Recent Comments

Prev  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  237  238  239  240  241  242  243  244  Next

Comments 11801 to 11850:

11801. ianw01 at 08:24 AM on 2 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       doug sweet @4:

       Let's put it on the record that page 1of Abbott starts with the premise that nuclear needs to be able to scale up to "total global power consumption of mankind" of 15 TW "for millennia to come", otherwise "investment must be redirected to a different solution".   It goes on to identify some very real problems with such a scale up, and nuclear in general.

       I'm not keen on nuclear, but Abbott didn't really help convince me that the NGD needs a blanket no-nuclear stance.

11802. RedBaron at 07:21 AM on 2 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       @15 William,

       With all due respect both your options listed are analogous to little more than rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic. This problem is not only about emissions. This is a carbon cycle. Trying to fix this by eliminating carbon emissions is tackling the problem with one hand tied behind our backs. It won't work, and several researchers have made the claim we already passed the point where that alone cant work. There are two sides to this and BOTH must be improved, less emissions and more sequestration.

       You need to go back to basics and rethink what causes AGW to begin with.

       1. We are burning fossil fuels and emitting massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 mostly but also some CH4 and a few other greenhouse gasses.
       2. We have degraded the environmental systems that would normally pull excess CO2 out of the atmosphere. (mostly grasslands)
       3. By putting more in the atmosphere and removing less, there is no other place for the excess to go but the oceans. They are acidifying due to absorbing just part of the excess. (roughly 1/2)
       4. That still leaves roughly 1/2 of emissions that are building up in the atmosphere and creating an increased greenhouse effect. (from ~280 ppm to 412+ppm CO2)

       So this leads directly to the way we must reverse AGW:

       1. Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
       2. Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
       3. Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.

       TL;DR We need to reduce carbon in and increase carbon out of the atmosphere to restore balance to the carbon cycle.
       Consider a third option,

       verified carbon offsets

       1. Money into the hands of farmers and land managers sequestering carbon in the soil
       2. Stimulates the economy
       3. Reduces food costs
       4. Improves food security for both rich and poor alike
       5. Simultaneously AGW adaptive and mitigation strategy
       6. Must be done anyway, so this is a simply way to fund it. 2 birds 1 stone
       7. Far more effective than either of the two you listed.
       8. Far less cost than either of the two you listed.
       9. Obtainable right now without the need for new unknown technologies.
       10. Not a redistribution of wealth scheme, but rather a public works project capable of gathering conservative political support as well as liberal political support.

       In short, the carbon emissions sources will be paying for land managers to sequester their carbon footprint back into the earth where it belongs. This is a paid service, not a tax and liberal spend scheme with an ulterior social agenda.

       And best of all? It's already set up and ready to go at the local government level. Just awaits funding. Pass the legislation and even in the most conservative of states it goes off and running immediately.

       Carbon Sequestration Certification Program

11803. ubrew12 at 05:57 AM on 2 February 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       Here's another analogy, regarding climate action:

       Suppose the map says you are driving toward a cliff, but Big Fossils in the back seat says the map was drawn by communists.  You've been driving in the Southwest for hours and its been flat as a pancake, doesn't a canyon seem rather farfetched (even in a place called 'Canyonlands')?  Anyways, at some point you see that there is a cliff up ahead so you jam on the brakes.  So, here's the problem: you're driving an 18-wheeler loaded top to bottom with bricks.  By the time you see the cliff, its too late.  That loaded truck is the ocean.  The step between 'global heating' (due to top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance) and 'climate change' is 'ocean warming'.  And by the time you feel the climate changing, the sheer thermal mass of the warmed ocean makes it almost impossible for any braking action to keep you from harm.  You should have trusted the mapmakers.  But as 'everyone knows' they are scientific hoaxters bent on global wealth redistribution, or something like that.  So, off the cliff you go...

11804. nigelj at 05:48 AM on 2 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       Wasn't going to say anything about nuclear power, but since everyone else is....I feel nuclear power still has great potential, but comes up against real world obstacles,and we obviously have to live in the real world.

       Firstly I accept there is good evidence that nuclear power causes fewer deaths per mwatt than other power sources, and very low doses of radiation are likely harmless, but the public just dont "feel safe" and they are the people one has to convince, especially in a democracy. The only thing that might change this is a new type of reactor like a molten salt reactor, but these are decades away. According to wikipedia Japan is building one and its not due for completion for at least 20 years.

       Given the molten salt reactors are decades away, this is not much use in meeting Paris Accord time frames. Conventional water cooled reactors also have relatively poor economics and are slow to build.

       Nuclear advocates are very fixated on what seems like an almost magical source of power, ( so was I as a kid) but we have to live in the real world with its messy politics, economics and human psychology, and this doesnt favour nuclear power in its present form. Thats the harsh reality.

       But I'm personally 100% behind developing new nuclear technology, and keeping all energy options open. The molten salt technology obviously has merit, and looks like it might make efficient use of scarce resources. I feel governments should turbocharge development - but not at the expense of wind and solar power. These are viable and economic and makes sense right now!

       One of the big issues is battery storage, which is needed to make wide adoption of wind and solar power viable. Its hard to know if the planet even has enough resources for vast battery farms. It might, because there is lithium dissolved in sea water, and other battery options that use other materials, but its clear nobody really knows with certainty. Molten salt reactors might prove valuable if there are limits to battery storage. Keep all options open.

        

        

11805. william5331 at 04:44 AM on 2 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       Cap and trade                                       Hansen's Tax and Dividend

       Money into the hands of the rich     Money into the hands of the poor

       Depresses the economy                   Stimulates the economy

       Government the vilain                       Government the Hero

       Ineffective                                            Effective

11806. william5331 at 04:39 AM on 2 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       No green deal, old or new, will have any effect on climate change as long as governments are activly dragging their feet and working against it.  And they will continue to drag their feet as long as they are financed by vested interests.  Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune.  It is as simple as that.

