+1
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Peter Lang
↧
↧
Comment on Climate dynamics of clouds by Wagathon
According to the linked article about the, ‘wait for El Nino,’ that apparently has not arrived yet, Wahoos caught off the coast of Southern California over the last few weeks just don’t agree with that.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Why the smart grid is a dumb idea. Do you use a web-connected camera to monitor your baby? Or do you have a security camera in your livingroom? bedroom?
Watch this:
↧
Comment on Week in review by Danny Thomas
I’m having a really hard time accepting that climate change is promoted as so definable. Climate is “regionalized” weather patterns, from the gist of my understanding. And we cannot forecast “weather” with 100% certainty. So does it not then follow that I’m having difficulty with climate issues and those climate issues are being expanded from regionally to globally? I’m no scientist, but why can’t “scientists” understand that I, and others, have problem with the certainty surrounding this topic? And that applies to all sides.
Thanks to Dr. Curry for providing resources.
↧
Comment on Climate dynamics of clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
John Carter, “Why are we even having this conversation: If we can continue to find things we don’t know, we can convince ourselves that a multi million year increase in the amount of energy recaptured in the lower atmosphere does not pose an enormous to assured likelihood of major changes to what is over the long run ultimately a reflection of energy – Climate.”
John, the basic impact of a doubling or CO2 equivalent gases is approximately 3.7 Wm-2 which should produce 0.8 to 1.2 C of warming depending on the absolute temperature of the surface retaining the heat, that would be the oceans. The water vapor, clouds and cloud dynamics being discussed are alleged to be the major factor that would cause any extreme warming and the models basically don’t do an adequate job with respect to clouds and water vapor to the point that even the sign of cloud feedback is unknown, i.e., clouds can cause cooling.
If you want a specific example, research Mid-Level Liquid-Layer Topped Stratiform Clouds.
Since you referenced the Spencer/Dessler rebuttal battle, radiosonde data tends to not indicate the formation of a Tropical Troposphere Hot Spot (TTHS), Dessler used the changes in the balloon (radiosonde) velocities to create a temperature data set that indicated there was an indication of a TTHS even though radiosondes and satellite data indicates there isn’t one. Since then there has been a lot of research directed towards the issues with modeling clouds that looks like it will greatly reduce the sensitivity of the models in general to around the 1.6 C per doubling range. That would be consistent with just about every newer sensitivity paper published by anyone not a part of the original fanatical climatastrophy teams.
Want you are witnessing here is that “Science Corrects Itself” stage of Climate Science which is forcing the old guard to reconsider actual observations instead of modeled “projections” or creating data to “fit” projections. “It’s not as bad as we thought.” should be welcomed a little more warmly I would think.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
Yes. “One of the most important and mysterious events in recent climate history is the climate shift in the mid-1970s. In the northern hemisphere 500-hPa atmospheric flow the shift manifested itself as a collapse of a persistent wave-3 anomaly pattern and the emergence of a strong wave-2 pattern.” https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kravtsov/www/downloads/GRL-Tsonis.pdf
I assume around 2001 the wave-3 anomaly returned with that climate shift. We are going to see one of the lobes head South. At the same time that vacancy will be filled by warmth from the South. The net result may be increased meridional heat transport, that is cooling. The above quote is one of Tsonis et al banner statements and I have to think there’s a reason it was. I am assuming a wave-2 anomaly reduces meridional heat transport and contributes to global temperature rise.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
Comment from the Ropiek piece:
==> “But any critical thinker ought to smell the distinct possibility of bias when research, by known advocates, goes out of the way to pose questions that produce the ‘right’ answers, answers that support their advocacy.”
How do you suppose that might apply to your work, Judith?
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
From the article:
…
A destructive “Trojan Horse” malware program has penetrated the software that runs much of the nation’s critical infrastructure and is poised to cause an economic catastrophe, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
National Security sources told ABC News there is evidence that the malware was inserted by hackers believed to be sponsored by the Russian government, and is a very serious threat.
The hacked software is used to control complex industrial operations like oil and gas pipelines, power transmission grids, water distribution and filtration systems, wind turbines and even some nuclear plants. Shutting down or damaging any of these vital public utilities could severely impact hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Hackers Breach White House’s Unclassified Computer Network
DHS said in a bulletin that the hacking campaign has been ongoing since 2011, but no attempt has been made to activate the malware to “damage, modify, or otherwise disrupt” the industrial control process. So while U.S. officials recently became aware the penetration, they don’t know where or when it may be unleashed.
…
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trojan-horse-bug-lurking-vital-us-computers-2011/story?id=26737476
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Danny – more high quality reading can be found here:
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by RiHo08
David Ropeik
“But any critical thinker ought to smell the distinct possibility of bias when research, by known advocates, goes out of the way to pose questions that produce the ‘right’ answers, answers that support their advocacy.”
Which is why I wonder why our hostess pays any attention to Mann, Schmidt, Trenberth, and the others in this motley crew. They have demonstrated a lack of integrity, which poisons the well of dialogue.
I don’t believe there can be a surgical excision within the EPA, carving out the CO2 advocates with Greenpeace, WWF, and Sierra Club credentials, who advocate these group’s positions in their regulatory zeal.
Defunding EPA entirely and reconstituting an agency with a revised Clean Air and Water act focusing upon a judicious application of the known science of air and water pollution and not computer projections of what might be based upon what might have been.
Meteorology seems to be the important area where the greatest good for the greatest numbers can be our Government’s focus.
