<i> Swiss pastured dairy cows eat nothing but grass but are not as milk productive</i>
Remove countervailing tariffs and subsidies for US dairy farmers,and you would struggle to compete with NZ imports of grass fed dairy.
Comment on Week in review by maksimovich
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by David L. Hagen
<b>Green & Armstrong's Forecast: No significant change</b>
By applying a scientific approach to forecasting, experts Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong find:
“The Golden Rule of Forecasting requires that forecasters be conservative by making proper use of cumulative knowledge and by not going beyond that knowledge. The procedures that have been used to forecast dangerous manmade global warming violate the Golden Rule. . . .We found that there are no scientific forecasts that support the hypothesis that manmade global warming will occur. Instead, the <b>best forecasts </b>of temperatures on Earth for the 21st Century and beyond are derived from <b>the hypothesis of persistence.</b> Specifically, we forecast that global average temperatures will trend neither up nor down, but <b>will remain within half -a-degree Celsius (one-degree Fahrenheit) of the 2013 average.”</b>
<a href="http://www.kestencgreen.com/G&A-Skyfall.pdf" rel="nofollow">Forecasting global climate change: A scientific approach</a>
In
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/14/a-new-book-in-which-i-have-a-chapter-climate-change-the-facts/" / rel="nofollow">Climate Change: The Facts</a>
↧
Comment on Open thread by Danny Thomas
Jim2,
From Ed Martin’s offering. Do you eat fish?
“Exactly what happens to all that plastic once it gets into the ocean remains unclear, the scientists said. Another study, published in PLOS ONE in 2014, concluded that as much as 250,000 tons of plastic — some 5.25 trillion pieces of various sizes — is floating on the ocean surface.
Some believe that much of the rest is sinking to the ocean bottom or being broken down by microorganisms. But an even bigger worry is that some of the waste breaks down into tiny — sometimes even microscopic — pieces called microplastic, which is being consumed by aquatic animals ranging from worms to whales. The scientists said that some of it eventually will make its way into the human food chain and there is some evidence that it’s already happening.”
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan
Joseph, no, of course not. Press judgement is required. But not this way via provable MSM supression of substantive, fact credible, and authoritative counterviews. I don’t think the Skydragons merit a second of media mention. I think our gracious hostess does. And article linked says there is an active, overt policy in many MSM to prevent that. Using directly observational, non hearsay examples.
You posed a straw man arguement as weak (false) as Cook’s 97% paper. Tiny minority opinion? What about the Oregon Petition? Perhaps you have forgotten the Galileo heliocentricity lesson. Obama’s SOTU meme was science is settled, so anyone disagreeing is a Flat Earther. Catholic Church tried the same thing with heliocentricity. Did not turn out well.
The pause has falsified all the CMIP5 models, by modelers own criteria. Unsettling. Excuses range from the ridiculous (WMO, Mann, no pause) to the illogical (Trenberth, heat suddenly snuck into the deep oceans) to the mathematically and logically wrong (Marotzke kerfuffle). None of the previous CAGW predictions are emerging. The 2014 US National Climate Assessment is worse than propaganda. See several essays in ebook.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Mike Flynn
Joshua,
I’m not sure why you think I have insulted you.
You wrote –
“Now actually, I don’t “feel insulted.” I am merely asking you what your purpose/reason is in insulting me. It is simply a fact that you have insulted me. I don’t take your insults seriously.”
I haven’t insulted you, and you acknowledge that fact.
I give your unverified assertion about the hundreds of millions of people whom you claim I have insulted, the same weight as I give to Steven Mosher’s claim of 10000 hours of his time donated to a project which achieved nothing. Or, the 10000 hours of intense study claimed by another commenter, which enabled him to leap swiftly to an incorrect conclusion.
What is it with Warmists and spurious unverifiable numbers? 97% – or maybe not. 1 degree, or 2 degrees, or boiling? We have 30 days, or 55 days, or 50 months to save the world! Or even the number one, which is the number of Nobel Prizes claimed by a self appointed climatologist of the Warmist persuasion.
