Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 Next
Comments 59501 to 59550:
-
Dave123 at 08:06 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Steve- Please put some numbers to paper.... you're as amorphous as any climate change denier. At 132000 TWhr/yr 2008 Energy Utilization, I can invest with present $ and technology in wind power, and let's say we did 500Billion/year...vs my calculation above that gets us over 1 terrawatt per year....and in 50 years we're around 1/2 way there from wind alone. It's just resource allocation. If we were faced with a 4th of July style alien invasion is there any doubt we could rassle up as much money as we wanted to? War powers do odd things to financial systems. Now if we only had a room temperature super conductor. -
Realist at 08:02 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Dana1981 If so, by what measure? -
Dave123 at 07:58 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
oops those are page numbers 5540-5499. don't know where the e came from. -
Dave123 at 07:56 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Thanks to Phil, I've found I misquoted the review article...it's 200 TWh/year energy in steel slag. Based on some other numbers, those 6 Megawatt wind turbines would generate about 18 gigawatthrs/year. (Scaled from a 1.5 Meg machine at 35% operating capacity) Thus we only need about 11,111 of them. I'm seeing costs of about $1.30 per watt installed [link] for an expenditure of about $87 billion we can use wind power to cover the energy in slag....assuming I haven't messed up again. So for a little more than 10% of the current US military budget, we could do quite a bit with state of the art machines. For everyone playing around with slag....getting the energy out of it is harder...nice review article here: Barati et. al. Energy 36 (2011) 5440e5449 Unfortunately behind a paywall. You can probably see the abstract. Bear in mind anything you do has to be fool proof, steel companies don't like taking their mills up and down. And as for what you do with the cool slag...the problem has mainly to do with location and transportation costs vs other materials that you can put into concrete and other applications.Moderator Response: [RH] Embedded link that was breaking page format. -
Realist at 07:56 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Dana1981 Surely you are not suggesting Copenhagen was a success? -
dana1981 at 07:09 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist @44 - what you're describing is a form of the Tragedy of the Commons, and is why we have international climate conferences, to get all nations on board with emissions reductions. -
steve from virginia at 07:03 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Alley's supposition is incorrect because it does not include the economic effect of a successful conversion on competitors. There is no factor in the calculation that represents the dumping of waste into Edinburgh streets, it was never an enterprise and could never compete against sewers: the fuel wasting enterprise on the other hand is the world's largest and represents the greatest part of world GDP. How can removing the fuel waste be cost free? Removing the waste is the object of the exercise, right? :) After all, if the renewables cannot eliminate fuel waste and its associated enterprises there is no point to the renewables. This is a competition between regimes. The implication is that all of the waste dependencies can remain as they are now but with different 'green' prime movers. This is false because all the dependencies are wasteful and polluting in their own right. What Prof Alley might suggest is that the replacement cost of new renewables versus new conventional prime movers is similar in $$$/kjoule. What happens is prime movers are aggregated according to operational characteristics within the wasting regime: intermittancy, base-load, etc. Wind farms do not replace reactors, they are added to them. For the purpose of removing atmospheric gases the entire waste enterprise must be eliminated. All the related costs including that of sunk capital must be calculated in addition to the cost of prime movers. Far from being easy or inexpensive, reconfiguration energy regime will be the hardest thing the human race has ever attempted in its entire existence. It is vital that we look at our endeavor this way so as to prepare ourselves for the crushing struggle to come. The future does not have any cars in it. There will be no conveniences, only shared struggle, hunger, perhaps much violence and deprivation. We lack the basic social infrastructures needed to cope with difficulties: our leadership and institutions are formed from mechanical and financial leverage. We are used to pushing buttons on the remote, for hiring others to solve our problems while we relax. The future has no relax in it. We cannot get a grip on our climate, fuel, food, water and other resource problems without acknowledging there will be large trade-offs and sacrifices. We cannot 'have it all'. We give up something or industrialization kills us (and itself in the process). Since industrialization is already unraveling (it doesn't pay for itself) we may as well go with the flow. What this means is the centralized, industrial forms of renewables are not likely to be deployed at a meaningful level. We cannot afford large-scale renewables already: the entire world has bankrupted itself the 'old- fashioned way' leaving nothing in the account books but debts. True enough, some is better than none, but when the credit is gone and the ginormous windmill breaks who will pay to repair it? The model here: Detroit. -
scaddenp at 07:01 AM on 2 May 2012Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
desertphile - a nitpick but evidence to date would say that LIA was indeed a global event, though less marked in SH than in NH. -
Realist at 06:59 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
