Super silly questions!
Why do you mimic Mosher?
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Mark Silbert
↧
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by AK
@…ticketstopper
Sadly, you only continue to underscore your fundamental ignorance of Moore’s Law.
Nope. I understand it, and Wright’s Law, and Learning curve pretty well.
I’ll take one more stab to educate you, then no more.
Yeah. Don’t waste both our times trying to pontificate on a subject you don’t understand.
1s and 0s have no mass. They are pure information. As such, the transistors which are used to create said 1s and 0s, can be scaled as small as is possible *so long as* they can continue to reliably create said 1s and 0s. […] The primary effect of smaller transistors is to allow the speed of transition to change, but again, so long as 1s turn to 0s and then back, all is good.
Nope. The primary “effect of smaller transistors” is to allow more of them to be fitted onto the same size piece of silicon. Speed is an added benefit, but the primary effect on cost is generated by using less silicon.
The silicon substrate also has a cost – and it isn’t cheap. It has gone down a little – mostly because larger wafers can be spun these days – but by no means anywhere close to even one order of magnitude.
Yes. Packing more transistors onto the same amount of silicon is the primary driver of “Moore’s Law”.
This obviously won’t drive “Swanson’s Law”, since, as you say, it’s junction area that controls the amount of energy captured. But the junction itself is orders of magnitude thinner than the amount of silicon used in current processes.
Solar PV is thus NOT massless, and *cannot* be scaled like a Moore’s law transistor.
Not in exactly the same way. But the silicon can be made thinner. It can, in principle, be made so thin that the cost of the silicon becomes effectively irrelevant.
I’m sure you are aware of the technology involved, and will provide an explanation of why this couldn’t support at least several halvings of cost of manufacturing solar PV.
Go ahead…
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by john321s
Amongst the many criticisms and suggestions here, none have really addressed the elephant in the room: surface marine observations(SMOs) made by ships of opportunity do not produce SST data series for any fixed position in the ocean; they merely provide individual observations at ever-changing positions.
Only through the process of stringing together such observations from different ships using different sampling methods are time-series obtained for individual 1X1 degree Marsden squares. In practice many of those squares are virtually empty, especially in the southern hemisphere, and their data don’t even provide reliable monthly climatological averages, let alone credible time-series.
Many of us who have been comparing SMO results with bona fide SST measurements have come to the conclusion that they are scientifically worthless. No amount of data massaging can alter that. We should simply admit that over most of the oceans we know practically nothing of the course of SST before the advent of satellite sensing.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by mosomoso
Of course, after adjusting/wishing upward you then have to explain why one should worry about yet another warming phase which is typical and garden variety for our geological epoch. It too shall pass. Let’s just hope any subsequent cooling isn’t too long or sharp. Migration periods, tumbling dynasties and LIAs are not fun. Oh no they are not.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Mike Flynn
Wagathon,
From the paper –
“Atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide can raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface by absorbing some of the far-infrared radiation emitted by Earth and re- emitting it isotropically.”
I have a question, of course.
When the Earth’s surface emits far infrared radiation (or any other wavelength), does the temperature not fall? It seems to at night.
If the temperature falls, how can returning a portion of the emitted radiation cause it to be hotter than it was initially?
Magic? Molten bits of the Earth, such as lava, on the surface, emit lots of far infrared, and cool down. Maybe CO2 doesn’t work on hot stuff. What do you think?
Cheers.
↧
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by JCH
<a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2014/10/battle-between-nsf-and-house-science-committee-escalates-how-did-it-get-bad" rel="nofollow">...And the feud appears to be escalating. This week, Johnson wrote to Smith accusing him “of go[ing] after specific peer-reviewed grants simply because the Chairman personally does not believe them to be of high value.” (Click here to see a PDF of Johnson’s letter and related correspondence from Smith and NSF.)
Smith, however, argues he is simply taking seriously Congress’s oversight responsibility. And he promises to stay the course: “Our efforts will continue until NSF agrees to only award grants that are in the national interest,” he wrote in a 2 October e-mail to ScienceInsider. ...</a>
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by jim2
I have a question. Just because the difference, messy as it might be, between the buoys and ship readings is now 0.12 C (I believe it was), how do you know that difference was constant before the buoys?
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Steven Mosher
You clearly dont understand the problem.