If you care to name a few of the hundreds of millions of your ilk, I’ll add them to my mental list of poor precious flowers, easily bruised, and extremely sensitive.
I am obviously your intellectual superior, so your behaviour is understandable to a degree. If you need any further assistance on how to distinguish fact from fantasy, please feel free to ask.
I rarely provide unsolicited advice, unlike the Warmists with their numerous admonitions and exhortations. I am content to let facts speak for themselves.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by JCH
MTBE was actually an early victim of conservative talk radio. They railed against like crazy. What they thought they were going to get next is nuts. They thought it would be like old gasoline. Lol. Instead they got ethanol. Oxygenator? They didn’t need no stinkin’ oxygenators. They had their blood up. They were on a mission to beat the EPA.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan
Scott, several of us have. BEST adjustments are not as severe as GISS. You can fo to BEST, plug in the names, and look for yourself. Ditto for GISS. Homewood even posted how use GISS.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Kip Hansen
Reply to Steve Mosher ==> Thank you. I did, of course, read the response to Judith, in fact, have read the entire supplement you quote.
I think it is marvelous that your Team publicly admits to a measurement error 9IN THE KRIGGING STEP) of such magnitude.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Kip Hansen
eGads! (I have a computer problem that drives me crazy – waiting for the new touchpad to correct)…
(in the krigging step)…
I would suggest that the error is 100% uncertain over the range? X°C(+/-0.49) — meaning all values represented by the range are just as probable as any other value in the range?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
<a href="http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/solarcitys-hawaiian-study-reveals-grid-regulation-potential-of-inverters_100018207/#axzz3RlIIRMBV" rel="nofollow">SolarCity's Hawaiian study reveals grid regulation potential of inverters</a><blockquote>Results of joint study with NREL and Hawaiian Electric will see Hawaiian utility more than double grid's daytime minimum load to 250% thanks to role of inverters.</blockquote><blockquote>A groundbreaking study by solar leasing company SolarCity, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Hawaiian Electric has explored the potential of solar inverters to act as junior grid regulators, and found that the technology holds the key to overcoming transient load rejection overvoltage (LRO) concerns.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>[I]n tackling these limitations, inverter testing carried out at NREL’s Energy Systems Integration Facility (ESIF) revealed that most inverter technology possesses the capability of safely managing distributed energy on to the grid, finding that a typical inverter could act as a proxy “junior grid”, thus overcoming the technical barriers that have limited DG penetration in Hawaii and elsewhere in the U.S.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>"The majority of inverters can meet the requirements [of managing grid feed] via a simple software or firmware update," he said. "The overall lesson learned from this research is that inverters are going to be one of the key ways of providing grid stabilization features in the future.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>Gilligan also referred to the recent remote retrofit of 800,000 microinverters on the Hawaiian Island of Oahu – carried out by Enphase in a single day. The upgrade saw the U.S. microinverter specialist access remotely their installed microinverters’ two-way data-over-powerline link via the cloud, and simply upgrade the software installed in each to the new parameters.</blockquote>Yes, and when those inverters also have <a href="http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/60697/redflow-zinc-bromide-batteries-ready-for-commercial-sales-60697.html" rel="nofollow">modular flow batteries</a> behind them, addition of new distributed power will be able to <b>increase system stability</b>. Assuming appropriate rate structures can be worked out.
↧
Comment on Week in review by RiHo08
‘Gofman, J. W., Lindgren, F., Elliott, H., Mantz, W., Hewitt, J., Strisower, B., Herring, V. & Lyon, T. P. (1950) The role of lipids and lipoproteins in atherosclerosis. Science (Washington, DC) 111: 166–171.”
Yet another UC Berkeley scientist whose 1950 contribution to identifying cholesterol in the blood ends up as a food fad consuming trillions of dollars for no net benefit for the US nor the world population either. Ivory tower arrogance leading to no peer review papers allowed to be published that showed no benefit for restricting dietary cholesterol. No research funding for scientists who had a “different” (this is not denial really as these times were too close to the real holocaust to label a scientist a “denialist”) point of view.
