Maybe it was in part because the soil surface was black because of poor farming practices and drought. The area where my father's ranch was had the highest temperature in the state's record, and the record temperature happened during the Great Depression: 120F. <a href="http://truedakotan.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Marvin-Larson-SW-of-WS-in-1930s.jpg" rel="nofollow">This photograph was taken in 1935, just a few miles from Dad's ranch. It typifies surface conditions in the Eastern Dakotas during the Great Depression (vast expanses of black soil).</a>
Comment on Impact(?) of natural variability on Nebraska drought by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on Impact(?) of natural variability on Nebraska drought by captdallas 0.8 or less
Rural heat island
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt
@Chris: Expanding a gas does not change the energy content.
That’s true for adiabatic expansion. But how do you know Stefan doesn’t have isentropic expansion in mind, where it is the entropy that does not change while work is performed on the environment? From context he could have meant the latter.
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Genghis
Chris G | November 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
“energy is lost to work.”
What work do you think is done?
—————
Expanding the parcel of air, the same as driving a piston in a motor. Why don’t you look up the term adiabatic?
—————-
“Raising the altitude of the atmosphere above? That would imply that the energy is merely transferred from thermal to gravitational potential, not lost. And, it would raise the
radiative TOA.”
————-
No the parcel of air cools as it expands. Look at the IR of the tops of Hurricanes, they are extremely cold, it actually lowers the effective radiative level.
This is meteorology 101. I am really surprised at the basic ignorance of it.
————-
↧
Comment on Impact(?) of natural variability on Nebraska drought by Paul Vaughan
My pleasure.
__________
Best Regards
↧
↧
Comment on Impact(?) of natural variability on Nebraska drought by maksimovich
the amount of transpiration would have an effect
So does decreased tillage (seed drills etc) and irrigation .
http://caos.iisc.ernet.in/faculty/gbala/pdf_files/Lobell_etal_2006_GRL.pdf
↧
Comment on Impact(?) of natural variability on Nebraska drought by kim
It’s dense stuff, or I’m dense. Help.
==========
↧
Comment on Impact(?) of natural variability on Nebraska drought by kim
It needs to go on the back of a card. Is that gonna be black hole dense?
======
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt
@DS: During the majority of the earth’s history there were no polar ice caps. The planet was green from pole to pole. This is the most bountiful configuration for productivity of the biosphere. People who think ice is good and conducive to life on this planet aren’t playing with a full deck.
Maybe warmth is conducive to life, but how about to big brains?
Life on Earth had a billion years to evolve big brains. Don’t you find it a little suspicious that we primates didn’t evolve seriously large brains until the last 1% of that period when Earth got really cold?
Natural selection is at it most productive in the face of deadly adversity. When deadly cold sets in, more deadly than the nuisance of saber-tooth tigers (velociraptors were gone long before the Eocene Optimum), bigger brains are better equipped to come up on short notice with anti-cold measures.
↧
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
Weenie,
Your thinking about the thermodynamics of the ocean to atmosphere heat exchange is completely erroneous– but don’t feel bad, as very few have a good grasp of it. Witness, for example, absurd statements like this one from a leading scientist:
“A faster land and ocean surface temperature response to a given forcing will actually slow the rate of increase in the overall ocean heat content because the increased outgoing radiation from a warmer surface means that there is less energy available to heat the ocean.”
This leading scientist, it would seem, has failed to get basic thermodynamics correct. However, it is important to get it right, and thoroughly understand that the net flow of energy is from ocean to atmosphere globally by a very big margin. Thus, except for very isolated areas, the atmosphere does not heat the ocean– it is solar SW that does that for the most part. However, the atmosphere does dictate to a big extent how rapidly the ocean exchanges energy with the ultimate heat sink of outer space. A warmer atmosphere will slow the rate of energy flow from ocean to space.
