If only La Nina in Oz would follow the script as it has done in recent times. Back in the 1930s you didn’t need El Nino, with dry La Ninas like 1928-30:
…or the swelterer of 1938-9, still Australia’s deadliest natural disaster.
Just quietly, I don’t think the climate has read any of the literature, not even the peer-reviewed stuff. Such an oaf.
This is a flawed argument. The global warmers didn’t discover anything they guessed and guessed badly. The IPCC is off by a factor of 3.
The apparent CO2 effect is 3.49 ln (C/Co). CO2 in 2000 was about 370 PPM, in 1900 it was about 295 PPM.
3.49 * ln (370/295) = 0.79W or about 0.21°C. Depending on how close the climate came to equilibrium, 0.21 to about 0.3°C was due to all GHG combined..
The 21st century effect will be about equal.
The 20th century had a 50% increase in plant growth due to more warmth and 75 PPM more CO2. This bountiful effect was a blessing to mankind.
If we push the atmospheric CO2 to about 550 PPM we can get a 50% increase in plant growth in the 21st century as well (2.25 times the 1900 growth rate)…
My recollection of 1878’s mid-global drought (when I had to increase my serfs’ water ration) is rather vague, but I can remember the heat of 2078 as vividly as if it were tomorrow.
I already knew why correction for relativistic effects was needed in GPS. To my point, it isn’t because of any “extreme energy” environment. Your using the term “extreme energy” was boneheaded. Small relative velocity and gravitational field differences between orbiting satellites causes very tiny time-dilation effects on the order of a few parts per billion between high precision clocks on different satellites. However, because electromagnetic signals travel about 14 inches in a billionth of a second it amounts to errors in distance intolerable for some applications. A 100 nanosecond difference in exact time on two different satellite clocks is a 30 meter triangulation error for the ground receiver. That’s not bad for a backpacking trip to find your way around but not so good for surveying, anchor alarms, or landing an airplane.
You’re a poor excuse for a science journalist.
mosomoso wrote:
“My recollection of 1878’s mid-global drought (when I had to increase my serfs’ water ration) is rather vague, but I can remember the heat of 2078 as vividly as if it were tomorrow.”
Clever. Appreciated.
Mark,
Nope. Really did sign up. Did you see who the instructors are? Cook, C & W, Nuccitelli. If not, click on the link and check it out. Oughta be a hoot! Plus, I might learn something and goodness knows I could use that.
Plus, maybe I can get thru the difference between denial and healthy skepticism.
David Springer wrote:
“Small relative velocity and gravitational field differences between orbiting satellites causes very tiny time-dilation effects on the order of a few parts per billion between high precision clocks on different satellites.”
False. The corrections are both special relativistic and general relativistic. The latter, of course, includes the former, since Einstein’s equations are, most of all, Lorentz invariant.
Clocks run slower in a stronger gravitational field. (See “gravitational redshift.”)
“nothing to do with Einstein’s [sic] equations”
Obviously. But you had mentioned cases where Newton’s (classical) laws of physics break down. Quantum tunneling is not classical physics. The take home point, which remains valid, is that Newtonian physics are incorrect for many modern applications from the mundane and well known such as non-volatile flash memory to the little known effects on how much light is reflected by clouds which may be a significant source of error in climate models.
My family grew corn in the same region of Missouri from 1836 until 2002. Yield records were actually kept. Started out around 26 bushels per acre.
The big steps were, in approximate order: improvement in seeds (they started out planting seeds they has saved from the prior-year harvest); improvements in implements and machinery (Dad purchased a tractor for Gramps right after WW2); soil science; insecticides; herbicides; anhydrous ammonia (huge); warming, CO2.
David Springer wrote:
“But you had mentioned cases where Newton’s (classical) laws of physics break down.”
I was writing about where Newton’s Law of *GRAVITATION* breaks down.
David Springer wrote:
“The take home point, which remains valid, is that Newtonian physics are incorrect for many modern applications”
The take home point, which is what I was writing about, is that NASA went to the moon with classical Newtonian physics, and did not need Einstein’s corrections or quantum mechanics.
Well, we are coming out of the LIA so the part to 2010 is expected. The chart leaves off 1998 and other inconvenient years.
However the rest of the chart isn’t a prediction. The 1990s warming ended. 2030 isn’t going to be where you plotted it..
Until the warming starts again (and most people think that will be post 2030) you are going to be shooting with wet powder.
ppaa wrote:
‘Well, we are coming out of the LIA so the part to 2010 is expected.”
Prove that.
Just prove something. You make a lot of grand claims, and have proof for none of them.
ppaa wrote:
“The 1990s warming ended.”
Absolutely false, in all ways.
Start proving your claims, or I’ll start ignoring them.
I wrote “relativistic effects” which includes both general relativity and special relativity. I also mentioned “time dilation” from both small relative velocity differences and small changes gravitational field strength.
I wasn’t wrong in any detail. You were. I reiterate you’re a very poor excuse for a science journalist. No wonder you do it for free on blogs now. At that price it’s still too much for your readers to pay.
Even the billabongs was empty!
JCH,
Ah. A.A. Good for ag and meth as a cash crop. Farmers lose that stuff all the time.
Davey, show us what you favorite model projects out to 2100. I will help you:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/pdf
You can run, but you can’t hide.
