Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by mosomoso

June 10, 2014, 9:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Ragnaar

≪ Previous: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Faustino

60C? Still haven’t seen anything above 57C, since Libya 1922 got pulled. When will we see 56.7C? 1913. Get in your time machines, warmies.

Southern hemisphere’s highest was here in Oz, 1960 – quite recent by NH standards. (What’s scary is that the surrounding days were nearly as hot. But it happened 54 years ago and the temps are official, so sssh.) We also have the world’s longest heatwave, but that was 1923-4. Trouble is, with so much southern sea ice and the painfully sluggish sea level rise around our stable Australian coast they don’t really like to discuss this particular hemisphere. (Except those melty bits of Antarctica where party-pooping skeptics claim to have observed volcanism.)

When will we see Category 6? Just bring back the 1970s and you have a chance. Of course, you might gain another Typhoon Tip but lose a bunch of warming.

I’m sure there are any number of alarming trends right now. They’ll alarm till there are different or even contrary trends, equally alarming. Steven Schneider and the Vicar of Brae have shown you don’t need to abandon your position. You just face the other way and keep doing what you were doing.

I note the BoM’s delicious new colour scheme for extreme heat. Should look gorgeous with all the new adjustments…

Really, just how manipulative and ridiculous is this getting?

↧

Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Ragnaar

June 10, 2014, 9:27 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by gbaikie

≪ Previous: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by mosomoso

Another interesting thing with the Hansen graph above. Comparing the blue to the pink line, it shifts right and retains its shape. 2001 is a Tsonis sync date. An upwards step. It would be nice if someone reformatted the time periods Hansen used to 1913, 1942, 1977 and 2001.

↧

Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by gbaikie

June 10, 2014, 9:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by fizzymagic

≪ Previous: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Ragnaar

How could they know normal?

↧

Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by fizzymagic

June 10, 2014, 9:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by gbaikie

@JimD:

You understand that using the standard deviation as a metric for bounded distributions is completely useless, right? It doesn’t even work well for non-bounded non-normal distributions.

↧

Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Jim D

June 10, 2014, 9:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Tom Fuller

≪ Previous: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by fizzymagic

It is difficult to define a true distribution when there is a background trend that also broadens it. There is controversy whether the distribution is really broadening or just the trend is accelerating. Either way, not good.

↧

Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Tom Fuller

June 10, 2014, 10:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Jim D

Don’t you mean now I is one?

↧

Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Jim D

June 10, 2014, 10:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Tuppence

≪ Previous: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Tom Fuller

In climate they look as much at seasonal averages as daily max distributions. Seasonal averages are not very affected by this limit in most areas, if such exists, because it is so rare to hit it.

↧

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Tuppence

June 10, 2014, 10:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Asymmetric responses of Arctic and Antarctic by Mike Jonas

≪ Previous: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Jim D

The IPCC openly acknowleges the Pause. Which is a hell of a thing to do, must really stick in their craw. What more confirmation of it could there be ?

↧

Comment on Asymmetric responses of Arctic and Antarctic by Mike Jonas

June 11, 2014, 8:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Tuppence

Yes “dramatic” is indeed too strong a word, and it’s emotional, unscientific and hence unjustified. The decline is nothing like 50%, and please note that (a) no-one knows by how much ozone has gone up and down in the past, and (b) CFCs cannot be assumed to have any effect.
nature 26 September 2007:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
“Chemists poke holes in ozone theory
Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.
As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.[...]”

When the Montreal Protocol was signed, it was expected that the ozone “hole” would be fixed around the turn of the century, ie. in little more than a decade. Now the date has been put back to 2070 (ie they just don’t know anything). NBC report on AGU annual meeting 2013:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/despite-cfc-ban-ozone-hole-wont-heal-until-2070-nasa-f2D11736034
“Despite CFC ban, ozone hole won’t heal until 2070, NASA finds
The banning of ozone-depleting chemicals hasn’t yet caused detectable improvements in the Antarctic ozone hole, new research suggests.
Instead, changes in the South Pole’s ozone hole from year-to-year are likely the result of natural variations in wind patterns, researchers said here Wednesday in a news conference at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
[...]This [the large 2011 hole] is a meteorological effect, it has nothing to do with chemistry[...]“.

