Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

0
0

No re-estimate of AMO necessary? – Mathew Marler

This seems to be another IPO paper, and I’m kind suspect of them as it tries to gloss over that the natural variation folks blew it in 1980.

But I do think the only way to save the AMO as a player would be to move it to the Pacific Ocean.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2

0
0

Even in lowly BS level chem classes, we learn about p values. Even in business stat courses, they teach it.

Statistics is a large area of quicksand it appears.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

0
0

Willard,
Bruce Banner becoming the INCREDIBLE HULK and shirt ripping? That’s seems so unlike you, but I’ve read somewhere there are no rules in Climateball.
It’s easy, just one article each in Newsweek (not asking for a cover, buried on pg 65 is fine), Time, WaPo, and one little bitty teevee show on gobal warming prior to 1980. Then we can discuss how the two were disseminated.
Thanks Willard!

Comment on Week in review – science edition by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

“He pointed out the that the global cooling scare was one Newsweek article (and perhaps those who quoted it). Prove him wrong.”

Poven wrong. Yet you, Jim D, attempt to deflect from that. You apparently were a Maher beleiver and are not prepared to call it what it is: more Maher BS.

Pitiful.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang

0
0

Roger Sorwell,

You dodged my question. Why did you do that? Don’t you know the answer, or don’t you want to admit to it?

The rest of your comment is irrelevant to the question I asked. It’s as usually, a pile of cherry picked, out of context, irrelevancies.

The fact is that nuclear power provides the least cost way to make major reductions in global GHG emissions. You cannot refute that with defensible evidence, can you?

And you know as well as I do why the accelerating nuclear roll out was stalled. It was because of the activities by anti-nukes like you whose actions caused governments to implement excessive regulations that raised the cost of nuclear power by a factor of about 4 by 1990 and by probably an other fact of 2 since then. There is a great deal of authoritative studies and documentation for that . Are you unaware of it or doesn’t it suit your agenda to admit it?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

0
0

The two periods are not comparable. One does not say anything worthwhile at all about the other. The ice ages scare kids. The hills immediately to the west of my classroom window were formed by the edge of a glacier in the last ice age. they were saying then it was thousands of years away. We still got scared enough to work on adaptation.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

0
0

Peter Lang | April 18, 2015 at 9:39 pm |
PA,

I agree with most, but I think you need to change your explanation of this part:I agree with most, but I think you need to change your explanation of this part:

For the US there really isn’t any worry. Even if India blows up a plant it will have negligible impact on the US. The radioactivity almost has to go around the world once to get to Britain. or Europe so they are ok, and the Japanese have gotten used to radioactivity by now.

Well, gee. A couple of issues.

1. While the Indians worry me it is almost impossible to slag reactors aka Fukushima without God’s help. I may have credited Indians with more destructive potential than they actually have. I’ll see if I can find out enough reactor details to place an upper limit on their destructive potential.

2. Chernobyl and TMI are examples of problems that can be fixed by mandatory jail time or capital punishment. If you execute people for touching the safety systems on an active reactor a number of problems are solved..

What is interesting is there really hasn’t been a major reactor incident due to mechanical failure.

3. The Fukushima incident didn’t really endanger anyone but the Japanese and if they had taken iodine tablets it wouldn’t have endangered the Japanese. 98% of the radioactivity was Iodine 131 and that was gone in about 2 months. The farm crops were safe after a year. A couple of people got over 50 mS. So far nobody died from radiation but well over 15,000 died from stress.

The anti-nukers have killed far more people than the radioactivity ever will and should be charged with many thousands of cases of involuntary manslaughter, with sentences to be served consecutively.

The way to stop the scaremongering is with stiff jail sentences.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by ulriclyons

0
0

I am honestly struggling to think of anything less useful than LOD. Ocean modes effect it, but so what, it is not driving the ocean modes.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

There seem to have been conflicting messages. We also have this
“We now have incontrovertible evidence that the atmosphere is indeed changing and that we ourselves contribute to that change. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are steadily increasing, and these changes are linked with man’s use of fossil fuels and exploitation of the land. Since carbon dioxide plays a significant role in the heat budget of the atmosphere, it is reasonable to suppose that continued increases would affect climate”. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. NAS. (Known as the Charney Report). This appeared to be a consensus position of the established climate scientists as of 1979. It was not controversial back then as far as I know, and they say many of the same things as today’s climate scientists do.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar

