Sadly, my knowledge of show tunes is both limited and unpopular, although the unpopularity might be due more to the quality of my voice than the songs themselves.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by thomaswfuller2
↧
↧
Comment on Intermittent grid storage by jacksmith4tx
APE,
I mentioned before on this blog I have had a UPS for years. My reason was because I lost a computer power supply and graphics card ($250) due to some kind of power spike on the grid. I spent the bucks to get a mid to high end unit and one of it’s features is it connects via USB to my computer and provides me with a detailed log of all ‘events’. This (plus my eGauge) is why I know the number and nature of the power fluctuations on my local grid. We have all lived with these ‘defects’ our entire life but thanks to state of the art backup systems you can buy today we can finally have some appreciation for the complexity and cost of really reliable electricity.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
Did I miss seeing a memo? Why is everyone replacing letters in a certain annoying trolls name with @ # $ &?
Has the little fella finally been declared unmentionable?
↧
Comment on Intermittent grid storage by edbarbar
I’ve decided this is a BS answer. The question should not be “How do I solve this problem the way I want to,” but “How do I solve the problem.”
You set a high bar for yourself, failed, and failed again by being rude over your own failure.
You have shown that you do not want to solve the problem except in the manner you want to solve it, which is within your own understanding, and have rejected, out of hand other solutions because you haven’t thought of them/have no intimacy with them.
Another way of thinking is that these solutions are dangerous, because they diminish your value.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Don, “Has the little fella finally been declared unmentionable?”
Roger that
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher
Unfortunately we have the following:
1. Weather models which rely on and utilize the standard view of GHGs
2. No testable weather model that uses the Carnot approach.
The choice is easy: a Physics that has skill ( albeit not perfect) versus a ‘physics’ that could not predict the next hours weather.
Ask Judith if she is willing to throw standard radiative physics out the window.
Ask Christ and Spencer if they will throw microwave radiative physics out the window along with their temperature work.
Ask a Flir engineer.
A paper does not overturn a paradigm.
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by franktoo
While the “Pause meme” is a threat to the idea that AGW must inevitably be CAGW, it is also the “crack cocaine” that allows many skeptics to ignore reality. Essentially all skeptical scientists believe in the enhanced greenhouse effect, as do many prominent skeptical bloggers such as Watts, Lucia, McIntyre and our host. They accept that the radiative forcing from the increase in aGHGs since the start of the pause (somewhere between 1995 and 2000) has been roughly 0.5 W/m2, mainly due to the rise in CO2 from 360 to 400 ppm. These numbers constitute about 1/3 of the increase in CO2 and 1/4 the increase in radiative forcing since 1750. Some combination of unforced variability and naturally forced variability (solar and volcanic) has suppressed warming since the 1997/8 El Nino and that will inevitably be overwhelmed by a tidal wave of CO2. The high from the Pause that is distorting reality will come to an end.
WIth 20/20 hindsight, we may realize the end of the Pause began with the 2015 El Nino, or it may last another decade or more. Chaotic systems are unpredictable in the short run. Whether or not Tom Karl et al are proven right or wrong, they have created uncertainty (IMO) as to whether we have experience a real pause in the warming of SSTs. Even if one ignores the illogical data from below 700 m, the ARGO record since 2003 doesn’t show a Pause. Disturbingly, the atmosphere and land – with low heat capacity and therefore probably the highest variability – provide the best evidence for a Pause. They are the easiest places to warm.
Skeptics claim that climate is always changing (another drug). Why can’t naturally forced and/or unforced variability hold off a putative “tidal wave” of anthropogenic forcing? Another Maunder Minimum would produce a transient forcing of -1 W/m2 at best according to the most optimistic publications. Curve-fitting suggest that the AMO changes GMST by only +/-0.15 degC. Another Tambora would be dissipated within a decade. Another LIA might reduce temperature by 1 degC. Yes, climate is always changing, but these phenomena – IF they develop – would change the big picture only modestly if ECS is around 3 degC or higher. And nobody wants more extreme and unlikely forms of climate change – another Ice Age or a Yellowstone super volcano.
Skeptics who wish to return to reality can focus on the very real possibility that climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC projects. Despite the fact that climate models have suppressed warming with high sensitivity to aerosols, climate models have over-projected warming. High sensitivity to aerosols is looking increasingly dubious. These problems with the consensus are not going to disappear with the next El Nino, homogenization of historical data or publication about the AMO, LIA, or Maunder minimum. The discrepancy between observations and projects will certainly persist for decades. The IPCC is projecting only 0.3-0.7 degC of warming for the next and the Pause will make this total warming for the first third of the 21st century. This challenged the meme that AGW must be catastrophic.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by donaitkin
The ‘hard deadline’ (Leahy) pice is pretty awful — no homework at all by the author. Then I looked at his tiny bio. Why did I expect more?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Hockey, This Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot paper appears to be doing nothing more than proving a sloppy analogy is a sloppy analogy. The “33C discrepancy” has about 2 C or 10 Wm-2 of slop. TSI/4 has about 2% slop because the tropopause to upper stratosphere and likely even mesosphere aren’t “negligible”. So TSI/4 and the “33C discrepancy” aren’t real “foundations” of GHE just fairly crude approximations used as illustrations. Gravito/thermal is a bit of a novelty sideshow and not a main attraction either. A doubling of CO2 will have about a 1% impact on the rate of energy transfer and none of the “ideal” models of a complex planet can get close to that.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
Well…
Only about 1/3 of surface energy is imparted to the atmosphere by radiative forcing.
