duh… yes
Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by David Springer
No.
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-9.htm
Latent heat flux is 4W/m2 over the arctic ocean and I’m pretty frickin sure that already small amount is predominantly over open ocean not ice ponds.
↧
Comment on Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science by Robert I Ellison
It was of course an ironic allusion to the frequency of webby snips. A subtlety webby is not likely to grasp even if spelt out.
The usual crazed gerbil nonsense he has been called on yet again – by Bob Tisdale this time – I see.
↧
Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by David Springer
It means Mr. English major slept through phonics class that day. Oops.
↧
Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by David Springer
If the ice is a lower temperature than the liquid water, and as a general rule ice usually is colder than liquid water, then the ice emits less infrared radiation.
I can’t tell if that was a rhetorical question or you really didn’t know. Sorry.
↧
↧
Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by Angech
The Arctic temperature above 80 North is heading to an unprecedented second year in a row of staying below average. Last year was quite amazing in that it stayed below average throughout winter.
Nobody has explained a reason why. As the Skeptical science duo Batman and Cowtan prove the models show ever increasing Arctic sea surface warming I wonder why neither of them have ventured a peep about this.
Not that it matters as the ice formation is 95% due to the coldness of the Arctic waters and as shown by the extra ice north of Norway some cold water is returning to the Arctic in the North Sea and the rate of melt will hopefully be less again this year.
September sea ice extent should be greater than 2013 for the next 2 years in a row before a slight decrease.
↧
Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by AlecM
By 2020, the Arctic will be frozen solid. In the UK, the Northern ports will need inshore icebreakers in mid-winter.
And the cause? It’s the end of SC 24 and 1 K reduction of average World atmospheric temperature as we enter the new Dalton/Maunder minimum.
There is no significant CO2-AGW – it takes a really bad scientific education to believe in ‘back radiation’, but that is the case for the Atmospheric Sciences whose well was poisoned by Sagan’s basic physics’ mistakes…….
↧
Comment on What is the measure of scientific ‘success’? by Faustino
Steve, as an economic policy adviser covering a broad range rather than a narrow speciality, and having knocked about the world a bit and done a lot of things other than economics, I found that I had an ability to connect disparate fields and information and synthesize it, which to me was very valuable and meant that I provided much better advice. It’s hard to see connections if you’re not exposed to things outside your narrow field. So I support your suggestion.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by Faustino
Call me an ignorant Pommie B*stard if you like (an Aussie term of alleged affection, or perhaps contumely), but I don’t know what RINOs means and a quick Google doesn’t help – widely used, but only as an acronym.
↧
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by JCH
Republican In Name Only.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by gbaikie
“Peter Lang | June 18, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
Curious George,
renewables are no more renewable than nuclear for the reasons I gave. It’s no lying it’s pointing out the spin that the anti nukes and RE advocates have been using for 50 years to demonise nuclear.”
Well nuclear fuel is finite, but the existence of planet Earth is also finite.
I don’t think we have on Earth all the fissionable fuel we might need/want for say 10,000 years. Fusion on other hand is might have much more energy available on Earth.
If include below 10 of km under the surface of Earth and/or get fissionable fuel beyond Earth. Both both of either, I would say are comparable in terms difficulty, then one might looking unlimited fissionable fuel in terms millions of years.
One could say that we have an unlimited amount fissionable for next 1000 years, and planning beyond 100 years is foolish. Of course with breeder reactors we can make fissionable fuel, so from the aspect one say it’s renewable. Or also one reprocess used up nuclear fuel [nuclear waste] to make additional energy [and reduce certain types of nuclear waste]. So in additional way one could call nuclear energy renewable.
And in terms of waste in general, nuclear energy has lower waste than other types of energy production. Though hydro dams probably best renewable energy available with current technology.
But such things of as wind and solar energy have only limited usefulness as source of energy.
One could economically function an entire economy in terms of electrical power on hydro power, and for some countries hydro power is very dominate source of electrical power. But this is not possible with wind and solar energy.
So in terms of sustainable and renewable and global answer nuclear and hydro are the best if talking about more than 50% of needed electrical for a nation.
Another kind of renewable type source of energy may be methane hydrate. Methane Hydrate deposits are not ancient, it may be sort of like a peat deposit- which can be ancient but are not formed long term geological processes. Another aspect of methane hydrate is it’s abundance. So maybe Methane Hydrates are like forests but instead 50 years to grow it could be many thousands of years to form. Due to there being high abundance this mitigate the longer time it requires to “grow”.
Or it might possible to speed up the time required for development of methane hydrate deposits. Of course this could also be applied to other fossil fuel. Or the ways to make a shale or coal deposit become a source of oil- we might get better at this- develop new technology which more related to farming than mining.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by Peter Lang
Fernando,
No carbon pricing system will succeed. It is the wrong approach. Here’s why:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Clean_Energy_Legislation/Submissions
See Submission 2.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by Peter Lang
Stephen Segrest
Well said.
