Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

Tonyb asks “Fan, let’s try again. Please answer [short-sighted small-minded question redacted]“

Yes, let’s keep trying, TonyB …

…  let’s keep trying to ask wise questions and conceive wise courses of action.

“Against narrow-minded quibbling the Gods themselves contend in vain!”

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}


Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Matthew R Marler

0
0

Girma: Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection:

http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/GRL-solar-07.pdf

“Everybody” has a favorite set of solar statistical summaries, and a relationship to some part of the temperature record determined by least-squares. We shall see how this one fairs over the next 20 years’ worth of out-of-sample data. I am not judging Camp and Tung wrong, but belief that their result proves the existence of a persistent mechanism is premature.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by PA

0
0

Well…

I actually don’t disagree with SM a lot… His post could have used friendlier language.

The data sets do have some issues and the current playing with the data to slant history annoys me. Historic data before the 20th century didn’t have good enough coverage to be useful (like the “Pirate Code” it is just a guideline) and we have only had good data since 2003 when Argos got decently deployed. But the 20th century temperature regardless of data set used seems to show:
1. Natural cycles
2. Some solar warming.
3. Some CO2 warming.

Not sure what the breakdown is. I like 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, but could be persuaded by future data. Some model study recently said 0.5°C for 0.1% solar increase and that seems possible.

If the CO2 component is less than 40% we will start cooling shortly.

The earth will cool, warm, or hiatus in the next 10 years. That will tell us who is mostly right.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Mi Cro

0
0

Jim D commented on

We see that as spring turns to summer each year,

There is some evidence in my work that the rate of warming has changed a little.

This also happens in response to CO2 forcing that has been growing particularly in the last 40 years.

There’s no evidence of this (other than what I mention above).

Woodfortrees is based on worthless temp series, they are wrong and are not based on actual measurements.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Pierre-Normand

0
0

I don’t think the further conclusions about observed positive feedbacks and the confirmations of the accuracy of GCMs will trouble Jim D. This paper also is the basis for a followup paper where they derive an observational estimate of climate sensitivity in the 2.3°C to 4.1°C range.

http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

“…Since the equilibrium response should be larger than the periodic response measured, the periodic solar-cycle response measurements yields a lower bound on the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is equivalent to a global warming of 2.3 °K at doubled CO2. A 95% confidence interval is
estimated to be 2.3-4.1 °K. This range is established independent of models.”

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Mi Cro

0
0

PA commented on

The data sets do have some issues

True, but what’s done to them makes the results wrong.

If the CO2 component is less than 40% we will start cooling shortly.
The earth will cool, warm, or hiatus in the next 10 years. That will tell us who is mostly right.

We’re cooling, no doubt about it. Feel free to make a note of this if one likes.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Wagathon

0
0

The inflation calculator puts the cost of the Hoover Dam — construction began in 1931 and the cost was upwards of $175M — at $2,740,488,486.84 in 2014 dollars. Compared to that the Left today are practitioners of government Stonkernomics: they can spend $2T without leaving a trace.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by aaron

0
0

Jim, you should read up.

Clouds and albedo in the tropics responds to temperature, we’d be unlikely to see much happen there.

The proposed cloud nucleation response is expected to operate in the mid-nothern latitudes, over the oceans where there are not a lot of aerosols from land.

The UV response is in the arctic and northern latitudes.


Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand

0
0

“That was meant to be food for thought. If the “average” energy per molecule is the same in both containers but there are twice as many molecules in one container, Magic happens if you have the same container temperatures.”

Rob Ellison is saying the same thing almost verbatim.

But really, the “magic” is the standard physics encapsulated into EKavg = (3/2)kT, which can’t be disputed without also throwing PV = nRT out of the window. It is really a standard result of the kinetic theory of gases.

See also: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c1

I thought we were agreed about the specifications of the two containers. (1) Same volume, (2) same temperature, (3) the second one has twice the pressure and hence twice the molar amount of gas, since PV=RnT, (4) the past history is irrelevant. Maybe my later discussion of the two volumes of gas compressed together into one introduced confusions. Sorry about that.

I’ll comment further on the earlier part of your post tomorrow.

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand

0
0

Captdallas, also, forget about g and the gravito-thermal effect. In the laboratory it is quite negligible even if it exists. It never has been detected experimentally (apart from controversial results from Graeff). I had begged you not to mix those further issues into the simple problem with the two gas containers. We can discuss gravitational effects in the next open thread. Let us first settle the basics about standard thermal physics and kinetic theory.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Stephen Segrest

0
0

Engineering Reply to Peter Lang: As I discussed on this blog thread with “Planning Engineer” its not necessarily what the CE Ideological Wolfpack (e.g., Postrel, Lang, Jim2, etc.) say — its what they don’t say or address. In using this deceptive tactic, the Wolfpack develops black/white absolutism conclusions of very negative perceptions on solar and wind energy that many people at CE clearly want to hear.

Here is the Game that the Ideological Wolfpack plays here at CE:

Step 1: To go to an individual source of renewable energy (as Mr. Lang did) and show its intermittency characteristics.

Duh — No engineer disputes these individual characteristics.

(Note: Its very revealing though that the Wolfpack never talks about other intermittency problems that Utility System engineers also deal with routinely — its just renewables. It sure wouldn’t shock me that the Wolfpack would lay the blame on all the problems going on in Texas [ERCOT] on wind energy].