So if you increase downward forcing 3.7 W/m2 (effectively reducing outward forcing 3.7 W/m2) the temperature will rise will be about 1.23 W/m2 or 0.33 °C.
So there will be forcing but it will be most at night and about 1/3 the predicted value.
The “no warmers” are about 2/3 correct and 1/3 wrong, Arrhenius is about 1/3 correct. Carnot is about 1/3 wrong.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
We desperately need to reduce vehicle carbon emissions in order to avoid turning the planet into a hellscape,
That has not been proven with real data. Only flawed climate models indicate any problems.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by nabilswedan
Climate Etc. early topics were generally scientific in nature, and I learned a lot from them. I write novel articles about the earth and some have been accepted and will be published soon. The difficulty in novel writing is lack of references, reviewers, co-authors, or journals that would be willing to navigate new waters with confidence and no risk. Climate Etc. is a blog where I could raise a subject that I am not sure of and very soon a competent reader comes along from far away and elaborates. At the conclusion of a discussion, a great deal of knowledge was accumulated. Example is the discussion of Steve McGee in 2013 “Is the Earth energy in deficit?” A great post, and I am so dismayed that this discussion has not been published in a scientific journal yet. Nevertheless and because of its importance, I cited this unpublished work in my recent paper Anthropogenic and Natural Forcings as Functions of Emission Time, Development in Earth Science (DES) Volume 3, 2015, http://www.seipub.org/des doi: 10.14355/des.2015.03.001 1.
My son is a bright research professor, competent enough for climate and earth related studies. I have been trying to get him into the earth science. He does not want to because of the risk associated with the polarized climate debate. I am positive that there are more examples like him. We do not have a climate science; the greenhouse gas effect is a questionable hypothesis and its related radiative forcing approach violates the law of thermodynamics. In short it cannot get any worst. The question that I have is where does the younger generation go for correct understanding of the climate so that they can address a major issue of the present and future? I wish to see Climate Etc. remains the way I felt it was meant for-scientific discussions and knowledge. There will definitely be a need for these discussions for long time to come, and I hope that Climate Etc. be there in the forefront.
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by David Springer
An igloo then. They’re warmer inside than out. Ice and snow are good insulators.
↧
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by David Springer
Much has been and continues to be learned from ARGO.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
Thanks for the confirmation, capt. The little fella must be very proud of himself.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
Science News (…and now something completely different) Climate scientists discover extreme climate conditions during the Recent Epoch that every freshman Geology 3 student knows cold: Salbyists salivate, Klimate Velikovskyists recoil, peanut gallery amazed.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
No takers? Then you need to develop a more useful product. Welcome to the industrial marketplace. It’s not like winning NSF grants.
↧
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by Willard
> Shriver said, not present tense says, which implies he is alive. He died in 2011.
That’s an old conception of the present tense, kid:
In linguistics and rhetoric, the historic present or historical present (also called dramatic present or narrative present) refers to the employment of the present tense when narrating past events. It is widely used in writing about history in Latin and some modern European languages; in English it is used above all in historical chronicles (listing a series of events); it is also used in fiction, for ‘hot news’ (as in headlines), and in everyday conversation (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 129–131). In conversation, it is particularly common with ‘verbs of communication’ such as tell, write, and say (and in colloquial uses, go) (Leech 2002: 7). Historic present is the form recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary, whereas historical present is the form in Merriam Webster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present
Not as old as your ad novitatem.
***
Since you might be as much a cheese lover than a latin lover, here’s for you:
“It’s good.”
That’s all Ed Zahn had to say about the taste of his 40-year-old cheddar that was sold like a precious metal yesterday at the Wisconsin Cheese Mart in Milwaukee—the oldest commercially available cheese in the world, while it lasted.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2012/10/08/the-oldest-edible-cheese-in-the-world/
↧
Comment on A key admission regarding climate memes by micro6500
“Skeptics who wish to return to reality can focus on the very real possibility that climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC projects. Despite the fact that climate models have suppressed warming with high sensitivity to aerosols, climate models have over-projected warming. High sensitivity to aerosols is looking increasingly dubious. These problems with the consensus are not going to disappear with the next El Nino, homogenization of historical data or publication about the AMO, LIA, or Maunder minimum. The discrepancy between observations and projects will certainly persist for decades. The IPCC is projecting only 0.3-0.7 degC of warming for the next and the Pause will make this total warming for the first third of the 21st century. This challenged the meme that AGW must be catastrophic.”
Is it not possible that there have been skeptics who have been here for the last 15 years?
The problem is how do you provide “proof” of this to provide a counter point to the consensus “the science is settled “?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
No worries HS. It’s fake but accurate (in the Clifford Irving sense), just like Dr. Lew. and Murry Salby.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