At least we only have to wait a week or four to see that progress in predictions is proceeding in the appropriate direction. Immediate feedback. Science at its finest. Much less hanky-panky where scientists “know” what we public should know. NOT.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
I am not sure I am following your question, however this might be an answer:
“This is because climate is a boundary value problem in physics, while weather is an initial value problem.” http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/26/the-heart-of-the-climate-dynamics-debate/ Lacis is worth paying attention to.
Milanovic may be addressing your question: http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/23/how-simple-is-simple/
↧
Comment on Climate dynamics of clouds by AK
Here’s how feedbacks work in a real feedback system:
Your base effect is 1 (by definition, setting the scale).
Let’s suppose you have a positive feedback equivalent to 0.5 (50%):
• When you add in the feedback from the base effect, the result is 1.5: 1+0.5.
• When you add in the feedback from original feedback, the result is 1.75: 1+0.5+0.25.
• When you add in the feedback from that feedback, the result is 1.875: 1+0.5+0.25+0.125.
And so on. Carrying that series to infinity, the result is 2 (twice the base effect).
A similar process might be performed with a feedback equivalent to 0.8 (80%): 1+0.8+0.64+0.523+…=5 (5 times the base effect).
One (of very many) discussions of the process is wiki’s
Obviously, if your feedback reaches 1.0 (100%) the series doesn’t converge, you have a runaway process, of the sort experienced when a microphone gets too close to the amplified loudspeaker.
But when feedback levels get up around 80% or so, the amplified result can be far larger than the base effect.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Danny Thomas
Jim2, Thanks. I’ve got that one bookmarked also. Haven’t had time to get through all the resources that folks are kind enough to share. I’m talking with all sides and conversation is educational and enlightening. But it’s hard for me to provide the perception to “scientists” that they should look at us (the non scientists and vast majority of the populations) as if we’re teenagers. I can remember what I was as a teenager, but as a teenager I could never have known what I am now (In other words, I can’t know what it is to be a scientist). It’s about the only analogy that I can come up with. Hence the reason for my above post. Sure hope this make at least a bit of sense.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
I think this is it.
From the article:
…
It’s a 32-megawatt-hour lithium-ion energy storage project in a region with a potential 4.5 gigawatts of wind.
…
↧
Comment on Bertrand Russell’s 10 commandments by Mike
Reblogged this on <a href="http://thisgotmyattention.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/bertrand-russells-10-commandments/" rel="nofollow">This Got My Attention</a> and commented:
Great advice!
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
I’m not sure how that happened!!
↧
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by Pete
cd, Thanks for yours of this evening. I’m glad you found the post interesting. I’ll try to respond to your comments as briefly as possible:
1) Back-patting — old axiom: “it ain’t bragging if you can do it”. These methods have significantly improved exploration performance starting in the mid 1990s. Disciplined companies are delivering on their exploration performance, using the methods I’ve outlined. Like the old Alka-Seltzer ad — “try it, you’ll like it!”
2) Reservoir modelling: Exploration risk-analysis does not include modeling reservoirs — that usually comes after the reservoir has been discovered, although reservoir modeling has come a very long way in the last 20 years.
3) I am not conflating sensitivity analysis with uncertainty analysis, although we do consider, in the more detailed procedures of modern E & P Risk Analysis, what aspects of the various parameters are the most and least sensitive — and accordingly influential. We know the difference.
4) Statistical naivete — You may suggest that we are statistically naïve if you like; I would simply point out that the E&P Industry has embraced these statistical methods BECAUSE THEY WORK. Overconfidence can be detected, and wastes money.
5) Deterministic methods — We do not use deterministic methods. We use probabilistic methods, as my post clearly states.
6) Geological interpretations, nonsense, too much time spent on them, etc — The occurrence of oil and gas fields in the subsurface is inherently geological, and their genesis can only be understood in geological context. Further, their discovery and development must proceed from their geological and petrophysical characteristics, involving petroleum engineers.
7) Oil industry no panacea — Climatology is clearly burdened with cognitive bias. That’s a problem Petroleum geoscientists struggle with also. We have developed methods which have demonstrably helped. I’ve outlined most of them, thinking that other scientists might find them useful. They — and you, cd, are welcome to use them as you wish — or not (it’s a free country). I don’t know what branch of Science you belong to, but it does not appear to be Petroleum Geoscience.
8) (from the following post) — “Nintendo geology” — I find the ignorance your comment expresses to be exceeded only by its arrogance.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Brian L
The article on energy storage contains a major RED FLAG, namely that the peak power capability of the energy storage system is listed at 250 MW, but without mention of HOW LONG it can provide said power. [Or alternatively, a energy number measured in MWh, GWh, GJ, or TJ, given your preference.]
An energy storage system that can provide peak power for only a few seconds is less useful than one that can provide peak power for a few minutes which is less useful than one that can provide peak power for a few hours which is less usefull than one that can provide peak power for a few days.
The pumped storage station in my neck of the woods, Bath County, can provide 3000 MW for over 7 hours. 22 GWh total. I’d be curious to know how puny SCE’s purchase of battery storage is in comparison. Sadly, no one can tell, because they haven’t listed a run time!!
↧
Comment on Week in review by Danny Thomas
Hi Ragnarr,
Dr. Curry summed it up well in her conclusions at the end of the Heart of the climate debate thread. I’ll save this and look through the balance later.
The second article will take much more time for me to read and try to absorb.
If you get a chance, please refer to my response to Jim2 above as it may make my dilemma a bit more clear (hopefully).
Thanks,
↧
Comment on Week in review by barn E. rubble
RE: R. Gates “Conclusion: a warming planet can be connected to severe cold outbreaks.”
And thereby can also be connected to all the more ‘nice’ days, no?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
