My partner and I absolutely love your blog and find a lot of your post’s to
be precisely what I’m looking for. Would you offer
guest writers to write content for you? I wouldn’t mind publishing a post or elaborating on many of
the subjects you write in relation to here. Again, awesome web site!
Comment on Gleick’s Testimony on Threats to the Integrity of Science by best cordless vacuum
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Hold your damned horses there Web.
You get 1.8C using HADCRU4 and I get 1.7C using HADCRU4, and you call me a fake skeptic?
You know that the longer the pause continues, then the lower you will have to make the TCS and the larger you have to make your LOD amplitude. I know you know, because you will have played with your model and padded the end.
For shame Web, for shame.
↧
Comment on Week in review by angech
WHT “Look at the historical SOI record and you will find that average negative excursions of this measure can occur at any time of the year.”
meaning we don’t know what it will do .
in perfect agreement with Robert I Ellison, wow
“ENSO is a chaotic oscillator synchronously coupled with global sub-systems. There is no mean state over millennia that we know of – merely abrupt shifts and multiple equilibria. ”
and me elsewhere. paraphrasing
“natural climate and temperature fluctuations are the norm and chaotic enough to be beyond the scope of our current understanding.”
double wow.
RichardLH | March 14, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
“angech: So your estimate for the future during this year is what?”
1. go with the trend, as you know we are heading towards La Nina type territory. If we are anywhere today , now, it is closer to a La Nina than an El Nino [my prediction]
2. Reversion to the mean or random walk approach, So if we say today is the mean we are definitely more La Nina but you and WHT are right, once you go one way you will go back the other, sooner or later, to an El Nino. You just cannot say when that will be because it is chaotic.
Once in a thousand years it may be 30 years till the next El Nino.
↧
Comment on Week in review by angech
WHT “Look at the historical SOI record and you will find that average negative excursions of this measure can occur at any time of the year.”
meaning we don’t know what it will do .
in perfect agreement with Robert I Ellison, wow
“ENSO is a chaotic oscillator synchronously coupled with global sub-systems. There is no mean state over millennia that we know of – merely abrupt shifts and multiple equilibria. ”
and me elsewhere. paraphrasing
“natural climate and temperature fluctuations are the norm and chaotic enough to be beyond the scope of our current understanding.”
double wow.
RichardLH | March 14, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
“angech: So your estimate for the future during this year is what?”
1. go with the trend, as you know we are heading towards La Nina type territory. If we are anywhere today , now, it is closer to a La Nina than an El Nino [my prediction]
2. Reversion to the mean or random walk approach, So if we say today is the mean we are definitely more La Nina but you and WHT are right, once you go one way you will go back the other, sooner or later, to an El Nino. You just cannot say when that will be because it is chaotic.
Once in a thousand years it may be 30 years till the next El Nino.
posted wrong spot before
↧
Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by manacker
Robert I Ellison
You once wrote that it is all happening in the shortwave.
A 5% decrease in reflected incoming SW radiation resulting from an decrease in cloud cover represents 4.0 W/m^2, which would be roughly the same effect on climate as the greenhouse effect of doubling CO2, 3.7 W/m^2.
Linear trend lines are dangerous, but the ISCCP and MODIS observations on global cloud cover anomaly, which you posted, point to a linear cloud cover anomaly trend of -2% per decade (1983-2000) and +1.4% per decade (2000-2012).
This represents changes in “forcing” of 1.6 W/m^2 per decade (1983-2000) and -1.1 W/m^2 per decade (2000-2013).
With CO2 expected to increase from today’s concentration of 395 ppmv to a level of 650 ppmv by the end of this century, this would mean that the forcing trend from the GHE of added CO2 would be around 0.3 W/m^2 per decade.
Does this mean that the observed changes in cloud cover had 4 to 5 times the rate of impact on global temperature than we expect to occur in the future from added CO2?
Help me understand, Chief. (This is not a trick question.)
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by manacker
‘…per ignoramia’
Fellow serf Max
↧
Comment on Week in review by manacker
Bob Ludwick
You can’t prosecute ignorance.
Even ignorant fear mongering made at government expense cannot be prosecuted.
You have to demonstrate willful intent to deceive.
This seems obvious to the casual observer, but would be hard to prove beyond a doubt in a court.
All you can do is get your representative to vote to stop funding this nonsense (or change out your representative to one who will do so).
And that is a slow process.
