Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

July 25, 2015, 5:29 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by opluso

Perhaps someone can explain why these maps don’t show urban hot spots. Is it lack of resolution or homogenization or something else.

I ran across this image recently.

I think what you’re after is the UDEL analysis ( I haven’t gotten familiar with it yet ). This goes to Mosher’s point about the data sets being a model, they are models of how temperatures vary in between actually observed points. The objective analysis scheme makes a difference. I ran into this doing plots for surface obs. Most schemes ( Barnes, Cressman, et. al. ) would draw contours that would violate the station value and forecasters get crazy about that. But there are schemes that treat each point as being valid, which evidently the UDEL uses and you can see hot spots and cool spots.

Of course, if one is emotionally inclined for a particular result to occur, there is subjectivity in which ‘objective’ analysis is correct. ‘The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.’

↧

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

July 25, 2015, 5:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by justinwonder

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

Regarding UHI, I have no doubt it can be significant, based on the one city ( Phoenix ) that I regularly observe and that has ‘official’ reporting stations around the periphery. There are lots of ‘unofficial’ stations you can get from wunderground.com but I’m sceptical of the quality.

However, most of the planet is ocean.

The explanation of why temperature trends appear to decrease with height rather than increase with height as modeled probably is a reflection of this trend:

For the last 35 years, the Eastern Pacific and the Southern Ocean have cooled, not warmed as modelled. The pattern in the Pacific ( the two warming ‘bullseyes’ with cooling around them, would seem to indicate a dynamic change of circulation ( because they lack the uniformity as modelled ). Is this dynamic shift ‘natural’? Would it have occurred anyway, regardless of CO2 forcing? Would it have occurred, but had a different intensity? Nonlinearity and uncertainty mean no one can know.

But, I think this pattern explains why the lack of the Hot Spot.

FWIW, here’s a GISS model for the same period:

↧

Comment on Week in review – science edition by justinwonder

July 25, 2015, 7:52 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie

So, one paper says the hiatus lives, the other says OHC is increasing because of global warming…meh

Life goes on…

↧

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

July 25, 2015, 8:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by justinwonder

Jim D,
I understand that Grace is indicating mass loss, but does not measure extent. Additionally, to what level does Grace differentiate ice loss due to volcanic activity vs. alternatives? I’m not aware that it does hence the reasoning behind my comment.

↧

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

July 25, 2015, 8:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

Weren’t you aware of this book, Hagan? Seth Lloyd puts a boot up dumbski’s south end:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Thought

You might want to drop Seth Lloyd from your ID sales pitch, David.

↧

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

July 25, 2015, 8:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

The volcanos may not be brand new ones. If not, it appears a lot of ice accumulated around the volcanos, so maybe the volcanos cannot reduce the ice by themselves. To do that may require a warmer ocean.

↧

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

July 25, 2015, 9:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by mosomoso

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

In terms of W/m2, the volcanic effect is a small one compared to CO2, but you can believe what you want.

↧

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

July 25, 2015, 9:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

Meanwhile, back in the world (yeah, that old thing) the pipelines that carry Kazakhstan’s oil and Turkmenistan’s natural gas to China cross Xinjiang, a 50% muslim province. It’s an unstable region, of course, and this brings some Turkish, Arab and Iranian resentments into play against China, though other ME interests are tugging toward China. China, meanwhile…http://www.cfr.org/world/armed-clash-south-china-sea/p27883

Meanwhile, if you look west of all this you see a jumble of pipelines and interests that will make you giddy, with, just for example, Israelis and Kurds buddying up with Greeks and Cypriots, while a not-so-Kemalist Turkey gets quite nervous about who pipes what to whom and nobody knows who is going to be whose friend for how long. In the middle of this is a curious group of religious enthusiasts called ISIS…

But enough of eastern and middle eastern probs! Let’s talk about the future for Russia’s gas when an anti-nuke France decides to go all green – “green” being another word for “gas-dependent”. Meanwhile, bill-paying Germany has decided to defy itself by continuing to preach green while digging the good old brown because it has no choice (see “bill-paying” above)…

Curiously, nobody is fighting over space to put wind turbines and solar panels. Maybe because intermittent, diffuse and expensive energy is not a solution to any bloody thing?

And in this context, we have “experts” discussing how to dismantle Australia’s massive and critical coal industry. A DOMESTIC industry. The Permian black, centuries of supply, lying in Sydney’s back yard. And because coal is totally unsexy but utterly critical, we continue to burn it in ageing facilities, wasting maybe 20%.

Makes you wonder what education is for, doesn’t it?

↧

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

July 25, 2015, 9:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by mosomoso

captd, yes, increased forest fires like in Alaska and Canada now are a feedback effect via the black carbon that they produce. It’s not all coal, for sure.

↧

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

July 25, 2015, 9:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

Monfort calls a guy with two PhDs one in math and one in philosophy of science from University of Chicago “a clown” and calls him Dumbski. And a master’s in divinity from Princeton to top it off. That’s Doctor Doctor Reverend Dembski the way I make it.

