by Judith Curry
It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion.
-
Search
Denizens
Recent comments
- jim2 on A bad recipe for science
- ganon1950 on A bad recipe for science
- ganon1950 on A bad recipe for science
- ianl on A bad recipe for science
- The Great Walrus on A bad recipe for science
- ganon1950 on A bad recipe for science
- cerescokid on A bad recipe for science
- Jungletrunks on A bad recipe for science
- ganon1950 on A bad recipe for science
- ganon1950 on A bad recipe for science
-
Recent Posts
- A bad recipe for science
- Net-Zero Targets: Sustainable Future or CO2 Obsession Driven Dead-end?
- Hansen’s latest overheated global warming claims are based on poor science
- Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role
- Climate Change: A Curious Crisis
- State of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the NE U.S.
- Arctic sea ice: the canary in the coal mine
- The ‘Holy Grail’ of social predictors of public attitudes toward climate change
- New Zealand grid
- Causality and climate
- Comment and Reply to GRL on evaluation of CMIP6 simulations
- Australian Electricity Generation – 2023 Update
- Controversy surrounding the Sun’s role in climate change
- Do CMIP5 models skillfully match actual warming?
- Geophysical consequences of celestial mechanics
Categories
Blogroll
- A chemist in Langley
- AndThenTheresPhysics
- Bill Hooke
- Cliff Mass
- Climate Audit
- Clive Best
- Ed Hawkins
- HeterodoxAcademy
- Kahn: Environmental & Urban Economics
- Paul Homewood
- Pragmatic Environmentalist
- Saravanan: MetaModel
- Science of Doom
- The Ethical Skeptic
- Watts Up With That?
- WoodForTrees
- Wx & Climate @ Reading
Archives
Email Subscription
Join 5,140 other subscribersMeta
The Sun & OZONE:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/cosmic-rays-and-climate-to-be-or-not-to-be/#comment-1469737
Here’s another ozone tip.
See Appendix A here for more help with the timing framework & carefully tuned aggregation.
A better approach is the dynamic/ CCM Here the changes in the atmospheric chemistry such as photo-dissociation in the upper atmosphere can orchestrate changes in SAT and the so called weather regimes.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/10951/2013/acp-13-10951-2013.html
Thanks for the link.
Have you done the calculations to reproduce and extend Dickey & Keppenne’s (1997) Figure 3(a&b)??
maksimovich | November 8, 2013 at 9:16 pm | “A better approach”
Modeling based on abstract theory is NEVER superior to careful data exploration.
I suggest a better sense of priorities and MUCH clearer quantitative VISION.
Actually, a better tip is to just look at the data.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-W9ynvjUY2vg/Un47nIrYj8I/AAAAAAAAKfY/kMkfmJwk6Ag/w767-h445-no/sh+tropics+v+recosntructed+tsi.png
When you start comparing apples and oranges and pears with no reasonable combination of mechanisms you just overly complicate a complex problem. Just start with the main heat sources, sun and tropical oceans and work back.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-_AvbafVHhEQ/Un4sO5_HrsI/AAAAAAAAKfE/eBHl3ESphUk/w719-h481-no/sh+tropics+v+composite+tsi.png
Simple 27-29month lag because what is being measured, SST is not SST but the ocean bulk mixing layer. You will have a lag. There is an imbalance across the equator where Corriolis effects try to isolate energy but every so often there is an equalization, you end up with the Quasi-biennial Oscillation that equalizes part of the imbalance.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-53MZRlz2Mx8/Un1-KcyMgRI/AAAAAAAAKes/kG4SMmw37-M/w813-h497-no/Westerlies+Shift.png
The Hadley cell average termination latitude provides another reference of longer term equatorial imbalances trying to equalize.
Then when you consider that the net change is tenths of a degree, you should start wondering exactly what the big deal is about.
Are you asserting violation of the law of conservation of angular momentum?
Or are you asserting violation of the law of large numbers?
Or both?
It’s very telling that not a single commentator at CE (including the host) can reproduce Dickey & Keppenne’s Figure 3(a&b), interpret it sensibly, and realize the simple implications.
And from this ignorant perspective CE commentators confidently (it’s false confidence) make 1000s of comments week after week that amount to nothing because they imply things that are not consistent with hard-constrained observations.
When this failing is pointed out, people just ignore it (it’s too inconvenient to deal with) and move on with their day. Very telling.
Commentators appear content to blindly buy into the ‘stadium wave’ on some kind of religious faith, without being willing to lift a quantitative finger to understand its roots.
It’s crucially informative that CE commentators persistently evade Dickey & Keppenne’s Figure 3(a&b) and the simple implications.
One possibility is that the ignorance is deliberate, because shining a bright light clarifies that the forcing (which modulates an internal mode of variability) is external. There’s not enough information to rule out the possibility of naive ignorance. The only sure thing is that deep, intransigent deception &/or ignorance is at play — dark either way.
Clue in folks:
http://imageshack.us/a/img440/2402/yms.png
Get over your denial.
That’s amazing! I’ve never seen anything like that before. I’m reading that Dickey paper but It’d be nice if you could put that image in more context for me.
new:
zonal total column ozone waves =
http://imageshack.us/a/img9/7195/xu88.png (still-frames — the link I gave at the Talkshop & at WUWT was an animation of the same frames)
STC101 is due for update, refinement, and expansion, but it remains a concise starting point.
Excellent! thanks
You’re welcome.
Pondering the Maunder and predicting an ice age in 2015 is certainly being specific.
I gree Gail, Paul can be a bit cryptic at times. Bit like Mosh he is.
Paul Vaughan
Get over your denial.
Your hallmark style of vaccuous handwaving and militant conceit is unpersuasive. ‘Go away and read xyz and don’t come back till you agree with me’ may suffice in academia, but not in blogs.
Instead, why not try and string a comprehensible argument together sometime?
I agree Gail. See above. Wrong tree again!
Thing is, it’s just gotta be there.
=======
How it goes:
If Gail says “2+2=5”
Then Paul responds “NO!”
Seems Gail would prefer it
if when Gail says “2+2=5”
Paul responds, “Yes! buuuuuut……..”
Anecdote:
When I used to teach stats, there were always some students who would fall behind and then try to shortcut right into participating in the later chapters on p-values & confidence intervals without ever having first taken the time to understand the following concepts: standard deviation, standard error, central limit theorem.
You can imagine how well that went!!
An exact analogy:
I now constantly hear whining in climate discussions from people who think they’re going to shortcut directly to understanding why solar cycle deceleration correlates so strongly with multidecadal northern hemisphere sea surface temperature even though they’ve never invested the time & effort needed to reproduce, extend, and sensibly interpret Dickey & Keppenne’s (1997) Figure 3(a&b).
…So I’m challenging everyone to learn about SD, SE, & CLT in the hope that we will eventually be able to productively & sensibly discuss p-values & CIs.
Paul Vaughan, “…So I’m challenging everyone to learn about SD, SE, & CLT in the hope that we will eventually be able to productively & sensibly discuss p-values & CIs.”
What? For Climate Science? Surely you jest. In Climate Science Statistics are 50% novel, 49% canned and 5% attention to detail :)
Suggestion:
Get to work on reproducing, extending, and sensibly interpreting Figure 3(a&b):
Dickey, J.O.; & Keppenne, C.L. (1997). Interannual length-of-day variations and the ENSO phenomenon: insights via singular spectral analysis.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22759/1/97-1286.pdf
Paul, I am more into the Fluid Dynamics of the problem and the internal lags. Solar cycle decelleration allows for a greater probability of a short cycle interacting with the internal mixing lags. In addition to the ENSO region ~27 (2.25 year) lag there is a variable ~8.5 year lag in the upper ocean mixing layer which a short solar cycle can amplify. 9 years is a harmonic of the 2.25 which can produce a larger synchronization, “All things remaining equal”.
While your correlation with NH SST is nifty, SH deeper ocean temperatures have been driving most of the climate change since the SH and THC have to replace NH deep ocean heat loss due to prolonged solar/volcanic depression.
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/6179/2013/cpd-9-6179-2013.pdf
Kind of neat paper in discussion which seems to be moving in the correct direction.
That work’s worthwhile but it’s overreaching the boundaries of current mainstream knowledge. While stretching like that is a worthwhile exercise, it doesn’t clarify any fundamentals. What I’m showing you is something simple & fundamental that was overlooked. If you’ve understood D&K97’s fig3a&b (indications are you haven’t) you might save yourself a lot of unnecessary trouble chasing echoes.
One positive thing that came out of looking at the paper to which you linked was a productive hunt for materials on Brewer-Dobson circulation, which uncovered these [ http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/6_3.htm ] notes which were quite helpful for interpreting some of the patterns in the zonal ozone plots I showed above. So in that narrow, serendipitous sense: Thanks very much! That material’s also quite helpful for interpreting D&K97’s fig3b.
Cheers!
Paul, ” you might save yourself a lot of unnecessary trouble chasing echoes.”
Everybody needs a little exercise :)
Judging by Paul, standards in academia are even lower than I feared. Besides militant conceit, we now have this pathetic “Gail says 2+5=5” drivel.
Disengage your finder from your posterior, lad, and give people a clear taster of whatever you think your point is. And then, if you can write coherently despite being an academic, who knows – people might come to agree with you.
The thing is, Paul, that if you can’t produce a coherent taster, people will conclude that your finger is permanently up your nethers, and rationally not allocate their limited time or thoughts to you.