11807. wilddouglascounty at 03:25 AM on 2 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       At the risk of responding in a political fashion to an article which is at its core political, I am glad to observe that the topic at hand seems to be about the means to an agreed upon end (decaarbonization), and not the tired old arguments about whether to decarbonize and the veracity of projections that cry out for decarbonization. This is progress.

       The activist community is on full display with this letter in its purest form, which I believe is the starting point of what I hope will be a public discussion, followed by bunches of measures which will push our societies in the right direction bit by bit. If some look at this as a dig-in-and-hold-no-hostages stance, I would counter that this is more like the first offer in a real estate negotiation, which is low to see how negotiable the listed price is, partly based on how long it has been on the market. I suspect that even the legislator community is more keen to what's possible and activists know this. For years they have heard from politicians that the activist community needs to create the political pressure if they want movement, something that they've had trouble assembling in the past, so opening bids typically have pieces that will likely disappear as negotiations get serious.

       The Atomic Scientist article talks about how Germany can be a cautionary tale for some because as a nation they cut back on nuclear power production before they took on coal in their energy mix, resulting in a lower rate of decarbonization. Once again, politicians in Germany are like everywhere, and the anti-nuclear movement in Germany was more organized than the anti-coal folks, who had to contend with a centuries old coal producing community including unions of those workers opposing coal shutdowns. To say that focusing on nuclear instead of coal is putting the cart before the horse: both were lobbied against and the anti-nuke crowd just had less resistance.

       In the US, there is still a strong if latent anti-nuclear movement, and when combined with anti-big government and anti-subsidies groups, could be quite formidable. Conventional nuclear has tried to start up again and predictably ended up with egg on their face. If I had advice to the nuclear proponents, it would be to disavow the huge centralized conventional nuclear approach in favor of a path of alternative approaches that would be done in a way that would not hog so much resources that it would threaten the rapid deployment of a smart grid and decentralized wind and solar, combined with energy efficiency investments.

       This is the stuff of collaboration and incremental but RAPID progress that we must stay focused on. We must not allow our political industrial complex to polarize this topic and must emphasize that this is a process, not a all-or-nothing endeavor, winner take all. So I'm glad for the letter and I'm glad for the critique. Trust the process!

        

11808. ELIofVA at 02:23 AM on 2 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       Conservation of energy uses must be given the highest priority.  Clean renewable energy simultanious to that.  However, the plan to use the same amount of energy, but renewable will likely fall short.  Nuclear power is a high risk technology.  Perhaps some high capital technical breakthrough can address these threats.  However, renewable wind and solar already is cost affective.  I am quite disturbed by the trend of our time of imposing long term liabilities on the future such as nuclear waste for a temporary short term benefit.  This is an emergency.  I still witness whole sale waste of energy for recreational uses.  We collectively have not yet recognized the demand by nature to limit emissions to less than what can be sequestered.  When that recognition comes we will  have a chance to make the combination of conservation and renewable energy that may allow us to stop the increase CO2 in the atmosphere and begin the long slow process of emitting less than can be sequestered to lower the concentration to a point where amplifying affects do not occur.  

11809. Nick Palmer at 01:21 AM on 2 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       Doug C appears to make a convincing case but, as anyone who listens to a 'salesman' should know, the art of cherry picking facts and turning a blind eye to inconvenient truths is rather common today. We need to see any of the inconvenient truths that Doug may have left out highlighted, and an OP with full links to peer reviewed research that we can follow up would be a good start

11810. michael sweet at 22:18 PM on 1 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       Doug C.,

       So I take it that your answer to my request that you write an OP supporting nuclear with peer reviewed data is that it is not worth your time.

       I worked full time with radiation for 3 years— I have held 1 curie of unshielded high energy beta radiation in my hand— and I have extensive training about radiation health effects.

       You link your hopes on a reactor design that has not yet been built and proponents suggest 2050 as when a pilot plant might be built.  It is imposible for your reactors to assist in achieving 2050 goals, they can only be used to supplement a renewable system after that system was already built.

       You did not respond to the 13 different reasons nuclear cannot provide a significant amount of energy listed in Abbott 2011.

       You ignore the enormous CO2 emissions caused by delay of other low emitting sources documented in Jacobson 2009.

       DIscussing nuclear is always a waste of time because nuclear supporters cannot be bothered with the facts.

       My final comment: nulcear is uneconomic.

11811. Ari Jokimäki at 17:45 PM on 1 February 2019
       New research, January 14-20, 2019
       

       PDO should be there right after ocean component is added to the climate models (the result is so-called coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, AOGCM). First of these were probably done some time in 1960s-1970s. I think that there's no need to incorporate the PDO separately but it arises naturally from the model simulations.

       Here is a paper from 1968 by Bryan & Cox discussing an ocean model: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1968)025%3C0945:ANMOAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

11812. Doug_C at 17:15 PM on 1 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       I wonder how many people realize that 50 years ago Oakridge National Laboratory was at the forefront of climate change research and advocacy and that one of the main purposes of the thorium molten salt reactor was to prevent the catastrophic climate change that some visionaries already saw coming decades ago.

       The Passion of Alvin Weinberg

       The man who came up with the idea for the molten salt reactor while working on the Manhattan Project was the same person that did the theoretical science that made semi-conductors possible and the modern revolution in transitor based technology. I was corresponding with one of his former students and Eugene Wigner was stating to his students in 1960 that thorium would be the salvation of mankind.

       I don't know if that is going to be the case. What I do know is that we have put off action on addressing climate change for decades and some of the people at the forefront of nuclear power development were working on solutions decades before most people even understood this threat existed.

       I find it ironic that nuclear power will now be left out, from my perspective largely because far too many people are ignorant of the real risks and the true capabilities. 

11813. Doug_C at 14:43 PM on 1 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       KR @5

       They had a working molten salt reactor running at ORNL for 4 years in the 1960s, this is not new technology. They didn't include a power generation loop as the project was run on a shoe string.

       Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment

       Many of the primary issues were resolved then such as material compatibility and removal of fission products instream with a running reactor.

       Personally I think there is something elegant about a reactor that uses mostly chemistry to contain the fissil fuel and remove waste as well as a reactor that does moderate itself and if it ever did suffer catastrophic failure would automatically drain its core into sub-critical containment under the reactor.

       Which is how the ORNL team ran the reactor, when they needed to do maintenance they shut the reactor off and allowed the core to drain into containment where it was passively cooled and the salt froze. To start the reactor up again they simply heated the salt to molten, pumped it back into the reactor vessel and turned on the circulation pumps and adjusted the control rods for reactivity.

       In the early 1970s the offer to the Nixon administration was to build a working molten salt breeder reactor within ten years at a cost of $340 million total. Nixon went with LMFBR which was costing over $400 million A YEAR and gave us the $8 billion white elephant at Clinch River.

       I find it hard to accept if we really needed it we wouldn't be up to the same challenge as ORNL almost 50 years ago. With all our advances in theoretical and material science and technology.

       My feeling is before long we are going to be needing ALL the options on the table and the kind of focused R&D that often produces radical design advances during times of war is going to happen in energy production.

       In a sense global warming and climate change presents a challenge that eclipses most forms of warfare with the exception of NBC.

11814. Doug_C at 14:13 PM on 1 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       sorry neglected to insert active links in the above post

11815. Doug_C at 14:09 PM on 1 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       michael sweet @4

       Not at all, I'm saying that in earlier attempts to have an in depth discussion of nuclear power I've been instructed by moderation that it was taking the discussion off topic.

       What really needs to be said about nuclear power that is needed to convince anyone of its utility as part of a new energy model that is free of fossil fuels?

       To be clear, I'm not advocating for a large scale expansion of Pressurized and Boiling Water(PWRs & BWRs) nuclear power plants which are wasteful of fuel, have faulure mechanisms that cannot be 100% addressed and produce large amounts of very long lived waste some of it transuranic actinides like Plutonium that need to be safely stored for thousands of years.

       I do however support investment in develping the kind of molten salt reactors pioneered at ORNL in the 1950s and 60s that can run on both the uranium and thorium fuel cycles. Thorium 232 being a fertile not fissile material needs to be transmuted into U-233 to be then used as fuel in a slow neutron reactor is far more proliferation tolerant than uranium as it is many neutron captures away from weapons grade Pu-239 not the one of U-238. And if you pull U-233 out of a running molten salt reactor that is breeding its own fuel it will cease to function. The break even is almost identical in neutrons released by fission in the reactors and the neutrons needed to maintain the fission and breed new fuel.

       Molten salt reactors also offer advantages not available with PWRs and BWRs as they cannot melt down - molten salt core with U-233 in solution - a two stage Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor(LFTR) would utilize almost 100% of input fuel while uranium cycle PWRs and BWRs currently utilize less than 1% of input fuel. Nuclear poisons like Xenon-135 can be removed instream while the reactor is running as can useful medical isotopes like Technetium-99m, Iodine-131 and Bismuth-213. Any moderate scale implementation of LFTRs would mean an end to any shortages of material for nuclear medicine which is very important in imaging and cancer treatment currently.

       As they run at high temperatures compared to PWRs and BWRs and near atmospheric pressures, LFTRs have a much higher thermal efficiency, do not need massive secondary containment and can also be used for things like salt water desalination after heat has been pulled off for the power loop. Which can be run by far higher efficiency Brayton Cycle gas generators.

       Because of their nature LFTRs can be built in flexible modular design and placed in locations that would never be suitable for PWRs and BWRs. Current interest in LFTRs was started by NASA looking at nuclear power generation on the Moon for instance where water would not be available for moderation, cooling and heat transfer to the generation loop. Cooling would be done with a radiation fin alone.

       As for the safety factor of nuclear power, I find it quesitonable that the Linear No Threhold(LNT) model of biological risk from exposure to ionizing radiation is accurate as the biological response to ionizing radiation does not seem to be linear.

       https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3258602/

       "The concept of DNA “repair centers” and the meaning of radiation-induced foci (RIF) in human cells have remained controversial. RIFs are characterized by the local recruitment of DNA damage sensing proteins such as p53 binding protein (53BP1). Here, we provide strong evidence for the existence of repair centers. We used live imaging and mathematical fitting of RIF kinetics to show that RIF induction rate increases with increasing radiation dose, whereas the rate at which RIFs disappear decreases. We show that multiple DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) 1 to 2 μm apart can rapidly cluster into repair centers. Correcting mathematically for the dose dependence of induction/resolution rates, we observe an absolute RIF yield that is surprisingly much smaller at higher doses: 15 RIF/Gy after 2 Gy exposure compared to approximately 64 RIF/Gy after 0.1 Gy. Cumulative RIF counts from time lapse of 53BP1-GFP in human breast cells confirmed these results. The standard model currently in use applies a linear scale, extrapolating cancer risk from high doses to low doses of ionizing radiation. However, our discovery of DSB clustering over such large distances casts considerable doubts on the general assumption that risk to ionizing radiation is proportional to dose, and instead provides a mechanism that could more accurately address risk dose dependency of ionizing radiation."

       Which means the main threat of nuclear power - exposure to ionizing radiation - is not the linear to zero threat it has been treated as from the start.

       In fact there are preliminary results that would seem to indicate that exposure to ionizing radiation within a certain threshold may have a positive health benefit. As the US Navy found with its Nuclear Shipyard Workers Study that was implemented after anecdotal evidence of a link between workers exposed to activated steel producing cobalt-60 having higher rates of leukemia.