The Wolfpack’s deceptive “Game” comes in their next step:

Step 2: Since renewables are intermittent, it must then be concluded each and every solar array or wind turbine must always require a fossil fuel generation backup (unless one wants to have reduced reliability). Factoring in this “hidden cost”, renewables are clearly uneconomic. Slam dunk, end-of-story — the Wolfpack declares victory, and most on CE rejoice.

Either 1 of 2 things are going on with the Wolfpack: (1) Either they’ve never set foot in a large electricity dispatch center (folks, it’s like a NASA Mars mission control room); or (2) they are trying to be deceptive.

As Mr. Lang (and the Wolfpack) continues to fail to recognize on this and other issues, one can not just look at something on an individual basis. One must use a macro view of its impact on an integrated grid — using sophisticated system planning software such as MAPS, PROVAL (which I wrote), etc.

System Controllers have a tremendous amount of both supply and demand side tools (e.g., DSM load control programs) at their disposal in managing an integrated grid. The Electricity System (with tremendous redundancy) is built that way.

Now, I have a life other than fact-checking every ubiquitous black/white absolutism claim the Wolfpack makes. But for example, there are over two hundred studies that have shown that there will be no major costs or technical problems for a grid until the percentage of renewables is ~30%. Our CE’s “Planning Engineer” cited a percentage of 10%.

Per the EIA, for most electric utilities, we have a long way to go before these thresholds are reached: For the entire U.S., Solar is 0.23% and Wind is 4.13%.

Hitting these thresholds will be a whole lot different in places like Georgia (zero wind projects), versus mid-western States.

What the Wolfpack never mentions are reputable studies (NREL and EPRI) where wind energy actually improved an integrated grid’s reliability:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60574.pdf

Also, Europe is clearly not following the CE Wolfpack’s paradigm/model (and achieving high reliability).

As one can easily imagine, renewable energy trade groups have their antithesis of the CE Wolfpack — where intermittency is basically a non-issue:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/12/intermittency-of-wind-and-solar-is-it-only-intermittently-a-problem/

Conclusion: Common Sense should tell everyone that the so-called TRUTH is not going to be found in extreme pro or con positions on either side of this issue. The answer is somewhere in the middle.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by ATAndB

0
0

tallbloke,

You write “The error bars in use on CS studies are a joke.” You then provide a graph with no error bars. One of the problems that I had with the study FOMD was selling (likely still is) of Hansens was that Hansen provided error bars for some things and then, if I recall correctly, none for natural causes including solar. This he did on the same graph! In this particular case I am being critical in the hopes of getting a better answer, and also that possibly you have that information someplace. I would really appreciate a further discussion of why you think that the uncertainty shown by others is incorrect, and what the actual uncertainties are.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Ulric Lyons

0
0

“6) Is the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) of the sun all that matters for the Earth’s climate?”

No, ENSO and the AMO both act as negative feedbacks to variations in solar plasma speed/pressure.

“7) what is the sun likely going to do in the next few decades and what influence will it have on the climate?”

In the same pattern as the Gleissberg (late 1800’s) and Dalton minima, the coldest years for the mid latitudes will run roughly between the sunspot maxima of the first two weak solar cycles, ~2015-2025. The occurrence and duration of solar minima can be mapped with precision from a very specific heliocentric planetary progression, and shows the current minimum will be short like the Gleissberg and Dalton minima.
The effects will be a sharp rise in negative NAO/AO episodes, increased El Nino episodes, increased positive Indian dipole events, and a renewed warming of the AMO through the next decade. That spells drought for the US great plains, Australia, and India-Indonesia, and increased precipitation for regions like NW Europe, and the African Sahel. The short term planetary ordering of the solar signal can map with certainty when most of the dominant negative NAO/AO episodes will occur.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Climate And The Sun | Transterrestrial Musings

0
0

[…] How much influence does it have? […]

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by JustinWonder

0
0

When almost every person on the planet has access to any education and information via a personal device then the rate of innovation will explode. Not too long ago almost all technological innovation was coming from Europe and the Engish speaking world. Russia and the former USSR and China were constrained by politics. Now China, India, and South Korea are in the game.

Our greatest untapped resource is the human imagination.


Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

P-N, “Captdallas, also, forget about g and the gravito-thermal effect. In the laboratory it is quite negligible even if it exists”

I never said it was significant. btw if (PV)1 = (PV)2, then KEave=3kT/2 is the same for both containers. Now (PV)2=2(PV)1. so for the same temperature in both containers, #2 would have to lose energy to the environment.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Mi Cro

0
0

JustinWonder commented

Our greatest untapped resource is the human imagination.

Basically almost everything in our imagination that isn’t physically impossible, has either been made, is in some stage of development, or abandoned because of costs.

And we have vivid imaginations……..

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by PA

0
0

Well, it is 0.25 to 0.65 gauss, lowest at the equator.

PN, sure 0.5 gauss is as a number as any.

As far as the math… .5/50E-6 = 10,000 or 4 orders of magnitude different – but yeah it is a lot weaker.

It is safe to say there are some magnetic interactions.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Lucifer

0
0

Is that Huang data saying that the Roman Warm Period was actually the Roman Ice Age. Which of these ideas is more solid?

It appears that most of the proxys indicating a RWP are regional ( Europe, Med, Iceland ):

http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeurope.php

The borehole sites are relatively more global ( land sites ), so circulation changes of a globally colder period could still be consistent with a regionally warmer Roman Empire.

Have to live with uncertainty, though, especally with proxies.

Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by PA

0
0

Fun graph I found:

So… mostly a UV increase since 1600.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images