@43 The problem with the argument that it's cheaper to act now is that all nations know its even cheaper to let everyone else act first. The longer an individual nation delays acting the cheaper it is for that nation. Of course the absolute cheapest is to get others to pay or subsidies your renewable energy (Copenhagen?). -
muoncounter at 06:29 AM on 2 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
TOP: "For the most part the atmosphere is transparent to microwaves." Indeed. That should make the concept of atmospheric heating by microwave emission vanish into the ether. -
KR at 05:59 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
steve from virginia - What Alley is pointing out is that conversion to a fossil fuel free economy would cost about the same proportion of GDP as converting open sewer ditches into our current waste handling systems. With respect to the auto industry, my personal view is that one of the better approaches is solar->methanol style fuel production, such as described here. Methanol or ethanol can easily be burned in current vehicles with minor conversions, and if the fuel is generated from electrolyzed hydrogen and CO2 using renewable power it's carbon neutral. The same goes for renewable-created methane or other gaseous fuels, although those require more expensive conversions. Conversions that would not, I'll note, trash the auto industry. As to your "costs too much" argument, I would refer you to the discussions on the economic impacts of carbon pricing and Renewable energy is too expensive threads. Acting now is far less expensive than waiting. -
steve from virginia at 05:02 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Hmmm ... This is easy: Professor Alley supposes that renewable energy generators can replace conventional, fossil fuel waste at a negligible cost. Either renewables replace fossil fuel waste or they don't. - If they don't there is no point to renewables as the fuel waste enterprises will carry on as before, wasting fuel and loading carbon into the atmosphere. Fossil fuel waste will take place alongside the renewables (and their own embedded fossil fuel waste). See 'Jevon's Paradox': the demand for more energy to waste is insatiable. - If renewables DO replace fossil fuel waste the losses to the wasting enterprises will far exceed the cost of the renewables themselves. The auto industry and its dependencies: the fuel supply- real estate- finance- construction- defense- retail and the rest represent 60% + of GDP. As has been seen across the US economy, reducing funds to- or cutting one dependency has effects that ripple across the whole. - Meanwhile, the current level of economic 'cash flow' (which is what GDP represents) is what both enables and services the economy's debts. Renewables therefor cannot replace fossil fuel waste, instead they require fuel waste as a (credit) subsidy. The same way the sales of electric- and hybrid cars is internally subsidized within the auto industry by the sales of mega-SUVs and massive pickup trucks. No truck sales, no electric cars b/c they are too expensive. Speak of: the only pollution solutions must include getting rid of the cars, all of them along with car-related dependencies. Believe it or not, the market is already solving the 'car problem'. Europe is right now in the process of becoming car-free ... the hard way. GDP cost? Massive. Look to Greece ... then Somalia ... for the future of Europe, then Japan, China and the US. Cutthroat fuel competition using credit as a weapon is happening now under everyone's noses and few are paying attention. There is nothing anyone can do to halt or unwind the process, either. -
TOP at 03:38 AM on 2 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
@jmorpuss Regarding amateur radio you are picking at gnats. Amateur radio stations do not often operate at 1.5kw PEP and when they do it is at lower frequencies that would not likely cause response to the species in the atmosphere. The PEP requirement means that the actual power used is dependent on the modulation and represents any where from 41% to 100% of the PEP power. The higher amateur bands (VHF, UHF, microwave) where a measurable atmospheric response might happen near the antenna, the power levels are kept low simply because propagation is usually line of site except in rare instances (tropo ducting, Sporadic E, meteor scatter and EME). High gain antennas are usually used to get results. And of course in the amateur service, the rule is to use the least amount of power necessary to carry on communication. You simply can't use ERP additively since ERP is simply accounting for the gain in the antenna. Gain is simply the ability of the antenna to take the power presented to it and compress it into a smaller volume so that less transmitter power is needed. On UHF frequencies where the ERP might be 10MW for TV the antenna also might have 20Db gain which means that only 10kw is being radiated. The big difference between amateur service and broadcast is that broadcast is typically in operation 24/7 while amateur stations may be operated a few hours a night a few nights a month. And that fluctuates according to the sunspot cycle. The cell phone service operates at frequencies that will cause heating of water vapor in the atmosphere (3G, 4G, GSM), but they are supposedly low power and are not expected to cover an area much larger than 20 miles, usually much smaller. @21 muoncounter ATT still uses microwave transmission for local service within states. There is an ATT microwave tower in operation within site if this laptop. Longhaul may have been killed by fiber and satellite, but many of the towers are still active. In addtion to ATT there are now numerous microwave links privately operated in lieu of purchasing T1 and T3 connectivity over short hauls (20 miles or so). L band is in the 3.5 micron range which has a high transmittance in the atmosphere.
