Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by jim2

0
0

PTR should have been PRT. Slysdexia.


Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by jim2

0
0

PTR should have been PRT. Slysdexia. (posted in wrong spot the first time.)

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

0
0

PA, “Isn’t plotting the reliable data is going to give a more accurate post 1998 trend than throwing all the scrap data together and trying to make sense of it?”

that should be up to the groups that used lots of public money to produce that newer more reliable data to defend. I would think that if they don’t come up with a fairly convincing rebuttal they may be replaced with a rowboat and bucket brigade.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by David Wojick

0
0

Franktoo, you are merely stating conjectures as facts. We may well be in for a period of extended cooling, as some scientists predict. There is nothing in GH theory to preclude this because climate is not governed by GHGs. Oh and the OHC estimate is far less accurate than the wonky surface statistical models, so we really have no idea what the system is actually doing, except for the satellite readings.

Comment on Week in review – Energy and policy edition by David Wojick

0
0

Efficiency has increased more or less steadily for centuries but it has never decreased total energy usage, nor will it. As Jevons pointed out a century ago, efficiency increases consumption. That slide is ridiculous.

Comment on Week in review – Energy and policy edition by George Turner

0
0

I worry a bit about that too. Coal prices move very slowly, and coal is trivial to stockpile, whereas natural gas prices are historically volatile and spikey because supply and demand are directly connected with pipes. Some of the same price pressures on frackers (that Judith linked above) regarding oil also apply to natural gas, so if demand catches up to supply then electricity could get really expensive really quickly.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by ...and Then There's Physics

0
0

Hysterics? What makes you think I’d possibly be hysterical over such a silly article. I note that you didn’t bother answering my question.

Comment on Week in review – Energy and policy edition by George Turner

0
0

Yes, but anti-renewable folks know that sweaters aren’t good swim wear, and penguins need to swim to catch fish. :)


Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by David Springer

0
0

Nope. May is already in at ~0.31C anomaly (RSS) and UAH comes out Monday but won’t be substantively different.

Why would you make such a terribly wrong prediction?

.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by JCH

Comment on Week in review – Energy and policy edition by Stephen Segrest

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by PA

0
0

The land data has a similar issue.

1. The class 1 & 2 stations don’t show a lot of warming (the stations that mean siting standards).

2. The class 3, 4, 5 stations show more warming.

3. The combination 1.2,3,4,5 as practiced by NOAA shows even more warming.

Now if somebody can explain how adding low quality heavily adjusted station data to quality station data gives you better data I would love to hear it.

I’m familiar with electronics and and adding noise to signal effectively cuts signal gain, about the only time adding noise to signal improves things is in spread spectrum and only because you are syncing on the noise. While we would hope climate scientists are not deliberately syncing on the noise with their data analysis, the evidence is mixed.

The basis for the corrections that the error is well characterized and the correction reduces error. Given the gross mistakes that are GCMs: the characterization the errors are well understood, the claim that the corrections reduce error, and the view that adding bad adjusted data to good data gives you better data should all be challenged.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by David Springer

0
0

franktoo

Stop making crap up. Best guess at OHC increase is the estimated 0.5W/m2 radiative imbalance at top of atmosphere. If every bit of it goes into the ocean it’s enough to warm the basin by 0.2C in a CENTURY. No typo – point oh two cee in one hundred years.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by David Springer

0
0

Finally something we can agree on.

Comment on Week in review – Energy and policy edition by mosomoso

0
0

Yep, it’s critical to stay with coal, of which there are centuries of supply. This frees up other energy sources for other uses or for overlapping uses if they can stand up in the game. (‘Sustainable’ and ‘renewable’ are fetish words which shut down rational thought. They’re like pictures of kittens wrapped in bacon and published on the internet: everybody sighs, nobody thinks. Coal will probably never give out but it will eventually be out-competed, like the old champion it is. In the mean time, we have coal.)

Instead of treating coal like a hobo but depending on it like a work-horse we need to modernise its extraction, transport and consumption so it is used with less mess and more thrift. Coal is for cheap, but not for dirt-cheap. You don’t abolish the motor car because there are too many old clunkers. You replace old clunkers with efficient, safe machines.

The means for modernising coal will be there if we get serious about what we really are and stop playing at beggary and primitivism. (‘What we really are’ is easily determined by observing what people do immediately AFTER Earth Hour is over.)


Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by JCH

0
0
<i><b>Measurement Errors:</B> As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends. <a><B>A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).</B></a> So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors.</i> - Mears, RSS I have no doubt that Mears would agree with you and me that you are bonkers.

Comment on Week in review – Energy and policy edition by Roger Sowell

0
0

Increasing energy efficiency, or energy conservation, is not a sustainable practice.

I have some experience in energy efficiency, quite a bit actually, having been in the industrial side of the world during the energy price shocks of 1973, 1979 and their aftermath.

And what I found, as did many others who actually lived through this period, is that energy conservation is a one-time problem. We evaluated the various processes, including homes, apartments, skyscrapers, industrial buildings, shopping malls, and of course industry, and made the appropriate energy-conserving investments. By doing so, over approximately five years, the refining and chemical industries reduced energy consumption per unit of production by more than 30 percent. That was a laudable achievement, and I am proud to have been a part of that.

But what we also found was that, even if more money were spent, there would not be another 30 percent reduction over the next five year period, then another 30 percent in the following five years, and so on. Energy consumption, and energy efficiency, does not work that way. It seems obvious to me, as an engineer, but this seems to escape the notice of the many misguided folks who see sustainability and conservation as a jobs-creating industry that we should have been doing all along.

More at:

http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/energy-conservation-is-not-sustainable.html

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by David Springer

0
0

Correcting buoy data with instead of ship data is like correcting an atomic clock instead of a sundial.

Comment on Week in review – Energy and policy edition by PA

0
0

Well, the picture is from Phillip Island Nature Park. There was an oil spill and the call went out for sweaters and this is what you get.

These are apparently the smart penguins because they live it where it is warm & they have people fawning over them, giving them a nature preserve, and dressing them up in sweaters.

The stupid penguins live in Antarctica where it is cold and dangerous and where they have to work for a living.

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by JCH

0
0

This is completely irrelevant. A diversion… a shell game from a trickster.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images