↧
↧
Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by Fernando Leanme
I guess this tale is similar to “Darwin recanted evolution when he was dying”. Gore went a bit over the top with his movie and has been more harmful than helpful because he tends to be way too emotional and loses sight of the bigger picture (overpopulation as far as I’m concerned). Taking drastic action is quite senseless, but it does make sense to begin a gradual change to be much more efficient and move away from oil, simply because we are running out of the stuff. In that sense Gore’s global warming mania does help so we can avoid too steep a run up in oil prices in the future. Regarding the Arctic conditions, I got a hunch scientists don’t really understand how it works up there. It’s very hard to get data on the ground, the satellites don’t provide the needed detail, and it’s very heterogeneous. For example, I worked on a project in the Barents and Kara seas with a team coming from the Canadian Beaufort and a lot of what they had learned was useful, but there was also a lot they didn’t know about. We also found going through the Kara Gate was like changing planets.
↧
Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
” Style in blogs does as well – clumsy, labored and pedestrian for the most part. Space cadets like webby especially. I take it as a measure of dumbness.”
To paraphrase Steve Martin — you know, a lot of people come to me and they say, “Steve, how can you be so f’n smart?”
I have no idea. But the hits just keep on a’comin. This one is da bomb:
http://contextearth.com/2014/06/17/the-qbom/
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by JCH
Before he went to Washington, my father and mother were very good friends with George McGovern, and remained so throughout his life. My mother lives with me, and I had to tell her that George had passed away, which made her very sad. When he first started running for office he talked Dad into becoming a county chairman, and Dad used to drive McGovern around the county to meet with all the farmers and ranchers, who were, by and large, the people who elected him. Dad used to sponsor picnics to raise money for McGovern which were heavily attended: hot dogs, baked beans, potato salad, potato chips, jello with tons of marshmallows, relish, etc. You figure out the percentages.
They were both war heroes.
But anyway, less fat is not the same thing as low fat, which came later. Bob Dole engineered the rewrite of the dietary recommendations the same year the McGovern report was written. The meat industry was demanding a recommendation for eating more meat. They settled on eating more lean meat.
↧
Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by Fernando Leanme
Death spiral was copied by aviators from corporate boards with a company heading into bankruptcy. But I think the term was first coined by Bardas Focas in a letter discussing the gradual weakening of the Eastern Roman Empire.
↧
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by Arno Arrak
You could call it “Science Is Settled” hearing because no scientific issues pertaining to climate were even mentioned, and, perish the thought, discussed. It is quite well known but never mentioned in such august circumstances that the global warming which these measures are supposed to fight does not even exist today. That alleged warming is the famous greenhouse warming that Hansen said existed because he himself discovered the greenhouse effect in 1988. Turned out that he didn’t because he was cheating and used a non-greenhouse warming that lasted from 1910 to 1940 as part of an alleged 100 year greenhouse warming. No one else did either and direct observation of the greenhouse effect is still missing. Record shows that there has been no warming, either greenhouse or any other kind, for the last 17 years. Now that is a scientific observation of nature that this political charade is keeping a deep, dark secret from the populace, lest they start doubting their party line. Warming advocates today are looking all over for their “lost heat”, even in the ocean bottom. After all, the Arrhenius greenhouse theory tells them that there should be warming because carbon dioxide in the air is constantly increasing. And here we come up against the rules of the scientific method. If your theory tells you to expect warming and nothing happens for 17 years that theory is wrong and should be discarded. It belongs in the waste basket of history. The only theory that accurately explains why there is no warming today is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory (MGT). That is because it is able to handle a general case where more than one greenhouse gases are actively absorbing IR. Arrhenius theory cannot do this. The GHGs involved in such a case establish a joint optimum absorption window which they control. In the earth atmosphere the the greenhouse gases that must be accounted for are carbon dioxide and water vapor. Their joint optimum absorption window has an optical thickness in the infrared of 1.87, calculated by Miskolczi from first principles. If we now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb, just as the Arrhenius theory tells us. But this will increase the optical thickness. As soon as this happens, however, water vapor will begin to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. As a result, no warming takes place despite of an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide that just took place. This is the situation we have now – warming has ceased despite a constantly increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide content. This just happens to be the way the laws of nature control absorption of radiation by the atmosphere. They have always done so and any reports of previous greenhouse warming are nothing more than misidentification of natural warming by eager-beaver “climate” scientists wishing to prove the existence of their magical greenhouse warming. There is none, and with it, there can be no such thing as anthropogenic greenhouse warming. Belief in the existence of AGW is therefore an illusion, a pseudo-scientific fantasy of scientific illiterates.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by “Climate Change: The Need to Act Now” | Fabius Maximus
[…] Hat tip on Botkin’s testimony to Judith Curry (Prof, GA Institute Technology) […]
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by ordvic
Nice story. Yeah I knew about McGovern being a war hero. Not a lot those guys left like him and your dad from WW II. GM was sure right about Vietnam.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
