Having grown up there, I can assure you the University of Southern North Dakota is near Northern South Dakota.
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by vrpratt
@Edim: There is a greenhouse effect, caused by the radiatively ‘inactive’ atmospheric gases (N2, O2), which cannot radiate to space and therefore ‘warm’ the atmosphere by insulating it from the cold of space.
By this reasoning, Edim, glass is opaque. Glass cannot radiate visible light to space (or to anywhere else) and therefore “insulates” a brightly lit scene on one side from a dark region on the other. That is, visible light from the brightly lit scene cannot pass through the glass to the dark region, according to your reasoning.
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Vaughan Pratt
(The vrpratt signing my two previous comments is of course me.)
@Girma: This is what the data since 1850 says => http://bit.ly/S0ot Make your own conclusions.
The conclusion I drew from that graph is:
1. Essentially flat to 1930.
2. Rising sharply thereafter.
By “sharply” I mean that the slope from 1930 to now is several times that from 1850 to 1930.
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Vaughan Pratt
@Wagathon: The UHI effect there was due to continual snow removal during the winter at French airports where all of the ‘official’ thermometers are located (whereas, all of the surrounding countryside remained blanketed in snow and showed no increase in winter temperatures).
If Wag’s ingenious explanation of urban heat islands doesn’t qualify as an urban legend I don’t know what does. UHL = Urban Heat Legend. 
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by WebHubTelescope
Edim is a rank contrarian who will take a diametrically opposing view to any valid scientific explanation.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Wagathon
If you were a beagle with a bad, bad, master I bet you wouldn’t appreciate being left in a white instead of a black car. But, then… you’re beagle, right?
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Lord Beaverbrook
The Mail respond to criticism:
A far better photograph published.
↧
Comment on Coping with deep climate uncertainty by Chief Hydrologist
Consumers very quickly got used to the GST and there is broad acceptance that the GST was a worthwhile and valuable reform. It is unlikely something similar will happen this time around. The GST is a tax designed to raise revenue. The carbon tax is designed to change behaviour: revenue is a secondary and, if the policy is successful, a temporary consideration.
Yet most of the discussion has revolved around how to spend the revenue.
The policy objective is to cause a substitution from low-cost but dirty energy production to higher-cost but cleaner energy production. In plain language the policy objective should lead to a permanent increase in household prices and fewer carbon emissions. But if successful, the revenue will decline, meaning there will be no money to pay compensation. There just isn’t enough money to finance this scheme.
The government is planning to allocate revenue from a windfall gain to permanent spending. This is a recipe for structural deficits and fiscal irresponsibility. In the short run this policy isn’t revenue neutral and in the long run it isn’t budget neutral either.’
http://www.ipa.org.au/news/2332/carbon-illusion-we-can%27t-afford/pg/4
The tax in Australia and BC is nothing but window dressing intended only gain support of green-socialists. It is the most worthless piece of social engineering ever envisaged. Higher energy costs with no tax revenue is a engineering for social and economic disaster. But I have no doubt it will remain simply pointless. As for developing economies it is not impractical to suggest taxing their energy supplies – but profoundly immoral.
It is moreover based on a false assumption – that intervention in energy markets is the only approach. This is carbon – there are many points where intervention can be effective. This makes the carbon cycle non-rivalrous in the jargon. It isn’t and is likely to be the least effective mode of intervention – unless there are competitive alternatives. No one objects to competitive alternatives. The US Dept of Energy recognises that there are cheaper and more effective approches.
‘We stand by the following facts:
■The terrestrial biosphere currently sequesters 2 billion metric tons of carbon annually. (US Department of Agriculture)
■Soils contain 82% of terrestrial carbon.
■”Enhancing the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere is thought to be the most cost-effective means of reducing atmospheric levels of CO2.” (US Department of Energy)
■”Soil organic carbon is the largest reservoir in interaction with the atmosphere.” (United Nations Food & Agriculture Organisation) – Vegetation 650 gigatons, atmosphere 750 gigatons, soil 1500 gigatons
■The carbon sink capacity of the world’s agricultural and degraded soils is 50% to 66% of the historic carbon loss of 42 to 78 gigatons of carbon.
■Grazing land comprises more than half the total land surface
■An acre of pasture can sequester more carbon than an acre of forest.
■“Soil represents the largest carbon sink over which we have control.
Improvements in soil carbon levels could be made in all rural areas, whereas the regions suited to carbon sequestration in plantation timber are limited.” (Dr Christine Jones)
There are many other approaches far more likely to be successful and much less likely to be economiclly disruptive – http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Climate_Pragmatism_web.pdf.
