We must be looking at different graphs. Nuclear power plant construction went flat in 1986 with the Chernobyl meltdown not the 2013 Fukushima meltdown. How can I take you seriously after you made such a false claim demonstrated by your own first graph?
Comment on Solar grid parity? by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by aplanningengineer
Very interesting but I suspect that everyone will end up being validated by this news. For some it will be because the numbers are now of more supportive expected warming trends. For others it will be because their fears of official manipulation have been confirmed. The subset of people whose overall perspective is impacted by this news will be vanishingly small. I fear the divide will grow rather than shrink.
↧
Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by Don Monfort
What PE and a lot of people here seem to be missing is that Randi et al. have never been about challenging consensus, textbook science. They go after the spoonbenders and the ghostchasers. It is not surprising or out of character for them to support the alleged AGW consensus.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Bob Tisdale
curryja says: “Well yes this thought occurred to me also. It would have been more convincing if they first provided a detailed analysis of what they did to the ocean data and compared it with the HADSST data sets…”
NOAA published those papers back in November. See:
Huang et al. (2014) <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1" rel="nofollow">Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 4 (ERSST.v4), Part I. Upgrades and Intercomparisons</a>, and
Liu et al. (2014) <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00007.1" rel="nofollow">Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 4 (ERSST.v4): Part II. Parametric and Structural Uncertainty Estimations</a>.
I discussed the ERSST.v4 data in a number of posts last year, including <a href="https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/has-noaa-once-again-tried-to-adjust-data-to-match-climate-models/" rel="nofollow">Has NOAA Once Again Tried to Adjust Data to Match Climate Models?</a>
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by miker613
I wonder if there is a correlation between the various reactions to this brand new study, and the attitudes of the respondents to previous AGW data and studies. My cursory spot check indicated a correlation of 1.0. Shouldn’t it be more like 0, since this is a completely new study?
↧
↧
Comment on Solar grid parity? by ristvan
Vincent, fair question. The statement was based on the residential rooftop PV system average actual installed cost in Palo Alto in 2014. We linked to their presentation; the data is on page 27. We had made the assumption that was a representative price, since the point of the presentation was to persuade people that with the state and federal subsidies, plus the $800/kW that Palo Alto itself provides, rooftop PV was at ‘grid parity’ and everyone should deploy it. The city even has a PV office to facilitate installations for residents.
↧
Comment on Solar grid parity? by David Springer
PA
Wrong. Cost effective transmission lines can bridge distances up to 4300 miles (7000 kilometers). As the cost of generation declines rising transmission losses can be undertaken with no overall loss in system cost/performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses
Thanks for playing.
↧
Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by aplanningengineer
I didn’t mean to miss that. Its a very important point. I meant to be clear that’s how it started and change crept in around the turn of the century. I spoke of how Randi was a little dismissive of scientists in the earlier days
Back then they didn’t take issue on partisan politics, scientific debates or the like. Rand did take a stand against the global warming push but was slapped down. The content of what they think about various topics may or may not be out of character, what is out of character is bringing those issues into the Skeptic arena.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by markbofill
The polar caps will melt, and the oceans will swallow cities, and the biosphere will collapse, and AGW will cost us trillions of dollars, and yet somehow the physical evidence is so infinitesimal and so miniscule that whether or not a 16 year pause in rising atmospheric temperature has occurred cannot be determined conclusively to the satisfaction of all.
Anybody see anything incongruous about this?
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by fernandoleanme
If they get into a political tussle over thermodynamics my old steam tables will be worth their weight in gold.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by cgs
So NOAA should never publish any scientific work unless it counter to the current administration’s political position? That, of course, being the only way that they could prove they are not unduly influenced politically, if your comment is taken to its logical conclusion.
Just how in your mind does a researcher prove that conflict of interest has not influenced them?
I submit that you should leave this question alone and let the science stand or fall on its merit – something that stands ultimately having a little more substance to it when compared to the vaporous considerations of conflict of interest.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by HaroldW
<a href="http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick_comments_on_karl2015.pdf" rel="nofollow">Ross McKitrick weighs in</a> as well.
↧
Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by mike87122
“They are not saying that all those who disagree with the consensus are deniers.”
Perhaps, but I think most people thought that was implied. That is the way most of the media reports seemed to spin it. Who they really meant as “deniers” is what I asked them (see above) but did not get an answer.
↧
↧
Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by franktoo
Mosher wrote: “if you want to know the forcing for doubling CO2 just use a validated LBL physics model.”