       Although the study was never published as it found no links to leukemia from exposure to slightly higher levels of gamma radiation, the results did show a significantly lower mottaility in the nuclear worker cohort as compared to the non-nuclear workers.

       http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-NSWS-shipyard.pdf

       "Abstract: This paper is a summary of the 1991 Final Report of the Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study (NSWS), a very comprehensive study of occupational radiation exposure in the US. The NSWS compared three cohorts: a high-dose cohort of 27,872 nuclear workers, a low dose cohort of 10,348 workers, and a control cohort of 32,510 unexposed shipyard workers. The cohorts were matched by ages and job categories. Although the NSWS was designed to search for adverse effects of occupational low dose-rate gamma radiation, few risks were found. The high-dose workers demonstrated significantly lower circulatory, respiratory, and all-cause mortality than did unexposed workers.
       Mortality from all cancers combined was also lower in the exposed cohort. The NSWS results are compared to a study of British radiologists. We recommend extension of NSWS data from 1981 to 2001 to get a more complete picture of the health effects of 60Co radiation to the high-dose cohort compared to the controls."

       Then there's the fact that as organisms we like everything else are radioactive;

       https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/faqradbods.html

       "All of us have a number of naturally occurring radionuclides within our bodies. The major one that produces penetrating gamma radiation that can escape from the body is a radioactive isotope of potassium, called potassium-40. This radionuclide has been around since the birth of the earth and is present as a tiny fraction of all the potassium in nature.

       Potassium-40 (40K) is the primary source of radiation from the human body for two reasons. First, the 40K concentration in the body is fairly high. Potassium is ingested in many foods that we eat and is a critically important element for proper functioning of the human body; it is present in pretty much all the tissues of the body. The amount of the radioactive isotope 40K in a 70-kg person is about 5,000 Bq, which represents 5,000 atoms undergoing radioactive decay each second."

       Ionizing radiation in any amount stops seeming a threat when it is understood that we are constantly exposed to ionzing radiation from within and like every other organism on the planet have evolved mechanisms to not just deal with this but quite possibly use it to our benefit.

       Which us why I commented that the risk of nuclear power is often misrepresented often to highly unreasonable levels. 

       https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

       And while Acute Radiation Syndrome is a concern, it is very rare in association with nuclear power. And it is also not an automatic death sentence as conventional "wisdom" by some would have us believe.

       https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18049222

       "Abstract
       The Chernobyl accident resulted in almost one-third of the reported cases of acute radiation sickness (ARS) reported worldwide. Cases occurred among the plant employees and first responders but not among the evacuated populations or general population. The diagnosis of ARS was initially considered for 237 persons based on symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Ultimately, the diagnosis of ARS was confirmed in 134 persons. There were 28 short term deaths of which 95% occurred at whole body doses in excess of 6.5 Gy. Underlying bone marrow failure was the main contributor to all deaths during the first 2 mo. Allogenic bone marrow transplantation was performed on 13 patients and an additional six received human fetal liver cells. All of these patients died except one individual who later was discovered to have recovered his own marrow and rejected the transplant. Two or three patients were felt to have died as a result of transplant complications. Skin doses exceeded bone marrow doses by a factor of 10-30, and at least 19 of the deaths were felt to be primarily due to infection from large area beta burns. Internal contamination was of relatively minor importance in treatment. By the end of 2001, an additional 14 ARS survivors died from various causes. Long term treatment has included therapy for beta burn fibrosis and skin atrophy as well as for cataracts."

       The primary cause of death with emergency responders at the Chernobyl reactor accident was from infection in 3rd. degree beta burns. And while there are serious health issue with survivors, many were still alive decades later.

       To sum up my position on nuclear power of certain types.

       - Thorium has an energy denisty of more than 1 million times coal. A lump of thorium that fits within your hand could provide all the energy you need in a lifetime.

       - Modern reactor designs are far more safe and efficient than older designs.

       - They provide benefits such as an endless supply of medical isotops that would likely result in a revolution in nuclear medicine.

       - LFTRs produce far less transuranic actinides and most of the fission products that remain after the original fuel is consummed have decayed to ground state within a decade leaving a little over 10% of the waste needing to be stored long term. This in a reactor design that will produce about 1% of waste as current reactors.

       - Thorium is in the same abundance as lead.

       - If we choose to utilize uranium in fast spectrum molten salt reactors we can burn up all the current high level nuclear waste and have a virtually unlimited supply of fuel as the oceans contain about 4.5 billion tons of uranium before we even look at terrestrial reserves. This comes with the proliferation risk of producing large amounts of Pu-239.

       A new family of absorbents is being developed to efficiently extract uranium from sea water.

       https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1234340

       To be clear, I'm not advocating the implementation of nuclear power over other low carbon sources of energy. 

       I think we need to develop everything we can because the next few decades are going to be a challenge that is going to require innovation and flexibility that leaves no room from political agendas and poorly implemented science such as with the LNR which is almost certainly inaccurate and yet remains the main plank of opposition to nuclear power as it presents ionizing radiation as a health risk down to a level of zero. A factor that is present in all our lives at varying rates.

        

        

11816. KR at 14:01 PM on 1 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       Doug_C - Nuclear has some enticing possibilities, but there are some difficult to balance issues. Molten salt reactors are quite safe and self-limiting compared to light water reactors, but that tech hasn't been fully developed. Molten salt and micro-reactors are promising, but the development cycle time for large scale nuclear plants is daunting. We would have to choose between the once-through fuel cycle we currently use, leaving >95% of the uranium unburned and left as highly radioactive waste (and five us <100 years in supply), or reprocess it and risk large quantities of plutonium being available (which is much much easier to create a nuclear device from). The build time and cost of a (potentially) commercially viable reactor seems to require ~1GW scales, and that's really difficult on any short term scale. 

       Renewable wind/solar, on the other hand, are becoming one of the least expensive power production tools available due to price drops, have few and small scale long term pollution issues, and perhaps most importantly can be developed incrementally - adding a few hectares of panels or tens of windmills at a time. And that makes financing for renewables (pardon me) a breeze. 

       I jjust don't know if nuclear works out as viable, when considered as a system. 