It’s not like you have a reputation here, that you can rely on to get followers.
Gail, just ignore my comments. You’re not a member of the target audience.
Dallas, THC is coupled to the more general circulation that is spatiotemporally governed by SCD.
Paul, “Dallas, THC is coupled to the more general circulation that is spatiotemporally governed by SCD.”
That gets you in the ballpark. You can get about a 69% correlation between solar and SST near the equator which is not enough to be totally convincing. Then there is the issue of volcanic influences on THC and solar TSI estimates. The paper reference touched on a few of the issues from a modeling perspective. seasonal timing being off just a few months can through of the synchronization.
Selvam has a number of papers on the issues of internal versus external synchronization and self organizing criticality. This creates issues with the data. If you are careful with the seasonal baseline choice, for example GISS uses 1951-1980 which has different volcanic forcing than HadCrut 1961-1990, you can have a tenth of a degree error which is about 30% of the TSI response.
So I am trying a number of simple approaches looking for convergence before getting too in depth.
“through of”? Auto correct is getting less creative, should be throw off
Your assumptions about solar are fundamentally wrong. Let’s leave it at that.
Paul Vaughan, Here is a blurb from Selvam.
” The model predicted periodicities are 2.2, 3.6, 5.8, 9.5, 15.3, 24.8, 40.1,and 64.9 years for values of n ranging from -1 to 6. Peridicities close to model predicted have been reported (Burroughs 1992; Kane 1996).”
http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0105109
I get 2.25 instead of 2.2 but that is likely due to monthly data. Selvam is more focused on atmospheric than oceans so I get a little different sequence in monthly ocean data, all harmonics of 2.25 +/- seasonal depending on the latitude. So your fit should have some error.
Since hemispheric imbalances impact the BDC you get some fun ionospheric stuff. ” Incidentally, it was found that enhancement of background noise, i.e. energy input into the eddy continuum results in amplification of faint signals in electrical circuits (Brown 1996).”
Paul, “Your assumptions about solar are fundamentally wrong. Let’s leave it at that.”
Fine. I am in good company.
Why we should focus on removing the impediments that are preventing nuclear power from being a cheap energy source
1. If we want to massively cut global CO2 emissions over the next half century, policies like Kyoto protocols and carbon pricing are unlikely to succeed.
2. What is needed instead is cheap energy.
3. The effectively unlimited source of cheap, low CO2 emissions energy that is already proven (although not yet as cheap as it could and should be) is nuclear power. Renewables are unlikely to be able to make much of a contribution to the world’s energy demand in the foreseeable future, if ever.
4. To make nuclear cheaper we need to remove the impediments that have been placed on it as a result of 50 years of anti-nuclear propaganda which has caused widespread irrational fear of nuclear power. The USA is best placed to lead the way on removing the impediments (over time).
5. If we remove the impediments, so that commercial competition can be unleashed, the price will come down sufficiently so that nuclear could replace coal (or most coal and some gas) for electricity generation by 2045. This act alone could reduce global emissions by 15 Gt/a below the projected 2045 emissions – that’s a 1/3 cut of projected CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
6. The cut in emissions from allowing cheap nuclear power could be much greater than just 15 Gt/a. As electricity becomes cheap and high temperature nuclear reactor produce hydrogen, transport fuels can also be produced.
7. Gen IV reactors will take decades to become commercially viable. They will come eventually, but it is not a near term solution. What is needed in the short term is to develop low-cost small modular nuclear power plants. Claims by Gen IV advocacy groups as to when they will be viable are about as reliable as the advocacy groups for anything else. They are just not plausible as is well known if you take note of the wise heads in industry.
Peter Lang,
If CAGW were really about reducing carbon emissions, then nuclear and hydro would be front and center in the policy agenda of the people in power. They are the only sure way to actually reduce admissions in the west in any significant amount over the next decades. Yet they are doing everything they can to prevent both.
What are they pushing? Decarbonization, subsidizing “alternative” energy.
Why is that? Nuclear and hydro would produce more power, with less emissions, benefiting people. But the number of people whose activities would be controlled by government are minimal. The number of crony capitalists who can feed at the government trough is also minimal.
But with decarbonization you get to gain control over parts of the lives of every human being in the west. With “alternative” energy, the potential number of crony capitalists is almost lmitless.
If you are trying to limit emissions and improve people’s lives, nuclear and hydro are the way to go.
If you want to increase your political power and control over the economy, decarbonization and “alternative” energy are preferable.
Ignore what they say, watch what they do.
I’ll believe there’s a fire when the people screaming “fire!!!” act like there’s a fire. The ones prissily saying ‘nyet’ to nukes don’t strike me as honestly believing that there’s a climate crisis.
And BTW/FWIW, most of the world, and certainly North America and Europe, are pretty close to tapped out for hydropower. We’re not going to see any more Grand Coulee Dams. Nuke plants, especially thorium-powered ones (which aren’t commercialized yet, but are clearly doable), we can build wall-to-wall.
What a waste!
=========
Humorously, it is radiation-phobe FOMD’s hero Hansen who has been most vociferous on the necessity for expanding nuclear power. Hansen’s been very public and acerbic about the impossibility of getting to decarbonization with solar panels and wind turbines. Of course, he usually talks about researching next-generation plants that would somehow be safer (and coupling the policy with a rebated carbon tax), but it still makes him one of the more militant pro-nuke voices in the policy arena.
As Jerry Pournelle has said often and accurately: “Cheap, plentiful energy is the key to freedom and prosperity.”
EVERY energy policy recommended by the politician/Climate Expert/environmentalist complex is designed, either deliberately or through implausible stupidity, to INCREASE the cost of energy and REDUCE its availability. They go to the mats to block any proposal that would either increase the supply of energy or reduce its cost.
Why?
Bob Ludwick
I’ve got no use for FOMD, but to be fair he’s not opposing nuclear power but the “corporate” safety standards involved in a few incidents.
Of course, as a (neo?)Marxist, he’ll jump on any opportunity to blame “corporations” for the world’s ills. But won’t point out that these “corporations” are children of the socialized “military-industrial complex”, and much more a matter of crony-capitalism than the “free-market” version.
And we mustn’t forget that “corporations” antedate free enterprise of the sort favored by libertarians: the first major “corporate” entities (of the modern Western sort) were monasteries and city-states of northern Europe. “Companies” also: they began as military ventures, such as the “White Company” fictionalized by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
This is not to suggest that modern “corporations” and “companies” engaged in true free-market capitalism are the same thing, that’s a Marxist perversion. But the terms, and the social entities they refer to, include a variety of much less “free-market” entities.
One of the main drawbacks to nuclear power is what to do with the waste. The half life of some of these radioactive elements is forever. Nobody wants it in their backyard.
Reprocessed and/or dumped in the subduction zones of the deep ocean trenches.
H/t Kevin.
======
That’s Harry Reid’s problem. He deserves to spend eternity with a bunch of radioactive waste for being such a cranky old jerk.
Gary Myers,
I agree it is political and public relations issue. But it is not a real technical issue. It is a furphy and that is why I didn’t mention it.
Firstly, you need to recognise that all energy technologies produce toxic wastes. most are chemicals that are mar more toxic and have no half life – they last for ever. And they are mostly released to the environment, unlike nuclear waste which is contained.
Secondly, to assist you to develop a rational perspective, consider how many people have been killed by nuclear waste from nuclear power stations over the past 50 years. Now compare that with the numbers of fatalities being attributed to pollution from other energy technologies.
To further assist you, authoritative studies – of all the health and other impacts of the various stages of energy system on a life cycle basis – have been going on for over 30 years (e.g. US EPA, EU Externe, and hundreds of others). You can see a good condensed summary of the results here: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html
Go to the links if you want to dig down to the various studies.
Molten salt reactors burn up nuclear waste. The most well studied used fluorides, which have a host of complications. Chloride salts are much better, but 35Cl can capture a neutron, become 36S, and corrode your reactor. In the 60’s they could not economically make pure 37Cl, to get around the generation of sulfur. However, laser separation is now dirt cheap and revisiting the molten chloride salt reactor is well worth another look.
Each user of electricity from a nuclear reactor should be required to store the waste at their home. Places like the kitchen table and the baby nursery, etc. Mankind has never taken care of anything for as long as it is necessary to care for this stuff, and making it go with the inheritance is the only way I can imagine it working.
You worry about the half-life of the waste: have you ever thought of the half-life of the uranium used? (Dug up from your back yard)
The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years.
What’s your problem?
JCH, better would be to light the nursery with flowering coils.
================
dang, ‘flowering snakes’ is better.
=================
How about Josh’s backyard?
No, we want to store the waste – it is a valuable material. You never know what we might need it for and at a minimum, it can be recycled through thorium reactors which will supply energy and neutralize the actinides.
I would keep a 55 gallon drum of waste in my basement, I know enough about shielding to keep myself safe.
The governments should build the ABWR and AP1000 power plants and auction them to operators so that the upfront costs are covered.
The time it takes to get a return on investment is one of the main drawbacks to the expansion of nuclear power.
“JCH | November 8, 2013 at 11:55 pm |
Each user of electricity from a nuclear reactor should be required to store the waste at their home”
How long you think Mercury lasts in the biosphere?
Decades of controlling emission of mercury went out of the window so we could declare war on power hungry incandescent light bulbs; when they knew in a little over a decade LCD’s would be available.