0
0

The red blob in the NE Pacific might be a change in the local upwelling:

Is that caused by a change at the surface or in the attributes of the water upwelling?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by maksimovich1

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

As I linked below, the Republicans are still widely using that Newsweek article even today, possibly even more than anyone emphasized it at the time.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

0
0

I think this is a very good question. When Hansen gave his 1988 talk to congress, the PDO did not really exist. Now Hansen discusses it as one of the causes of the pause. Like ENSO, it was sort of discovered by fishing. They often talk about it’s relationship to ENSO, and ENSO is the one with the high horsepower engine.

They say this animal, a purple sail, is stacking up on west coast beaches by the billions – possibly a result of warm water with fewer upwelled nutrients:

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang

0
0

PA,

Thanks. I’ll add:

I’ll see if I can find out enough reactor details to place an upper limit on their destructive potential.

Instead of a worst case scenario, perhaps you could show most likely probability and pdfs. We have 60 years of operation, 15,000 reactor years of experience and large data bases of the major accidents in the energy chains. So the information is available, well documented and well researched. The NewExt project within ExternE, is one excellent authoritative source: http://www.externe.info/externe_d7/ See a chart I linked here: What is risk? A simple explanation http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/

3. The Fukushima incident didn’t really endanger anyone but the Japanese …

The anti-nukers have killed far more people than the radioactivity ever will

Agree.

This posted on April 8, 2015:
Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima http://theenergycollective.com/breakthroughinstitut/2214691/five-surprising-public-health-facts-about-fukushima

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang

0
0

Roger Sowell,

In case my question wasn’t clear, here it is again (slightly reworded to make it clearer for you):

Please state the subsidies per TWh provided to nuclear power compared with solar, wind, other renewables and. if you want to, with coal and gas electricity generation.

The figures need to be properly comparable – e.g comparing same country, same time periods, same economic factors, etc. To avoid cherry picking, provide average cost of subsidies per TWh for the technologies over several durations, e.g.: 1 year, and/or 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 decades.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by ulriclyons

0
0

“The synchronization between these two phenomenon is quite remarkable and suggests that there may be an underlying physical link.”

The synchronization is poor as it starts drifting out after four 9.93yr steps, and the mechanism for the NP index would be operating at the scales of weekly weather.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

0
0

JCH | April 18, 2015 at 6:05 pm |
No, I said the solar cycle is not much of a player in what is going on – the direction of the trend of the GMT.

Well, the one study that actually measured downward long wave got 0.2 W for a 22 PPM change or F = 3.49ln(C/C0).

For the 90 PPM change from 1900 to today (310 to 400) that is 0.24°C.

Warmunists like to claim it has warmed 1°C since 1900. I like to let them claim that. That means that the sun caused 0.76°C of post 1900 warming and is 3 times the influence of GHGs.

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Pooh, Dixie

0
0

Thanks, Peter. Bogging like that was not one of our experiences, but for yours, getting pulled out was necessary. Thanks for sharing. BTW, satellite shows our house is not there anymore. Miss it.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by maksimovich1

0
0

Computer models run after the eruption but before these effects became visible captured the effects reasonably accurately (though they had a tendency to overestimate the cooling). This is one of the best reasons for thinking that such models capture the workings of the climate quite well.

the literature suggest otherwise [Driscoll 2012]

Observations show a lower stratospheric and surface response during the following one or two Northern Hemisphere (NH) winters, that resembles the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Simulations from 13 CMIP5 models that represent tropical eruptions
in the 19th and 20th century are examined, focusing on the large-scale regional impacts associated with the large-scale circulation during the NH winter season. The models generally fail to capture the NH dynamical response following eruptions. They do not sufficiently simulate the observed post-volcanic strengthened NH polar vortex, positive NAO, or NH Eurasian warming pattern, and they tend to overestimate the cooling in the tropical troposphere. The findings are confirmed by a superposed epoch analysis of the NAO index for each model. The study confirms previous similar evaluations and raises concern for the ability of current climate models to simulate the response of a major mode of global circulation variability to external forcings.

The inability to evolve climate states ( dissipative structures) is a significant constraint in the models.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Peter Lang

0
0

Our house was built in 1870 and is still going strong.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images