↧
Comment on Week in review by bob droege
4 series out of somewhere over a thousand is a big stretch of data, when the sign of the priors doesn’t matter anyway, and the 4 series didn’t matter to the end result. The guy got the same result with or without the series upside down or otherwise.
definitely small potatoes
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
”
captdallas 0.8 or less | November 30, 2013 at 6:48 pm |Perhaps you could overlay their chart with your interpretation of the glaring error?
”
The error by L&S is glaring in comparison to their fastidious search for an ABCD answer.
Just use the crumbs that Scafetta leaves behind and there you go. The deniers do all the hard work in trying to deceive, so all one has to do is kick over the rocks and you get left the spoils.
The CSALT model is an example of everyone being right to a partial degree — Curry is right with the Stadium wave, Scafetta is right with his orbital parameters, Crowley is right with the Aerosols, Bob Carter is right with his SOI contribution, sunspots are partially right, and of course whoever figured out the importance of CO2 is right.
Like a blender, we apply the variational principle to thermodynamics and see what pops out. Observational evidence such as the long-term trend, pauses, and natural fluctuations are all characterized.
↧
Comment on Impact(?) of natural variability on Nebraska drought by Danangel
I’ve heard this one before and had one question about it: Where did the settler find all that wood to chop on the Nebraska plains?
↧
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Jim D
R Gates, I would not dispute your quoted statement. Perhaps your interpretation is different, but to me it looks fine. It is saying that a forcing change goes either into warming of the surface temperature or increasing the ocean heat content and is generally shared between them. More of one means less of the other.
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Not retracted, withdrawn. The editors seem to be of the opinion that the peer review process failed its gatekeeper role and that a paper that should not have been published, was.
The main problem with this paper is the experimental design makes simple statistical analysis very difficult indeed. In most animal studies an n=9 is the magic number and this study had n’s of 10. However, they had way too many different groups, which means that their statistical power to identify differences between groups falls.
No one can say that there is a problem with the raw data, or the differences between groups, but, you cannot draw any definite conclusions from their study.
You work is the work, and is not fraudulent, only poorly designed.
↧
Comment on The 52% ‘consensus’ by Pooh, Dixie
Isn’t the year 1850 generally understood to be the end of the Little Ice Age? If so, it is also a convenient starting point for a positive trend line. 8-)
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt
@BS: <i>Did Vaughan Pratt seriously just argue there’s a pattern so we shouldn’t expect the pattern to be broken? That’s all sorts of nonsense.</i>
You have a problem with Laplace's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_succession" rel="nofollow">Rule of Succession</a>, Brandon? This is the rule that says that if n trials lead to m successes, the unbiased probability of a success at the next trial is (m+1)/(n+2). With zero trials the unbiased probability of a success at the first trial is 1/2 (unbiased as when tossing a fair coin). With 10 trials all successful the next trial will succeed with probability 11/12.
But that's if there's no physical explanation. If the pattern is well correlated with the solar cycle for example the probability of further successes naturally becomes higher, since we've reliably recorded 24 cycles since the 17th century and have anecdotal evidence that the solar cycle is far older.
However you misrepresent my argument. I'm not predicting a bump in 2000, I'm merely pointing out that it happened right on schedule given all the previous bumps. These can be exhibited simply by bandpassing HadCRUT with a 20-year bandpass filter that rejects the considerable amount of noise in HadCRUT at all the other periods on either of 20 years.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Perhaps it is because the ‘Tea Party Republicans’ have a greater understanding of science
“It turns out that there is about as strong a correlation between scores on the science comprehension scale and identifying with the Tea Party as there is between scores on the science comprehension scale and Conservrepub.
Except that it has the opposite sign: that is, identifying with the Tea Party correlates positively (r = 0.05, p = 0.05) with scores on the science comprehension measure”
and they tend to have higher education levels than the average voter.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
There are problems other than with strip bark pines.
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Matthew R Marler
Vaughan Pratt: <i> According to the NOAA the Ocean Heat Content was tiny in 1985, in fact zero, see the graph here.</i>
That makes no sense at all. The graph has to be a difference from something, like say the difference from the 1985 ocean heat content.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