We have improved human health by manufacturing lightweight, disposable shopping bags and new see an upsurge in food poisoning as we are forced to reuse bags that are bacterial playgrounds.
I happen to think that nuclear power is a way to go if the security issues can be handled for it to be used in more countries. CNN showed Pandora’s Promise last night. It will be re-run several times, but got a very low audience. It was somewhat negative on renewables or just energy efficiency being any kind of large-scale solution, and made a good case for nuclear power, in my opinion. France is already majority nuclear and has far cheaper energy than most countries, even exporting some. Germany and Japan are moving away from nuclear. The US is at 20%, but has no expansion plans, and the UK may be similar.
To me, issue number one is reduction of fossil fuel burning, starting now, and quickly, and nuclear is the only thing that can do that reliably. New technology makes it safer with less waste too, at least according to this program. France has a per capita carbon footprint of 5 tonnes per person per year, which puts it with less developed countries, about half of the EU average, and a quarter of the US. From this we see that a low-carbon future is not necessarily any more painful for society.
Jim D<
Also, a pro-nuclear open letter by Hansen, Emanuel, Caldeira and Wigley to politicians and environmentalists makes the claim that renewable energy is not the sole answer. I tend to agree. This is an answer to an urgent problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/top-climate-scientists-ask-environmentalists-to-support-nuclear-power-in-climate-battle/2013/11/03/79a345b0-4473-11e3-95a9-3f15b5618ba8_story.html
This looks promising:
NuScale Power:
http://www.nuscalepower.com/default.aspx
Simpler, safer, standardized.
The somewhat smaller capacity has an upside of a different distribution network. Less reliance on the tall high wire lines. More resilience.
There is also the graphite fuel cell type:
http://www.megagraphite.com/products/byapplication/nuclearr
It seems Japan’s nuclear problems will have negative effects on the industry for years.
“Expansion of Comanche Peak nuclear power plant suspended
On Friday, Luminant, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Energy Future Holdings, suspended its application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two new reactors at the plant. Its partner on the project, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, said it was focusing on getting its nuclear reactors in Japan back in operation. “Currently, it’s just not competitive with gas. Nuclear’s capital costs are so high you can’t win on it,” said Ross Baldick, an engineering professor at the University of Texas who studies electricity.” markets.http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20131108-expansion-of-comanche-peak-nuclear-power-plant-suspended.ece
Here is a market based solution to try and reduce electricity use.
In Texas there is a contest being run by the grid operators ONCOR and CenterPoint called “Biggest Energy Saver”. The final voting period is from Nov. 8th to 14th. I voted for the Jack S. and DIANE D A. entries.
http://www.biggestenergysaver.com/vote/
Who do you think was the best entry?
‘China has broken ground on a three billion-yuan (about 476 million US dollars, 364 million euro) demonstration high-temperature pebble bed modular nuclear reactor (HTR-PM) project, which will form part of what could become China’s largest nuclear facility, state media confirmed yesterday.
The 200-megawatt Generation-IV Shidaowan nuclear reactor, near the coastal city of Rongcheng in east China’s Shandong Province, will be part of the Rongcheng Nuclear Power Industrial Park project, which could – if approved by regulators – eventually be the site of a further 18 units of the same type as well as four CPR-1000 pressurised water reactor units.
Construction of the Shidaowan HTR-PM started last month and first concrete has been poured for the nuclear island, according to Huaneng Shandong Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Company Ltd. (HSNPC), the builder and operator of the unit.
The design has “broad prospects for commercial application” and can “meet the needs of different countries and regions”, the company said. Construction is scheduled to take 50 months, with 18 months for building, 18 months for installation and 14 months for pre‐commissioning.
The gas-cooled HTR-PM, which has twin reactor modules of 100 MW each driving a single 200-MW steam turbine, will start generating commercial electricity by the end of 2017, HSNPC said in a statement.
The reactor, which was developed by the Institute Of Nuclear And New Energy Technology (INET) at Tsinghua University in Beijing, has passive safety features, meaning it can shut down safely in the event of an emergency without causing core meltdown or significant leakage of radioactive material, according to HSNCP.’ http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2013/01/07/china-begins-construction-of-first-generation-iv-htr-pm-unit
‘GA has assembled a world-class team of experts for this effort and the support of major utilities. The San Diego-based high-tech firm is working with CB&I, a global leader in energy infrastructure whose nuclear capabilities include serving as the lead construction firm for all new U.S. reactors currently under construction. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries brings professional service to the team, with extensive experience in the nuclear industry including involvement in the construction of Japanese advanced reactors. Idaho National Laboratory offers ideal capabilities to test the new EM2 fuel system.
Utilizing its six decades of experience in designing and developing nuclear systems, GA has put forth a truly innovative reactor a fraction of the size of current reactors — the size of a school bus, 500 MWt and 53% efficient. Other standout features include:
30 years without refueling versus 18 months for current light water reactors
No water for cooling, allowing much greater siting flexibility
A design that achieves both increased efficiency and small size – the 265 megawatt reactor reduces electricity costs by 40% relative to current reactors and produces 80% less waste
Improved safety with a gas-cooled design, utilizing GA’s innovative high-performance silicon carbide cladding that resists melting at high temperatures.’
http://media.ga.com/2013/08/02/ga-launches-bid-for-doe-innovative-reactor-program/
The advantages include very much reduced toxicity of very much reduced volumes of waste – toxic for hundreds of years and not hundreds of thousands – and the ability to convert conventional waste to fuel.
General Atomics has 10 years to run on a 12 year commercialization plan and is spending $1.8 billion dollars on development. GA has built dozens of small reactors – including 2 gas cooled. The track record is certainly there. You could barely build a conventional plant in that time frame – and they will never be competitive with gas generation while the US gas supplies last.
Throw away the US economic advantage to build nuclear to reduce greenhouse gases? Doesn’t seem a big incentive there.
HTR-PM. Supports my point. 50 years to get to here and a long way to go yet to get to commercially viable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor
The test facility has been operating for a decade. Prototypes have been built since Germany in the 1960’s. Including 2 small gas reactors from GA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A1uoJ1Z5iA
I am not sure what Lang’s point is. He doesn’t believe the International Gen 4 forum, GA, a dozen other consortiums or that the Chinese are building a demonstration plant supplying electricity by 2017? Well who gives a rats arse what Lang asserts.
Conventional nuclear is nowhere near economic in the US anytime foreseeable. Levelised costs for gas is $67/mMWh – cost for nuclear is $113/MWh.
The only way to make nuclear competitive while gas supplies continue to flow is to make it cheaper. In the meantime development of these newer designs will continue.
No I said I wouldn’t get into an extended discussion with a thin skinned and pompous fool who has to resort to schoolyard bullying to avoid addressing any relevant issue.
Projection!
Oh right – we are back to 23 gases. Utterly stupid persistence in an argument of definitions. The Kyoto protocol listed 6 gases. Doha amendment lists 7 gases. There are compounds collectively known as CFC’s or HFC’s that are included in the list of gases.
Quoting – again – from the UNFCCC.
‘The targets for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol cover emissions of the six main greenhouse gases, namely:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2);
• Methane (CH4);
• Nitrous oxide (N2O);
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and
• Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)’
This is a continuation of an exercise in utter futility from Lang.
And here’s the list (of 24 gases) on the UNFCCC site:
http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3825.php
Are you still going to deny the bleeding obvious?
Speaking of gas, the pebble beds long ago intrigued me. I thought at the time that they’d be clearly the way to the future by now. China has, of course, a big lead on the technology. I assumed they’d be franchising the units, apparently easily scalable(?), all over the world, supplying the pebbles and recovering them for reprocessing. I guess it isn’t quite happening that way.
So, mebbe it’s up to you two to get it done.
==============
Sorry… collectively known as HFC’s or PFC’s.
Kim
I think perhaps traveling wave reactors – or convert and burn cycles – are the wave of the future. Pebble beds need to continuously recycle the pebbles through the reactor.
e.g. http://terrapower.com/pages/traveling-wave-reactor
The GA design uses the same princi-ple. The units are designed to operate for 20 to 30 years without refueling at which stage they are returned intact to the factory.
http://www.ga.com/websites/ga/docs/em2/pdf/FactSheet-TechnicalFactSheetEM2.pdf
http://www.uxc.com/smr/uxc_SMRDetail.aspx?key=TWR
Renewables unlikely to make much of a contribution to meeting the worlds energy needs – someone had better tell the Norwegian gov then as most of their energy comes from hydro.
And I must be wasting my time on my latest degree covering renewable energy http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/t313.htm
Nuclear power like the idea but what do we do with the waste? Solving today’s problems by creating bigger problems for future generations reminds me of the proverbial ostriches with head in sand.
“Geothermal energy – why it is treated as renewable even though it is being mined, its usage over the last century and its exciting future.”
I like that one.
Rob Johnson-Taylor,
Good catch. Sorry, I normally qualify the comment by saying ‘non-hydro renewables’. However, the overall point is still correct, because ther is limited potential for more hydro development so hydro cannot contribute much to replacing fossil fuels either.
I answered the nuclear wast question in response to an earlier comment up thread.
Hydro’s are being decommissioned – I’m thinking Envio-Nazis are behind it but don’t have time to do the research.
http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/decommissioning
Ironically, they cite CO2 as a problem with hydro. These people wont’ be happy until the Earth’s population (of humans) is on million and even then they would be living in caves.
“Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from hydroelectric dams are often portrayed as nonexistent by the hydropower industry and have been largely ignored in global comparisons of different sources of electricity. However, the life cycle assessment (LCA)of any hydroelectric plant shows that GHG emissions occur at different phases of the power plant’s life. This work examines the role of decommissioning hydroelectric dams in greenhouse gas emissions. Accumulated sediments in reservoirs contain noticeable levels of carbon, which may be released to the atmosphere upon decommissioning of the dam. The rate of sediment accumulation and the sediment volume for six of the ten largest United States hydroelectric power plants is surveyed. The amount of sediments and the respective carbon content at the moment of dam decommissioning (100 years after construction) was estimated. The released carbon is partitioned into CO2 and CH4 emissions and converted toCO2 equivalent emissions using the global warming potential (GWP) method. The global warming effect (GWE) due to dam decommissioning is normalized to the total electricityproduced over the lifetime of each power plant. The estimated GWE of the power plants range from 128-380 g of CO2eq./kWh when 11% of the total available sediment organic carbon (SOC) is mineralized and between 35 and 104 g of CO2eq./kWh when 3% of the total SOC is mineralized. Though these values are below emission factors for coal power plants (890 g of CO2eq./kWh), the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the sediments upon dam decommissioning is a notable amount that should not be ignored and must be taken into account when considering construction and relicensing of hydroelectric dams”
CO2 is a hammer for an Eco-Nazi nail.
The development of nuclear has been slowed by costly regulatory restrictions:
http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/eprg0723.pdf
Professor Bernard Cohen showed in 1990 that regulatory ratcheting had increased the cost of nuclear by a factor of four up to that time. Regultory ratcheting since then has probably double the cost of nuclear energy, for a total cost increase of a factor of eight. Reducing regulation and licencing costs and delays will not greatly reduce the cost of the current generation of reactors. But it can greatly reduce the cost of future designs, and the operating costs. It can greatly increase the learning rate. It will take decades to take full effect on the cost of electricity, but that explains why it is so important to get on with it.
Bernard Cohen (1990) ’Cost of nuclear power plants – what went wrong’
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
The point I am attempting to make is that the we (especially the US voters and the public) have it in our (their) power to reduce the costs of nuclear power (over time) by removing the unnecessary restrictions.
This is very different to the case with renewables which have major physical limitations.
Nuclear waste a natural precedent
One particular example in nature provides strong reassurance concerning final disposal of high-level nuclear wastes underground. Two billion years ago at Oklo in Gabon, West Africa, chain reactions started spontaneously in concentrated deposits of uranium ore. These natural nuclear reactors continued operating for hundreds of thousands of years forming plutonium and all the highly radioactive waste products created today from exactly the same processes in a nuclear power reactor. Despite the existence at that time of large quantities of water in the area, these materials stayed where they were formed and eventually decayed into non-radioactive elements. The evidence remains there.
source
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Waste-Management-Overview/
Nuclear waste need not be a problem, modern reactor designs can use the current stockpile of waste as fuel, the waste product from these more modern designs need only be stored for tens of years instead of tens of thousands.
@Peter Lang,
Why we should focus on removing the impediments that are preventing nuclear power from being a cheap energy source
You seem to be of the opinion that its entirely a ‘greenie’ issue. Of course, Green opposition to nuclear power is a reality. But, in Australia, USA, South Africa, so is the opposition of the Coal industry. They have vastly more lobbying power than those who you would dismiss as tree huggers.
There are many of us who do argue that an expansion nuclear power is the only realistic way of decarbonising the economy. It’s not just a matter of reducing emissions by 10% or so. If it were then, I would agree, that could be achieved by increasing use of renewable power sources.
I would urge those who do partially agree with people like James Hansen (especially on the question of nuclear power) to concentrate on those areas of agreement and try to engage in constructive dialogue instead of the kind of vilification which we have come to expect.
petermartin2001
I don’t see it as entirely a ‘greenie’ issue. But I see it an largely a ‘greenie’ issue and, since the ‘greenies’ are the most vocal groups advocating the world needs to cut GHG emissions and they are also the leading the anti-nuke activists, I see thjem as the main cause of the problem. I excuse the coal industry because they are doing what any industry does in a competitive capitalist free market environment – they try to protect their industry and to get the best return they can for their shareholders. That’s how out capitalist system works (and what given the world the wealth, life expectancy, health, education etc. that people around the globe now enjoy). So you cannot blame the coal industry for dong what they do. I defend their right to present their case as best as threy can (as long as they do so within the law)
However, I think the ‘greenie’ activists are a whole different kettle of fish. they seem to be immune to the law. They are not accountable. They are costing millions of lives by the policies they advocate, and advocate for even more devastating policies. If Greenpeace, WWF, FoE and Australian Conservation Foundation for example, started being rational and responsible, the major opposition to nuclear power could be quickly reversed (a decade or less). So I hold the ‘greenies’ as primarily responsible for the issue.
I also hold academia responsible. They are largely of Left ideology and they are largely strongly opposed to nuclear power, with an irrational fervor. These are supposed to be our best and brightest. But, in fact, their ideological beliefs trumps all rational or objective analysis on this subject. They are extremely influential – they write extensively, are highly influential in the media and importantly they educate our young and easily influenced students and train teachers who then brainwash children with greenie anti-nuke nonsense. There are exceptions of course, but that is what is happening predominantly.
So, I am strongly of the view that is to the ‘greenies’ and the educators that are the primary cause of the problem. And the solution is to fix this thrombosis that is blocking progress.
Peter Lang,
“Fix this thrombosis” ?
You aren’t going to get very far with the nations educators if you resort to these terms. I do agree that, in the main, they are against nuclear power and do need to be won over.
People like James Hansen, and others of liberal/left opinion who have reached the same conclusion, do have a chance of doing that. I’d say people like yourself and Tony Abbott probably don’t.
I would say this is one issue where those from across the political spectrum should be able to make a common cause.
I prefer to talk on Climate Change as understood by IPCC. If it has no scientific basis (WGI):
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA
then, why academics, climatologist, etc., keep following IPCC’s claims as if these were apropriatelly based?.
Is there a lack of ethics?, is that scientist are “politized” (in the sense of vicims of the many politic or economical trends)?, is there a tendence of following what many people says?, do these scientist not have time to study and think for their own?, …
On reversing climate change!
Listen to a brilliant presentation on fighting deforestation by
Allan Savory:
“How to fight desertification and reverse climate change”
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html
Thanks for this. I hope Judith takes a look and highlights it for further attention. The element of surprise within the crowd reaction was palpable.
A religious view of climate change here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/a-problem-with-the-climat_b_4239973.html
Not religious myself, but I was entertained that it pointed out Isaiah 24, where earth’s demise, blamed on Man breaking stewardship covenants, is fully described. The items on their list include vines withering, meaning no more wine, and earth’s inhabitants being burned up. Religious skeptics need to read this and ponder its meaning.
On Seeking Alpha, a market web site that features a lot of energy articles, especially shale plays, I ran across one that wasn’t so rosy on shale oil. A few attributes struck me about the article. One, the author never mentioned the role of technology and innovation in driving down drilling and production costs as well as driving up production rates. Second, the article didn’t mention the prospects for tertiary recovery, some of which can quadruple the recovery of a given play. In all, two Hounds of the Baskervilles that issued nary a sound. Here is a sample of the article:
“Company profitability claims in question.
We have no way of knowing the exact date of decline, the rate of decline as well as the rate of investment going forward once decline starts to set in. What we know for certain now is that the Eagle Ford development will not break even by the time production decline will set in. We also know that even as the field declines, large sums of money will be needed to continue drilling just to slow the pace of decline. We also know that most of the 11,000 wells drilled as of the end of this year are of much higher geological quality than the rest of the wells yet to be drilled. All these factors, which we are gradually learning about, are reason to worry about the prospect of an increasing number of investments in the field not managing to reach a financial breakeven point. Assumptions of average Eagle Ford breakeven price in the $50-60 range now seem increasingly overoptimistic to say the least (link).
A more realistic scenario will be breakeven in the $80-100 range. We should remember however that this may be the average breakeven price, while for some companies the actual breakeven price will be closer to the $50-60 range, rather than the one I am forecasting given latest data. That implies however that many companies will suffer loses, which might only become apparent towards the end of their project, by which time it will be too late for many investors to avoid taking loses as well.
It is understandable that many people took investment positions in shale oil producers in the Eagle Ford given the euphoria created by the first years of impressive production ramp-up. It is now time to sober up however and start looking at these companies in more minute detail. ”
So, getting suspicious, I found the authors blog. It turns out he is a CAGWer. He reminds me of web. They share the alarmist characteristic and for some reason believe they can influence the outcome in the oilfield by issuing negative projections. I suppose they believe they can jade the public’s enthusiasm for oil. Or some such. At any rate, here is a bit from the author’s blog:
“A little-covered event took place a month ago. CO2 concentrations in the air reached 400 ppm. It is not good news for our planet and all its inhabitants. From the moment measurements of CO2 concentrations in the environment started being taken in 1958, when CO2 concentrations were 315 ppm, till now, we added another 85 ppm, which is an increase of 27%, and CO2 concentrations increased by almost
45% since the industrial revolution began. The worst part is that the rate at which we are increasing Carbon Dioxide concentration in the environment is actually speeding up, and so things will only get worse.”
