Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147858 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Bad Andrew

0
0

“There is now a rebuttal paper”

You’re still taking this stuff seriously, JCH?

Andrew


Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

0
0

Homophobia has melted away in this society sense people became aware gays exist in their own circles, so the result in the study makes some sense. The nation just lived through it.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

0
0
Since. Judith should <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/29/week-in-review-science-edition-7/#comment-707352" rel="nofollow"> add the link to the rebuttal.</a>

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Bad Andrew

0
0

“Homophobia has melted away in this society”

What about Junksciphobia? Or Badweatherphasia? What’s the status of those in society?

Andrew

Comment on Week in review – science edition by rovingbroker

0
0

Not sure where I saw this. Apologies if it was at Climate Etc.

“Slim by Chocolate!” the headlines blared. A team of German researchers had found that people on a low-carb diet lost weight 10 percent faster if they ate a chocolate bar every day. It made the front page of Bild, Europe’s largest daily newspaper, just beneath their update about the Germanwings crash. From there, it ricocheted around the internet and beyond, making news in more than 20 countries and half a dozen languages. It was discussed on television news shows. It appeared in glossy print, most recently in the June issue of Shape magazine (“Why You Must Eat Chocolate Daily,” page 128). Not only does chocolate accelerate weight loss, the study found, but it leads to healthier cholesterol levels and overall increased well-being. The Bild story quotes the study’s lead author, Johannes Bohannon, Ph.D., research director of the Institute of Diet and Health: “The best part is you can buy chocolate everywhere.”
[ … ]
It was, in fact, a fairly typical study for the field of diet research. Which is to say: It was terrible science. The results are meaningless, and the health claims that the media blasted out to millions of people around the world are utterly unfounded.

Here’s how we did it.
http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by Wagathon

0
0

O’Malley just said it: it’s not just the rich but global warming that is the problem. He even gives a nod to the teachers. Climate isn’t science — it’s politics that is caused by gas bags not gas.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D


Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by Willis Eschenbach

0
0
The ludicrous models used to predict economic meltdown from climate get a thorough bollocking in the <a href="http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/mit-economist-shows-weakness-in-social-cost-of-carbon/" rel="nofollow"><b>article</a></b> on the "social cost of carbon" ... outstanding. w.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by AK

