<blockquote>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?</blockquote>Yes, with caveats. Up to a point. Why drive to the store if you can order it over the internet and get it delivered? A "smart" appliance doesn't have to use any more energy than a "dumb" one. Computer games or other entertainments are valuable due to the sophistication of their creation, not the amount of energy they use. It seem likely to me that net <b>personal</b> energy usage will level off at some point, as increasing wealth becomes dependent on other things than energy usage.
As for production, and other "societal level" <i>per capita</i> energy usage, I would expect a similar leveling off, as improvements concentrate on "smarter" production facilities, rather than higher energy usage. Not that I think there's any reason it <b>should</b> level off. There's plenty of energy falling on every square kilometer of land <b>and ocean</b>. We just need the technology to grab a few buckets of it. But it will, IMO, because with smarter production it simply won't be needed to provide what people want.
Comment on Week in review by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
Go over to CA and ask them to explain it for you, yimmy. They won’t bite you. Or you could ask someone here to carry your water over there for you, like you did when you wanted to play gotcha with Willis, but you didn’t have the guts to go to WATTS and do it yourself.
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by Greg Goodman
I think I discussed this below in reply to Judith’s comment about the Emanuel paper. Even quite complex local behaviour can end up being simple negative feedback when viewed on a larger scale, not individual storms. The internal +ve feedbacks make it a strong, non linear -ve feedback effect. That is probably consistent with the bifurcation that Emanuel is describing.
This again ties in with the idea of something more reactive than a simple relaxation that could produce the kind of overshoot seen in my last figure in the article.
This could be some other internal variability but could also be overshoot from a non linear neg. f/b.
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, let me introduce you to Climate Explorer.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
This model gets tropical SST very close and based on it’s DWLR run “projects” about 0.6 C of warming in the tropics for the next close to 100 years. They have another version without the m that also has SST close to observations.
Here are a few GFDL and a GISS model of the tropics with ERSSTv4 tropical SST. Notice the difference?
The generic Warmist response is something like, “OMG! we cannot figure it out so it has to be worse than we thought!”
Now with Climate Explorer in your favorites files you too can do some investigating without sniffing up Skeptical Climate’s backside. I look forward to your unbiased future comments :)
↧
Comment on Week in review by R Graf
R Gates: ” …summer insolation has generally been on the decline…”
Question1 : Are you talking about the waning M-cycle obliquity over the last 10ka?
Question2: Do you believe that there is another, yet undetermined, non- M-cycle driver of the Pleistocene glaciations? If no, why do inter-glacials occur only every two or three obliquity cycles?
Question3: Is global ocean current conveyor driven primarily by summer polar melt?
Question4: Is interruption of the conveyor a likely explanation for ice ages?
Thx
↧
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Greg, It is pretty interesting.
I ran this comparison of SST, LS and OLR lagged by 27 months then did this correlation with SST
There is not a lot of difference between ENSO and Pinatubo, so if you remove ENSO you would tend to exaggerate Pinatubo.
Again I suspect tropical SST has reached a convective limit, but the data I have access to has a good many holes. That was trimmed at 2010 because of the OLR data on climate explorer.
The 27 month lag btw is due to tropical SST response to solar, the tide thing I suspect.
↧
Comment on Week in review by JCH
<i>Even Stokes shies. </i>
What on earth is wrong with you? Nic Lewis, that I can see, did not provide a link to the actual paper. Stokes left a link. That is called being a nice guy.
↧
Comment on Week in review by omanuel
I invite Mann to address nine pages of precise experimental data in public that falsify standard climate models:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
I will help you. Nicky Racehorse Stokes never misses an opportunity to reflexively defend just about any old tripe put out by his tribe. He has not uttered one word in defense of Maroztke Forster. Nic Lewis copied M&F on his criticism of their paper on Feb 4, and they haven’t replied. Only little jimmy incompetent dee and the clownish SkS kidz are attempting to poke holes in Nic’s analysis. Do you want to give it a try?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, If you want to avoid climate explorer you can stay right here on Climate Etc.
That is what happens when you get SST right.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/pause-tied-to-equatorial-pacific-surface-cooling/
Now that doesn’t explain why there is cooling, but the models “get” things closer when given a chance.
↧
Comment on Week in review by HAS
Yes, on the alternative analysis I should have been clearer – Lewis wasn’t presenting this as part of the article (and his thesis) but he did mention that he had done this. I was responding to your point about whether the post dealt with Marotzke’s central point, and Lewis’ aside and the ability to replicate it seemed irrelevant to your central point (whereas you were claiming the lack of detail was somehow relevant to the point under discussion).