…
We will not be prepared to either prevent us from racing towards the next milestone, which will be 600 ppm, a thing that will most likely happen within my expected lifetime, nor will we be able to deal with any of the negative consequences. We simply do not have the global institutional capacity to meet this potential threat to our lives.
…
So, in the end, this is what it comes down to. A fight to free people from their ideological indoctrination and it is unfortunately not the ones who oppose sustainable development who are the main target that needs to be re-programmed. It is the message of the environmentalist movement that is sending people to the other side in droves. It is one thing to tell a US factory worker that he/she should agree to sacrifice his/her own well-being and that of their families, for the greater good, even though even the most ignorant of them know that even if the US and Europe were to slash emissions by 50% in the next few decades, it would not be enough to offset the growth in emissions from the developing world. They also know that cutting emissions aggressively here, makes emissions levels grow faster elsewhere, because of outsourcing. It would be an entirely different thing, if one were to tell them that we should fight for a standardized global trade tariff that would end the outsourcing of jobs by firms looking for the place where they can maximize profit, because other countries allow for the maximum exploitation of the environment and their people that is possible, while putting the planet on a sustainable path. Now, who could argue with that? Unfortunately the environmentalists do. ”
Obviously, he isn’t just a big government guy – he’s a World Government guy.
Recently retired Maryland Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, PhD is a good example of being pragmatic when it comes to dealing with fossil fuel issues — http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/07/2862781/tea-party-gore/ reports:
Speaking of the sun– as far as 20th century warming, and especially late 20th Century, yet one more study finds the sun is definitely NOT “what done it”, but those of us who follow the actual science already knew this:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045022/article
I am a bit agnostic of cosmic rays. I think I will stick to shifts in the global system – most warming since 1950 being caused by ENSO dragon-kings – ISCCP-FD and ERBS suggesting suggesting that most of the decadal change was cloud cover influenced by shifts in ocean and atmosphere circulation – and the likelihood of the state since the last shift in 1998/2001 persisting for decades. Dynamical complexity rules.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=33
On the other hand there is top down modulation – http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008 – or solar amplification – http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
great article. Judith should turn it into a post
thanks for the link anyway, some of us are not so astute :-)
p.s. I also like the fact it has the whole article.
Everyone should find something of interest in the paper– regardless of your dominant memeplex. Here is the concluding punch line, just to entice a few more:
“Numerous searches have been made to try establish whether or not cosmic rays could have affected the climate, either through cloud formation or otherwise. We have one possible hint of a correlation between solar activity and the mean global surface temperature. This is comprised of an oscillation in the temperature of amplitude ±0.07° in amplitude with a 22 year period. The cosmic ray data show a similar oscillation but delayed by 1–2 years. The long term change in the cosmic ray rate is less than the amplitude of the 22 year variation on the cosmic ray rate. Using the changing cosmic ray rate as a proxy for solar activity, this result implies that less than 14% of global warming seen since the 1950s comes from changes in solar activity. Several other tests have been described and their results all indicate that the contribution of changing solar activity either through cosmic rays or otherwise cannot have contributed more than 10% of the global warming seen in the twentieth century.
We conclude that cosmic rays and solar activity which we have examined here, in some depth, therefore cannot be a very significant underestimated contributor to the global warming seen in the twentieth century.”
I liked the article but two things struck me:
1.) There is only three paragraphs on Palaeontological effects. I’ve recently read a lot on this recently and there is a lot more to it. Past warming and cooling are tied to solar cycles.
2.) Without the sun CO2 has nothing to radiate. I see it as the fuel for the reactor. I think it’s more complicated than they portray.
Do dominant memeplexes respond to antibiotics? Or are we developing super-memes?
Ordvic,
Yes. It’s amazing how CO2 stops trapping heat at night.
Also amazing how the temperature starts to fall after the Sun passes the zenith. It looks like “global warming” only occurs in the presence of direct sunlight.
Pity all that “trapped heat” has vanished by dawn.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
RGates
Sorry, my reply and another posted into wrong sub thread. In order to try to keep it altogether have reposted them here;
—— ——- —-
climatereason | November 9, 2013 at 3:16 am | Reply
RGates
The authors-no doubt for their own good reasons-seem to stop their figure 2 modelled graph at 2000. The reference is to the AR4 2002 report. They do not seem to graph the ‘pause’ nor explain it.
Can you clarify this aspect?
tonyb
maksimovich | November 9, 2013 at 3:36 am |
Their model diverges in the polar region due to increased atmospheric gcr penetration eg Bazilevskaya
( Murmansk upper Mirney lower)
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/gcratmosphericflux.jpg
The papers twaddle.
climatereason | November 9, 2013 at 3:43 am |
maksimovich
So, they didn’t appear to use up to date global temperatures nor model the arctic correctly.
‘Twaddle?’ I will let others be the judge of that. The two authors come from very respected institutions so it would be interesting to learn why there appear to be discrepancies.
tonyb
I posted this below, but since it related to this paper and the current “pause” in tropospheric temperatures, some may find it of interest:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/08/open-thread-weekend-40/#comment-410741
they didn’t appear to use up to date global temperatures nor model the arctic correctly.
Mirney is an Antarctic surface station.
The authors model is based on a proxy ((the “pseudo-Climax neutron monitor record”) Which is inhomogeneous in time and does not account for drift in the geomagnetic fields such as the South pole station eg Bieber.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JA018915/abstract
That there has been a secular change in the atmospheric record (balloon data) neutron counts in polar regions a factor of 3 greater then the record surface stations eg Bazilevskaya (2012) Oh (2013)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117711008222
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50544/full
That the model does not extend to the recent solar minimum, the changes in the geomagnetic cutoff, or the recent hiatus is selective.
Yup, all these piddly components such as TSI, SOI, Stadium Waves and the sporadic volcanic aerosols are no match for the relentless forcing caused by the CO2 control knob.
Amazing what the skeptics and deniers will do to get solar or the multidecadal noise to appear to contribute to the rise — particularly through these bizarre numerical integration schemes that they apply to the data. This is essentially torturing the data to match the denier’s agenda and feed a clueless reader’s gullibility.
WebHubTelescope
all these piddly components such as TSI, SOI, Stadium Waves and the sporadic volcanic aerosols are no match for the relentless forcing caused by the CO2 control knob.
Amazing what the alarmists will say to get CO2 dominating everything else, even though he attribution of CO2 effects in amongst all the others is nowhere near clear. This is essentially torturing the data to match the alarmist’s agenda and feed a clueless reader’s gullibility.
Projection Aussie-style, courtesy of Gail.
No, just a non-aussie illustrating Web’s projection and general motivated reasoning.
‘With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation
between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at -0.7,
– 2.1, and 1.4 W m^2, respectively…’
http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf
‘Changes in the Earth’s radiation budget are driven by changes in the balance between the thermal emission from the top of the atmosphere and the net sunlight absorbed. The shortwave radiation entering the climate system depends
on the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance. Often, studies replace the net sunlight by proxy measures of solar
irradiance, which is an oversimplification used in efforts to probe the Sun’s role in past climate change. With
new helioseismic data and new measures of the Earth’s reflectance, we can usefully separate and constrain the relative roles of the net sunlight’s two components, while probing the degree of their linkage. First, this is possible because helio-seismic data provide the most precise measure ever of the solar cycle, which ultimately yields more profound physical limits on past irradiance variations. Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity – the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example – would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output. Much progress has also been made in determining this difficult to measure, and not-so-well-known quantity. We review our understanding of these two closely linked, fundamental drivers of climate.’
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literThe ature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
Here’s the model from realclimate – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/rc_fig1_zpsf24786ae.jpg.html?sort=3&o=27
Is there any reason we should believe progressive science denialists like you guys? It is truly bizarre.
Are you saying something?
‘Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity – the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example – would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output.’
The changes in radiant flux in recent decades is hardly minor.
I try to make it simple for you – since you are obviously incapable of taking a key idea away.
Ideas are a dime a dozen, Chef. Many of these can be disposed of with a modicum of analysis, yours included.
Oh God – the impossibility of breaching progressive science denial with actual science.
Chef, You cook up twinkie science.
I reference peer reviewed science – and you are full of science denial BS.
Ahh, I see the Chief is referring to the 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers supporting AGW that aren’t peer-reviewed?
No – I am referring to loser blog science. `
That confirms that you were referring to yourself. Now it all makes sense.
RGates
The authors-no doubt for their own good reasons-seem to stop their figure 2 modelled graph at 2000. The reference is to the AR4 2002 report. They do not seem to graph the ‘pause’ nor explain it.
Can you clarify this aspect?
tonyb
Their model diverges in the polar region due to increased atmospheric gcr penetration eg Bazilevskaya
( Murmansk upper Mirney lower)
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/gcratmosphericflux.jpg
The papers twaddle.
maksimovich
So, they didn’t appear to use up to date global temperatures nor model the arctic correctly.
‘Twaddle?’ I will let others be the judge of that. The two authors come from very respected institutions so it would be interesting to learn why there appear to be discrepancies.
tonyb
Tony,
The study used a simplified model to specifically look at the solar/cosmic ray connection. It fully acknowledged the far more complicated nature of the climate system, including natural and internal variability. Their conclusion wouldn’t change even if they had included the “pause” after 2000. No more than about 10% of the “pause” has been solar related, which is exactly what many other researchers have concluded, as the main sources of the pause seem to be natural variability in the rate of flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere (i.e. The cool phase of the PDO) and the cumulative effects of increased natural aerosols from increased moderate volcanic activity during the period. The quiet sun is then a distant third.
