Is the Global Warming Hoax over yet? I’m tired of waiting.
Andrew
Comment on Open thread weekend by Bad Andrew
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by michael hart
+1
This week the BBC posted an article by Andreas Schleicher the OECD’s special adviser on education “Fukushima schools re-build after disaster.” It was linked from the Environment page with the line “Post-nuclear family”
Scrolling down, the ‘fact-box’ did eventually manage to recount the facts: Over 300,000 buildings destroyed and over 15,000 people killed by the Earthquake and Tsunami. But you could be forgiven for thinking that Schleicher believed they were killed by the power station. The last credible report I read, said that zero deaths had occurred due to radiation.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Bad Andrew
I was involved in a private online poll last week that asked “Do You Believe In Global Warming?” The presenter of the poll was surprised that the “No’s” out numbered the “Yes’s”. Naivete?
Andrew
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Springyboy, Let us look at this data objectively. Spencer is presenting tropical data. Along the equator, the ocean is more than 80% of the cross-sectional earth’s area. It is commonly accepted that 1/2 of the excess thermal forcing is absorbed by the ocean without leading to a measurable rise in temperatures.
Let us assume that the ECS is 3C for doubling of CO2.
In 1980, the CO2 level was about 335 PPM, in 2010 it was 390 PPM. Then we can say that the transient climate response in the ocean’s SST along the equator is approximately
dT = 1/2 * 3C * ln(390/335) / ln(2) = 0.33 C
This value compares to a temperature increase of between 0.2 to 0.25 C from Spencer’s data. Since the running-average satellite data only goes back to about 1980, the difference is one of ~0.1C over this time period.
This would push the ECS down from 3C to 2C, assuming that some natural fluctuation is not temporarily suppressing temperatures by 0.1C from the current values.
In contrast, if you look at Muller & Curry’s BEST data [1], which operates over a much longer time period, and which directly evaluates ECS as it is over land, one gets 3C for a value. This value is less susceptible to 0.1C fluctuations.
[1] R. Muller, J. Curry, D. Groom, B. Jacobsen, S. Perlmutter, R. Rohde, A. Rosenfeld, C. Wickham, and J. Wurtele, “A New Estimate of the Earth’s Land Surface Temperature History,” presented at the AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2011, vol. 1, p. 01.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK
A poll where the dummies outnumbered the smarties?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK
Hot Off The Press
An article titled “Are Investors saying no to nukes”
The article says:
“ In the long-running debate over energy policy, there remains an assumption that businesses and investors prefer the stability of nuclear power over the intermittent vagaries of solar or wind power.
That may be changing, and utility investors need to consider that.”
Read more at
http://beta.fool.com/danafblankenhorn/2013/06/08/are-investors-saying-no-to-nukes/36584/
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Bad Andrew
Max_OK,
Or a poll where most people got the answer right? ;)
Andrew
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK
OK, Jim, I see you are trying to be as silly as you can possibly be, so I’m not going to try to out-silly you.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK
Nah, people who don’t believe in global warming don’t believe in instruments and shouldn’t be allowed to drive cars. Of course I know some people who believe in instruments and shouldn’t be allowed to drive cars.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Springer
Isn’t that pretty much a restatement of
If you can’t take the heat stay out of the kitchen.
??
Unmoderated or in this case lightly moderated electronic bullentin boards are notorious flame pits if the topic is at all controversial. Religion, politics, and sports are all controversial almost by definition. This is politics. It’s about government. No one would really give a flip about climate science if the prediction was improving weather for the next thousand years and the hence governments couldn’t use it as a handy excuse to expand their empire.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Bad Andrew
“people who don’t believe in global warming don’t believe in instruments”
That’s a weird conclusion to draw.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Springer
Max_OK | June 8, 2013 at 9:42 am | Reply
“A poll where the dummies outnumbered the smarties?”
The poll was conducted in Oklahoma, so yeah, that’s a given.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Springer
Bad Andrew | June 8, 2013 at 9:54 am |
<blockquote>
“people who don’t believe in global warming don’t believe in instruments”
That’s a weird conclusion to draw.
Andrew
</blockquote>
Ah. Good open thread topic.
<b>Consider the source: Yay or Nay?</b>
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK
Baddie, instrumentally-based records indicate global warming. So if you don’t believe the globe has been warming, you don’t believe instruments. Some people go by the way they feel rather than rely on instruments, as in “Officer you may have clocked me at 80mph but I feel I was going only 65 mph.”
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Springer
More people have been killed in Ted Kennedy’s car than have been killed by nuclear warheads on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. That doesn’t make ICBMs safer. Not really. Not probabilistically.
You see the number of people that can potentially be killed in Ted Kennedy’s car is a very low number compared to the number of people who can potentially be killed by an ICBM.
It’s like that with nuclear power plants. 96% of nuclear waste in the US is in water cooled containment. If there’s a breach (likely from sabotage, terrorism, or act of war) and the coolant escapes the zirconium cladding on the fuel rods catch fire within hours and everything downwind becomes uninhabitable for hundreds of years. The actual nuclear furnace, like what caused the problems at 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima is far more difficult to compromise and contain far less fuel than cooling ponds outside the reactor containment. So a cooling pond meltdown is scores of times worse than a reactor meltdown and far more vulnerable to malicious intent. Tens upon tens of thousands of square kilometers downwind of a cooling pond meltdown could be lost. Chernobyl on the other hand just ruined less than 10,000 km^2 in most estimates.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Bad Andrew
“instrumentally-based records indicate global warming”
Only of you have a priori belief in global warming. Otherwise they just indicate local temperature.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by willard (@nevaudit)
> Isn’t that pretty much a restatement of “If you can’t take the heat stay out of the kitchen.” ??
No, since the latter amounts to an appeal to pride.
↧
↧
Comment on Sociology of the ‘pause’ by David Springer
I must have really hit a nerve in the Heiny when I said anyone with a laptop and an internet connection can be a climate scientist. The truth hurts, eh Heiny?
↧
Comment on Sociology of the ‘pause’ by Tonyb
Joshua
Thanks for the advice. I generally reckon that out of every three lettuce planted one will be as Danegeld to the slugs and I will keep back some replacements. However as every historian should know the Danes will be back for more and I am invariably left with the one out of the three.
Replacement plants are taken in equal measure by slugs who by this time are so big that they leave furrows in the soil and terrify the local cats. still let’s look on the bright side, the way the temperature has dropped during the last decade soon it will be too cold to grow lettuce.
It’s 10 pm and I’m just going out for a slug hunt. If I’m not back in half an hour alert the police and my next of kin.
Tony
↧
Comment on Sociology of the ‘pause’ by DocMartyn
“Don’t trust Time Magazine”; I am cut to the quick, my visits to the Dentist office will never be the same.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