0
0
Above, <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/27/science-in-the-doghouse/#comment-707348" rel="nofollow">reference</a> was made to Trenberth and Hurrell (1994), which I just read, as well as two references therefrom [Bjerknes J (1969), Namias J (1969)]. Thinking about what I'd read, I realized a way to describe my otherwise vague and hard-to-communicate thoughts about how climate science might progress beyond GCM's. I see a distinct change in perspective between the two papers from 1969, and Trenberth and Hurrell (1994). The latter is much more focused on statistical analysis at a global level, while the former seem (to me) to be much more focused on <b>specific mechanisms.</b> Those mechanisms involve phenomena that GCM's (AFAIK) find hard to reproduce, at least with any realism. I was struck especially by the analysis of the "Walker Circulation" [Namias J (1969)].<blockquote>When the cold water belt along the Equator is well developed, the air above it will be too cold and heavy to join the ascending motion in the Hadley circulations. Instead, the equatorial air flows westward between the Hadley circulations of the two hemispheres to the warm west Pacific. There, after having been heated and supplied by moisture from the warm waters, the equatorial air can take part in large-scale, moist-adiabatic ascent. The dynamic conditions governing that kind of motion can be analyzed in the schematic figure 8, which presents a vertical profile of the pressure field along the Equator.</blockquote><blockquote>In the Pacific part of that round-the-world profile, the horizontal pressure gradient is directed westward along the ocean surface (except locally near the South American coast) and eastward in the upper troposphere. If the equatorial air were enclosed between zonal vertical walls, a simple circulation as shown by the schematic streamlines in figure 8 would develop. The moist-adiabatically ascending motion in the west would be adjusted so as to occupy less space than the descending motion in the east, whereby a steady-state field of temperature can be maintained (the warming by descent —ω(γ<i>d</i>—γ) being compensated by the net radiative heat loss).</blockquote><blockquote>Without the zonal walls, this equatorial circulation does enter into exchange of absolute angular momentum with adjacent parts of the atmosphere to the north and the south; and, since the equatorial belt of the atmosphere is always endowed with a greater absolute angular momentum than adjacent zonal belts, a divergence of absolute angular momentum must result at the Equator. Under steady-state conditions this loss of absolute angular momentum in the equatorial atmosphere is compensated by the frictional torque about the axis of the earth at the interface of atmosphere and ocean.</blockquote> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sk_x2Q9j07E/VWnOCuIAhXI/AAAAAAAAAhA/UJDwgTZvDlk/s1600/Bjerknes1969Fig8.jpg <blockquote>FIGURE8. -Profile of height (dynamic meter) of standard isobaric surfaces along the Equator in January and July, based on data from Heastie and Stephenson (1960). "Walker Circulation" over the Pacific entered as suggested in the present article. The narrow maximum at 180" in January and the big maximum at 80"E in July are possibly spurious features. [Original Caption.]</blockquote>I'll add a note here for those unfamiliar with the basics of global meteorology that the equatorial zone is very different from the rest of the globe, in that (among other things) it does not experience a significant <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrophic_wind" rel="nofollow">geostrophic effect</a>. Thus, unlike most of the globe, air will flow directly from high-pressure areas to low-pressure. Elsewhere, a relatively small spot of high or low pressure can remain (somewhat) stable because its pressure gradient is maintained by a loop of wind at right angles to the gradient (except at the upper and lower boundaries). But at the equator, a pressure difference between (for instance) equatorial South America and a location at 180° Longitude would result in air flow from one location to the other, as shown in the figure above. Now my point is this: Bjerknes makes reference to specific phenomena, usually present, at least during certain parts of the year. For example, the cold upwelling westerly current (westwards flowing, opposite to how a "westerly wind" would blow) reaching from eastern South America often as far as 180° Longitude (see Bjerknes J (1969) figure 7). This is blown by a typical Equatorial Easterly, down the pressure gradient created, in turn, by that same cold water. Somewhere between South America and Indonesia, there's an area of hot surface water and maximum convection, creating a low pressure zone at the western end of the Equatorial Easterly mentioned above. West of that, there's an Equatorial Westerly, perhaps driven by high pressures created at the western end of the Trade Winds. This, in turn, blows very warm water emanating from the equatorial edge of the tropical gyres back to the east, warming as it goes, until it reaches the western end of the "Walker Circulation". [Bjerknes J (1969)]<blockquote>The great variability of the precipitation record at Canton Island in figure 1 reflects the fact that the western end of the Walker Circulation varies in longitudinal position from year to year. When the equatorial cold water and the arid regime reach Canton Island, that is a sign that the axis of the Walker Circulation is west of 172"W, so that subsiding air prevails over the island. When the Walker Circulation axis is located east of 172"W, Canton Island is under the rising air column with frequent rain from midtropospheric cloud as well as from convective cloud favored by the positive sea-minus-air temperature difference</blockquote>Now this process involves a number of easily defined phenomena, such as the equatorial westerly cold current and easterly wind mentioned above, and the object that constitutes both the “<i>western end of the Walker Circulation</i>” and the eastern end of the Equatorial Counter Current. This latter object is probably central to the actual <b>functional</b> processes that create the Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and determine the evolution of El Niño (and La Niña). So here's the approach I'm considering: rather than try to "recreate" these phenomena from GCM's with large cells and (probably) inappropriate parametrization, why not build models where the phenomena are basic parts of the system. This "Central Equatorial Pacific Convergence" (or whatever it should be called, I'm sure somebody's given it a name that has priority) would have a number of attributes, that would vary over time, by season and year-to-year. These might include base longitude, pressure gradient between its surface low and the high-pressure off South America, pressure gradient between its surface low-point and the high in the West Pacific (presumably off Indonesia) , actual volume of air involved in full-troposphere convection, average rate of precipitation, etc. Real-world characteristics of this object could be determined, and relationships with ENSO and other global-scale variations could be mapped, then models could be built from the sort of objects described above, attempting to produce a <b>functional</b> model of climate evolution. An advantage of this approach is that, as progressively more attributes are added to the object, its variation (in the real world) will be in a space with progressively more dimensions, and thus, its evolution during each instance of "oscillation" can be followed independently of previous and following instances. It will define a unique path through its attribute space, and variation in that path (among oscillations) can be compared to other global variations, looking for causal connections. Obviously, this is still very vague, both because it's hard for me to communicate what I'm thinking about, and my thinking itself is very "high-level" with regards to how such a GCM replacement would work. But I put it out here in case it stimulates anybody else's thinking productively. <b>References:</b> Bjerknes J (1969) <a href="http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/097/mwr-097-03-0163.pdf" rel="nofollow">Atmospheric Teleconnections From the Equatorial Pacific</a> by J Bjerknes <i>Mon. Wea. Rev.,</i> 97, 163–172. Namias J (1969) <a href="http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/097/mwr-097-03-0173.pdf" rel="nofollow">Seasonal Interactions Between the North Pacific Ocean and the Atmosphere during the 1960's</a> by J Namias <i>Mon. Wea. Rev.,</i> 97, 173–192. Trenberth and Hurrell (1994) <a href="http://echorock.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/trenberth94_decadal_atmocn_variations.pdf" rel="nofollow">Decadal atmosphere-ocean variations in the Pacific</a> by Kevin E Trenberth, James W Hurrell <i>Climate Dynamics</i> March 1994, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 303-319.

Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by Jim D

Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by rovingbroker

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort

Comment on Week in review – science edition by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

0
0

It’s amazing how John Cook launched himself as a leading spokesman for climate change, and is the one who spearheaded the “97%” mantra. He was literally a cartoonist before becoming a global warming pundit. He is not a scientist, his title; “Climate Communications Fellow for the Global change Institute at the University of Queensland”, is honorary. It sure sounds better than former cartoonist.

Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by Jim D

0
0

He actually said the rich and powerful are the problem and climate change is an opportunity.


Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by Week in review – energy, water & food edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement

Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

0
0

Right your no tech lead acid battery rambling. To get lead acid batteries to last their rated lifetime you have to limit discharge to about 70% meaning you need at least three times the capacity of your estimated peak demand.

Until better hydrogen storage becomes available, just about any onsite or near site battery storage is going to be an expensive boondoggle.

Now it you really want to show the world how well domestic car batteries can work, you start from ground up with all LED lighting and dedicated low voltage systems for all your electronic toys. Use direct solar for hot water, ventilation and refrigeration where possible and basically design your lifestyle around intermittent power.

That is pretty much why solar will make its biggest splash in third world and off grid applications. If you do all the basics needed to be solar off grid prepared, your on grid costs would be so low it would be a waste of money.

See, energy efficiency comes before alternate energies.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by peter3172

0
0

I’m sure the Californians will be delighted with the news.

Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

0
0

that should be limit discharge to 30%.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by bobdroege

0
0

“This is a theory with no theoretical basis, experimental support, or observational verification.”

The theoretical basis lies here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator

The experimental evidence is here

http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

And the observational verification lies here

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/p_keeling_curve

and here

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

There is a theoretical basis for the greenhouse effect, backed by experimental evidence and observations of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere as well as increased global temperatures verify those.

Viewing all 147858 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images