Gates, “Their conclusion wouldn’t change even if they had included the “pause” after 2000.”
Bull$hit, That paper is twaddle.
I agree RG. All the natural variability is associated with thermodynamic parameters that track the fluctuations. None of these fluctuations can sustain, such as pressure, but they can easily describe the pause.
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
Of course you must call the paper “twaddle” Captn., and the many others that come to much the same conclusion– which is: yep, the sun has an influence, but it is small compared to other forcings. The roll of both the natural fluctuations in ocean to atmosphere energy transfer and moderate increases in natural aerosols are pretty solid in terms of “the pause”, with the low solar activity being a distant third.
There is both a correlation between cloud formation with solar and an anti-correlation depending upon the region. This would not be supportive of a direct influnce on cloud formation by solar activity but it is supportive that solar may influence cloud formation in some other way such as changes in heat transport.
Gates, the paper is twaddle because is mixes apples, oranges and pears with Climate Science Passion Fruit. When they note the 27month lag then say that can’t be due to Cosmic rays, big whoop! The 27 month lag is related to equatorial imbalance and the time required for the QBO to kick in, it has nothing to do with GCR. What impact GCR might have would be most noticeable near the poles, different region, different lag if it does exist and since GCR impacts clouds the impact could be negatively correlated since polar clouds tend to have a warming impact not a cooling impact.
It is a complex system and they appear to not be up to the task. Tell them their mothers would be proud and ignore the rest. Not every Scientist can be the cream of the crop.
RGates
You said;
‘…and the cumulative effects of increased natural aerosols from increased moderate volcanic activity during the period.’
Can you clarify which volcanoes have contributed to this moderate activity and subsequent damping of global temperature during the period?
Even the very large volcanic eruptions of history appear to have a limited short term effect on climate.
Tonyb
Tony,
Have a look at this:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-not-pollutants-tamped-down-recent-earth-warming-says-cu
And this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50263/abstract;jsessionid=2E799F8C07DDCC51FB8E4B0043CC28EE.d04t04
And this:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6044/866.abstract
Here’s my take on the role of aerosols, solar, and ocean-to-atmosphere energy transfers on “the pause” in tropospheric temperature rise over the past 10-15 years, based on all the research I’ve studied:
The strongest role, perhaps around 65-70% seems to be from the natural variability of the ocean-to-atmosphere energy transfers, with a big component of that being reflected in the “cool phase” of the PDO. A bit less energy than average has been flowing from ocean to atmosphere during this period, and considering that at least 50% of the energy on the atmosphere comes from the ocean! even a small change has big effects on tropospheric temperatures. The second biggest cause of the “pause”, maybe contributing around 25% or so, has been the increased aerosols from an increase in moderate volcanic activity. Considering the dozens of volcanoes active on the planet at any given time, it makes no sense to try and identify exactly which ones the aerosols came from– the measurements of actual optical depth from natural aerosols tell the story well enough– the aerosols from volcanic activity increased during the period. And finally, down at third place would be the decreased solar output during the period, maybe contributing at most 10% to the negative forcing.
RGates
You will have to help me more by pointing to definitive research covering this output of moderate volcanic activity having the effect you say. According to Hansen this appears to be an ‘educated guess.’
” The second largest human-made forcing is probably atmospheric aerosols, although the aerosol forcing is extremely uncertain3,4. Our comparison of the various forcings (Fig. 6a) shows the aerosol forcing estimated by Hansen et al.9 up to 1990; for later dates it assumes that the aerosol forcing increment is half as large as the greenhouse gas forcing but opposite in sign. This aerosol forcing can be described as an educated guess.
If the aerosol forcing has thusly become more negative in the past decade, the sum of the known climate forcings has little net change in the past few decades (Fig. 6b). The increased (negative) aerosol forcing is plausible, given the increased global use of coal during this period, but the indicated quantification is arbitrary, given the absence of aerosol measurements of the needed accuracy.
Even if the aerosol forcing has remained unchanged in the past decade, the dashed line in Fig. 6b shows that the total climate forcing increased at a slower rate in the past decade than in the prior three decades. The slight growth in the past decade is due to a combination of factors: solar irradiance decline, slight increase of stratospheric aerosols, and the lower growth rate of greenhouse gas forcing compared with the 1970s and 1980s.”
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf
tonyb
Tony,
The actual measured optical depth in the stratosphere from volcanic aerosols has increased over the past 10 to 15 years. This is pretty unequivocal data. Why is this difficult for you? The point is that, as the research indicates, it does not take a single large volcanic eruption to cause a period of cooling from aerosols, but that, just like with other components of the climate system displaying natural variability, there can be periods when the net increase in natural volcanic aerosols from the sum of all volcanic activity on Earth is higher, leading to a net negative forcing on the climate.
RGates
Why it is ‘difficult’ for me, is that after trolling through a thousand years of weather observations, the effects of volcanic eruptions in real world weather APPEAR to be short lived.
A moderate increase in volcanic activity over the last decade (from a low or high point?) is something that needs demonstrating as having an impact. As your link says it is difficult to distinguish between aerosols from volcanic sources and human (Asian) activity, whilst the Hansen paper says the attribution is an ‘educated guess.’
tonyb
@Gates
the main sources of the pause seem to be natural variability in the rate of flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere
Hopeful speculation? – given that ocean data is nothing like as robust as atmosphere data.
(“Hopeful” to those people, that is, desperately needing to find the “missing” heat).
There are a lot of silent barking dogs in the iopscience article …
“For the picture to be wrong, the effects of the increased CO2 in the models of the climate must be wrong and the models, if they were correct, ought to produce results similar to the grey curves in the upper left hand panel (a) of figure 2. In that case there would have to be a process which is not included in the models. Since the models should include all known phenomena the process is presumably unknown to climate science at present.”
This seems to imply that all known processes are CORRECTLY modeled. But we know clouds aren’t correclty modeled. We know other processes are represented by approximations and yet others are parameterized. Not such a robust statement after all.
What bigger waste of time could there be than the fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat?
On the issue of uncertainties, groupthink (unstated assumptions) and expert elicitation, the latest issue of ERL has an interesting commentary:
“First, from a methodological perspective a key question is how to represent experts’ ignorance on certain issues (yes, experts can be ignorant too!) This is different from experts’ assessment of uncertainty inherent in their responses, which may be captured probabilistically. There is an ongoing debate in the literature on the capability of probabilistic approaches to address expert ignorance (Krueger et al 2012, O’Hagan et al 2006, Page et al 2012). To address these concerns, alternative formulations, especially fuzzy distributions, are used in different application areas, although these alternative formulations have challenges of their own (Krueger et al 2012). Second, what about our collective ignorance at large about the future? This is a more general issue. To the extent experts know about current technology options and potential development trajectories for those technologies, those may be codified. The results (parameter values, model components, validation, etc) in those cases can be very useful in integrated models of human-natural systems at different spatial and temporal scales. But, the humbling reality that we are fundamentally ignorant on many fronts about the future is not well captured in most models. In-depth studies like the one reported in this letter that rigorously capture expectations and uncertainties about known technology options need to be complemented with equally rigorous, theoretically grounded developments in approaches for integrally factoring ignorance in modeling studies. The emerging literature on the resilience of human-natural systems and the role that technological and institutional diversity plays in that is a promising direction (Ostrom 2005, Perrings 2006, Stirling 2010)”.
Paper at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/041003/article
“First, from a methodological perspective a key question is how to represent experts’ ignorance on certain issues…”
The IPCC models already do that.
In my previous comment you have the reference to a pdf where you can read why IPCC models do not do that.
It is useful to think what a model of the 20th century built in 1900 would have looked like. For longer times keep in mind that we are in someone’s middle ages. Modeling the future is an exercise in applied ignorance.
Just forwarding this tweet from Richard Dawkins.
Well done Terry McAuliffe on being elected Governor of Virginia bit.ly/17Mm9XM and defeating a fossil-fuel-financed right wing nut
Finance? Finance, he says? God, he’s enough to make me believe.
===============
how to make more republicans
Lewandowski supposedly psycho-analysing the madness of those who don’t buy into CAGW theory, is mostly like devout Christians or Muslims analysing the madness of those who don’t believe in god.
Great video.
“The over confident academic expert fallacy”
Classic.
Statistics – “It’s a terrible profession.”
“Only statistics can cure that kind of flaw in the observations.”
Meta analyses – the equivalent of the subprime mortgage crisis.
We use ‘credentialed moron’ often over at another place.
Needle this thread through the eye of a camel: Robin Eubanks gotta book, now, ‘Credentialed to Destroy’.
=================
k’s
==
eek, s’s. Gee, now I’ll have to try to dig out the style book.