For the most part the atmosphere is transparent to microwaves.
-
Jim Eager at 03:07 AM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
John, thanks so much for compiling this history of the science in one easy to access place, or ultimately three places. No longer will I have to thumb back and forth through my dog-eared copy of Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. -
dana1981 at 02:41 AM on 2 May 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
We'll be doing a post on this NY Times cloud/Lindzen article in the near future. It is a good article and really lays out the problem with listening to "skeptics" like Lindzen. As Stephen @49 notes, it also highlights that Lindzen is unable to consider the true consequences if (when) we learn that he's wrong, if we heed his advice and fail to act in the meantime. -
citizenschallenge at 02:40 AM on 2 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Vinnikov on Arctic Sea Ice
Great article Dana! FYI ~ It's another one I couldn't resist bootlegging {with attribution ;-)} over at my WhatsUpWithThatWatts blog. SkS: “Poor Pielke Analysis”. . . Dear Dr. Pielke can you explain? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ an excerpt from my introduction to your post: "{...} Contrarian-skeptics {as opposed to Informed-skeptics} are slippery fish to catch, but if you don’t mind my saying so, I think I caught a floppy one yesterday. {...} Additionally, rather than examine long-term Arctic sea ice "death spiral," Dr. Pielke chose to instead focus on short-term noise. "However, since 2006, the reduction has stopped and even reversed. Perhaps this is a short term event and the reduction of sea ice extent will resume. Nonetheless, the reason for the turn around, even if short term...needs an explanation." The explanation is that Dr. Pielke's Eyecrometer has failed him. An actual statistical analysis of the NSIDC data tells a different story (Figure 4). . . {...}" =============== Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. says "Nonetheless, the reason for the turn around, even if short term...needs an explanation." WHY? Why does the short term fluctuation need an explanation beyond the very reasonable explanations already supplied by mainstream climatologists? Can anyone help Pielke explain “Exactly what is wrong with the climatologist’s explanation?” WHAT DEGREE OF RESOLUTION IS Dr. Pielke EXPECTING ? WHY? What justifies demanding a bridge builder’s “engineering level resolution” as opposed to a reasonable "Earth science’s level of resolution"? What point is he trying to make? I ask because to me it seems like just more of the crazy-making contrarians love to inject into what should be a learning process. Isn’t the issue that NEEDS attention GHG’s salting of our planet’s atmosphere, with it’s resulting insulating effect? It is that simple! That atmospheric insulting effect isn't going to change itself over the short term. Why won't Dr. Pielke acknowledge that our grand experiment is producing results coming in faster and with more fury than any experts anticipated ! ? {...} Cheers, CC -
Stephen Baines at 02:05 AM on 2 May 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
CBD Yes, its ironic that an real live example of accurate reporting of the news has me suddenly wondering if maybe there are such things as unicorns and Santa Claus! Gillis has been doing yoeman's work reestablishing what true journalistic balance should be about (as opposed to lazy he said-she said balance). It has become so rare in the mainstream media that seeing it now is just plain disorienting. If I were to quibble (and it is indeed a quibble) it's that he provides a lot more specifics about Lindzen's arguments than he does for the arguments against reduced climate sensitivity via the Iris effect. The arguments against are cast in a more general light. That can leave the impression that Lindzen's ideas are somehow more coherent and that mainstream scientists are being sourpusses. Nothing could be further from the case. I love Lindzen's quote near the end. “If I’m right, we’ll have saved money...If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something.” Of course, if Lindzen was wrong, we wouldn't be able to do anything about because climate sensitivity will be high and the effects will substantial and long lasting. What I think he meant was ... “If I’m right, we’ll have saved money, but if I’m right , we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something.” To state it simply, to me its clear that he simply can't imagine a scenario where he is wrong. And people claim mainstream climate scientists are arrogant! As Kerry Emmanuel states at the end, "...it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.'" -
