<blockquote>Neutral El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) indicators include central to eastern Pacific sea surface temperatures, temperatures beneath the sea surface and cloudiness near the Date Line. The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has returned to near to threshold values, but this is primarily due to tropical weather activity near Tahiti rather than a broadscale climate signal. The SOI is often affected by weather phenomena during this time of the year.
The late summer to early autumn period is the time of year when ENSO events naturally decay. Forecasting beyond this time is therefore difficult, and some caution should be exercised. International models surveyed by the Bureau indicate that tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures are likely to remain within the neutral range for at least the next three months.</blockquote>
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by A. Voip
A rolling stone of course. Tie your own rope.
We are all in trouble now…
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Joshua
The Telegraph article concluded that these changes were part of the “greatest and most costly scare the world has known.”
That’s beautiful.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Joshua
tony –
==> “At the moment I veer towards thinking their criticism was unfair as they have cited so few examples.”
Geez, what could possibly make you question the scientific veracity of Booker’s viewpoint?
The Telegraph article concluded that these changes were part of the “greatest and most costly scare the world has known.”
↧
Comment on Open thread by David Wojick
Eyeballing the record this has happened at least three or four times before. Any effects then? Big swings appear to be common. Also, given that these are anomalies I am not sure collapse is the right word for it. The gyre gyrates.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Joshua
Oh, wait, it gets better- conspiracy theories? What conspiracy theories?:
This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
Good to see that Booker isn’t getting any play at all at any of the more well-known “skeptical” blogs. I am encouraged that “skeptics” as a group are moving away from that whole “hoax” thing – by isolating the kind of extremism we see from Booker.
Huh?
What?
Er…nevermind.
↧
Comment on Open thread by nickels
“Blogs – Climate Audit is most cited (57 times), followed by RealClimate (42 times) with many negative comments about their attitude and apparent failure to answer questions satisfactorily.”
Interesting… it was exactly the rudeness and obvious canned propaganda and lack of answers at skeptical science that made me decide to become more active in my skepticism… (although its really my working with climate models and training in modelling that made me skeptical).
↧
Comment on Open thread by Tonyb
Joshua
I question their scientific veracity as it doesn’t look much like science.
They need to produce a more comprehensive listing of supposed wrong doings before their examples can gain real traction with those that matter.Unfortunately those that matter don’t include you or me.
BTW booker sometimes produces some very good work, don’t automatically think he is a journalistic hack because those on such as attp say so. He tends to be stronger on the political and economic material
Delingpole is also a very sharp cookie. I met him a few months ago and was more impressed than I expected to be.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Rob Ellison
In the words of Michael Ghil (2013) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’
The world warms and cools of course – quite naturally for the most part. On both the short and long term. The incredible gibberish from Flynn notwithstanding.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
From the article:
…
Writer Adam Estes has tested over a thousand dollars worth of smart home gear from companies like Wink, GE, Lutron, Cree, and Leviton. Most of it worked correctly out of the box — which he said was great. But almost immediately, devices stopped responding and defects manifested themselves. Even after getting replacements and reconfiguring the devices, he found himself wondering if it was worth the effort to wrestle with all these devices, and ended up appreciating the simplicity of a plain old light switch.
Estes says, “Installation woes and bugs aside, my smart home never seemed handy. I had to tape off the regular switches so that the power would stay on and the bulbs’ smart features would work. Even then, I had to pull out a smartphone or a tablet any time I wanted to dim the lights. That was never convenient. I could turn the lights on from my office, but that didn’t really make my life better. I could impress my friends with a stray smart home feature here and there, but more often than not, I found myself embarrassed by the glitches of my smart home gone dumb.” He concludes that while many smart home products can and do work, the biggest lie their marketers tell us is that it’ll be simple and easy to set up and operate all these gadgets.
…
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/02/13/207203/smart-homes-often-dumb-never-simple
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rud Istvan
Have now read and posted detailed comments on all 10 short papers, plus the alternate conclusion. You have made an interesting journey. Was inevitable woild not work out. But your final conclusion is probably too extreme. I have suggested some nuances.
