David
You know the rules. Direct questions are not allowed. You sort of have to present the request for information in a much more oblique manner as if you are having a complex discussion. Or something.
tonyb
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by vukcevic
Gravitational tidal pull on the solar surface is of order of few cm (inch or two) while the solar electromagnetic ‘carpet’ has continuous undulations of one km or more.
However, there is more significant effect caused by Jupiter/ Saturn magnetic fields, the Earth magnetosphere is by two orders of magnitude weaker, plugs into s.c. solar magnetic ropes (plasma streams), effect observed as geomagnetic storm and visible as aurora. One could consider sun as an electro-magnetic battery (source) and magnetospheres of the above mentioned planets as the ‘short circuit’ loads.
http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/262351main_reconnect.mpg
Solar scientists currently dispute existence of the feedback from the ‘load’ back to the source. I tend to disagree (see equations for the solar magnetic fields – toroidal (sunspot) an poloidal (polar).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
19.859 years is J/S synodic period.
Equation devised in 2003 predicted SC24 to peak (rms) at around 80, so far so good, while at the same time and even up to 3-4 years later top NASA’s people Dr-s Hathaway & Dikpati where predicting the SC24 to be the strongest ever.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang
PA,
Did you see this on the LFTR?
http://euanmearns.com/molten-salt-fast-reactor-technology-an-overview/
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by anng
Steven,
“math of course is used in theory building but is not a theory”
For physicists, the mathematical equations are THE THEORY. All their words are metaphors and aide-memoires for explaining the maths to the rest of the world.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
It appears A and John Carter are indeed the same. The tell tale signs are the vapid and vacuous run on sentences interspersed with excruciatingly painful overuse of parentheses. Sort of a first cousin to Jacques Smith with the ( ) thrown in for the dramatic effect.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
The style maketh the man?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by GaryM
When I saw this, I wondered why Berkeley Earth, supposedly set up to re-analyze surface temp records, was recommending what type of fuel billions of people should use to heat their homes.
(I mean I always believed they were a PR operation of warmists whose primary goal was to act as a rapid reaction force to Anthony Watts surface stations efforts. But we were assured these were “conservative” and “libertarian” warmists, whose only interest was in addressing “legitimate” concerns of skeptics with respect to the temp record. Shockingly, they found that none of those concerns were warranted. Who would have thought?)
The best thing about this latest effort, it’s good to see that Berkeley Earth has ditched any pretense of being anything other than your typical, progressive mouth piece for the movement to centrally plan the energy economy.
All I can say is – thank God we have Steve Mosher and Co. to study the climate and energy economy, and figure out for us how to heat our homes and power our industries.
Maybe y’all can fix the health care industry for us next. ‘Cause Obamacare sucks.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
1804 scientists cited MBH98.
I doubt it. They may have had PhD’s, but I doubt most of them were scientists.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron
But who is John Carter and why does he have a 1 year old blog filled with 5 or more years worth of this drivel and a blogroll that only contain ATTP and this: http://climate.nasa.gov/
(And why is that on a goverment website. NASA, FCS.)
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
Looks like JCH, Nick and Mosher join the Mighty Casey from Mudville. Three gargantuan Whiffs.
You three might want to take up another sport too, called golf. The Pros are known to Whiff there too.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
jim2
“..produce a novel statistical procedure..
”
If I might, I would suggest that a whole lot of Novels from statistical procedure can be found in the Climate Fiction section at your local Barnes & Noble Bookstore.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by peter3172
Verbal diarrhea, as it’s colloquially known
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
<blockquote>Skeptics need an alternative PHYSICAL theory to challenge the existing physical theory.</blockquote>You're not talking about <b>Science</b> here, Steven, but political perceptions of "science".
Real Science <b>always</b> speaks the language of mathematics. Was Newton an "eminent physicist"? Not until he developed a version of the Calculus so he could actually put <b>numbers, mathematics</b> behind his theories of gravitation. Putting it simply, things like velocity, acceleration, and position couldn't be worked with using "algebra" (Arabic for "the geometry").
What Tsonis, among others, has been working on is the <b>language</b> of mathematical descriptions of chaos/complexity. While obsolete "climate" pseudo-scientists wave their arms and say there's no problem.