Max
↧
Comment on Week in review by manacker
PS And those who want to prosecute “deniers” or “skeptics” have the same problem.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Robert I Ellison
‘BTW, the skeptic Chylek is using a similar approach:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059274/pdf ‘
webby
Chylek includes the AMO in the parameters in the multiple linear regression analysis and finds that 1/3 of post 1975 warming was natural. Although the rationale for the AMO as a dominant ocean influence on surface temperatures escapes me.
Eliminate the big transition between La Nina and El Nino in 1976/77 and the 1998 El Nino and the resultant residual warming is some 0.08 degrees C/decade.
Regardless of the source it is pretty obvious that a full warming and cooling multi-decadal mode happened between the mid 1940′s and 1998. The trend between 1945 and 1998 is some 0.07 degrees C/decade.
I have my doubts that this says anything fundamental about climate – for that good information on clouds is required.
Nor is there any expectation that the 21st century will resemble the 20th. What seems more interesting is the likelihood of no warming for decades given the propensity for climate shifts on decadal scales – and all that implies. What seems more important the development of practical and pragmatic responses .
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by maksimovich
Nice animation of Tropical cyclone Lusi over NZ at present.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-184.92,-34.12,640
↧
Comment on Week in review by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
”
IPCC says “most” of warming since mid-century can be attributed to increased human GHGs. Let’s equate that with CO2 increase and say that “most” = 75%.So that would equate to a 2xCO2 TCR of:
0.75 * 0.69 * ln(2) / ln(395 / 313) = 1.5ºC.
”
yea, JD. Look at the silly one trying to pull a fast one by pulling numbers like 0.75 out of thin air.
Let’s take his equation and divide by 0.75 because it is just as likely the CO2 is being compensated by man-made aerosols and so could be more than 100%.
So we get
0.75/0.75 * 0.69 * ln(2) / ln(395 / 313) = 2ºC.
Which is what close to what I get with a more sophisticated model.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
You have it bass-ackwards Web. Unless you are one of those abiotic oil believers, and if you take a moment from scribbling equations and mumbling about entropy, you will realize that the oil FIRST formed inside rock under high temperature and pressure. In the case of shale, the high temp and pressure forces out some of the oil which accumulated in conventional reservoirs. And only some, not all, conventional reservoirs are salt domes.
That’s why shale is sometimes referred to as source rock.
From the article:
Reservoir rock
: A permeable subsurface rock that contains petroleum. Must be both
porous and permeable.
Source rock
: A sedimentary rock in which petroleum forms.
•
Reservoir rocks are dominantly sedimentary (sandstones and carbonates); however, highly fractured igneous and metamorphic rocks have been known to produce hydrocarbons, albeit on a
much smaller scale
•
Source rocks are widely agreed to be sedimentary
•
The three sedimentary rock types most frequently en
countered in oil fields are shales, sandstones,
and carbonates
•
Each of these rock types has a characteristic com
position and texture that is a direct result of depositional environment and post-depositional (diagenetic) processes (i.e., cementation, etc.)
•
Understanding reservoir rock properties and their associated characteristics is crucial in developing a prospect
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~petro/faculty/Adam%20H.%20571/PETR%20571-Week3notes.pdf
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang
AK,
Enthusiasm and unbounded faith in a persons beliefs is essential for inventors, but is not what is required in policy analysts and policy makers. Policy analysts and policy makers have to deal with reality and with what is likely to be available, not the hopes and wishes and beliefs of inventors and those with extreme views. I’ve had a lot to do with energy inventors and their pleading for government money and abuse when their pet beliefs isn’t funded to the level they believe it should be. So, I’ve seen a lot of the sort of enthusiasm for beliefs like yours – here’s one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Cliffs_Solar_Power_Station
When it comes to solar PV, remember that the cost of this has been reducing in a roughly exponential fashion, and can reasonably be expected to continue.
This point keeps getting reiterated over and over again by the solar power advocates. But it is irrelevant. Solar is far too expensive and not fit for purpose. Even with optimistic learning rates (cost reductions per doubling of capacity or doubling of output), solar will not be economically viable in the foreseeable future. The physical limitations preclude it.
The major technical issues that would have to be overcome for solar to be a viable supplier of a large proportion of electricity in the future are:
1. supply reliable power 24/365
2. fully dispatchable in a system with 99.8% reliability requirement
3. cost competitive with other technologies
To achieve these the capital, cost of finance, and operation and maintenance cost of all the following components combined in a system must be competitive with the alternatives:
1. widely distributed solar generators to minimise the effects of climatic conditions
2. transmission
3. energy storage
Solar generators must be widely distributed to minimise the effects of weather conditions.