Bernard J. at 02:02 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Via a comment on Stoat I ran into this post by Tom Murphy: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ He doesn't really touch on the ideas that I was poking at further up on this thread, until near the end of the third post in the series, but all are very much worth reading. I'm sure that ol' Albert would approve... For those who venture to Tom's posts, there's one point worth dwelling on. Consider the last figure in third post, that is, the figure titled "Western lifestyle for all may require a vastly larger renewable footprint still". Note how Murphy depicts global energy consumption to date as the area under the grey peak to the left of the asterix. Compare that to the green area of the figure, which basically represents an energy business-as-usual into the future, but based on renewables. Then consider that that iddy-biddy grey area of energy consumption to the left of that asterix is responsible for bringing the planet to its current state of resource/ environment/biodiversity depletion. And then consider what the green area means for future resource 'sustainability', taking into account Tom's explanation about efficiency limits. And if we are going to bring the 'Other 80%' onboard to share equitably in the party (the blue area of the figure) - well... This is why simply converting to renewables is only a part of an answer that has to come very quickly, if there is to be any dignified future for our children and grandchildren, and for their decendants. -
dana1981 at 01:57 AM on 2 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Old mole @20 - there are ENSO predictions which go about 9 months into the future, so we do have some idea how it will change in the near term. This is discussed in my post linked in comment 13. -
desertphile at 01:44 AM on 2 May 2012Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Salby mentioned the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice age, neither of which were global events, and then claimed that CO2 followed temperature; these assertions have been refuted and debunked by scores of scientists. Murry Salby needs to update himself in the current literature. Note that our New Galileo here also ignored the fact that humans are currently putting 30,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR, yet the non-human sources put in AND THEN REMOVE the same, or very similar, amounts of CO2 that they do every year. Just where does Mr. Salby believe our release of CO2 is going? -
muoncounter at 23:37 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
jmorpuss#13: "Radio waves exite the oxygen molecule to propagate" Doesn't that mean molecular oxygen absorbs radio waves? So I guess microwave and radio are very poor means of long distance communication. Is that why ATT gave up on microwave telecomm links (4-8 Ghz) after a mere 40 years of commercial use? And is that why Iridium (~1620 Mhz) went bankrupt? And it's certainly ironic that all those long distance radars (1-4 Ghz) at airports and weather stations around the world are broadcasting energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere. Waste energy, indeed. -
DSL at 23:27 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
All clear now, scaddenp? :) You see, if you concentrate that .000005 W/m2, then it turns into 1.5 W/m2 over the same area. That's just the way it is, and denying it will just make you a denialist, and clearly you don't want to be one of those. And the tropospheric hotspot and clouds are the result of the dust moving from one place in the atmosphere (where the particles did not create clouds) to another place in the atmosphere (where they did create clouds), attracted by the magnetic flux created by the criss-crossing satellite microwave power beams that get amplified by the . . . the . . . ionosphere or something. The resulting friction from this forced travel also creates global warming. And these clouds that form never formed before microwaves were invented (by Al Gore), and now there are lots of these clouds (all different shapes, too -- lions, dragons, etc.) that create both a warming and cooling effect. Meanwhile, the ionosphere, which is full of water, is forming a plastic bag which serves as a parabola which heats up the Earth's core (the focal point of the parabola) and creates even more global warming. By the way, the CO2-warming connection (boy, what a CRAZY theory that is!) and any science-based criticisms of my theories are hoaxes perpetrated by greedy scientists and the Masters of the Universe, who live in a cave in the Himalayas and stand on their heads all day, saying "doh!" -
CBDunkerson at 23:23 PM on 1 May 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
The New York Times has inexplicably published a cogent and thorough look at the state of AGW 'skepticism' with particular emphasis on Lindzen's 'cloud iris' hypothesis and clouds in general as being the 'last bastion' of uncertainty for 'skeptics' to hang their hat on. Oddly, I didn't see any egregious errors of fact or ludicrous convolutions in the name of providing 'balance'. It was almost as if they were reporting... news. Accurately. I've heard stories of such things from the olden days, but it is quite a surprise to see it in the here and now. Are unicorns also real? -
