Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

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

$
0
0

JimD,” You went off on a tangent.”

No, you have this wishy washy some models are this some are that blah blah. I have this, why is that model high or that model low approach. Models that more closely “get” absolute temperature tend to forecast less warming, models that grossly under-estimate absolute temperature tend to forecast more warming. The reason is that many parameters require an accurate initial temperature. Supposedly if you run the models long enough they will “discover” boundaries even if the initial conditions aren’t close. That may not be true if the parameters are “calibrated” incorrectly. Water freezes at 0C if it is fresh, about -2C with standard salinity and between -2 and -50C in the atmosphere. You are ahead of that game if you initialize temperatures to realistic values instead of hoping the models will discover the right values. That is simple for most folks to understand.

One of the more critical model parameters is convective triggering. Somewhere between 27C and 28C there is a greater potential for deep convection. Deep convection is a beyatch of a parameter because it impacts all levels of the system from sub surface to stratosphere including ozone, stratospheric water vapor, cloud cover, pole ward or wall energy transfer, surface wind velocity, atmospheric relative humidity, precipitation, arctic winter warming, sudden stratospheric warming, sea ice concentration and likely a few more fairly important feedbacks.

The people that should be the most critical of the model performance should be the modelers themselves. Many though have shifted to the circle wagon defensive mode so it is impossible to criticize their “babies”. When “I am sorry old chap, but why is there this discrepancy?” stops work you tend to get a bit more direct, especially if you are a redneck with not a great deal of patience. Squeaky wheel and all that doncha know.


Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

$
0
0

“>Label wood as “renewable” and shamelessly burn it. And since Europe doesn’t have enough, then let’s burn the forests of North America!”

Ironic, since England, having cleared the forests of wood for heat and the making of coke, had to begin burning coal, which was unpopular at that time. The rest was history, and here we are.

Comment on Week in review by HAS

$
0
0

Correction penultimate par “..claiming he didn’t ‘put forward …”

Comment on Week in review by AK

$
0
0

I was looking for clarification, perhaps redirection

OK, let me start by pointing out that the “order” involved in changing human conditions is completely different than the “order” involved in 2nd law calculations.

Thus, using a 3-D printer to create needed/desired objects has no natural comparison in energy consumption with factory production. It depends on details either way. But eliminating the overproduction on speculation, and shipping, warehousing, and trash-removal of unsold goodies would be an energy savings.

WRT the GDP, or money supply, or however you want to measure a polity’s net “wealth”, increasing the amount of “wealth” bound up in highly valued intellectual property (IP) can produce huge increases in GDP (or whatever) with little corresponding use of energy.

“Growth” depends on perception, and an increase in the number of computer games you can choose to play, or the number of designs you can choose from when creating you new furniture, clothes, and other toys could very well lead to a perceived growth in wealth without any increase in energy usage.

And “wealth” is (almost) nothing but perception anyway.

Comment on Week in review by R Graf

$
0
0

Fusion energy is non-partisan, both liberals and conservatives either never heard of think it had something to do Chernobyl and Fukishima.

Comment on Week in review by AK

$
0
0
<blockquote>England, having cleared the forests of wood for heat and the making of coke, had to begin burning coal, which was unpopular at that time.</blockquote><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_%28fuel%29#History" rel="nofollow">Coke</a> is made from coal. I think you were talking about charcoal, which is the equivalent for wood, and can be used for smelting iron and gunpowder:<blockquote>In 1709 Abraham Darby I established a coke-fired blast furnace to produce cast iron. Coke's superior crushing strength allowed blast furnaces to become taller and larger. The ensuing availability of inexpensive iron was one of the factors leading to the Industrial Revolution. Before this time, iron-making used large quantities of charcoal, produced by burning wood. As forests dwindled dangerously, the substitution of coke for charcoal became common in Great Britain, and the coke was manufactured by [...]</blockquote>

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

$
0
0

Just a few additional observations about the Karlbreen glacier:

1) The ELA only needs to retreat about 20-30 more meters and it will be the highest point in over 1750 years even though summer insolation has generally been declining.
2) The rapid rise in temperatures in the region over the past century, again even though summer insolation has generally been on the decline, does have a striking resemblance to the upward curve at the end of a hockey stick.

Also one side observation, using the reconstruction from this study, I noted this large drop in summer insolation around the 8.2 ka cooling event:

While a Bond event is generally associated by some to this 8.2 ka event, the sudden drop in insolation at this exact point is quite interesting and might seem to have volcanic origins. We know from evidence that several volcanoes including Grimsvotn in Iceland had very large eruptions right around this time frame. The coincidence of the timing of a drop in solar insolation and increased volcanic activity right at the 8.2 ka event leads me to be skeptical that we fully understand the 8.2 ka cooling event. A higher resolution ice core study of the 8.2 timeframe would be interesting to see related to volcanic aerosols from the NH and SH.

Comment on Week in review by AK

$
0
0

That big fusion reactor in the sky…


Comment on Week in review by Stephen Segrest

$
0
0

Planning Engineer — Could you do a blog post on what your Crystal Ball perspective is for new U.S. Utility electricity generation in/for the foreseeable future?

