btw sensitivity is non linear and while you may not be able to accurately define the curve you can explore the limits.
Comment on A War Against Fire by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
↧
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by Peter M Davies
Well said Capt. What is said should stand on its own in a blog discussion! +10
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
peter, it only took climate etc. 5 years to get to where I was 5 years. Every feedback factor has a temperature limit so all those 1/fs are useless.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Here is another Issac Held post that is interesting. Various regions of the the global are sweet spots for various forcing/feedback mechanisms. GLOBAL average temperature is thermodynamically useless and except for mainly political issues, close to useless in general. To increase ECS there has to be significant heat uptake and that is limited to the oceans and glacial melt zones. When glacial melt zones get to a minimum you only have the oceans.
↧
Comment on Year in review – top science stories by Stephen Segrest
<b>Planning Engineer</b> -- I doubt you will see this post (I'll bookmark it as to our future discussions).
Again, where I sometimes balk at your and Rud's comments is <b>over the context</b>. Probably 99.9% of CE Blog readers have no idea of the engineering and economics involved in integrated system planning (as taught by leading engineering schools like the Univ. of Chicago and applied by Electric Utilities).
I have a very high level of esteem and respect for our engineers who apply this "<b>Process</b>" (which would make NASA proud as to the complexity) -- and reject the common "conspiracy theories" I often see here at CE. This includes so many aspects where people have no idea what they are talking about -- such as tax law -- i.e., normalization (versus flow-through) requirements of IOUs on tax benefits.
2 sticking points I often have are:
1. <b>Applying a micro to a macro</b>. People often cite some individual micro characteristic of a Renewable technology and then ubiquitously apply it to the macro integrated grid (i.e., make a "General Policy" conclusion). You just can't do this.
2. <b>Penetration Levels</b> -- Rarely (if ever) is this put in <b>context</b> e.g., where today's level of solar penetration in the U.S. is ~one half of 1%. Almost all of the "Integrated System" problems/challenges discussed would only occur at high penetration levels.
As I have repeatedly said -- In using a state-of-the-art "<b>Engineering Process</b>", if the penetration level of Renewables on an inflexible system is say 1% (or less) -- so be it. But if an integrated system has things like a fleet of shiny new natural gas combined cycle units, access to large hydro (e.g., Canadian) resources, peaking load shapes that line up nicely with off-shore wind, etc. <b>a penetration level which still has high system reliability can be much higher</b>.
↧
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by Arch Stanton
You are now one of us, I guess.
You knew already.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by RichardLH
And a further question for you all, has anyone ever considered that I might be running a playbook here? One I might sell you if interested. That I might just have done this all before, one or more times? That I have just used successfully again in my professional life? I did declare in light of full disclosure, that I am a Logician who understands what Tutte and others did?
Please give me the courtesy of thinking about what I say. Or go read ‘Art of War’ and consider it from an Internet age.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joel Williams
Peter, who's in your 3% non-senile group? (97% gone first + 97% of 3% left = 99.91%) Down to you and JC?<b> ;)</b>
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Arch Stanton
If memory serves, O, is listed in Strong’s, as being used 975 times yet has no mention of why. Curious. Also it is the Sun sign. Off, too. Don’t get me started on capacitaters.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
Latest from Bjorn Stevens:
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by curryja
thx, can you post link to the abstract?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joel Williams
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2630.html
Amplification of El Niño by cloud longwave coupling to atmospheric circulation
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Wagathon
Climate science is just the latest example of Leftist dialectical sophistry and… we’re paying for it!
↧
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by matthewrmarler
PhysicistDave: But, the anthropogenic CO2 will have a net warming effect while it remains in the atmosphere.
Not disputing, but (a) why is that necessarily true and (b) where will the warming occur?
About (a) I am not disputing that extra CO2 in the atmosphere will absorb more ULWIR; however, at higher altitudes the emission to space is greater than the absorption from ground, so why would not the increase in CO2 have a cooling effect balancing the warming effect? Cooling of the stratosphere in response to increased CO2 has been predicted and observed; but warming of the troposphere over the past decades has not been observed.
and (b) which I anticipated, where is the warming predicted to be, if not first in the troposphere? (that might be more than 1 question).
I read your short bio down below. Very good. I have done pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and other diffeqn modeling of biological systems with multivariate measurements (some examples are posted at my ResearchGate page). I am sure that I could create a model with a 0 sensitivity to CO2 increase and either an oscillation or no net temperature change. I just could not claim, even to myself, that it was a model of the climate.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Stephen Segrest
As a person of Faith, I highly relate to the message of Dr. Katherine Hayhoe:
Every time I see a person framing AGW as worshiping GAIA, I want to ask a question: “Do you worship at the Temple of Ayn Rand?”
On the other hand, I’ve learned so much more about the science issues of AGW from Dr. Curry — especially the how much and how fast question of TCR.
How I’ve reconciled Dr. Hayhoe and Dr. Curry is through “No or Low Regrets Policies” such as “Fast Mitigation” (short lived climate pollutants of methane, smog, HFCs, and black carbon).
A major point of Pope Francis’ AGW message is the need to reduce these air pollutants that especially hurt the poor and most vulnerable (children & seniors).
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Joel Williams, thank you for the link. It doesn’t simplify the thinking any, does it?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Bad Andrew
“1. impacts”
The impacts of what, exactly?
Andrew
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joel Williams
The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) affects weather patterns worldwide. Numerical experiments with an Earth system model suggest that cloud feedbacks act to amplify ENSO variability by a factor of two or more. (bolds mine!)
Here’s what you can do when you show a plot without a z-scale
JCH should like this
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by timg56
Stephen,
As a Catholic and someone who believes Jesus Christ is my savior I can respect Dr. Katherine Hayhoe’s personal religious beliefs. Doesn’t mean I have to give much credence to her opinions regarding climate change. At least not to any touching on the subject of impacts or policy recommendation.
As for Pope Francis’s message, I try to focus on his overarching goal of improving the condition of the poorest among us, and not the crap he was foolish enough to insert regarding climate science. That he did so raises considerable doubt in my faith in the Holy Father. I remind myself he is human and subject to error and being fooled like any other. But it is hard to escape the feeling that he may not be all that bright. That, or he’s allowed other motivations to obscure his sight. Many of the people at the forefront of the CAGW issue are also believers in the concept of carrying capacity. A concept that is directly contradictory to Church doctrine. That Pope Francis can allow himself to be used by these folks it almost beyond belief.
PS – you do realize that the air pollutants you refer to are primarily indoor air quality issues. Their only relationship to burning fossil fuels is how much longer or more expensive it might be until electrification eliminates the causes.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Stephen Segrest
As I’ve stated, each of the following actions can be approached from a “No/Low Regrets” perspective. And for those who argue that these actions (especially “Fast Mitigation”) will not do anything — Nobel prize winning scientist Dr. Molina (ozone hole) disagrees with you.
↧