Let me reference more papers from his CV:<blockquote>A.A. Tsonis and P.A. Tsonis, 1987: Fractals: A New
look at Biological Shape and Patterning. Perspect. Biol. Medic.30, (3) 355-361.</blockquote><blockquote>A.A. Tsonis and J.B. Elsner, 1987: Fractal Characterization and Simulation of Lightning. Beitr. Phys. Atmosph. (Contributions to Atmospheric Physics). 60, 187-192.</blockquote><blockquote>P.A. Tsonis and A.A. Tsonis, 1989: Chaos: Concepts and Implications in Biology. Comp. Apll. Biosc. 5, 27-32.</blockquote><blockquote>A.A. Tsonis, J.B. Elsner and P.A. Tsonis, 1991: Periodicity in DNA sequences: Implications in gene evolution. J. Theor. Biol.151 (3), 323-331.</blockquote><blockquote>G.P. Pavlos, A.A. Kyriakou, A.G. Rigas, P.I. Liatsis,
P.C. Trochoutos, and A.A. Tsonis, 1992: Evidence for strange attractor structures in space plasma. Annales Geophysicae. 10, 309-322.</blockquote><blockquote>A.A. Tsonis, J.B. Elsner and P.A. Tsonis, 1993: On the existence of scaling in DNA sequences. Bioch. Bioph. Res. Comm. 197, 1288-1295.</blockquote>Here we see evidence of his and others' efforts to broaden the application of <b>general mathematical techniques</b> to multiple fields, allowing feedback from those fields to the general math.
Do you suppose that, during the period while Newton was developing his Calculus language, his ideas about gravity were considered by most to be “<i>an alternative PHYSICAL theory to challenge the existing physical theory</i>” of Ptolemy?
But <b>real</b> scientists can look at the work in progress and see the implications. And that work in progress dates back to the '80's. Some of those implications are beginning to show up in recent work. Soon enough, "intuitive" descriptions will be worked out for the math-challenged politicians who want the cover of "Science" for their decisions.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
Speaking of criticizing one’s own, Nick may recall that Tsonis has his name on the Stadium Wave paper:
Here’s a statement that speaks for itself ‐ about the one who made it.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
I read Tsonis, and have exchanged emails with him. One of Tsonis’ frequent coauthors is Kyle Swanson, who was a graduate student under Raymond Pierrehumbert, a contributor at RealClimate.
I think his work is ground breaking.
I think his conclusions, as expressed in the press, border on nonsense.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
<blockquote>I think his work is ground breaking.</blockquote>Then you might want to reconsider your statement that he “<i>is not an eminent climate scientist</i>”. Scientists whose “<i>work is ground breaking</i>” are pretty thin on the ground.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by PA
Peter Lang | August 3, 2015 at 6:00 am |
PA,
Did you see this on the LFTR?
http://euanmearns.com/molten-salt-fast-reactor-technology-an-overview/
Well, he isn’t a LFTR fan.
1. If we were starting nuclear from scratch – I would advocate laws strictly forbidding nuclear reactors that operate at positive pressure. Does the CDC operate it’s labs where they handle deadly viruses at positive pressure? If CDC director advocated operating the labs at scuba tank pressures he would be hauled away.
2. BWR/PWR has issues in land based operation that are considered virtues at sea.
3. Thorium is 9.6 ppm of the earth’s crust. Uranium is 2.7 ppm of the earths crust. Claims we can run out of either fuel are outright lies.
4. The closed cycle means that substances either decay to a stable stable or are converted to something else. Claiming little “waste” is created accurate.
5. The only reason we don’t have thorium reactors now is one of Rickover’s boys got put in charge of DOD, the reactor was viewed as competition for the Navy reactors and was shut down.
The bottom line is it is almost trivial to make a safe LFTR design and quite difficult to make a safe PWR design.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
Vukcevic:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/
I remember that. Any idiot can look at the umbral magnetic field strength and know cycle 24 was going to be weak. I don’t know what is wrong with these people. The lower the average umbral magnetic field the fewer sun spots.
The next cycle is going to be weak too, even weaker than the current cycle, but not nonexistent like the speculation. The umbral field intensity seems like it is going to pull up and not plow into the 1500 gauss barrier.
And NASA has learned and are predicting 25 to be one of weakest in centuries. I guess you can teach old dogs old tricks.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
Maybe he will follow his math and figure out where his math went wrong. Or maybe he’ll remain with his politics and remain wrong. Right now the 2015 GISS anomaly is above .80C, and I think it will be close to .90C at years end. And he did not see that coming.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Canman
The headline “Wind energy provides 8% of Europe’s electricity” (see link in OP) is misleading.
The headline is “Wind energy provides 8% of Europe’s electricity”. That’s more than just misleading. It’s wrong! It should read something like “Wind energy provides 8% of Europe’s electricity Capacity”. Anyone looking at that headline (like I just did) is going to think Europe is getting 8% of its electricity from wind. This site is called “Science Daily”. You’d think they would make a correction!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
