Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by aaron

$
0
0

Sure, the warm northern tropics and mid latitudes of the pacific during el nino will increase temperature gradients, particularly going into the fall and winter months. So what does this have to with GHGs? They probably contribute to the IPWP, but not a lot. The IR is a very small percentage of the energy going into the pacific and IR doesn’t get absorbed by the ocean quite as much ans SW. It’s winds that drive the build up of warm water for el nino, and winds will increase evaporation further reducing the GHG contribution. The IR contribution is likely very slight. GHGs might make an el Nino longer in duration, slowing the release during el Nino, particularly if winds are weak, but we also need to wonder about cloud responses and precipitation. Spencer found that albedo over the ocean sometimes declines slightly during el Nino. What are the differences in outgoing SW and LW during night and day?

It’d be smart to look at albedo over the relevant region over time and night and day outgoing LW.


Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Willard

$
0
0

I’m here for the Tree Lobsters, Don Don. Try to prove they don’t exist.

Denizens already know that TonyB oftentimes seals himself in JAQs.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by blunderbunny

$
0
0

Now it’s buried all the way down here it’s no longer obvious, but I was responding to Turbulent Eddie’s:

“Yes, shear coincidence.”

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by aaron

$
0
0

Thanks AK.

Of course, I was being sarcastic.

In addition, I believe Citi recently called for support to prop up China and IIRC they are part of the current real-estate bubble and/or looking to sell rent backed bond products (which are currently inflated by Dodd-Frank and post bubble mortgage lending aversion and inadequate post bubble building relative to population growth).

It’s amazing that all of this this isn’t obvious to people.

They’re taking advantage of the need to prop up economies in europe and markets in the us during the election year. How do you think the Iran deal evolved. Sanction to prevent bomb building were probably futile. Europe needed the oil to keep economic pressure off the broader population and prevent civil unrest in fragile economies. The US needed low oil prices to protect incumbant politicians in the up coming election year. Low oil prices also strain over-leveraged oil producing enemy nation states, like venzuela. Probably USSR too.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Tony uses vast resources beyond CET and the writings of a monk. You appear to ignore, or may not have read, the works of Dr Brown and Dr Lamb. Are you aware of his trips to the Alps, his research of ice cores, and his deep knowledge of ship architecture, navigation, and operation. And always describing the limits of his evidence. I
#################

1. I’ve read tonys material.
2. There is no description of methods
3. No description of quantified uncertainty.
4. Lots of stories.

Until someone can read the original sources and reproduce his results you have one man’s word.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by climatereason

$
0
0

Mosh

Read harder, as someone keeps entreating us.

I have told you at least four times that the methodology I use is the same as van engelen et al. I know you saw one of my replies at least as you referred to it but still you make your unfounded claim.

Any ‘anecdotal’ quotes are always referenced to the original so they are not stories. Anyone can read them as they are generally in public places such as the met office library or the Scott polar institute in Cambridge. They are also often cross referenced to other historical references or scientific papers.

I do state the uncertainty. Again I have told you this. It is at least half a degree c which becomes more unquantifiable the further back in time I step. At this stage, again as you know, I try to put likely temperatures within a broad band. I adhere to Lambs maxim that ‘ you can understand the (temperature) tendency, but not the precision. ‘

How are you doing with quantifying your anecdotal raw temperature data? Or are figures inherently superior to text?

Tonyb

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Joseph,
I agree that there are a reasonable number of indicators of increasing temps. and droughts. But when I look for alternative scenarios w/r/t tornadoes and tropical cyclones I find that up until about 2007 many published indicators were up (a couple of links follow), but since then it appears that storms (those particular indicators) seemed to have actually reduced (at least in frequency) here in the U.S. All this has happened coincidental with ‘the hiatus’ but while CO2 has increased. When looking, I find higher costs associated with damage, but that’s not an easily compared metric.

