Thanks for the clip Jim2 – I have not seen the movie in a while and just watching the clip makes me want to see it again. It is a classic. Also brings back a few memories from living in SoCal many years ago
Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by Barnes
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Canman
Maybe Amory Lovins has the answer. Check out this post:
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_10_20_micropowers_quiet_takeover
He’s all excited about “micropower” taking over. Check out this graphic:
The widest band of this “global low- or no-carbon electricity generation micropower” (in fact the maority) is “cogeneration”. How about that cogeneration? But I can’t seem to find what this “cogeneration” is. Is it fancy new bloom boxes? Surly it couldn’t be diesel generators.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Bad Andrew
“NASA Research Suggests US Hurricane Drought Is Luck”
Where is Mosher to tell us NASA is invoking unicorns?
Andrew
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
From the post:
Lancet: Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi country observational study.
*****
Drill baby drill! And, oh, start diggin’ up that coal!!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by angech2014
Antarctic Larsen B: Massive Antarctic Ice Shelf Will Be Gone Within Years, NASA Says [link] IPCC author: Antarctica’s abrupt glacial melting ‘greatly overestimated.
Yawn.
Ice shelf breaks up after 10,000 years, this is called iceberg calving.
I takes a lot of time to build up a shelf, or it would not be a shelf.
At some stage after a long time it becomes unstable and bits, large or small break off.
If a large amount breaks off the glaciers supplying the shelf will run faster as they have less restraint for 1,2, or 3,000 years then slow down again.
Amazingly Larsen B did not disintegrate fully when we were told it had.
Now the slow process of buildup over another 4 to 10,000 years begins.
The two studies, 1 NASA, contradict each other with comments of differing flow rates.
All in all what they describe is a perfectly natural reaction to an event of ice shelf loss, not climate change.
what the heck did they think would happen naturally if not this?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
On the “blob” article. The author states the 2 C temp differential between Pacific and NA temps was “unprecedented.”
1. Do we believe the ocean record is adequate to state that with certainty?
2. Obviously, the polar vertex itself isn’t new, so I can’t help but wonder what the differential was then – the author doesn’t say. From the article:
The polar vortex was first described as early as 1853.[4] The phenomenon’s sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) appears during the winter in the Northern Hemisphere and was discovered in 1952 with radiosonde observations at altitudes higher than 20 km.[5]
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
Chief, per my interest in exploring your concept, I was just trying to move the conversation beyond a circular discussion of what phrases mean into a real world scenario model of application the way you see it, It’s not a taking a deep breath sort of thing, it’s simply entertainment. I’m not trying to make a big exercise from this either, so no bother.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
Was this a “real” polar vortex in 2014?
From the article:
…
So what separates polar vortex extremes from run-of-the-mill cold snaps? To find out, I called up NASA scientists Lawrence Coy and Steven Pawson, whose work focuses on predicting major disruptions of said vortex.
Their work takes advantage of a new class of weather models suited to monitoring the stratosphere, where weather balloons and satellites are producing data that is helping advance knowledge of the polar vortex and its implications for winter weather.
The roots of extreme, high-impact cases lie in the stratosphere, dozens of miles above the ground, where the polar vortex typically spins around the North Pole, a byproduct of the Earth’s rotation. Normally, a strong jet stream encases the hemisphere’s truly coldest air to the north. A few times a year, the vortex’s spin is perturbed from below by an especially exaggerated kink in the jet stream, and that hold weakens. This is what happened last winter, when a persistent ridge of high pressure off the West Coast of North America shunted the jet stream to the far northern reaches of the Arctic—and then back down again, taking square aim at the eastern half of the country.
This past January, Pawson says, “there was a pretty strong relationship. The shape of the vortex was distorted all the way from the surface right into the stratosphere. Those very cold weather features were propagating around the edge of a very deep vortex that you could see very clearly in the stratosphere.”
But sometimes, it’s precisely the opposite, said Pawson: “The weather is really pulling the vortex down. It’s not the stratosphere causing that to happen.” In these cases, dips in the stratospheric portion of the vortex will follow extreme cold air outbreaks at the surface, not precede them. Figuring out which disruptions in the stratospheric circulation will shift weather patterns on the ground is the forefront of polar vortex science.
…
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
The sea surface temperature anomalies – or differences from average temperatures – became greater than 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) by late winter. That may not seem very impressive, but for the region it’s actually without precedent in the historical record. …
So he’s talking about the SST record in the Pacific NE.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Salvatore del Prete
Jim D that is again wrong. There were paleoclimate periods when CO2 levels were much higher and global temperatures were much cooler then today.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
jim2
Rgates was interested in SSW and wrote a good article on it at Neven’s blog. I subsequently supplied him with some observational material demonstrating records of it back to the 13th Century.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aneipris
“.. Massive Antarctic Ice Shelf Will Be Gone Within Years, NASA Says ”
I’m betting NASA will be gone long before this happens.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Salvatore del Prete
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Brian G Valentine
CO2 in the air isn’t “insulation.” CO2 blocks some wavelengths maybe, but the absolute heat rate to space has to increase.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
JCH explain away this data which is the real reason and controlling factor for global surface temperature trends.
CO2 being a non factor.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete
JCH here is the evidence. Why don’t you refute each point with data ,not theory to prove I am wrong. You will not do it because there is no supportive data. I would hardly call all these blunders SELECT EVIDENCE.
AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
SOME ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES AND OTHER MAJOR WRONG CALLS.
GREATER ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION -WRONG
TROPICAL HOT SPOT – WRONG
EL NINO MORE OF -WRONG
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND TO RISE- WRONG
LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG? I have a study showing this to be so.
LESS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE-WRONG
GREATER /MORE DROUGHTS -WRONG
MORE HURRICANES/SEVERE WX- WRONG
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this. In addition water vapor concentrations decreasing.
WATER VAPOR IN ATMOSPHERE INCREASING- WRONG- all of the latest data shows water vapor to be on the decrease.
AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.
Greenhouse score card showing more blunders
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Past historical data showing no correlation.
Current data not agreeing with what AGW calls for.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete
PDO is still in a cold phase this is a spike which is the norm not the exception. These spikes can last up to 2 years or so.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
After ACO2 took over, grafting the AMO to the PDO would be no different than grafting the GMST to the PDO. You get the GMST. You already had that.
↧