11817. KR at 13:39 PM on 1 February 2019
       1934 - hottest year on record
       

       Eclectic - I think Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 really answered the basic infill question, testing temperature correlations and showing that they hold to over 1200km.  The gridding in HadCRUT is rather crude, and C&W style kriging is far more accurate, but even the earliest HadCRUT data presents global data worth looking at. 

       LTO - If you have anything more solid than repeatedly disproven denier articles, or rather paranoid papers that claim any interesting work (ie, anything that hasn't been done to death before) is likely falsified (note: I'm referring to text since deleted by moderators from your post here), which indicates actual problems with infilling using temperature anomaly correlations, by all means point it out. 

       Barring that, your objections seem IMO to be an Argument from Incredulity. 

11818. Eclectic at 10:58 AM on 1 February 2019
       1934 - hottest year on record
       

       Moderator @105 , my apologies for speculating on the coincidences.

       KR @106 , thank you very much for that Cowtan & Way link.   I have usually regarded the so-called "tropospheric" UAH/RSS satellite data as having minimal usefulness in regard to planetary surface temperatures ~ but Cowtan & Way point out that the loose correlation of satellite & surface, can be quite helpful when infilling by kriging or other interpolation methods.   Presumably the modern infilling would provide some indirect support for the infilling of the circa 1934 records.

11819. michael sweet at 10:57 AM on 1 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       Doug C.

       As you suggested a full blown nuclear discussion is generally unhelpful.  You can help us deal with nuclear here at Skeptical Science.  

       For the past 4 or 5 years I have asked any nuclear supporters to write an OP about the benefits of Nuclear Power.  If you cite peer reviewed data to support your claims I am sure it would be posted.  Unfortunately, none of the nuclear supporters has been willing to do the work to support their claims.  Perhaps in their hearts they all feel that nuclear is destined for the scrap heap of history.

       As you state, there is a great deal of misrepresentation around nuclear power.  I see many points in your post that I think are incorrect.  If you write an OP you can correct me.

       You should address the concerns about nuclear power raised in Abbott 2011 and Jacobson 2009.  A discussion of the economics of nuclear power would also be helpful.

       I look forward to reading your OP.

11820. KR at 09:29 AM on 1 February 2019
       1934 - hottest year on record
       

       I will note that the Cowtan and Way temperature series includes gridded uncertainty measures, for measurements, coverage, etc. 

       Site here

11821. Doug_C at 09:21 AM on 1 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       "There are certainly legitimate objections to nuclear power, but it is nevertheless a zero-carbon energy source. If we consider climate change an urgent, existential threat and if we want to meet the Paris climate targets, then eliminating fossil fuels must be our first priority. Only after fossil fuels have been replaced can we consider doing the same to other zero-carbon energy sources."

       Not to start an in-depth debate on this, but there is also a great deal of misrepresentation of the risk of nuclear power. Even with the dramatic "disasters" at TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power still remains the safest form of energy production.

       Nuclear power offers an energy density that is unrivaled and with "new" - molten salt reactors date back to the 1950s - technology a level of safety that is much greater than even current PWRs and BWRs that have had most of the failure mechnisms engineered out of them.

       Molten salt reactors in both the slow and fast spectrum and using both the thorium and uranium fuel cycle offer centuries of energy at current levels of consumption at least. And have benefits no other source of energy generation does like producing medical radio-isotopes and other highly valuable fission products like nobel metals and xenon.

       They can also be used for large scale salt water desalination which could be a real boon in places that will be suffering from drought as a result of climate change. California comes to mind for this.

       As for phasing out large-scale hydro-electric and all forms of combustion, where is the sense in that at all. Climate change is a potential existential threat, local air quality and watershed integrity are not. Here in BC many of our older dams are under-utilized, retro-fitting older dams with modern generation equipment could go a long way to filling the gap.

       And with process like thermal depolymerization, any long chain organic waste can be coverted to light crude quivalent to Texas light in a matter of hours.

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

       How about America phases out all its landfills and sewage treatment facilities in large centers and replaces them with catalytic plants that can handle all orgnic waste while producing petroleum suitable for refining and manufacturing while also producing large amounts of methane - much of which is fed back into the process to power it - naptha and black carbon.

       And to pay for the transition, introduce a revenue neutral fee and dividend system that allows individuals to choose which new source of energy generation they want to support.

       Fee and dividend

       The US and all nations need to tackle climate change first and phase out all fossil fuels as quickly as we can. Then deal with other concerns that are less pressing.

       And that certainly applies to nuclear power which has never been the threat so many have presented it as being.

11822. Eclectic at 08:45 AM on 1 February 2019
       1934 - hottest year on record
       

       KR @102 and @103 ,

       you may not have considered the matter: but this thread contains a modicum of internal evidence that Dr McLean and poster LTO have a possible coincidence of identities.   Not conclusive of course, for the patterns of thinking are hardly rare in the deniosphere.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] No cyber-stalking. Speculations like this are extremely unhelpful and very unlikely.

11823. Evan at 06:53 AM on 1 February 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       Doug_C@13 Before I woke up to the reality of GW/CC about 7 years ago, before that time I started noticing what I called digital weather, where Spring would be wet and cold for about 2-3 months, then summer would be dry and hot for 2-3 months. In general Minnesota winters have been much milder than when I grew up. I remember experiencing -35F, but not -50F. In my generation (late 50's) I can't think of anyone I've talked with who does not remark about how winters are currently milder than in the 60's and 70's.

11824. Doug_C at 06:29 AM on 1 February 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       Evan @9

       I grew up in north central British Columbia and in the late 1960s remember being kept home from school because the temperature had gone below -50F and there was concerns about frostbite in our young lungs.

       In the 1980s working in the forestry sector there was one winter when it went below -40C and stayed there for a week. That was the last prolonged deep freeze I can remember here. We still get cold snaps but not like decades ago and the forests really show it. It takes prolonged deep cold to kill off large numbers of pine beetle who burrow into trees to lay eggs and produce natural antifreeze to make it through the winter.