On your statement “It hinges on whether dF and dT are strongly correlated on a year to year basis. I don’t think so.” I can’t see that assumption in Lewis’ work, can you explain?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan
Steven, no quibble with any of your points except the last. Perhaps my meaning was not clear. It is indisputable that for at least a decade, the past has been cooled and, in some cases, the present warmed compared to ‘raw’. That is so for USHCN, GHCN, BOM Acorn, NIWA… Moreover, the tendency has been increasing, documented by simple archival comparisions of regional and global temperature series at different points in time. For example, Between 1999 and 2011 NOAA NCDC cooled CONUS 1933 and warmed 1999 by a net total of 0.7C and erasing the mid 1930s heat record. It is also indisputable that all this opposite to what NASA GiSS says it does in homogenization to resolve UHI, using Tokyo as the illustration. It is also indisputable that GHCN homogenization has with statistical ‘certainty’ a warming bias. See the Europe AGU 2012 paper available at http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1212. All examples and more in essay When Data Isn’t, with footnotes.
These things do not in general suggest minimizing error, although I am fully aware from having read the BEST documentation that is the intent of your methods. (And spotchecking places like Reykjavik, Sulina, Debilt, Darwin suggests BEST does indeed do a better job than GHCN,)
Now, there are two possible explanations for the tendencies and biases to ‘enhance’ warming. Conspiracy between governmental agencies in various countries cannot be ruled out, but is very improbable. Much more likely are subtle flaws in the ideas behind all homogenizarion instantiations, which have not been caught owing to confirmation bias. BEST 166900, BOM ACORN 82039 (amongst several others), and GHCN 62103943000 are all clear illustrations of where homogenization via regional expectations is plainly wrong.
Looking at local paleoglacier advance and retreat, then at the glacier behavior since 1900 compared to raw v. Adjusted local temps, might be another way to get a handle on the magnitude of this issue using a physical proxy. Local Raw temp flat or cooling and glacier not retreating despite adjusted local temp rising. Don’t know if there are any such cases, or enough for even a qualitative conclusion. There was enough resolution to debunk the recent Lena Delta warming inferred from ice wedge cores by using BEST 169945, Tiksi. The new idea is to invert that investigative process.
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
3-D printing chocolate.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by John Smith (it's my real name)
kim
the flowers, and everything else, are under a few feet of snow in New
England…
for the children
↧
Comment on Week in review by vukcevic
across whole of the <b> far </b> N. Atlantic (currently happens just to the SW of Greenland and in the Nordic Seas)
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by Matthew R Marler
Thank you for the link. Most interesting.
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by Greg Goodman
Mike Flynn,
you seem to have lost interest but for posterity, here is a paper explaining the various processes of SO2 conversion to SO4- and sulphuric acid, with equilibrium reactions. some reference to Pinatubo.
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/~dstevens/Presentations/Papers/stevenson_gssp03.pdf
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, Since you are wondering about dF in a paper that was hopelessly flawed from the get go here is a simple illustration.
That is two versions of actual global mean temperature compared to the CMIP5 model mean actual temperature. To compare dF to dT you need to know one or the other. Since the models are starting outside of any valid actual temperature range, the range of dF would not be valid. Since models were supposed to “discover” actual temperature and haven’t, scientists should have “discovered” the problem.
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by Greg Goodman
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/s02aerosols.php
Ozone depletion promoted by volcanic sulfur aerosols.
The sulfate aerosols also promote complex chemical reactions on their surfaces that alter chlorine and nitrogen chemical species in the stratosphere. This effect, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, generates chlorine monoxide (ClO), which destroys ozone (O3).
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
Bill –
==> “Joshua, You understand that as someone with strong libertarian (classical liberal) beliefs, Rand Paul (even though running as a Republican) can be interested and concerned with the issue of when should people be allowed to not vaccinate themselves or their children, right?”
Of course.
==?> “The biggest reasons people would not want to vaccinate would be religious objections, or fears of side-effects from vaccines. So he could well believe in vaccinations himself, but understand that others may be fearful of side-effects – even if their fears are unfounded.”
I don’t think that was what he was doing. I think that he was exploiting fear and distrust of scientific evidence-based public health policy, for the sake of political expediency. Part of the reason for my view there were his public statements about public health policy w/r/t Ebola. His own father called him out for political expediency on that topic.
Such political expediency leads to ridiculous situations such as where he talked about normal children with profound mental disorders after vaccination and then saying that he wasn’t alleging causation.
==> “He is a doctor, so I think he does have some scientific sense.”
As a doctor, and as an elected politician who as such is, essentially, part of the public health system, he should take the time to be responsible about discussing these issues and not exploit them for political expediency.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