I suspect onset and end of ice ages involve ocean more than atmosphere since they are the major transporters of heat from the tropics poleward. But we know so little about them. Whether it is possible to find enough good ocean proxies going back 18000 years to onset of last end, dunno. Most of the ocean paleoproxy cores that go that far are an inconsistent mess. See the debunking of Shakun’s 2012 Nature paper in essay Cause and Effect.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Joshua
tony –
==> “Unfortunately those that matter don’t include you or me.”
I don’t know much, but I do know that me not mattering is not unfortunate.
==> “BTW booker sometimes produces some very good work, don’t automatically think he is a journalistic hack because those on such as attp say so”
Sorry tony, but I have a hard time reconciling non-hackerism with that conspiracy-mongering.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Danny Thomas
Just came in from a short break outside. Looking north and noticed a persistent east/west contrail. Saw a jet following the same route with significant but reducing contrail and saw another about 5 miles north of the first and about 5 miles behind with a much shorter dissipating trail.
Watching them for a few minutes, and the dynamics changed. The further south contrail was now shorter and disappating and the further north was longer and more persistant.
Then I noticed the original contrail still remained. And I wondered.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by HR
You’re right, my intention wasn’t to be in anyway alarmist just that the knock on effects in say Europe or the arctic might be interesting.
↧
Comment on Open thread by HR
its nodc data from NOAA on KNMI’s Climate Explorer
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/OC5/3M_HEAT/heatdata.pl?time_type=3month700
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
What convoluted illogic. The 255K is an imaginary world without CO2 or water vapour – absorbing about the same amount of energy as the Earth does. It is compared to an average temp in the real world – one with carbon dioxide and water vapour of course.
The Steffan-Boltzmann calculation for a grey body is illustrative only. It is very odd the things people make much of.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rud Istvan
PE, read essay Sensitive Sensitivity for why saturation is spurrious. To oversimplify. Sure saturated at the surface. But never at the top of the GHG ‘fog’ way up in the troposphere, the only place it matters. Add more CO2 and the ‘top of the fog’ rises. This has two consequences. First, a larger ‘surface area’ from which the IR can finally radiate to space and cool. Good. But the temperature lapse rate means that hogher, larger ‘surface’ is also colder, so less heat is radiated away per unit area. Bad. The net net helps produce the logarithmic primary response to CO2. Any doubling will always produce about 1.1-1.2C warming (various ‘grey Earth’ SB calcs; Lindzen uses 1.2 and Judynhad some threads back in 2010 or so). 200 to 400ppm. 400 to 800. And 800 to 1600. There is never saturation where it matters cause there is a lot of room to go up in the atmosphere. Regards to you and Danny.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by JeffN
There is a pattern to “scientific” fiddling on behalf of political causes. Here’s one that was very hot and will likely be again soon- a professor produces a study that get’s wide attention as it appears to support the urgent need for policy, yet it falls apart on closer examination.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/considering-elizabeth-warren-the-scholar/60211/
“Does this persistent tendency to choose odd metrics that inflate the case for some left wing cause matter? If Warren worked at a think tank, you’d say, “Ah, well, that’s the genre.” On the other hand, you’d also tend to regard her stuff with a rather beady eye. It’s unlikely to have been splashed across the headline of every newspaper in the United States. Her work gets so much attention because it comes from a Harvard professor. “
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rud Istvan
It is an interesting question, not at all stupid. But there is no real answer because the atmosphere just keeps getting thinner until it eventually peters out. The term radiative balance at ‘ top of atmosphere’ is a term of art. What it really means is measuring incoming and outgoing radiation from satellites sufficiently high that they will stay in orbit for usefully many years before the remaining atmospheric drag slows them down, they fall out of orbit, and eventually burn up on re-entry. BTW, despite its very large mass and momentum agains residual drag, this is the eventual fate of the multi hundred billion ISS boondoogle. Got to get beyond the Van Allen radiation belts to have sufficient vaccum for this not to be a problem. Almost Anything in near Earth orbit inside those belts will suffer the eventual drag fate. When os a function of initial orbital altitude, object drag cross section, and object mass/momentum.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rud Istvan
Short answer. Coal, zero. Natural gas, lots.
Over $20 billion just in the PEARL project in Qatar to convert Pars field gas to liquid fuels (mostly diesel bound for Europe) using the FT process.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