Realist at 22:57 PM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Bernard j While we use the metric of CO2 per person, there is no disadvantage for a country to increase its population. Which masks the fact as you point out, how will we all fit. I would like to think we has the intelligence to control our population instead of waiting for nature to step in and control it for us, but the only creature with such sense is a lemming, and unfortunately that lemming behavior is a myth. -
Daniel Bailey at 22:48 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
Fascinating, the way this thread has come to resemble the waste energy thread. -
Ari Jokimäki at 22:39 PM on 1 May 2012New research from last week 17/2012
Fixed, thanks. -
jmorpuss at 20:06 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
skywatcher Do you see that the tropopause could be used as a parabola for reflection And also the way to increase the output of radio frequencies is as simple as building a bigger antenna aray and there's not much bigger then HAARP's ionispheric heater To create fire using water all you need is a clear plastic bag put in a cup of water manipulate the bag to form the water into a ball or freeze slowly so no bubbles form and you get the same effect magnification I see you didn't post anything about lower atmospheric electron discharge and cloud formation is it your belief that this is not taking place ? -
skywatcher at 19:00 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
jmorpuss, you've a lot to learn about conservation of energy, among many other things. To take your last statement - yes, you can use a lens of water to concentrate energy (e.g. from the Sun) to incinerate objects, but this process concentrates the energy formerly spread over a larger area onto a very small spot, leading to intense heating at that point. Locations next to the spot of intense heating are heated less than they would otherwise be without the lens in place, as the lens diverts the incident rays towards the spot of intense heating - thus this is not the long-sought-after perpetual motion machine, and there is no creation of energy going on. Otherwise the humble lens could provide all the energy we ever needed! Similarly, 0.000005W/m2 cannot provide the same input of energy as the 1.6W/m2 anthropogenic forcing, however you concentrate it. Why would you want to invent some impossible physics in order to explain the effects of already well-understood physics? -
adelady at 17:51 PM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Old Mole. See sout@1. "....the latest (24 April 12) ENSO wrap up from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology states: "Some, but not all, climate models note an increased risk of El Niño conditions evolving during winter or spring. Historically, about 70% of two-year La Niña events are followed by neutral or El Niño phases." So the likelihood according to BOM is 70% that this year will be neutral or El Nino if it follows the historical patterns. -
Old Mole at 17:08 PM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
dana @ 15 Question for you ... it appears that we cannot predict with any certainty whether there will be an El Nino, La Nina, or a an ENSO neutral year. I realize that uncertainty is not the same thing as true randomness, but what leads you to believe that a third La Nina after two previous ones is less likely than otherwise, any more than the odds of flipping a true coin heads for the tenth time after nine previous heads would be any less than 50%? Do you believe that there is a pattern, and we simply haven't figured it out yet, and what leads you to that conclusion? Best wishes, Mole -
70rn at 16:57 PM on 1 May 2012New research from last week 17/2012
The anders (1882) full text link appears to direct me to the Castebrubet et al (2012) paper. Unless I'm doing it wrong or summmin. -
jmorpuss at 16:34 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
Scaddenp How many free electrons do you think would be released from the hot spots that are created by this process http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/IONO/Dynasonde/images/HeatPrecip.pdf And if you overlay this info onto transequateral communications and the hot spots that are created there would be the same result Now these lower atmospheric electron clouds that form have a high negative charge and would through magnetic atraction collect dust particls and moisture to form clouds And to clear things up a bit about radio waves are capable of temperature effects out of all proportions to the energy input Two words amplification and magnification man puts them to great use Do you know that you can use water as a magnifier to create fire -
KR at 15:06 PM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