=========
This book ties in nicely with the CIA guy’s posts from last week. Here is the description of the CTD book from Amazon:
Credentialed to Destroy: How and Why Education Became a Weapon provides the necessary information to confront what is intended to be a wholesale transformation of the US economy and our society without any of our consent. Author and attorney Robin S. Eubanks lays out what was supposed to remain hidden until it was too late to stop the sought ‘irreversible change.’ She tells us: If Education is a means to an End, what is the Real Vision for Transformation? –How the reading and math wars were never about how to teach –How the new Common Core is actually not about content –Why the logical, rational mind is the real target of education reforms –Why higher ed had to be changed to push equity in credentials as the goal –What’s wrong with a 21st Century Skills focus –Why the classroom objective keeps coming back to the student’s values, attitudes, and beliefs Finally, Credentialed to Destroy provides repeated proof of how education was seen by the Soviets as their favorite weapon against the West during the Cold War. This book details extensive evidence from the 80s that education became an invisible and purposeful means of restructuring the West, especially the US, away from individualism and capitalism towards a more collectivist orientation in the future. A goal that guides the actual Common Core implementation and planned economic transformation described in detail in troubling quotes that lay out a global push. This book gives everyone the information they will need going forward to appreciate what has changed in education, when, how, and for what purposes. Precisely the information necessary to actually be internationally competitive and prosperous in the 21st Century.
Tsk!
IPCC versus observation:
IPCC FAR (1990):
“under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
global mean temperature during the next century of
about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that
seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a
likely increase in global mean temperature of about
1°C above the present value by 2025”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
Observation:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:252/plot/hadcrut4gl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.000001/offset:1.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.00001/offset:1.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.00001/offset:0.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.00001/offset:0.2
IPCC FAR = 0.2 + 1 = 1.2 deg C
Observation = 0.5 deg C
Conclusion:
IPCC FAR projection is wrong!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:252/plot/hadcrut4gl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.000001/offset:1.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.00001/offset:1.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.00001/offset:0.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.00001/offset:0.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:252/offset:0.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:252/offset:-0.2
Early next year POET/DSM will start to produced cellulose ethanol in commercial quantities; 20 million gallons per year. This plant has been built with private money, and is expected to make a profit. It uses excess corn stover as the material from which the ethanol will be made. If anyone is interested, google Project Liberty.
POET and the local farmers has done a study, and are convinced that they can safely remove one quarter of all the corn stover produced, about 1 ton per acre, to make the ethanol. I have not been able to find any reference to this work.
This year around Ottawa, Canada, we had perfect weather conditions to grow pumpkins. The excess pumpkins are to be ploughed back into the land for next year. Could some of this biomass have been safely used to make ethanol, had facilities been available? Nobody seems to know.
POET hope that by 2020, the USA will be producing 16 billion gallons of cellulose ethanol per year; all from corn stover. What other agricultural products could be used, while safely using the feed stock of cellulose? It seems to me that this would be a worthwhile study. There is no hurry, as it is unlikely that any source of cellulose, other than corn stover, will be required for many years.
Good nomenculture.
===============
Jim Cripwell: Early next year POET/DSM will start to produced cellulose ethanol in commercial quantities; 20 million gallons per year. This plant has been built with private money, and is expected to make a profit.
I hope so. I have been expecting commercial scale cellulosic ethanol at profitable prices in the unsubsidized private sector “early next year” for about 5 years now. Please do be sure to post if it actually starts happening.
This may be of interest to some:
UK temperatures since 1933 – Part 1
Summary
Terrestrial sunshine records provide an inverse proxy for cloud cover. Sunshine at surface means cloud free line of sight between the point on the surface and the Sun.
We present concordant sunshine and temperature records for 23 UK Met Office weather stations. Data is available for a handful of stations from 1908 but it is only from 1933 that there are a sufficient number of stations to provide representative cover of the UK.
Data from 1933 to 1956 is believed to be affected by air pollution from burning coal for home heat and power generation, therefore our main analysis focusses on the time interval 1956 to 2012.
Both temperature (Tmax) and sunshine hours show cyclic variation, both showing a tendency to rise in the period 1980 to 2000 in keeping with global warming that has been documented in many studies.
In the UK there is a high degree of covariance between sunshine and Tmax, sunny years tend to be warmer. The correlation coefficient (R2) between sunshine hours and Tmax is 0.8 whilst R2 for CO2 and Tmax is 0.66 (calculated on 5 year means). A significant portion of warming observed in the UK may be attributed to temporal variations in sunshine and cloud cover.
This post presents a summary of the raw data in 14 charts. Next week we will present a combined net cloud forcing and radiative forcing model with the aim of quantifying the relative contributions of dCloud and dCO2.
Euan
That is a very interesting article.
I have written several pieces where, in passing, I point out that the industrialisation of Britain (and other major European cities) coincided with drops in temperature. Many artists came to Britain at the turn of the 20th century to paint the polluted landscape as it had an ethereal quality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_of_Parliament_series_(Monet)
It is very difficult to see the correlation with Co2 from the diagram in my article here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
As you know the CET anomaly has dropped further to around 0.3C. It would be interesting if you were able to graph your sunshine line over the co2 line and see if either of them can provide a clue as to what is happening.
tonyb
Hi Tony, thanks for the links and nice chart of CET anomalies – did you compile this? Looking at your chart I’d judge several factors at work: industrialisation, volcanoes, The Sun (spectral shifts linked to geomag), the NAO and maybe GHGs.
I spent 3 months compiling data and making charts, the challenge is how to summarise and present all the data. The break down in correlation between Sunshine and Temperature 1933-1956 bugged me. But looking just at seasonal data, JJA temperatures and sunshine are near perfectly correlated 1933 to 1956. Clive Best will present the seasonal break down as third in our mini-series – maybe late next week.
Early next week we will present the physical models. In summary and from memory since I’m away from home right now, about 40% of the temperature rise may be attributed to CO2, about 40% from change in cloud cover and the rest is a residual from the discontinuous data series.
Best Euan
Euan
Yes, I extended CET from its instrumental period of 1659 to 1538. I am currently working on extending it further with the tacit support of the Met office who I met up with a couple of weeks ago. At the time I met David Parker who of course compiled the CET to 1772.
I think there are many things at work that influence the climate. I am not convinced as yet by aerosols, other than for short periods after a very major eruption. GHG’s also need to prove they are anything but a passenger in the coach.
Have you submitted your article to anyone? Judith might be interested but I would think Anthony Watts certainly would be. Its always useful to get outside input to determine if your thoughts have any validity.
tonyb
Tony, We submitted two papers for peer review. The UK paper was rejected within 24 hours by Nature – so I doubt they even read it. The global paper is still out to review. Once we’ve published all three parts of our trilogy we will send them to Judith and WUWT since we are aware of certain limitations in what we have done and will welcome a proper, professional review – to the extent that is possible on the internet. I did actually send an email and link to Judith for the present article, but since she does not know me I’m guessing it was overlooked among a sea of emails.
Do you know Alastair Dawson? Wrote a book called “So foul and fair a day” – he spends a lot of time compiling historic data based in Aberdeen.
E
send me another email, sometimes i get buried in email
Euan
No, I don’t know Alastair Dawson . I will look him up.
Here is a link to his book for anyone interested.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/So-Foul-Fair-Day-Scotlands/dp/184158567X
I don’t how well your paper will stand up to scrutiny, which is why Blogs are useful-they tend to expose flaws very quickly. I thought it was an interesting pape and it would be good to see it more widely piblicised..
You say ‘global review’. Not sure what you mean by this?
tonyb
Euan,
The UK is an island country and when the clouds come in from the North Atlantic, of course the temperatures are going to depress.
Better to look at larger spatial aggregations of data.
WHT: Yes, and in the years when more clouds came in temperatures got depressed more / more often, and their is decadal cyclicity to the data. Remember that the UK forms a part of the global temperature record, as do all the records from neighbouring countries. Its worth contemplating how the global thermometer record is compiled. (Tmax + Tmin) / 2 (I think). In the UK at least, if the sun comes for 10 minutes over a climate station early afternoon, that is likely to set Tmax for that day. Best to wait until we publish the physical models next week before getting too involved in discussion.
We have looked at the larger scale of NASA global D2 clouds.
E
Euan,
I look forward to your global analysis. You have a good track record in energy matters, and as far as I am concerned, Clive Best is the only AGW skeptic that has made any sense at all in the few years that I have been studying climate change. So if anyone can make a dent, you two may indeed find something significant. It does take digging, which you two are not adverse to.
Good luck.
Euan Mearns, thank you. I look forward to more.
Euan Mearns, do you have a downloadable pdf, or is that what comes later?
I will try to make pdfs available next week.
For the weekend a quick blurb on Solar Denier silliness. :)
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/11/it-is-still-sun-stupid.html
Captn,
Your silly charts only prove that you really don’t understand the basic thermodynamics of energy flow in the climate system nor why your charts have nothing to do with the long-term effects of the increased forcing from CO2.
R. Gates, I am in outstanding company :)
http://www.woodhous.arizona.edu/geog453013/Toggweiler2009.pdf
You on the other hand may need to phone a friend
The issue is about matching up a forcing with a parameter on the climate system that can adequately display the relative changes in that forcing. Since we a dealing with energy flows to and from and within the climate system, as well as energy storage in the system, it makes no sense to try and find a long-term cumulative change in the system, such as from the increase in greenhouse gases by looking at short-term low thermal inertia parts of the system. You will end up seeing only those forcings that cause short-term fluctuations. The best place to see a long-term forcing is of course in the energy content of the ocean– but you know this, but seem to like to detour away from this point constantly.
gates, that is the apples and oranges. The “SST” is a measure of the ocean Bulk mixing layer and has 4 times the specific heat capacity of “Surface” air temperature and a much longer mixing lag time. It would be ludicrous to expect an immediate response in the ocean mixing layer as compared to “Surface” air temperature. The it would be ludicrous squared to expect a polar atmospheric impact in air with a density a fraction of the surface air to have an immediate impact of the ocean bulk mixing layer temperature.
