and you’re a biscuit
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
You might like to add to that diagram where the ocean cills are. They rather do impact the exchange of water N-S as well
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by Stephen Segrest
Planning Engineer — Of course assumptions have to be made. But I (personally) never experienced “Senior Management” forcing any specific assumptions into the extremely complex quantitative process.
Yes, future fuel costs are a very problematic area. The approach I experienced on this was to use a probability distribution based on historical price patterns and also outside consultants on natural gas (future crystal ball). The point I’m trying to make is that yes, assumptions can of course turn out to be incorrect. But there was a logical, systematic process that was not “stacked” to favor any specific technology.
With regard to generation projects like coal and nuclear, the System Planners would have provided to senior management things like the capital cost price point (cost overruns) where the decision would be different. It was Senior Management’s responsibility to perform “due diligence” on the probability of cost over-runs (that would be born by the Utility in an EPC).
But of course, maybe your System Planning experiences were/are different.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Anomalies are the equivalence of choosing a DC offset to bring everything to a common baseline and reducing the range to fit the page.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
eli rabett, “The linear trend between 1970 and 2014 in HADCRUT4 (which is what you use) is 0.165 +/- 0.029 C/decade. About 1/2 of your 0.083 in the paper for the same period. By referring to the century trend, you are including the earlier 70 years when the temperature rise was lower. This is technically known as the apples oranges gambit.”
The uncertainty of the earlier 70 years is larger than any conclusion you can make for the last 50 years so assuming there is no evidence of a 0.6 to 0.9 C per century long term trend would also be an apples and oranges gambit. Of course you could cherry pick your paleo I guess which has even larger uncertainty.
↧
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by Stephen Segrest
richardswarthout — Of course, I’d be very familiar with how the Southern Co. does System Planning. What you suggest as to subjectivity (arm twisting) driving the process is, IMO, inconceivable. If what your saying is true, certainly someone like a large industrial (or several large industrials) would have intervened demanding to see the quantitative decision making process.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by ulriclyons
I don’t believe the AMO is internal variability, but a negative feedback to solar wind conditions and its effects on the NAO. With strong solar wind in the 1970’s cooling the AMO, and the weakening solar wind since the mid 1990’s warming the AMO (and Arctic), due to increased negative NAO. That increased CO2 forcing should be increasing positive NAO, is the most powerful argument that the increase in negative NAO since 1995 from weakening solar is massively overwhelming the opposite positive effects on the NAO from increased CO2 forcing:
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
“I don’t believe the AMO is internal variability, but a negative feedback to solar wind conditions and its effects on the NAO. ”
That’s a strong claim with little linking evidence.
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by jim2
From the article:
…
Kansai Electric, the utility most dependent on nuclear power before the March 2011 Fukushima disaster, will begin fueling Takahama No. 3 on Friday, according to a statement released on its website. The company aims to restart the unit in late January or February, according to a presentation last month. It is slated to be the third Japanese reactor to restart under post-Fukushima safety rules.
Profit Boost
Firing up both units will boost Kansai Electric’s profits by as much as 12.5 billion yen ($104 million) a month, according to Syusaku Nishikawa, a Tokyo-based analyst at Daiwa Securities Co. The two reactors at the Takahama facility, about 60 kilometers (37 miles) north of Kyoto, were commissioned in 1985 and have a combined capacity of 1,740 megawatts.
…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-24/japan-nuclear-restart-on-track-after-kansai-electric-court-win
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Ah so the Rabbit arrives much like in Alice in Wonderland without a care in the world (or good glasses so it would seem).
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
State the scientific need for de-trending. Not fitting on the page is not good enough.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by JCH
The AMO most likely cannot go down. How is this not obvious to people? <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/30/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-cold-blob-in-the-north-atlantic-ocean/" rel="nofollow">The physical mechanism that causes it to go down has already done its thing, and it did not go down.</a> This is what happens when you pick a light weight to fight a heavy weight. And this failure to takes its customary bow, the cycle, occurred in spite of the fact that the PDO was negative and ENSO was dominated by La Nina? Lol, the AMO is a feckless ocean cycle.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by ulriclyons
I can expand on evidence for solar wind forcing of the NAO at down to daily scales (e.g. Brian Tinsley’s papers), and evidence of greatly increased negative NAO through very specific parts of solar minima. Though one is still left with the question, why did the NAO became increasingly negative from the mid 1990’s, despite the increase in CO2 forcing which is expected to increase positive NAO? Even if it were internal variability, it is still overwhelming the expected response from an increase in climate forcing. It actually strikes me as double think to regard the NAO as forcible by GHG’s, but while regarding natural variability as non-forced.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
I don’t doubt your coincidence, what we need is causation.
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by RichardLH
Because it is out of step with the ‘rest’ of the data and needs adjusting?
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by RichardLH
Yep. I have noticed that a little too much ‘humour’ and people get the impression that you are not serious.
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by RichardLH
Where’s Marvin when you need him.
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Or we could just trust the current official station for this which is more than a few miles away.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by mcmenemieconor
Great stuff CL. The AMO is a read herring but the SST data is a great historical reference source. Try 1N to 20N westwards from the African coast, 1870 1900 mean values. An anomaly appears which defies reason since the sea currents go in various directions yet the ‘AMO’ warm effect is vectored west (ASO). AMO thing is driven by a reduction in easterly waves cloud mass allowin for more solar energy to heat the ocean surface : 85w plus = 2 kwh/m2/day.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by aaron
The real question is what the heat does to the weather and whether that is good or bad. The answer seems to be “irrelevant”.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