Long transmission lines are required and these must be sized to carry the maximum output, not the average output from the plant.
Energy storage is required to provide 24/365 power supply. Because solar insolation is higher ins summer than winter, the energy storage capacity has to be optimised – e.g. sufficient storage capacity to supply full power for 1, 10, 90, or 180, 360 days, or more. Energy storage may be centralised or at the generator (or a mix). If it is centralised much less storage capacity is needed than if it is at the generators, but much higher transmissions capacity is required. If the storage is at the generators, then the transmission capacity has to be sized to carry the maximium power that can be supplied from the storage of every generator, even though the total capacity of the generators far exceeds the peak demand of the system.
If you want to see some examples of limit calculations (i.e. to book end the quantities and costs, but not intended to imply that such systems would ever be envisaged as a real solution) you may find these of interest:
‘Solar power realities – supply-demand, storage and costs’
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/peter-lang-solar-realities.pdf
’Solar realities and transmission costs – addendum’
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/10/solar-realities-and-transmission-costs-addendum/
You may find the comments on the two threads of interest, and more than likely issues you may want to raise have already raised (505 comments on the first thread and 322 on the second).
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Michael
And keep in mind that while a TCR of 2C dosn’t sound like much, the temp difference between now and the LGM was only 4-5 C.
People who say that TCR of around two means there’s not too much to worry about are delusional.
↧
Comment on The Art of Science Advice to Government by Mike Flynn
Jim Cripwell,
I accept what you say about the input of science in WWII – and in many other areas of course.
I’m probably going to appear pedantic, but I’m trying t make a distinction between scientists giving advise in regard to policy, or providing expertise in the same way as a technician might give as to the siting of an antenna array.
As you point out, a Government instrumentality might rightly ask as to the existence of a fact – a death ray, for example. As a result, someone might suggest an alternative – radio direction and ranging, or similar – which really had no direct connection with the question originally asked.
When the British Admiralty offered a prize for a timekeeper which could be used to establish longitude on British ships, they weren’t asking for policy advice, rather for a “thing”.
So I suppose, once again, we are dancing around words. My position is that the concept of a permanent scientific advisor to Government is nonsense. What next? A medical advisor? An education advisor? Governments seek advice to justify whatever lunatic scheme that currently infatuates them, as far as I can see. A truly independent advisor’s advice will be ignored if not in accord with the Government’s policy. Governments need a goodly supply of advisors to hide behind when the edifice finally crumbles.
Trophim Lysenko and the Soviets is a good example of what can happen if you believe your scientific advisor actually knows about science.
Sorry to go on at length. It appears we are in agreement, but of course the devil’s in the details!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Week in review by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
JC SNIP,
Chylek did a dumb thing by using variates that are derived from temperature already. Both his ENSO and AMO come out of detrended SST readings. So of course he gets a good correlation.
With that caveat, his Fig 1F does show 0.8C of warming since 1900 attributed to GHG, which puts the effective control knob sensitivity right around 2C.
That’s what everyone seems to find if they do the natural variation compensation analysis correctly.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Alistair Riddoch
hi jim,
Well I meant “normal” as was being used to represent when the arctic ice “normally” stops forming. My guess is that Mar 10th being used as a “normal” date, would not have applied to the winters when you and I were kids either. I can remember seeing the Falls either totally frozen, or pretty close to it. And that was decades ago. so “normal” was in the context presented above, and not MY definition of “normal”.
Better??
NOT that I adhere to putting any emphasis on years or even decades of data. the sample size in the grand scheme of things is WAY to small.
However, small sample sizes CAN work for deniers and skeptics, because warmists have to have reality follow their prediction, for their premise to hold true. One year of CO2 up, temp down, with no other redeeming factor, and the bag stops holding water. since none of the significant factors are going to change drastically (orbit, albedo, quanitity of life, geological formations (like the Bering Strait), this year, 2014, is looking good to be that year.
2015 will hopefully herald the end to the lunacy that is anthropogenic global warming fears, and the associated misdirection of government policy.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Alistair Riddoch
Jim, please forgive the lack of capital J in my comment. it is soooo cold, sometimes my shift key is sticky!! :-)
↧
Comment on Week in review by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
OK, then perfume in a room is source perfume. Try bottling that once it is sprayed around.
Good gawd, don’t these guys understand how the concept of entropy and dispersion works?
↧
Comment on Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released by Cary
I have read so many articles or reviews concerning the blogger
lovers except this post is actually a pleasant piece of writing,
keep it up.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