Almost all fossil fuel additions are now from natural gas. These capacity additions come nearly equally from combustion turbine peaker plants, which generally run only during the highest peak-demand hours of the year, and combined-cycle plants, which provide intermediate and base-load power.

Questions I’d like to see addressed:

(1) For C.E.’s general audience, explain what a combined cycle unit (with an HRSG) is.

(2) Are simple cycle Units becoming a dinosaur?

(3) What’s the importance of “load tracking”? Also, could you explain to a general audience the concept of cycling and especially the engineering challenges and costs of doing this on simple cycle base-load and intermediate units?

(4) For most of the U.S. where solar is such a small percentage (0.22% of generation currently), is a “Duck Curve” really something we need to be concerned about if we are bringing on combined cycle Units en masse?

(5) Does having a lot of combined cycle units (as they have in New England) have an impact on how one should view solar (i.e., the back-up power argument)?

Thanks!

Comment on Week in review by R Graf

$
0
0

I’m currently heavily supporting two campuses now and a third in two more years. I hope online universities are thriving in time for my grandchildren.

Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

$
0
0

I was talking about order in the sense of moving molecules around or flipping bits in a computer. To do that, you need power, there is no free lunch. So, to create that order, entropy must increase. Is that statement true?

With respect to economic activity, or any activity, we have a tendency to do more, as much as we can, as power becomes cheaper. If gasoline is cheaper we drive more, up to some limit perhaps. If electric power is cheaper, we deploy more devices to save labor, buy more time to do other things, or entertain ourselves. We consume even more power. Is that true, in your opinion?

Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

$
0
0

Yes, you nailed. Young people are passionate and their brains, and their empathy, are still developing. The professors and admins have no excuse.

Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Further background regarding the lesser of the two organizations known as “NAS”:

National Association of Scholars: Organization

National Association of Scholars officers are not answerable to its membership: according to its 2009 IRS Form 990 (Part VI Section A), the Association doesn’t have members (line 6), members don’t elect the officers (line 7a), and the decisions of the governing body are not subject to members’ approval (line 7b).

Mid-2000s IRS filings also indicate that the Association was controlled by 0 or 1 person.

The Association’s major foundation donor is the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Conclusion  The charter, board, and funding of the National Association of Scholars provide scant grounds to expect that its white papers reflect the views and traditions of any broad community of scholars.

*THAT* reality is evident to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$
0
0

captd, if you have data that models that are too warm don’t warm enough, and models that are too cool warm too much, you need to show it, because I have never heard of such a thing before. It is unlikely that the global mean bias has any relation to the warming rate.

Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by Greg Goodman

$
0
0

Here ( hopefully ) is a graph of TLT for the tropics.

There is a small dip at about the right time for a volcanic response but it would be hard to justify it as being statistically different from the rest of the variability in the data.

Also, long term rise is negligible.

Clearly tropics are less sensitive that the global average. Further indicaitons of strong negative feedbacks being present.


Comment on Week in review by Stephen Segrest

$
0
0
<b>Planning Engineer</b> -- If you can do this blog post, could you emphasize what's going on in <b>most</b> of the U.S. and not California.

Comment on Week in review by AK

$
0
0
<blockquote>I was talking about order in the sense of moving molecules around or flipping bits in a computer. To do that, you need power, there is no free lunch. So, to create that order, entropy must increase. Is that statement true? </blockquote>True, but irrelevant. The actual amounts of energy really needed are several orders of magnitude smaller than what current technology uses. And there's <a href="http://www.techradar.com/us/news/computing-components/intel-broadwell-vs-haswell-what-s-new-in-intel-cpus--1256530" rel="nofollow">on-going improvement</a>:<blockquote>Intel Haswell uses 22 nanometer transistors, Broadwell's transistors will be 14nm. Back in 2006, the first Core processors had whopping great big 65nm ones. We've made a lot of progress in those eight years.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>The big claim about Broadwell is that its chips will be 30% more efficient than Haswell's ones, using 30% less power while providing slightly better performance at the same clock speed. Everyone's a winner. </blockquote><blockquote>Haswell already made huge improvements to efficiency compared with the previous generation, Ivy Bridge, resulting in a huge upsurge in the battery life of Windows laptops last year. Looking at what Haswell did when it arrived in 2013 tells us what we can expect in Broadwell.</blockquote>

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$
0
0

Yes, it seems they think dF must be still correlated to dT when dN is added to it. The forcing change, dF, is a much smoother function than dT, because dN decorrelates it. It is unlikely that dF has much correlation with dT in individual years if these models have any internal variability, so that would mean that the circularity argument is wrong. It hinges on whether dF and dT are strongly correlated on a year to year basis. I don’t think so.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$
0
0

It is the variation among models of these parameters that has little effect on 15-year trends. This is not surprising.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$
0
0

HAS, you say he didn’t carry out an alternate analysis, but he has a paragraph that starts with “I have carried out a regression analysis based on equation (8) using the same set of models.” then goes on to say his result contradicts Maroztke on 15-year trends without showing it.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images