       All the dead trees covering BC are just one more sign of climate change to many of us.

11825. Evan at 06:26 AM on 1 February 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       nigelj@11 I think you are missing a link.

11826. JWRebel at 06:22 AM on 1 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       My initial reaction was exactly the same as NigelJ. In the Netherlands there is also a debate about a climate action plan (which the government has been compelled by law and by the courts to enact), but the simple measure that climate action specialists have recommended for 4 decades is too much to muster. Debate now rages about how fair it is to collect extra taxes for heating your home (which will disproportionately impact the poor, who tend to live in poorly insulated housing, and who spend a larger proportion of their income on heating, and who are already often forced to turn the heating down/off and wear blankets all day to make ends meets) ... extra taxes to help subsidize rebates for prospective new Tesla owners. Of course the biggest exceptions will apply to the largest corporate users who are already getting their energy for the lowest prices — that includes all airlines that pay far less for their kerosine than anybody else pays for gasoline.

       The right and left will be at each others throats for decades before getting this done. A simple carbon tax is politically much less toxic and more effective. Distribute the tax revenue back per capita, which would make it a progressive tax. And add import adjustments for embedded carbon from countries that have lower carbon taxes. If we don't start there, we are asking to get bogged down. Trust me — the surest way to kill any project is by pretending to be even more ambitious and expand it until it becomes undoable.

       I'm all for military order of magnitude spending on research and energy transitioning (much more than regulations prohibiting or mandating all sorts of things). But avoid at all costs the possibility that decarbonizing becomes a left/right political quagmire.

11827. nigelj at 06:00 AM on 1 February 2019
       A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
       

       The Green New Deal looks very well intended and a good overall philosophy, but it looks like it requires hundreds of complicated regulations which makes it unweildy. All because it lacks a price on carbon! and a simple idea like a carbon tax and cap and trade.

       It also proposes the government build and fund billions in infrastructure, which is economically a high risk approach given federal debt is already high. A carbon tax and / or just a few limited subsidies would achieve the same end goal by pushing the private sector to build renewable energy.
       The ideas seem to come form the New Deal of the 1930's but times were different then.

       I think the idea might be popular with the public because it doesn't involve a tax and leaves everything to the government, but I can't see politicians loving it, and they decide on legislation.

       Just my gut reaction. I could be wrong. Its hard to predict what ideas will gain traction.

11828. scaddenp at 05:53 AM on 1 February 2019
       1934 - hottest year on record
       

       LTO - I agree it would be better if we had side-by-side chart of error-bars, but again, the chart is valid for the purpose. Even with double the estimated error, the essential picture of differences between 1934 and now is unchanged - it is fit for purpose.

       As it is, as far as aware from the papers, a "map" of error estimates does not exist. The validation and error estimation methods instead work by latitude-range and sometimes ocean (eg the error bars for north atlantic are less than for north pacific).

11829. william5331 at 05:44 AM on 1 February 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       nigelj

       Ruddiman has a very plausable theory on why this interglacial has been so much more stable, climate wise, than previous interglacials.  See Plows Plagues and Petroleum.  A fascinating read.

11830. william5331 at 05:41 AM on 1 February 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       The last thing you need when standing on the edge of a cliff is a great leap forward.

11831. KR at 03:45 AM on 1 February 2019
       1934 - hottest year on record
       

       And here's a discussion of that thesis at 'And Then There's Physics', which points out that the thesis was completed under the direction of two well known climate deniers.

       The science in that thesis is lousy, and it's not. a. good. source.

11832. KR at 03:42 AM on 1 February 2019
       1934 - hottest year on record
       

       LTO - I looked back through your previous comments in your thread, and found your posting of a thesis by a John McLean, which somehow argues that HadCRUT is wholly unreliable. Is this the same John McLean who in 2011 stated (oh, so incorrectly) that temps were about to return to 1956 levels?

       If so, I would humbly point out that he's not a good reference due to past demonstrated errors. His temperature predictions are among the worst I'm aware of.

11833. Daniel Bailey at 02:28 AM on 1 February 2019
       The Methane 'Time Bomb': How big a concern?
       

       "What we do see in the geological record is the isotopic fingerprint of massive methane clathrate releases during periods of rapid warming from a prior stable state.

       Which is exactly what is happening now."

       Respectfully, those periods were directly related to, and a result of, Large Igneous Province events.  This has been covered by this venue before.  But to the best of my knowledge, the evidence supporting a firing of the Clathrate Gun since the PETM is scarce (and the evidence of a firing then is mixed).

       What the paleo record and recent research shows is that clathrates have endured periods of warmer temperatures than even now for even millions of years and remained in stable configurations.  Obviously, that is not proof that clathrates will remain immune to future warming, but since in science we use the past as a guide to the future, it does lend some measure of confidence that time remains to make a difference for those coming after us.

11834. citizenschallenge at 01:28 AM on 1 February 2019
       New research, January 14-20, 2019
       

       Ari, thanks for continuing with this thankless task.  It is important!

       But I'm here to ask a question: would you know the first time the PDO was incorporated into climate models?

       I'm asking because I've read recent claims that climate models do not incorporate the PDO.  I can imagine that perhaps long-term models may not incorporate the PDO because it's actually irrelevant to what they are looking at (since the PDO only pushes heat around).  But, that's personal guessing.  

       Just seems to me the PDO has been studied a great deal and that the accumulating information would have been plugged into climate models - and if not, there's probably a good explanation that I would love to learn about.

       But I don't know, I'm no scientist, though I do try to keep up with their findings.

       Ari, can you (or anyone else) add any clarifying details?

