It is re-radiation in both cases. The same reason Tmax comes hours after noon and Tmin, hours after midnight. The ground itself is a heat sink. Paved surfaces and structures just do the same thing more and better. (And the same to your not-so-little CRS box, too.)
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Peter Lang
Jim D,
You are dodging again. You said he said “no warming since 200”
That’s not what he said. You liked. Correct your misquote without trying to divert the discussion elsewhere. You misquoted him and based everything since on that. You lied. Stop lying.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Jim D
Watch the video again. He has not admitted to any warming by humans even over the last 300 years. Do you agree with that or not?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Peter Lang
Jim you lied. You continue to lie and misrepresent what he said. Retract your first lie first and correct your misquote/misrepresentation before raising others. And apologise for this reprehensible dishonesty you are displaying.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Jim D
Just watch the video, and draw your conclusions from that. The graphic I posted shows that he is plain wrong about the 21st century too. It has warmed and not been flat. He even thinks there is a chance the temperature may go down again. It is complete denial, more of the dragonslayer type than WUWT or Heartland.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Peter Lang
Jim D,
I watched the video. I know what he said. You misquoted him. The fact you haven’t corrected your misquote, demonstrates you are dishonest. It was a lie, not a mistake. Everything since has been compounding the dishonesty. We are not moving on until you correct the misquote and state what he actually said (it’s up on the display), and apologise for your attempted deceit.
All this displays again, that you are dishonest and nothing you say on any subject can be accepted and honest.
You also need to acknowledge that your chart is not policy relevant or explain how it is policy relevant.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
Merry Christmas Willard. I see you are still too busy to waste your precious life duking it out with Don Don. Then you go and give Don Don a warmist he might like. Dr. Denning does a nice job versus Dr. Spencer. I am surprised that a warmunist can has hair-brained notions that the free-market will solve the problem Denning sound like a Heartland libertarian freak in sheep clothes.
Below is a nice summary of climate future and mitigation optionss outlined by Dr. Denning.
http://www.cmmap.org/scienceEd/summercourse/summerCourse12/docs/12.SatPM.Mitigation.pdf
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by franktoo
Willard wrote: “I thought they were simply saying that consensus matters for policy making, and that gerrymandering on “most” did not.”
Thus the title of this post: “What is there a 97% consensus about?” Answer: Nothing relevant to policymaking. The abstracts that attributed “most global warming” – were only 0.5% of those rated – “gerrymandering” produced by Cook’s rating system, not mine. Even if attribution of “most” global warming to humans were equivalent to a prediction of future catastrophic global warming – which it is not since 50% attribution is an ECS of 1 degC – 97% of these 0.5% didn’t endorse “most”.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by franktoo
Willard: Mitigation means spending money today to avoid losses from high temperature in the future. A lower discount rate leads to a much higher net present value for future benefits from mitigation.
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer
Stupidity isn’t quaint. The oldest city in the US, St. Augustine Florida, has been continuously occupied for 450 years. Several others have been occupied over 400 years and very many over 350 years.
Hopefully the Oneill’s in Wisconsin read this and become a tiny bit less stupid. One can only hope.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Peter Lang
PA,
Thanks for explaining this. I understand what you are doing. But I am not sure I believe it. My BS meter tells me to not take much notice of predicted ‘Peak fossil fuels”. I understand there is some 6000 Gt of C in fossil fuels that may be recoverable in the future, but not economic or accessible with current technologies. But technology has been changing rapidly during the past century and no doubt will continue to change this century unless there are cheaper alternatives that meet requirements. Therefore, I am not convinced there is a limit to fossil fuel supply that will seriously constrain emissions growth this century.
We know nuclear power is potentially a much cheaper and better option at meeting all the requirements of electricity and possibly for producing transport fuels too. However, progress has been and is being retarded by environmental NGO’s, public fear of nuclear power and politics. So there is a potential solution, and I think it is almost inevitable it will happen. That is the reason I believe emissions will be nowhere near RCP8.5 this century, not because of limits of fossil fuels.
I also saw you follow up comment about coal reserves and consumption in China, but my same concern applies – i.e. you are assuming current extraction practices and costs continue. But that is not what history shows.
Can you give me a link to an authoritative references that states the case you are making – i.e. that it is virtually impossible to reach even a small percentage of the IPCC projected RCP8.5 CO2 concentrations by 2100? I am very keen to understand this and be able to provide a single succinct reference to support any statement I would like to make on it.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer
Like he said, anomalies make it too easy to game the system.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer
Lets start with Willard.
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer
Yes but that action doesn’t change a long term trend.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Peter Lang
franktoo,
Thank you for exposing that only 0.5% (actually less as you pointed out) of the 12,000 abstracts attribute more than half the warming to human causes. What a difference from the claimed 97%, eh.
It’s also great to see this exposed: 97% of the abstracts that made any statement about attribution said, in effect, man is having some effect on the climate but we don’t know how much. I also understand we don’t have a handle on whether human caused GHG emissions are net-harmful or net-beneficial. The uncertainties are enormous.
Thank you for exposing this. It must be very hard for the die-hard alarmists to accept it, let alone acknowledge they’ve been so wrong.for so long.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Tom Johnson
Excellent takedown of Oreskes. Nuclear supporters should be happy to see that kind of article in left leaning Huff Po.Maybe Peter Lang doesn’t have to clone himself after all :-)
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by beththeserf
Good to note that someone from the warmista enclave
dares to enter into debate with the discredited ‘other’ ‘n
even appreciate the free market.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/a-warmist-scientist-embraces-the-heartland-conference/
Open science debate and free markets ever
addressed problems via feed-back loops …
real world consequences of evolutionary nature … oops,
survival rules. Reality tests, like engineers’ hammurabi
consequences, are so different from hallowed-halls politics.
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by RichardLH
OK, laugh at this.
The local thermal response to the solar input signal is first sampled as min/max over a day. That is the input frequency, modulated by orbital factors to provide the annual local cycle.
So already Nyquist is involved. That min/max thing is bounded by his rules.
Also any individual point is a volumetric sub-sampling of the underlying Temperature Field.
Still laughing?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by AUIP (@AUIPConservatve)
I’m reliably informed about a big announcement by ANSTO early in 2016 regarding Synroc, the product that will revolutionise nuclear waste storage.
http://www.ansto.gov.au/AboutANSTO/MediaCentre/News/ACS049098
That will certainly make the nuclear power option more palatable for some.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by RichardLH
Nyquist also tells us that sampling hourly will get more accurate results than a simple tMin, tMax but we do not have that accuracy in most temperature series.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