Le Pétomane pretends that I am tedious and tendentious – only because I disagree with his insanely obsessive argument repeated here ad nauseum and to much disdain. It is the same argument over and over again as if he thinks to gain some final solution to his psychic maliase in the blogosphere. It can’t really be – but should we let this argument stand by force of repetition? I have an idea that was how Lenin gained power – no sane person could bother continuing to argue with him. I will leave that as an open question – how do you deal with madmen on the internet.
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by WebHubTelescope
Chief is the guy that thought the majority of climate warming is due to the actual heat produced by the burning of fossil fuels. With Google indexing back in place, I can dig this stuff at any time and parade it around to show that he lacks any fundamental understanding of the most basic quantitative physics.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Vaughan Pratt
@timg56: I say this as someone who thinks highly of your inputs and would happily have you as a guest or treat you to dinner next time you head up to Oregon or Washington (I have homes in both).
Likewise. I’d happily have Willis as a guest next time he’s in the SF Bay area or the Monterey Bay area (I have homes in both). He’s a fascinating character as can be deduced from
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/its-not-about-me/ .
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Chief Hydrologist
Rossby waves are implicated in the ocean dynamics of ENSO. As water piles up against Australia and Indonesia – the water is deflected downward and reflected eastward across the Pacific. It is described in a reference given by Bob Tisdale above. – http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_enso_McPhaden1999.pdf –
Rossby waves are real – http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/JRD/SAT/Rossby/Rossbyintro.html
Stadium Waves is a metaphor – you know – like a Mexican Wave. It descibes a pattern of change propagating through climate network nodes (indices) analysed using a lagged covariance methodology.
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Chief Hydrologist
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread by Memphis
Seems Bart doesn’t take too kindly to his “ideas” being examined for what they actually are. And won’t explain why nationalizing carbon (not the ca carbon “cycle”) is good, but nationalizing air is not.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by Bob Fernley-Jones
Girma @ October 20, at 5:34 pm |
Well spot-on with your WoodForTrees plot, but some people get confused within the semantics. For instance our great leader Julia Gillard, (I dare not imply what his or her gender might be), but whatever; our great leader has made certain assertions about misogyny towards the opposition leader. Subsequently there has reportedly been revisionism in our famous Oz dictionary for that word.
Should the definition of plateau also be revised?
I don’t thinks so but CAGW politics are a tad hard to follow.
↧
Comment on The Myth of Affordable Energy – Interview with Ed Dolan by blueice2hotsea
<a href="http://dolanecon.blogspot.com/p/about-ed-dolan.html" rel="nofollow">About Ed Dolan</a>
<blockquote> From 1990 to 2001, he taught in Moscow, Russia, where he and his wife founded the American Institute of Business and Economics (AIBEc), an independent, not-for-profit MBA program. Since 2001, he has taught economics in several European countries, including an ongoing appointment as visiting professor at the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on The Myth of Affordable Energy – Interview with Ed Dolan by jacobress
The bottom line is: Mr Dolan is right.
End now all tax breaks, all subsidies, all mandates.
Good luck with that.
↧
Comment on The Myth of Affordable Energy – Interview with Ed Dolan by jacobress
“If renewables are cheaper” – something that doesn’t work can’t be cheaper, that is – it doesn’t matter if it is (and it isn’t cheaper).
No carbon tax can produce the technological breakthrough needed for renewables to be a viable and reliable source of energy, in the vast quantities needed.
↧
↧
Comment on Sunday Mail . . . again by Steven Mosher
If they only made records that warmed public you’d sing a different tune.
the simple mathematical fact is that the CRU result is a combination of two things.
A. CRU DATA
B. CRU Method.
The CRU method is the worst of the lot in terms of error.
Experiment:
Take a full globe of synthetic temperature data. data for every place and time.
Take a sample using the CRU data as a filter ( place and time)
Construct an average from this sample using;
1. CRU method
2. Giss method
3. Berkely method
compare the average as calculated by the various methods to the true average.
guess where CRU comes in in terms of error.
↧
Comment on Sunday Mail . . . again by Steven Mosher
Tony,
please dont mis use the 1/3 cooling statistic. its not what you think it is.
the POR is not identical for all the stations in that metric.
if you look at the same POR it drops to 1/8.
if you look at complete records… it drops to 1/10th
if you look at statistical significance… opps where did the cooling go
↧
Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by BBD
<blockquote> I have difficulty believing that the Hansen and Sato paper actually proved that global temperatures rose as a direct result of adding CO2 to the atmopshere. </blockquote>
And there it is in a nutshell. You are arguing both from ignorance (you did not read the study) <i>and</i> from incredulity simultaneously.
This conversation is a waste of time. Good luck on your voyage into darkness.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