11835. KR at 01:24 AM on 1 February 2019
       1934 - hottest year on record
       

       LTO - If you are so concerned regarding the infill for certain regions in 1934 (an argument I find quite thin; the correlation strengths for those infills are well tested and established), then by all means simply compare the sampled areas in 1934 directly with the identical areas in 2016 - ignore the regions of increased coverage. And you will find, as per the OP, that 1934 was warm in a few regions such as the US, but overall the globe wasn't particularly warm (perhaps 0.1C below the 20th century average), and that the last few years are running perhaps 1C above the 20th century average, both in the subset well sampled in 1934 and in the world as a whole.

       In short, the climate myth claiming that 1934 was a hot year, and thus attempting to refute general temperature assessments, is both wrong and a bad idea, scientifically speaking.

       Given that, just what is your complaint about the OP?

11836. Evan at 23:47 PM on 31 January 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       I grew up in Minnesota, and winter was not winter until we had one or two weeks when daily highs were below 0 and lows were in the -20's or colder. Now we have a couple days when it's cold, and this weekend we will be in the higher 30's low 40's!

11837. MA Rodger at 22:56 PM on 31 January 2019
       1934 - hottest year on record
       

       LTO @96.

       Firstly, my apologies for the "... and this refers to both land and ocean data" within my comment @94. This was part of a rather-too-long passage that was cut, and should have been cut in its entirety. (This cut passage concerned the "reliability" comment on the ERSST info web-page being part of the caption for a missing graphic.)

       Secondly, looking at your many comments down this thread, you "beef" is that you consider it inappropriate to in-fill temperatures on an anomaly map. You term this in-fill for the 1934 map in the OP (actually a 5-year period centred on 1934) "exceptionally misleading," "massively misleading and something of a work of fiction," "fanciful" and suggest it is unjustifiable. You appear to expect coverage to be at least ten stations per ~200km square. And despite the long-long interchange since #59 up-thread, I don't see any movement from that position.

       You appear to want folk here to furnish you with station-number/measurement-numbers for some remote part of the world at some time in the past; this information to demonstrate that you are justified in branding the anomay map in the OP "exceptionally misleading." But such a conclusion ignores the ability of folk to produce such anomaly maps that remain remarkably accurate with far fewer data. I think you are less after understanding (which you have said is your purpose) and more are looking for a research assistant to furnish you with ammunition for your erroneous "beef."

       Thirdly, I am aware that you asked a question @87. Demanding an answer isn't a good way of getting an answer. Besides, I am not entirely sure an answer would be helpful to your understanding.

       So perhaps there is need to restructure your 'enquiry' here. So far, it is producing a lot of words and with very little coherence.

11838. Doug_C at 18:52 PM on 31 January 2019
       The Methane 'Time Bomb': How big a concern?
       

       It may require some fundamental shift to destabilize some of these methane hydrate deposits, the concern I have is we are shifting the entire global system of heat transfer and storage from a relatively stable state to one that is in flux to a much different system. One not ever seen before when we consider continental arrangement, Solar output and ocean circulation.

       There was a paper by Hansen and his GISS team a number of years ago about research that showed it was possible that as the poles continue to warm and deep water submergence off of Greenland slowed it a new area of deep water submergence could form in temperate zones introducing relatively warm water to the deep ocean.

       There are so many variables at work here that I don't think a massive methane release is off the table. It may not happen for decades or centuries, but we could be creating the conditions right now that triggers such a release at a later time and not even know it.

       What we do see in the geological record is the isotopic fingerprint of massive methane clathrate releases during periods of rapid warming from a prior stable state. 

       Which is exactly what is happening now.

11839. LTO at 18:42 PM on 31 January 2019
       1934 - hottest year on record
       

       Remarkable that someone considered something in my post at #96 to be inflammatory and yet lets eclectic spew insult after insult cf #97.

       Scadden: you're persisting in refusing to engage on the points I'm actually making about the 1934 chart. You say that uncertainty and large error bars aren't thr same as don't know, but this depends on what the question is, and what you're trying to do with the data. The 1934 chart doesn't present any error bars, uncertainties or indications of statistical significance at all nor acknowledge the massive spread in uncertainties across different parts of the globe. The error is not homogeneous. This, as I've been repeatedly saying, is incredibly misleading as it leads people to think we know far more than we actually do.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Moderation complaint snipped.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

        

        

11840. Elmwood at 15:07 PM on 31 January 2019
       The Methane 'Time Bomb': How big a concern?
       

       I used to interact briefly with methane hydrate researchers at the USGS, mostly from a resource assessment perspective. From what I remember, being a non-clathrate specialist, was that they (USGS, i.e. Carolyn Ruppel and Tim Collett) didn't think massive marine destabilization via global warming was likely. I remember someone saying that ocean waters are relatively unsaturated with methane and that the methane wouldn't be able to rise to the surface.. I could be totally wrong on this!

       I do know that the going theory is that massive onshore methane hydrates deposits are "frozen" thermogenic natural gas fields that had probably been there for a long time, well before the icehouse climate we are or used to be in. Therefore, it's unlikely that these frozen gas fields will destabalize and make it to the atmosphere--they are already trapped so to speak.

       The methane hydrate stability zone, onshore Artic Alaska, is typically around 800' to over 4,000' below the surface, and would take a very long time to thaw out anyways. By then the earth will probably be 8 degrees C warmer--game over!

11841. nigelj at 14:48 PM on 31 January 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       Regarding America's current very cold weather: NOAA's Brilliant Response To Trumps Climate Tweet

11842. Doug_C at 12:01 PM on 31 January 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       michael sweet @3 

       You're right to advise caution as weather extremes are often misrepresented as "proof" that a long term warming is not taking place.

       It's important to note that global warming and climate change is a long term trend taking place over the entire globe. And while local cold weather records may be broken, this is almost certainly a result of the chaotic disruption of weather caused by a global transition to a warmer Earth.

       In the case of some periods of cold weather in North America, this may be due to the fact that generaly warmer temperatures in the Arctic have disrupted atmospheric circulation that in the past has tended to isolate very cold air masses above the Arctic in the winter.