You’re an imbecile in comparison, Monfort. You’d need to take a giant step up the intellectual ladder to be a clown. Putz. ROFL

↧

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

July 25, 2015, 9:22 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

Monfort is creating a straw man then beating up on it. Way to go, Donny.

ID doesn’t say the universe has to be designed. It says it’s a better explanation that blind chance. Anything is possible. Some things are more possible than others.

So if time and the universe are infinite doesn’t that mean that it must have produced a infinite number of gods too? You don’t have the chops for this debate. You don’t have the brain power to work out the consequences of infinities.

↧

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

July 25, 2015, 9:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

Well done, Springer. Now you are reduced to “it could be ID”. It could be Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Grow TF up, davey.

↧

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

July 25, 2015, 9:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by thomaswfuller2

≪ Previous: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

We are waiting for you and the other clown to show us some evidence for ID, davey. That Seth Lloyd story didn’t go over too well. Hagan is a lot smarter than you are. He might give up, now. Let’s see if he has the guts to admit the ID story is fantasy BS.

↧

Comment on Week in review – science edition by thomaswfuller2

July 25, 2015, 9:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

It’s not new, either.

↧

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

July 25, 2015, 9:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by thomaswfuller2

VP re; successive big bangs

Yes, the big crunch theory.

Just for grins let’s the law of entropy is true. Therefore all the order in the universe must have been present at the instant of the big bang. Otherwise it was imported from outside the universe. You, me, all our thoughts, the entire library of congress, all there concentrated into a singularity 14 billions years ago just waiting to unfold like an origami.

Where did all that information come from?

I have proposed that if information is like energy then it cannot be created nor destroyed. It only changes form. Even a big crunch would not destroy it and in the following big bounce it would still be there from the previous cycle.

That still doesn’t explain where the order came from in the first place but it at least provides more time for it to accumulate.

You probably want to read up on the great debate about whether information can ever be lost. It’s called the information paradox and brought on a bet between arguably the greatest living theoretical physicists of our time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne%E2%80%93Hawking%E2%80%93Preskill_bet

Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking bet John Preskill that a singularity, while not being able to destroy information per se, can at least hide it from the universe forever, which amounts to the same thing.

Hawking conceded. Information is some durable stuff if not even a black hole, the most destructive thing in the known universe, can erase the blackboard.

I’m not sure you have the chops for this either but you’re maybe a couple small steps above Monfort.

↧

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

July 25, 2015, 9:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

You have already been given the evidence, Donny. You don’t have either the integrity to acknowledge it or the brain power to understand it. I really don’t care which because in either case I won’t get down in the intellectual mud to wrestle with a stupid pig like you.

↧

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

July 25, 2015, 9:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

Hagen wrote: “Multiverses admits the impossibility within our universe so grasps at straws by appealing to infinity. Much simpler to appeal to an intelligent agent than chaos.”

Yup. Even Donny the Dummy Monfort appealed to infinity right away. Maybe out of instinct. Certainly not out of calculation.

Hey Donny, in an infinite universe there’s infinite number of nitwits named Don Monfort pecking out an infinite number of infinitely stupid comments on an infinite number of climate blogs.

Infinities are fun. But ridiculous. Try this consequence on for size, it’s one of my favorites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Using the term “brain” loosely you might be one of those and I’m a figment of your false memory.

↧

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

July 25, 2015, 10:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

” Our universe is a finely tuned construction at all scales from fundamental physics to the machinery of life. There is absolutely no precedent for construction like that to be merely happenstance.”

That is not evidence, davey. That’s simplistic nonsense bordering on lunacy.

You should at least be able to offer some half-way plausible speculation on what the ID critter looks like. It’s got to have a very, very, very big freaking brain, doesn’t it davey? How does it get around the universe? A sled and a gaggle of reindeer?

↧

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

July 25, 2015, 10:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

Don Monfort | July 25, 2015 at 6:04 pm |

“And you need to explain why an intelligent designer would design something so freaking complicated with so many parts that are designed to get broken and expire.”

Donny, donny, dondon… you’re arguing religion not science. I have no bloody idea what the motivation, desires, or limitations within which a designer of universes is constrained. Those are religious beliefs. Let’s stick to math and science. As I said I’m an agnostic. I readily concede that every religion that man has ever held to be true is not true. I used to be an atheist but after decades of following the evidence wherever it led I became an agnostic. It appears to me, not quite unequivocally, but close, that the universe is not an accident and life not a result of a random dance of atoms. The odds appear to weight heavily against that. One must appeal to infinity to make the numbers work. Infinities are a cosmic gag reel. Math and physics that we understand break down at infinity. In infinite number of absurd consequences emerge from infinities. As Hagen said it’s easier to accept the notion that the so-called illusion of design isn’t an illusion and then move along. There’s a gigantic leap of faith needed to go from ID to any of the world’s revealed religions. ID however is indeed like the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent insofar as religious belief goes. It’s enough to cast doubt on the atheist bedtime story that there’s no intent or purpose to anything just law and chance.

↧