dagold - The 'hiatus' periods are the ENSO events (heat going more/less into the oceans rather than the atmosphere), so this analysis speaks directly to that variation. With respect to aerosols, declines in insolation and the like, keep in mind that CO2 forcing is increasing faster than exponential right now, meaning GHG forcing is greater than linear in rise. I suspect that forcing balances out dimming and insolation to such an extent that it's going to be difficult to isolate anything more complex than linear temperature increases - given the noise level in the surface temperature signal. At least, not without a longer period... -
scaddenp at 14:50 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
jmorpuss, just to be clear. It seems to me, (and please correct me if I am wrong), that you are claiming that radio waves are capable of temperature effects out of all proportion to the energy input. To have the effect you claim would violate energy conservation. You put up links to perfectly well known science which I think you believe backs your claim, but I cannot see how this is so. I believe you have some serious misconceptions but since I cant even follow you line of argument. -
dagold at 14:39 PM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
I am wondering how this study of ENSO effect 'speaks to' the impact of aerosal dampening and/or 700-2000 deep 'hiatus' periods vis-a-vis surface temps? Do the findings somehow account for the 'missing' heat of the last 10-13 or so years or is it simply that all 3 plots (La Nina, ENSO neutral, and El Nino) would be 'shifted higher' without the aerosal and/or ocean hiatus effects? -
scaddenp at 14:37 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
I'm still lost. What has that link got to do with anything on climate? You do accept that conservation of energy applied in that experiment? -
scaddenp at 14:21 PM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist, remember that projection for lower population growth are based on the observed trends in declining fertility. This is discussed in the reports behind those projections. -
jmorpuss at 13:05 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
KR That would be a good idear It would be a relief from the parroting that goes round and round on this site As the debunking hand book says there's no such thing as bad publicity The more that read it the better Radio waves exite the oxygen molecule to propagate and when you shift into microwave frequencies this can happen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrUqR0LO7k8&NR=1 -
Tom Curtis at 12:53 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
I first saw KR @11's comment, and as a moderator, was going to delete it as ad hominen. I then saw jmorpuss @8, and was torn because it should be deleted on the same grounds, but as the person subject to the ad hominen, I had a conflict of interest. I shall take DSL @9's excellent advise and compromise by leaving both up. In the meantime I shall enjoy the jest that my failure to notice jmorpus massive error which strengthened his case represents me pushing propaganda. ROFLMAO -
NewYorkJ at 12:47 PM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
A good idea in a future post might be to define what constitutes ENSO, as there are different measures. From Peru (#7) cites ONI, the 3-month running mean of the 3.4 region. John Nielsen-Gammon also uses the 3.4 region, but with 12-month averages and a lag. F&R did the same calculations with MEI and SOI. While all correlate (SOI inversely), SOI is notably different in that the 2009-2010 el Nino-ish conditions are very mild (weaker than 2005) and the recent couple of years of la Ninas are collectively the most intense in the 60-year record. F&R I think determined the conclusions of their study don't change when using either measure, but it's relevant in putting 2010-present in context. What I like about the Nielsen-Gammon approach, that while less precise and comprehensive than F&R, it's an easy-to-understand visual. There's no real "black box" effect among a lay audience wondering how adjusted temperatures are done. Temperature during la Nina years are trending warmer too. -
KR at 12:44 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
DSL - I think we need a "So bad you have to read it to believe it" thread with content such as jmorpuss's latest. -
Realist at 12:43 PM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
@37 Speaking more locally, Australia has 21 million and the capacity to feed about 40 million. It is also forecast by the government to have a population of 40 million by 2050, despite the current trajectory being in excess of 40 million by then. Which means australia goes from a major exporter of food to a nett importer of food. There goes sustralias second biggest export industry. Where the import of food will come from is not considered by the government, nor is the food supply for those overseas currently eating Australian food. And this is before farm land is converted to bio diesel crops or tree farms for carbon capture. Additionally all major states in Australia have desalination plants for water supply. And desal is energy hungry. So will be difficult to address climate change in the future when there are other pressing problems caused by an expanding population, and we have seen how the GFC distracts from climate change. there is also the embodied co2 in providing infrastructure for an expanded population. -