       This can result in unusual weather across North America such as a few year ago when we in Edmonton Alberta were experiencing unusually mild weather well above freezing when Florida was seeing sub zero weather and snow.

11843. michael sweet at 11:20 AM on 31 January 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       I am sorry, in the USA there were 7 cold records in the past 365 days.

11844. michael sweet at 11:13 AM on 31 January 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       Nigelj,

       Read the link to Cliff Mass.  The data show that cold waves are much less frequent and are warmer than they used to be.  They are warming faster than the global average.

       If you look at the all time temperature records at the NCDC (linked above) in the past 365 days in the USA there were 181 hot records and only 5 cold records (!!!).  That is because hot records are much more common than they used to be and cold records are much less common.

       In the NCDC all time global records in the past 365 days there were 568 hot records and only 18 cold records.  I do not know how many global sites they use.  Many news reports call temperatures that are the coldest for the past 50 years a "record cold" even though it used to be much colder.  I also heard "coldest in a generation" which is generally only 30 years.  People forget what it used to be like.

11845. nigelj at 11:00 AM on 31 January 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       The cold weather in America might well be nothing truly record setting, but there is some preliminary evidence climate change is altering the behaviour of the polar vortex, and leading to potentially lengthy and more frequent periods of very cold winter temperatures in America.

       en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex#Climate_change

11846. michael sweet at 09:09 AM on 31 January 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       Doug C.:

       While many mass media outlets have reported record cold, it has not yet been as cold as it used to be from 1900-1950.

       At the NCDC temperature records page they currently record no monthly cold lows or monthly cold highs set in the past 7 days.  I have seen several reports of daily records (not monthly or yearly records) that might be set tonight.  It is possible that the data has not had time to be recorded yet, we should check back in a few days.  Since it is January a yearly cold record would be unusual cold while a daily record is not as significant.

       Cliff Mass has a post that shows cold spells are warming faster than average global warming (hat tip to snape at Tamino's).

       Until the data shows a few all time lows the "record polar vortex" is so much smoke.  A post at Tamino's showed that in Minneapolis the number of days per year -20F or lower has dramatically decreased for the past several decades.  I heard a newsman report on PBS that it was the "coldest it had been in 50 years".  Global warming really got going 50 years ago.  A 50 year record would be a cold, but not exceptional day, in the 1920's.

       During the "Summer in Wnter" in 2012, in at least 4 locations the low temperature at night was higher than the previous highest temperature ever recorded (at locations with long periods of record).  Several daily records were broken by 30F.  We will see if this cold spell actually sets any significant records next week.   

       The deniers like to hype average cold spells as record setting, don't believe them.  If it is the coldest day in 20 years it is as cold as an average cold day 75 years ago.

11847. Doug_C at 08:37 AM on 31 January 2019
       The Methane 'Time Bomb': How big a concern?
       

       “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” - Mark Twain

       There are no greater fools in todays world than those who are intentionally denying fossil fuels driven climate change.

       They have won the decades long struggle to face this crisis by pulling the rest of society most notably the entire field of science into the mud where everyone is seen in the same irresponsible and foolish light.

       Those of us who really are interested in being the best not worst we can be need to step totally out of this paradigm and make the necessary changes.

       In the long term we will all be so much the better for it.

11848. Evan at 07:30 AM on 31 January 2019
       The Methane 'Time Bomb': How big a concern?
       

       Doug_C@8 Well said. So let's stop asking people if they believe in GW/CC and just take polls about what we should do about it. By asking if people believe GW/CC is occurring and if ask about causation, we are leading into the industry that is standing in the way of progress. That is, we legitimize the false debate by asking about the false ndebate.

11849. Doug_C at 07:06 AM on 31 January 2019
       SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes
       

       According to the work of James Hansen et al climate sensitivity roughly follows a U-shaped curve, which means the further you get from your approximately stable start point the faster change occurs.

       Hansen and Sato Estimate Climate Sensitivity from Earth's History

        

       The longer we push this process the more dangerous it gets with major tipping points like the loss of polar ice sheet stability, ice albedo effect and altering of ocean and atmospheric circulation.

       We're now experiencing in North America what a destabilized Arctic vortex means with very cold air that usually sits over the North Pole during winter being pulled deep into the continent producing record cold in many places.

       We'll also see these extremes in coming years as ocean levels increase and record storm activity creates record storm surges. Not a possibility now, a statistical certainty given the conditions.

       A safe level of CO2 is almost certainly below;

       350 ppm

11850. scaddenp at 06:59 AM on 31 January 2019
       1934 - hottest year on record
       

       Validation and errors have been re-examined a number of times, as the explicitly stated in the Huang 2016 method paper and easily followed in the bibliography. As a side note BEST was set up because of perceived errors in the temperature record. They tried a new methodology (always good) but ended up discovering that that existing methodology worked after all. Perception is not reality, but BEST credit, this is science and skepticism working as it should.

       What is peeving for me and other commentators is that your insistence "we know things about the global distribution of temp anomalies that we simply don’t" Uncertainty and large error bars are not the same as "dont know". Huang comments on pre-1940 data are more deeply discussed in the methods and earlier papers. 1940 is when change in measurement methodology occurred as well as issues with coverage. These all combine to uncertainties of up to 0.9C in lower southern hemisphere oceans. Double that if you like and the difference between 1934 and now is still pretty much as depicted by the figure.

       Sparcity of measurement does not translate into unknowable. You can use modern satellite data to show anomalies are spatially correlated over large distance and estimate errors in unsampled areas. You dont appear to have read how the anomaly baselines are actually calculated. Try Smith and Reynolds 2003 and note especially the discussion about high and low frequency distributions. And, yes, weather models are useful. Humidity measurements made down wind constrain what temperatures upwind can be etc etc. And, no you dont have to take it on faith. Reanalysis models do extensive validation otherwise noone would trust them.

Prev  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  237  238  239  240  241  242  243  244  Next