This is why I used the term “observations”. This is not what the science has expected and even projected, but finding a paper?
http://nrc.noaa.gov/sites/nrc/Documents/SoS%20Fact%20Sheets/SoS.Fact.Sheet.Tornadoes.and.Climate_FINALv2_May2013.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/mccarthy/tor30yrs.pdf

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Danny Thomas


Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by PA

$
0
0

Had a friend who drank water and followed a low salt diet.

Sodium level went down to 100 and he died.

Drinking lots of water on a low salt diet is lethal.

After that I cut my water consumption and started salting my food.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Joseph

$
0
0

My point was about extreme weather in general whether or not AGW will have an impact on hurricanes or tropical storms is still being researched. I don’t think we have to be certain about hurricanes to understand the potential risks from extreme weather.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Joseph,
Well it depends then on how you prefer to define ‘extreme weather’. I tried to answer with at least two of the more powerful systems which I’m aware of and the observable lack of increase (at least in frequency in the U.S.), so what else would you find of interest and I’ll try to research after work (at lunch)? It’s an interesting question and one that has given me pause when I’ve looked to see the associated frequencies especially when science explicitly was/is expecting a different result. That, and it’s association with the hiatus.
(It’s an area of unsettled science IMO).

Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by eadler2

$
0
0

I read the NYTimes article on this. My takeaway is that people who popularized the idea that we should drink 8 glasses of water a day, did not read the full recommendation by the Food and Nutrition Board, written in 1945.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/upshot/no-you-do-not-have-to-drink-8-glasses-of-water-a-day.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-0&action=click&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=1

“Many people believe that the source of this myth was a 1945 Food and Nutrition Board recommendation that said people need about 2.5 liters of water a day. But they ignored the sentence that followed closely behind. It read, “Most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods.”

It seems that the problem is that popular writers on this subject don’t know how to read. I have never heard any of the doctors I had make this recommendation. To me it seems like a popular scientifc myth, much like the idea that CO2 in the past followed the rise in temperature, therefore it could not be the cause of today’s increase in temperature.

Comment on The conceits of consensus by Rick Santorum misrepresents our climate survey results on Bill Maher show | My view on climate change

$
0
0
[…] | August 27, 2015 at 2:44 pm | […]

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by robertok06

$
0
0

@erikemagnuson

“Having said that, I’m not making any bets on Tri Alpha achieving the breakeven point.”

In effect neither TAE nor ITER need to reach break-even… they simply need to be able to generate a suitably large neutron flux which can convert natural uranium from fertile into fissile, and at the same time transmutating long-lived waste into shorter-lived ones… it’s the “hybrid fusion-fission reacgor” concept. Chinese and russians are working on it… better do something in the USA soon…

http://www.rt.com/news/196088-russia-hybrid-nuclear-reactor/

Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by PA

$
0
0

eadler2 | August 29, 2015 at 12:13 am |

I don’t see how you reach the conclusion that only 0.054C/decade is due to GHG’s.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150319

Let’s go through this one more time.

22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 for 2000-2010. Empirical measurement.

0.2 W/m2 / 3.7 Wm-2/°C = 0.054°C/decade. For the 21st century the GHG forcing is less than 0.054°C/Decade. The 0.2 W/m2 is for clear sky flux.

The earth is cloudy 52% of the time. So it might be as low as 0.027°C.

Global Warmers always confabulate ALW (UHI, burned rainforest, tilled fields, etc.) with AGW (the greenhousey thing) because AGW is so tiny. ALW and AGW are completely different, ALW is larger than AGW and reducing CO2 will have no effect on ALW. Surface temperatures have to be scrubbed of all ALW effects before they have any value. Instead GISS , etc seem to enhance ALW for some reason.


Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Willard

$
0
0

> [T]hey are not stories.