scaddenp at 12:40 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
So revised figure would be 0.000005W/m2. Margin of error territory big time. If radio makes that much difference, with that power, then why so little response to the variation of 1W/m2 of solar radiation over the 11 year cycle? "pushing your propaganda" - which propoganda is that? That radio transmission must be less than primary energy production? That 0.000005 is a smaller no. than 1? You have repeatedly posted links to ips TEP but have just as repeatedly failed to show how this has any relevance to climate at all. -
DSL at 12:28 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
I implore the other mods to leave jmorpuss' comment up. It is an absolute classic in every way (even formally -- no punctuation!). Head vise malfunction! Auuughhh! -
muoncounter at 12:14 PM on 1 May 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
hutch44uk: "The argument wasn't about warming purely from non-ENSO sources." The argument is about determining whether or not there is continued warming. You choose to start your analysis from an anomaly and that artificial selection allows you to declare there is no statistically significant trend. A more objective analysis would look at all the data. A more informed and thorough analysis would process the data as FR2011 did or separate the signals as Nielsen-Gammon did, in order to detect the underlying trend. To ignore these analytical methods is to focus on the noise rather than the signal. But focusing on noise is the key component of denial these days, isn't it? -
jmorpuss at 12:13 PM on 1 May 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
Tom thanks for taking the time to respond It's just a shame that you did not read what I wrote Because if you did you would have pointed out my maths was incorect 27,000 x 100,000 = 2.7 billion not 271 billion Your haste in pushing your propaganda will only show how brain washed you are or are you paid to brain wash others Is this the reason for the atmospheric tropical hot spot transequatoral communications LINK This man made pathway looks to me to be the cause of el and la nino It flips from one hemisphere to the other when they reverse the polarityModerator Response: [RH] Embedded link that was breaking page format. -
Bernard J. at 11:17 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Hmmmph. John N-G used the exactly process I employed a while back to determine the likely magnitude of the next global temperature record. I even constructed a graph with the three regressions, an an x-marks-the-spot for Pinatubo. Guess I shouldn't have hidden that little light under a bushel. I like the animation. Perhaps it might be possible to add a sequence at the end where you drop out in turn two of the three regressions, so that observers can 'see' the jump from La Niña to El Niño. -
Bernard J. at 10:51 AM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Dave123The part I'm less optimistic about is our ability to move towards self-restraint.
I wholeheartedly concur. The fact is, if we'd taken Kyoto seriously, and acted on the advice of science then, we'd probably have a far more prosperous global economy than we have now, and one that was actually moving to a real sustainability. The window's not entirely shut, but squeezing through it now would require an Indiana Jones level of acrobatics. Realist. On the matter of eventual maximum population I have to agree with the general estimate of a peak around 9 to 10 billion. Growth curves were my bread and butter for 4 years, and even aside from the geometry of the growth trajectory there are resource limitations and disease issues that strongly suggest that humans don't have much relative overshoot left above today's population. Having said that, an extra few billion people on the planet at a time in the not-too-distant future, when we probably won't adequately have sorted out our climate and energy issues is still no laughing matter. -
DSL at 10:48 AM on 1 May 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Tom, I stand corrected to the extent that Carter is being honest and open with regards to the intent of the publication (such as it was) of his analysis. If his dodgy methodology was an honest mistake and not an attempt to force the data into a politically palatable message for his target audience, well I humbly apologize to all involved. -
Realist at 10:45 AM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
@35 Much of the heat content in slag is due to the solid to liquid formation which is not recovered in the channel system. The percentage heat recovery is low, and thus restricts viability. Not impossible, but a fair way down on the list of potential solutions.
Prev 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 Next