↧

Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Steven Mosher

June 11, 2014, 8:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on Asymmetric responses of Arctic and Antarctic by Mike Jonas

Pm 2.5 is a killer.
Rud is wrong

↧

Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Mike Flynn

June 11, 2014, 9:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Stephen Segrest

≪ Previous: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Steven Mosher

bob droege,

I didn’t guess the figures. I don’t estimate a temperature by how hot, cold or uncomfortable I feel. I prefer measurements.

If you have a problem with the figures, take it up the the BOM. I assume the so called climatologists employed by the Bureau will quickly massage any figures that you find unacceptable. They have declared all pre 1910 records unreliable, so that people can’t bring up inconvenient high temperatures recorded before that time.

You may be right, for all I know. Certainly, up until a few years ago, my locality was declared unfit for habitation by Europeans – we’re more sensitive, apparently. A generous remote area hardship allowance of the highest grade was paid to civil servants, and officers and their families were reimbursed their full travel costs to return to more salubrious and congenial weather conditions every two years.

Eventually the Federal Government realised the official comfortability index was stupid. Much to my consternation, the allowances were reduced, or abolished. The Government realised that the prophecies of doom, that civil servants would die or go mad as a result of the unbearable combination of heat and humidity, were nonsense, by and large. I’m not dead, but it could be that I have been unhinged by the heat and humidity.

I will take your word for it that I cannot survive the conditions you mention.

I’m still alive, so obviously the official BOM figures are wrong. No problem, I already knew that climatologists just change fact to fit fantasy.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

↧

Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Stephen Segrest

June 11, 2014, 9:08 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by mosomoso

≪ Previous: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Mike Flynn

Rud says: “Southern Company (Georgia Power) is also building the first new US nuclear reactors in 30 years, and is receiving no federal subsidies for them. ”
The problem I have with Rud’s statement is the inconsistency one can see so much on this Blog towards renewable energy. The U.S. DOE loan program is providing a +$8 billion loan for Vogtle. But this is the same loan program which provided Solyndra funding and people were screaming “SUBSIDY”, “Crony Capitalism”.

Also, as I have previously provided links to — when the Vogtle units go on line they will receive the same type of tax benefit goodies currently available for wind energy — that Bloggers go ballistic over.

Loan program to nuclear: Good thing.
Loan program to wind: Subsidy, Liberals cronyism.

Tax Credits for nuclear: Good thing.
Tax Credits for wind: Liberals going wild.

http://energy.gov/lpo/projects

↧

Comment on Clean(?) Coal by mosomoso

June 11, 2014, 9:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Stephen Segrest

≪ Previous: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Stephen Segrest

Richard Muller – who was a skeptic but I went to the bathroom and missed it – likes the frack. Quick! Drill before he changes his mind!

Me, I like coal. Its power comes from far far away and I never get a whiff of it here. Coal is so potent and so bounteous that we can afford to spend the billions so nobody closer to source has to breath toxic fumes. And as plentiful as it is, we should stop frittering it. It’s too good to waste, that Sydney Basin Black. Get efficient with coal. Then get super-efficient.

Modernise coal and light up the world. (Just don’t expect much third world population growth once you do.) If the good ol’ boys of the oil business don’t like it…they can always try competing. Anyway, they must find all that waltzing around with the Posh Left a bit embarrassing.

↧

Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Stephen Segrest

June 11, 2014, 9:13 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Phill

≪ Previous: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by mosomoso

Oh, and we should throw in a little thing called Price Anderson for nuclear also.