“Looking back at the literature, we just couldn’t see the kind of science that would support dietary restrictions,” said Robert Eckel, the co-chair of the task force and a medical professor at the University of Colorado.
The current U.S. guidelines call for restricting cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams daily. American adult men on average ingest about 340 milligrams of cholesterol a day, according to federal figures. That recommended figure of 300 milligrams, Eckel said, is ” just one of those things that gets carried forward and carried forward even though the evidence is minimal.”
The 20th Century US population benefited from city natural gas heating, widespread electrification, public health infrastructure, improve dentition and improved infectious disease management with vaccines and antibiotics. These health benefits led to increased life expectancy and more people dying of arteriosclerotic heart disease AT AN OLDER AGE. We grew from infection disease deaths into our next programed health issue of heart disease as we are growing the increasing cancer health issue right now and will in the future encounter neurological disease at yet a later age.
Does this nutritional recommendation reversal based upon an urban myth which is in turn is based upon academic pronouncements remind you of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming story we are currently writing?
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Steven Mosher
Thanks kip.
In fact a large number of the criticisms/ideas that people pretend they came up with, are actually in our papers and publication.
1. using one correlation length for all latitudes. people pretend
they invented this critcism when our paper actually points out
issue
2. re doing break points.
3. over smooth fields.
so they either read the papers and forgot. or read the papers and are pretending, or didnt read the papers.
And we even explain that we dont actually adjust series.. but that is just too hard to explain to people so Ive given up
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
‘We consider that Ryan et al., Flannery (1990 & 1994) and Rolls (1981) over-emphasise the role of past Aboriginal burning in determining the structure and species composition of Australian vegetation. A majority of the scientific literature on climate change and Aboriginal burning supports the position first suggested by Clark (1983) that Aboriginal burning may have affected the rate, but not the main direction, of changes in the nature of Australian vegetation during the Pleistocene. At the height of the last ice age, 18 000 y.b.p., temperatures were lower and annual rainfall was half of what it is today (Dodson 1991). Such climatic conditions led to a retreat of rainforest and wet sclerophyll eucalypt forests to refugia and much of south-eastern Australia would have been dominated by grassy woodlands or grasslands until conditions changed after the ice age ended (around 10 000 y.b.p.). Eucalyptus forests and rainforests expanded again after that to more or less their current distributions with minor permutations due to fluctuations in rainfall over the last 6000 years. The extreme climatic change of the last ice age may also be the primary cause of the
extinction of the megafauna (Horton 1982, Wright 1986) rather than hunting and altered fire regimes as proposed by Flannery (1990, 1994) (see the discussion on Flannery’s hypotheses below).’ https://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/58037/Cun5Ben285.pdf
Regrowth is good and a little fire not bad.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Brandon Shollenberger
AK:
IIRC (see above) MM05 documented their reasons for “tossing out” the “Hockey Stick” PC4 as noise, generated from a few exceptional “proxies”.
It’s even worse than you make it out to be. MM05 didn’t toss out anything. MM05 showed what happens if you tossed out various things. That’s called sensitivity testing. It’s nothing more than saying, “If we didn’t have this data, what would our results be?”
The only reason people complained about it is it turn out if Michael Mann and co-authors hadn’t had a specific, tiny amount of tree ring data (which is known not to be appropriate for temperature reconstructions), they wouldn’t have gotten their hockey stick.
Basically, that paper just copies Michael Mann’s description of what happened, including obvious and gross misrepresentations. One of the more baffling ones is these authors say:
They reached this conclusion by using an incorrect version of the proxy data set used in MBH98 (Rutherford et al.
2005, p. 2312). In a subsequent article, they argued that the hockey stick is an artifact of the statistical conventions chosen in MBH98 (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005).
Which is based upon a total fabrication in Michael Mann’s book. The reality is Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick pointed out the incorrect implementation of PCA in their first, 2003, paper. It was one of the central problems they highlighted. Mann simply ignored that so he could pretend his critics were constantly changing their story, dropping arguments as those arguments got rebutted. These authors then repeat his story without doing the slightest thing to verify it, apparently not even reading the abstracts of the papers they discuss.