It isn’t that simple. You first need to specify the temperature, density and composition of the atmosphere at all altitudes. That includes the altitude and type of cloud cover (emissivity). About 60% of outgoing OLR originates from clouds, not the surface. Then you need to do this for all representative locations on the planet during all seasons. Saying we know the answer to a precision of 3.71 W/m2 is unrealistic. 3.4-4.0 W/m2 might be reasonable guess. (I don’t recall the published confidence interval, but it wouldn’t be surprising to find it unrealistically narrow because they didn’t take into account the uncertainty in all of these inputs. The definite work that led to 3.71 W/m2 was spread over several publications, some of which are behind a paywall.)
When K&T published their energy balance diagrams, they discussed adjusting clouds to produce OLR and reflected SWR that is consistent with measurements with space. Apparently the observed climate that is input into LBL calculations has significant uncertainty or K&T resorted to fudging.
LBL calculations are probably more accurate than most of the “contradictory” observational evidence people often cite. Global observations of surface DLR are totally inadequate for detecting changes produced by CO2 (about 1 W/m2 for doubling). CERES measurement of radiative imbalance (CERES EBAF?) are adjusted (5? W/m2) to agree with the increase in ocean heat content.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by ristvan
This is amazingly tone deaf. Does not look good, and is at variance with other SST, and both satellite records. Post hoc change to get the desired headline. But the world is increasingly watching. Would not be surprised if this stunt did not produce some significant media blowback.
Lots of ‘scientific ‘ acceptance of the pause, with possible explanations like Trenberth’s folly. And now there is no pause? So much for the settled science meme.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by climatereason
EOTFMW
I have had this discussion with William amongst others, which is why I chose my words carefully. The global cooling scare had its genesis in the 1960’s when a number of prominent commentators, amongst them Budyko and Lamb, expressed concerns. This was taken up very widely in the scientific literature of the day.
By the time the early 70’s came round Lamb and others had recognised there concerns were unfounded and like good scientists changed their minds after examining the available evidence.
The paper I cited therefore misses the point as looking at 1970’s papers is a largely fruitless exercise as by then the scare was waning. In those pre internet days it took some time to be recognised that the situation had changed.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Solar grid parity? by PA
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/11/solar-system-pricing-dropped-9-percent-2014/
Vincent Dekker (@VincentDekker4) | June 4, 2015 at 12:06 pm |
That’s exactly my problem too. If you start out with such high prices, surely grid parity is nowhere in sight. But in reality, prices are much, much lower… Or are we talking about different things?
California prices are usually different than the real world and may not be that useful as an example.
What appears to be Arizona pricing:
$17,500 appears to be the magic number. The cost is about $3.48/WDC before about 40% is paid by other tax payers.
A non-tracking roof installation is at best 70% efficient so rooftop solar still costs more than $5000/kW installed.
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by miker613
Nic Lewis http://climateaudit.org/2015/06/02/implications-of-recent-multimodel-attribution-studies-for-climate-sensitivity/
Dare I wonder if the correlation of reactions to Lewis’ paper will have -1.0 correlation with the reactions to the paper here?
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by vukcevic
The pause is deeply embedded in another set of the NOAA’s data.
NASA:
“Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. ”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
What could Dr. Tony Philips of NASA be implying?
Is it that the climate change is related to the variations in Earth’s magnetic field?
Let’ have a look at the two variables and a possible correlation.
Relevant Earth’s Magnetic field data from NOAA
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag-web/#igrfwmm
The latest global temperature data from:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4-gl.dat
When plotted together on visual inspection (‘wiggle match’) it appears to be some relationship.
This is also confirmed by the linear regression, giving correlation factor R2=0.81.. Result is presented here.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MTC.htm
There is distinct 1940’s ‘bump’ and more importantly the PAUSE is there.
Eliminating the PAUSE from the geomagnetic data would not be matter of a minor adjustment.
Even having in mind well known maxim ‘correlation is not necessarily causation’ the above is unlikely to be just a coincidence.
Possible mechanism come to mind:
a) radioisotopes nucleation and the cloudiness albedo
b) secular change in the magnetic field is simply a proxy for the ocean floor tectonics.
Consider it an alternative perspective on the natural variability.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but a prime reason for using the surface station + in-situ SST network is to compute in anomaly space a very long time series e.g. 1880-present of temperatures. We can show a gradual warming trend over the past century that occurs in steps. Again, this is in “anomaly space”.
Since 1979, we have global satellite coverage from a multitude of sensors that measure (in)directly many aspects of the climate system. Numerical weather prediction techniques like 4D-Var used by the best weather models (ECMWF, UKMET) produce an analysis of the atmosphere-ocean system every day incorporation so much data from many sources that imo it’s one of humanity’s remarkable achievements. For the past several decades, I contend that surface-station datasets are insufficient and (perhaps) not well suited to describe the exact global temperature. The methods used by NOAA/NASA/BEST are akin to the quality control procedures required by every NWP data assimilation scheme to initialize the analysis prior to running a weather forecast.
If I wanted to create a time series of global temperature since the 1990s, then I would NWP / variational techniques.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