↧

Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Phill

June 11, 2014, 9:24 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Asymmetric responses of Arctic and Antarctic by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Stephen Segrest

The early NSW Government kept a series of meteorological observers throughout the then extended colony. The one in Port Phillip, now Melbourne, kept records from 1840 to 1851 when Victoria separated as an independent colony. These records were published regularly in summary form in the NSW Government Gazettes of the time and in the local newspapers. Unfortunately they did not have self registering maximum/minimum thermometers but only kept a register of conditions at set intervals. The presumption is that the quoted temperatures came from this source. Ultimately there is no one around to ask so we will never know unless the details are hidden in some archive. The conditions were certainly extreme. The wiki entry for Black Thursday 1851 has the folllowing. “The weather at sea was even “more fearful than on shore”. The intense heat could be felt 20 miles (32 km) out to sea where a ship came under burning ember attack and was covered in cinders and dust.”

The key points I think are:

That any analysis like this must be over the total available period and not some arbitrarily truncated shorter period. Why was the much longer 100 year plus record at Alice Spings not used instead of the 40 year record at Giles? What would this have shown?

That an event is not truely extreme unless it moves outside what can be expected statistically.

That some weather records should be treated as outliers and used with extreme caution. Think fire fronts and ember attack. For example all the records in 2009 were set downwind of the firestorm.

↧

Comment on Asymmetric responses of Arctic and Antarctic by Mike Flynn

June 11, 2014, 9:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by ordvic

≪ Previous: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Phill

Mike Jonas,

An interesting question to ask the odd ozone hole fanatic, is whether they can explain the creation and decomposition of O3 in the upper atmosphere. Generally, they seem to have nary a clue. Because O2 is non absorptive according to the Warmists, it couldn’t possibly react with short wave UV to form ozone.

They think it just must be spontaneously generated purely to be destroyed by evil pollutants. And a good thing too, I would say. Ozone is just a wee bit too reactive for my liking, in my vicinity.

I’m a bit surprised at the longevity of the CFC argument.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

↧

Comment on Clean(?) Coal by ordvic

June 11, 2014, 9:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Rud Istvan

≪ Previous: Comment on Asymmetric responses of Arctic and Antarctic by Mike Flynn

Thanks for the easy to understand article and probably doubling of my education about coal.

↧

Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Rud Istvan

June 11, 2014, 9:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by ordvic

Under the current CAA definition approved by SCOTUS, yes if in a thunderstorm or hurricane before it precipitates out of the Clean Air atmosphere. My god, incipient floods are equally under the perview of the Clean Air Act. Can’t you get the obvious congressional intent?

This post was supposed to be some ETC in Climate Etc. But it is cutting to the quick of present US regulatory climate absurdities (IMO) yet somehow sure our present Dear Leader disagrees).

↧

Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Mike Flynn

June 11, 2014, 9:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Rud Istvan

Gary M,

In answer to your question about butchery, I assume so. Your comment, if I understand you correctly, is that local genocidal practices pale into insignificance compared with the depredations of European statists.

Maybe the traditional way of life is less lethal after all.

I don’t know who Chompsky is, and if I have distorted historical fact, that was not my intent. I know from personal experience that Westerners are not universally loved or admired in many parts of the world, for a variety of reasons.

I have to smile at an answer attributed to Mahatma Ghandi, when he was asked what he thought of American culture. He replied that he thought it would be a good idea.

I’m certainly not embarrassed about my heritage. A bit of this, a bit of that – who cares? Live and let live – what’s wrong with that? I leave the saving of people from themselves, and the mad compulsion to drive your population into a state of penury by saddling them with vast debts, purely for the sake of killing total strangers at vast expense, to those who enjoy it.

If this sounds sane and logical to you, might I respectfully ask that you leave me out of your plans? I am happy to defend myself, or not, at the appropriate time. Tell someone else how stupid hey are, you’re wasting time with me – I really don’t care.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

↧