“Why tinker with the data? Why indeed. The TOS and other legitimate changes don’t change with time.”
Actually they can change with time.
Understand that the raw data never changes.
What changes is the ESTIMATE of what the actual truth of the matter
was. That will change based on new data, new approaches, and corrections to flawed records.
the raw record is static. but the raw record is filled with problems.
Let me give you a simple example
Station A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Station B 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Suppose these are the only two stations you have.
Your adjustment code MIGHT decided that both need to be adjusted
1, .5, 1 etc
The adjustment is trying to give you a view of what is most likely to reduce your error
Now you discover a third station and digitize it
Station C: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
In this case your adjustment code might decided that Station B
has flaws– that the zeros need to be corrected to 1.
The raw data remains unchanged. But your estimate ( the adjusted stations ) changes based on new information.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Don Monfort
It’s bizarre that we need to keep going over this same ground. We have had this discussion recently. Google freaking “Congressional subpoena power”. You will find stuff like this:
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/
It’s not like this issue just came up this week. Congress has been in business for a long time.
↧
↧
Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by jim2
Yep, I see a lot of analysis, but not much in the way of “doing something.”
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Danley Wolfe
Judith. Re: “Last month, the House Science Committee, chaired by Lamar Smith (R-Texas), subpoenaed NOAA for data and communications relating to Karl’s article. However, NOAA is refusing to give Rep. Smith the documents…”
My weekly “This Week in Science” email from AAAS had the following to say about it:
“NOAA Response to Subpoena. Last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration responded to a subpoena sent by the Chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Lamar Smith (R-TX), requesting data and internal communications related to a study conducted on the global surface warming hiatus. The * NOAA response * methodically explains the science that was questioned by the committee in their previous meetings and in the subpoena. NOAA, however, did not share the internal communications requested by the Chair in their response.
The ” NOAA Response” is a link to the letter dated / received by Rep Lamar Smith in response to h is October 13, 2015 request to NOAA… NOAA’s letter can be downloaded at: http://click.aaas.sciencepubs.org/?qs=ae8e6ae7a0406eaaad343742755b5ec7d270031afc6d7cafded8a21490a0d5c9
The NOAA letter states: “… we have: provided the Committee with the data it has requested, to the extent such data exist; provided citations to peer-reviewed articles that explain the methodology that NOAA scientist use to analyze the data; and explained how the temperature is measured by various means and how such data must be corrected for non-climatic factors. Finally at our own suggestions, we provided several of the scientists who authored the Karl, et al study to brief committee staff personally, one on June 16, 2015, and the second on October 19, 2015.” I’ll let you read the entire 4 page letter. It refers to presentation material, specifically powerpoints.. I would be keen to see those and replays or transcripts of the proceedings.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Steven Mosher
Amongst the many criticisms and suggestions here, none have really addressed the elephant in the room: surface marine observations(SMOs) made by ships of opportunity do not produce SST data series for any fixed position in the ocean; they merely provide individual observations at ever-changing positions.”
It’s not a problem
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Steven Mosher
SST is adjusted DOWNWARD
↧
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Steven Mosher
you have to adjust one or the other or you are lying
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Steven Mosher
horrible FOIA.
You played into their hands.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Steven Mosher
That would be lying,
You have a ship at location X. it records 5.6
you have a bouy at the same location. it records 5.8
You study ALL co located ships and bouys and you find out that YUP
there is a consistent difference between the two.
What do you do.
YOU DO THE SAME THING SPENCER AND CHRISTY DO when they adjust one satellite series to align with another.
YOU DO THE SAME THING the solar physicist do when different instruments measuring the same thing differ. You adjust one of them.
IF you dont adjust the SST series.. the global warming INCREASES
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Steven Mosher
maybe cause they saw no difference
↧
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Steven Mosher
Here you go.
raw versus adjusted for SST
Raw shows higher trends
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Mark Silbert
OK, my Mosher index has been exceeded by a factor of 2. I’m out of here.
Too bad because this is probably Judith’s best post of the year.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Steven Mosher
You still DONT GET IT
I know there is no difference. I argued that from DAY 1. dolt!
I am making a different argument here
I am Suggesting that they POST BOTH SERIES
Not write a paragraph.. not produce a table.
POST BOTH SERIES AND SHOW THE PEOPLE
SHOW not TELL
Now go away.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
