possibly make any headway with the current fuel taxation regime. Not saying that is good or bad, merely stating the obvious.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by phatboy
And also not to mention that 11 billion tons of ice melt equates to about 0.03mm of sea level rise.
↧
Comment on Towards mass marketed electric vehicles by Ragnaar
I’ve been interested in, what if you didn’t have a typical transmission since I heard about something like this used in open pit iron ore mining:
http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/off-highway-trucks/mining-trucks/18232553.html A typical differential seems complicated, inefficient and too heavy to the point of not being the best solution.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
Doc
“Now you argue that one can show the robustness of the BEST temperature field generation by comparing out of sample ‘stations’ with the BEST field. I find the logic faulty.
Science rests on positive and negative controls. You state that that you cannot be sure of values from any site are dependable, which is why you have a data screening process. Building and monitoring sites that you KNOW to be reporting correctly is a minimum starting point. Plonk down a station in a field and compare its daily min/max, recorded both electronically and via mercury max/min thermometer, compare this with your ‘field’.
THAT is exactly what I am saying you should do.
its what I did.
Its what robert Way is doing in canada. YUP putting stations
up and measuring new data. I helped him frigging process the new data
dont be a dolt.
further, you dont have to build and monitor sites. We already have them.
Sites that are built, monintored, calibrated, that are NOT used to
construct the field.
For example: you can drop CRN ( 10 years of data ) from the field.
Build the field without them. and then check.
Or you can go get other stations
https://www.mesonet.org/index.php/site/help
what these sites look like
https://www.mesonet.org/index.php/sites/site_description/retr
This is labor intensive cause they dont have ftp sites to download.
And you have to sort out which stations are not in your data
And after you do all this work. no one will publish you.
no skeptic will believe it.
and no commenter will do the work themselves to double check.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bad Andrew
Mosher,
You can only doctor up the data up to a point, then the law of diminishing returns kicks in. I say this in the sense of it’s marketing value. We are at the point where it’s just squiggly lines. Time to give up.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Towards mass marketed electric vehicles by JustinWonder
Tonyb,
I understand, those stats reflect the market in the USA. In the USA, for many working people and businesses, the Ford F series trucks ARE the most economical solution, and the sales reflect that reality. You have to consider the utility of the vehicle to the people that buy them. Of course, many people make the decision based on how the vehicle makes them feel. That gets into the area of behavioral economics.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