Anyone with a free hour can see these authors have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. That’s as long it might take them to read my summary of this part of the hockey stick controversy:
I hope people will forgive the self-promotion. I don’t like doing it, but that short eBook conclusively shows these authors have no business publishing on this matter with how wrong the things they say are. And if anyone doubts that, I’d be happy to send them a free copy so they can verify it (though that’s only 99 cents less than they could get it for by that link).
Heck, those authors claimed the Wegman Report was published in a peer-reviewed journal but later retracted! They clearly haven’t done the slightest bit of actual research.
↧
Comment on Open thread by AK
<a href="http://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20150209_pge_proposes_major_build-out_of_electric_vehicle_charging_stations" rel="nofollow">PG&E Proposes Major Build-Out of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations</a><blockquote>SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) today asked state regulators for permission to build an estimated 25,000 electric vehicle (EV) chargers at sites across its service area in Northern and Central California. If approved, this program would be the largest deployment of EV charging stations in the country.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder
Read the whole thing, no change. In the end, it was an appeal to consensus. I am unmoved.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan
Caught the potential sarc. He is not a farmer. I sort of am.
He has written, and I have read, three books on food production and cooking. The first is very interesting, and the third is fun. But if you want real farmers to feed the world and prevent millions (actually billions) from starving to death, better forget his more romantic Berkeley notions aligned with Alice Waters locovore restaurant. See upthread for the caloric grain carbs to meat protein thing in J2’s ethanol comment.
If you really want a primer on all that stuff, read the food chapter of my first book Gaia’s Limits. But read the preceding two chapters first for needed context. Take the data (which just is, much from FAO), and do your own figurations. That is in part why that firstebook was written. Bit of a data slog, and needed better editing. Live and learn.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
Yup. They've just spewed out a bunch of garbage to <strike>justify </strike>rationalize cherry-picking inconvenient “<i>Dissent</i>” as “<i>Epistemically Detrimental</i>”. Like I said, Climate Lysenkoism.
Here's how <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/12/1364015/-New-study-defines-bad-faith-criticism" rel="nofollow">Daily Kos</a> summarizes it:<blockquote>So dissenting from a hypothesis with no real world impact is not inherently bad (because why would you bother faking criticism of an unimportant hypothesis), whereas dissenting from a hypothesis involving dangerous conditions may be bad faith and done to protect a particular party. If the dissent isn't up to par regarding academic standards and practices, then it may be biased and is therefore epistemically detrimental. If it's defending an actor engaged in some activity producing conditions that scientists hypothesize to be bad (like tobacco or fossil fuel industries) against a threat to the public, and if the public and producer face different risks, then it's a bad faith criticism and not advancing scientific understanding.</blockquote><blockquote>The conclusion is that attacks on climate science are likely "epistemically detrimental," meaning they work against the advancement of science. This is a very fancy way of saying that they're not helpful critiques (which is the essence of peer review) but more along the lines of political denial. Without spelling it out, the authors explain the difference between the work of actual skeptics and psuedoskeptic deniers.</blockquote>Like I said, Climate Lysenkoism.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Danny Thomas
Rud,
Re: Yesterday. The force is with me. Thank you.
Would you see more impact if the Oregon Petiton had a subset of “climate scientists” as is referenced in the 97%? There are a range of some 54 “skeptics” in this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
including our gracious host.
Would you give more creedence if this was “peer reviewed”?:
http://www.kestencgreen.com/G&A-Skyfall.pdf
and if conducted by “climate scientists” vs. “forecasters? Work is on google scholar and shows citations. Authors are marketers. And Heartland folks.
Thoughts? (Trying to look at all things equally critically)
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Mi Cro
Stephen,
“so they either read the papers and forgot. or read the papers and are pretending, or didnt read the papers.
And we even explain that we dont actually adjust series.. but that is just too hard to explain to people so Ive given up”
Didn’t read it.
With the data available, the shear number of samples, you don’t have to adjust it to get pretty much anything you want out. Intentionally or unintentionally.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
