Faustino
You mentioned cricket. Mosomoso was quite right that it is off topic. Obviously we would like to talk about it but rules are rules.
tonyb
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by climatereason
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes
“Yes, I cited that RealClimate article in my post. “
Well, you do, but it’s incoherent. It goes like this:
“But — where are the climate scientists? Where are rebuttals at RealClimate? by the Climate Science Rapid Response Team? At the websites above that feature climate science?
It’s astonishing how little basis there is in the peer-reviewed literature for these claims. See these summaries at RealClimate debunking the hysteria in 2012 and in 2013 by David Archer (Prof Geophysical Sciences, U Chicago).”
The second para answers the first, but the text just goes on as if it hadn’t. Where are the climate scientists? In the peer-reviewed literature. RealClimate? “See these summaries”. RRT? David Archer writes for RRT.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Punksta
Jim D –
The real question here is : How robust is the radiation budget data?
Once it is robust, the CO2 issue really would be getting to a point reasonable people could call “settled”. We could then clearly see whether/how_much the planet is warming in step with CO2 levels.
But my understanding is that it is not yet robust. Unlike surface temperatures or CO2 levels, say.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aplanningengineer
In cooler seasons heat pumps warm interiors and cool outside temperatures somewhat. But most places (US) they do not function that way on the coldest because the temperature differential is to large, and the systems no longer work as a heat pump. Then homes are heated with electrical resistive heat or backup fuel, So theoretically at least most places the make milder cool days cooler but not the colder days. Ground source heat pumps make it possible to keep the cycle on colder days, but it cools at the ground source level and such systems are much rarer. No expertise for this estimate but I’d guess the more extensive lost resistive/fuel based heat from most places would swamp the rarer effect of ground source cooling most places on sub zero days.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aplanningengineer
Way back a coal plant my compsny owned recorded much lower emissions than its sister plant in another state. The owners of the other plant sent engineers and technicians over so they could better learn to emulate our success. For years they tinkered with various things but could not approach our performance. Eventually it turned out we had a bad meter and we were just misreading our emissions. They performed pretty much as we did, maybe a little better as we grew complacent. Moving from two sister plants to an entity as large as China with not only coal for varous electric generation units, and heat for steam systems and industry and industrial processes and all that going through a political-study-estimation process, I can only assume the estimates must need wide error bars.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
Greg Sheridan ‘The Australian’ 21/08/15 warns that Oz is
becoming a risky place to do business as Carmichael Mine
is likely to be locked up in litigation by indigenous and
green activists until 2017.
… Headin’ fer stagnation and another Dark Ages, unlikely
ter be anuther Medieval Warming Period.Tsk! Bad fer serfs…
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Punksta
Cap’n
the “current” best estimate of the positive [radiation] imbalance is about 1/3 to half of the original estimate of the imbalance based on the “physics”.
Due to the 60% of “missing” CO2 emissions hiding in previously unconsidered CO2 sinks?
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/desert-aquifers-hold-missing-carbon-19320?utm_content=bufferb113c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Or some other mistake – what?
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by mosomoso
Harumph. Excuse me. Just clearing my throat.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by beththeserf
Cricket? Not bein’ in favour of constraints
on free speech I’ll mention it…
Oh it’s grand ol’ Duke of York stuff,
when you were down yer were down
‘n then you are up!
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by tonyhellerexposed
This endorsement of Mark Steyn’s homophobic attack on Mike Mann and Gred Laden *really* caught my eye.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
beth
the serfs have been a bit uppity of late what with education and such, so a bit of stagnation might help to sort them out a bit.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by climatereason
moderator
please ban beth for being wildly off topic. And fine her.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by erikemagnuson
That’s why ground sourced heat pumps make more sense in very cold climates.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Estrogen is one of the taints which can be pharmaceutical but has lots of sources. I saw one study that estimated the pharmaceutical estrogen at about 1% of the total in rivers, lakes etc.
One effective and fairly low cost method to remove estrogen from waste water is artificial wet lands. Great right? Well, the US has drained wetlands to fight Malaria, increase usable land, mitigate flooding etc. Restoring wetlands in general should be a high priority, since a large portion of the estrogen in lakes, rivers etc. has farming related sources. Blaming the problem, if it is actually a problem, on waste water treatment plants is a bit dumb, since wetlands are the natural water treatment plants.
All the changes in wetlands is also a major factor in land use related climate change. Wetland restoration, tree farming and storm water retention ponds all tend to have a local climate cooling impact. In addition to that, wetlands increase the amount of ground water retained which also happens to retain CO2.
So with this fairly obvious “limited regrets” option to actually do something productive, the geniuses are focusing on their pet mitigation projects that aren’t likely to be all that effective. Welcome to the State of Climate Scientology.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
‘The global warming hiatus re-examined.’ Humpty-Dumpty
at the controls. “Hey, I will select the measurement device
whereby ocean temperatures are measured, ergo not Argo.
H/D et Karl et al.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by eli rabett (@EthonRaptor)
Roger is a about as penetrating analyst of sports as he is of climate science, and no, that is not the urban dictionary version
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Don Monfort
What has “crazy aunt” go to do with “Aunt Judy”, prof. rabbetticus halpernicus? Google “Aunt Judy”, you goofey rabbette. That is what they were calling her.
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by eli rabett (@EthonRaptor)
As <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113885160507662981" rel="nofollow">long as we are tone trolling</a> Bill Gray sends greetings
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
Beth,
” How much does the project cost and who pays?
Each float costs about $15,000 USD and this cost about doubles when the cost of handling the data and running the project is taken into account. The array has roughly 3000 floats and to maintain the array, 800 floats will need to be deployed each year. Thus the approximate cost of the project is 800 x $30,000 = $24m per year. That makes the cost of each profile around $200. 28 countries have contributed floats to the array with the USA providing about half the floats.”
and
“* How accurate is the Argo data?
The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.002°C and pressures are accurate to ± 2.4dbar. For salinity,there are two answers. The data delivered in real time are sometimes affected by sensor drift. For many floats this drift is small, and the uncorrected salinities are accurate to ± .01 psu. At a later stage, salinities are corrected by expert examination, comparing older floats with newly deployed instruments and with ship-based data. Corrections are made both for identified sensor drift and for a thermal lag error, which can result when the float ascends through a region of strong temperature gradients.
Following this delayed- mode correction, salinity errors are usually reduced further and in most cases the data become good enough to detect subtle ocean change. The estimated accuracy of the delayed mode quality controlled salinity can be found in the PSAL_ADJUSTED_ERROR fields in the D profile files. If the salinity is found to be questionable even after delayed mode adjustment, there error and the qc flag are adjusted to higher than usual to make users aware of this. Therefore, users should use the *_ADJUSTED_ERROR and *_ADJUSTED_QC fields in the profile files to filter the data set to remove less accurate measurements.
This goes for all the parameters measured. While the temperature and pressure sensors are highly accurate, they may still have errors, leading to higher adjusted error fields and qc flags.
In general, data that are considered bad and unadjustable are marked with a qc flag of ‘3’ or ‘4’. These bad data should not be used in any scientific applications.”
Just mark them all with ‘3’ or ‘4’!
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by curryja
Bill Gray and I are now buddies. We talked at the the Texas policy foundation event earlier this year. He likes what I am writing about climate change, but still thinks Webster et al. 2005 is incorrect. I don’t hold a grudge.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