It might be best to call them accounts, or more precisely chronicles:

Are the data valid as being reasonably representative of CET and the wider UK climate over the years? Allowing for exaggeration and short memories by chroniclers, some 15 accounts of the changing climate and other references (see sections 3.5 and 3.10) seem to reinforce what our eyes are telling us.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/19/the-intermittent-little-ice-age/

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by climatereason

$
0
0

Willard

Yes, I like the word chronicles, rather than accounts or stories.

As you show in your link, early on i make no claim that the chronicles can demonstrate accuracy to tenths of a degree but can give us a good steer on the direction of travel of temperatures.

Tonyb

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

$
0
0

“Sigh”.

Reading RT requires knowledge and an ability to read between the lines.

There is some very useful information in RT. It is buried in metric tonnes of animal waste product fertilizer.

The fusion reactors might not be cost effective if they work correctly. Uranium is a tiny percentage of the cost of a nuclear plant. Fuel cost is about 10% of the operational cost. That is basically a don’t care. Why double (or more) the cost of a nuclear facility to achieve almost nothing?

LFTR is a far superior solution. It is a soup kettle that empties into a larger soup kettle if it overheats. End of story, passive safe, can reuse previously used (2nd hand or “spent”) fuel.

Since a soup kettle is easier to design than a king kong sized scuba tank with a highly complex tubular inner structure, LFTR should be much cheaper than BWR/PWR reactors. Passive safe means you don’t need active safety. Liquid salt means there is no water to explode or boil away. Reactor accidents and leaks are cleaned up with a shovel.

To be clear – there is a massive constant maintenance expense in running a Tokamak. Significant portions of the reactor get embrittled and become highly radioactive and must be replaced regularly.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by franktoo

$
0
0

PA: Wikipedia says that an unstable atmosphere (lapse rate?) is necessary for hurricane development. When the lapse rate exceeds the MALR, then a parcel of air that rises, expands and cools will still be warmer and less dense than the surrounding air. That parcel will continue to rise. In regions above the boundary layer that are well mixed by convection, the lapse rate tends to be near the MALR on the average, but the lapse rate measured by radiosondes actually show large deviations at any moment due to weather and turbulence. In theory, convection will continue until enough heat has carried upward so that an unstable lapse rate no longer exists.

Everyone talks about the importance of SST to powering hurricanes, but no one pays any attention to the temperature difference that powers a hurricane’s heat engine. If SSTs and the upper atmosphere warm at the same rate, then that heat engine is operating with the same temperature difference (plus about 7% more latent heat per degC of surface warming). Do all hurricane reach the same height above the surface, possibly the tropopause, or do some get more power by reaching higher?

From Wikipedia, showing how lapse rate is ignored: “Dr. Kerry Emanuel created a mathematical model around 1988, called the maximum potential intensity or MPI, to compute the upper limit of tropical cyclone intensity based on sea surface temperature and atmospheric profiles from the latest global model runs. Maps created from this equation show values of the maximum achievable intensity due to the thermodynamics of the atmosphere at the time of the last model run (either 0000 or 1200 UTC). However, MPI does not take vertical wind shear into account.[8] MPI is computed using the following formula:

V = A + B * exp{C(T-T_0)}

Where V is the maximum potential velocity in meters per second; T is the sea surface temperature underneath the center of the tropical cyclone, T_0 is a reference temperature (30˚C) and A, B and C are curve-fit constants. When A = 28.2, B = 55.8, and C = 0.1813, the graph generated by this function corresponds to the 99th percentile of empirical tropical cyclone intensity data.”

Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by omanuel

$
0
0

Now that the 2009 Climategate emails have finally led us to the unmitigated arrogant selfishness (hubris) of world leaders and the scientists they fund,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281017812_STALIN'S_SCIENCE

The $64,000 question is just this: “Can society be returned to sanity (contact with REALITY: Every atom, life and planet in the solar system is sustained by NEUTRON REPULSION in the Sun’s pulsar core – an EMPIRICAL FACT world leaders and government scientists HID FROM THE PUBLIC for 70 years) without undergoing a crash landing of the world’s entire economic and social order?

Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images