When you see those Solar TSI reconstructions think imbalance instead of forcing. It takes about 400 years for tropospheric temperatures to impact deep oceans with the standard lag on the order of 1700 years.
You guys have the oscilloscope gain maxed out and are contemplating noise. So before waxing all “Scientific” define short term for a friggin’ planet :)
And as a by the way, consider Webster’s “Effective” diffusivity when he fit CO2 forcing to Trenberth’s overly confident OHC re-analysis. Webster determine that the oceans would have to have the “Effective” conductivity of roughly copper for that to happen. That should have been Webster’s flat forehead moment :)
Captn. said:
“It takes about 400 years for tropospheric temperatures to impact deep oceans with the standard lag on the order of 1700 years.”
—–
This is completely upside down thinking. With the net flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere, the idea that a warmer atmosphere is warming the ocean through energy transfer is nonsensical. A jacket does not pass heat to your body, but alters the rate of flow from your body to the cold air outside the jacket. This, more than any other basic thermodynamic, is why the oceans have been gaining energy in near perfect lockstep with the rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases– no 400 or 1700 year lag required. The effect on the ocean, like the effect on your body when you put on a jacket, is immediate.
Gates, “This is completely upside down thinking.”
I agree completely, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not directly injecting energy into the oceans. The oceans gain their energy from the sun and the atmosphere meters the rate of heat loss. So when Webster matches CO2 forcing to Ocean heat content with near zero lag and finds that the oceans would have to have the conductivity of copper for CO2 forcing to increase ocean heat capacity, he should have realized that it didn’t make sense.
Since there is near zero lag of the current rate of ocean heat and lower tropospheric temperatures that energy is do to increased direct ocean heat uptake not a build up of tropospheric energy. There is a change in the ocean mixing efficiency which is related to hemispheric imbalance and westerlies as per Toggweiler.
You however consider the ocean heat uptake to be in perfect lockstep with atmospheric forcing. My “Silly Charts” show that there is likely longer term solar and volcanic effects poorly considered in order to get that “perfect lockstep”. Like the actual vertical temperature anomaly by basins.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/13uENRLEGX_bsjs5-wReGR8cA4gx2Q_rOSKEPTZucNk=w601-h343-no
The North Atlantic is not in perfect lock step.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-7tyRX5A301g/UnT0ecVuKfI/AAAAAAAAKVc/oggBN02Xsgc/w671-h411-no/0-700+SH+by+Basin.png
The Indian and South Atlantic are not in perfect lockstep.
The atmosphere is in near perfect lockstep with the lower troposphere, as it should be, but the most consistent warming in both oceans and atmosphere has been in the tropics and southern hemisphere. The “pause” is simply an NH over shoot and reversion to a longer term mean.
There are dozens of new papers noting the solar/ENSO century and longer scale correlations and they are not by the whack jobs just yet though I am sure some ad homs will be lobbed in their direction.
captd, it is misleading to interpret a balance between the increase in atmospheric forcing and the ocean heat content as zero lag. They both happen to be at the same rate at this particular time. Both vary on timescales of a decade. This current balance is temporary, not zero lag.
JimD, “captd, it is misleading to interpret a balance between the increase in atmospheric forcing and the ocean heat content as zero lag. They both happen to be at the same rate at this particular time. Both vary on timescales of a decade. This current balance is temporary, not zero lag.”
Globally and regionally are different issues. That is why the “Silly Charts” compare equatorial temperature imbalances using absolute temperature when available. If you can tease out the natural impacts you have a better chance of getting an accurate estimate of human impacts.
The important of meridional and zonal temperature imbalances on climate has been pretty well documented.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009PA001809/abstract
http://www.woodhous.arizona.edu/geog453013/Toggweiler2009.pdf
Which highlights the value of the “Stadium Wave” and network analysis
captd, it is pointless trying to account for every sub-decadal wiggle of a tenth of a degree. The overall trend for the last 40 years tells the story, and is 0.167 C per decade. Longer term trends give you what really matters and filter out the irrelevant short-term fluctuations. The 15-year continuous stretch of record warmth, sometimes known as the pause, is also only one step of the overall warming.
Jimd, “captd, it is pointless trying to account for every sub-decadal wiggle of a tenth of a degree.”
Agreed and it is also pointless to consider every tenth of a degree 40 year wiggle if you are concerned with climate.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-53MZRlz2Mx8/Un1-KcyMgRI/AAAAAAAAKes/kG4SMmw37-M/w813-h497-no/Westerlies+Shift.png
Especially when your chosen time frame includes one of the larger unexplained wiggles.
You consistently assume things that result in over estimation and even advocate using over estimations to inspire policy decisions. Most of the formerly sideline players have noticed this “consensus” and have begun to dig deeper find the truth of the issue.
Note, 25S-35S and 25N-35N include the Hadley/Ferrel Cell typical convergence zone. Shifting of those zones have a huge impact on climate. CO2 didn’t cause that shift.
captd, because you don’t understand why the temperature has risen by 0.5 degrees per thirty years since 1970, doesn’t mean it is unexplained. It is well explained by a 2.5 C per CO2 doubling transient sensitivity, but your conceptual model seems to have a block against allowing for the CO2 forcing change of 1 W/m2 in that time that dwarfs the others. By the way, I have no idea what you are plotting, and won’t ask, because unless it talks about forcing changes, it is irrelevant.
JimD, “captd, because you don’t understand why the temperature has risen by 0.5 degrees per thirty years since 1970, doesn’t mean it is unexplained.”
The models diverging since 2005 pretty much indicate that it is unexplained to the modelers. The general trend in lower “sensitivities” indicates that it was pretty much unexpected. The lack of water vapor feedback and the shift in diurnal temperature range pretty much indicates that high sensitivities that require positive cloud and water vapor feed back for 2/3rds of their range are toast.
Other than that you are right up on the current state of the issues.
captd, you fall back on subdecadal scales again to argue against multi-decadal trends. You might see how that argument is flawed. Also, if the land and Arctic areas are warming fastest, would you expect the full global water vapor feedback to show up immediately? No, these areas of greatest warming don’t have as much water vapor to release. The delayed tropical ocean warming comes with most of that feedback. You have to consider that the transient phase global warming is not uniform, and consequently neither is the feedback.
JimD, ” You have to consider that the transient phase global warming is not uniform, and consequently neither is the feedback.”
That is why you look at regional trends, impact in the NH is greater than impact in the SH as far as “surface” temperature. SH impact is greater for OH uptake.
If you look at that chart again there is a century long trend with an abrupt shift in ~1965. That is consistent with the Woods Hole research indicating century scale Pacific “oscillations”. If you consider that impact on the NH most of the 0.5 C from 1970 is internal oscillation related consistent with Brierley et al meridional and zonal imbalance impacts.
JimD, all of this is consistent with the “supposed” Little Ice Age taking longer to fully recovery than the WAG ~1900 estimates. In a nut shell, the impact of natural internal variability appears to be grossly underestimated pretty much consistent with Dr. Curry has been implying.
Without knowing what “normal” should be you cannot have a clue what CO2 forcing might be doing.
captd, you should know that the oceans don’t uptick all by themselves. They need forcing. The latest uptick in the last decade is global and due to the ever-growing forcing. The LIA recovery is a myth. The long-term trend in the Holocene is downwards and that has been reversed by CO2. This is the current state of the knowledge taking into account the Milankovitch trend and the latest Holocene paleo data. The reversal of the Holocene is only just beginning, but it has already undone thousands of years of cooling in a century. The people promoting LIA recovery theories have to rejigger their ideas a bit in light of the new facts.
“R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
The issue is about matching up a forcing with a parameter on the climate system that can adequately display the relative changes in that forcing.”
forcing why do you think that in all other fields of thermodynamics scientists don’t use the term forcing?
Is it a flux, a measurement of energy, a measurement of temperature or all things to all men?
Forcing is a simple concept in climate. If the sun increases its energy by 1%, that is a forcing of 3.5 W/m2, same with doubling CO2. Long-term forcing changes lead to climate adjustments to stabilize at the new equilibrium for the new forcing level.
JimD, “captd, you should know that the oceans don’t uptick all by themselves. They need forcing. ”
That is about as wrong as wrong can get. Mixing efficiency dominates SST. If you had accurate OHC data back to the start of the instrumental era you could see that OHC requires forcing of some nature over a reasonable time span but a shift in the Westerlies/ITCZ can completely change SST in either direction. The “mysterious” 1940s “unforced” drop was strongest in the SH between 15S and the Equator. The ITCZ shifted with a change in the SH westerlies.
If the westerlies shift to a less efficient mixing mode, SST can just up rapidly but only a half degree or so. This “pause” is due to a change in deep ocean mixing efficiency and the 1976 to 1998 leap was likely due to the same reason. In fact the current Ice Age period is due to changed ocean mixing efficiency caused by the Drake Passage Gap and the closing of Panama.
Unless you call tectonic plate shifts “forcing” then you really don’t understand the oceans.
I will try one more time.
” The effect of Drake Passage on the Earth’s climate is examined using an idealised coupled model. It is found that the opening of Drake Passage cools the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere by about 3°C and arms the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere by nearly the same amount.”
http://sam.ucsd.edu/sio219/toggweiler_bjornsson.pdf
Currently the NH oceans are about 3C warmer than the SH oceans with lower incident TSI. If “forcing” worked the way you think on the oceans then the hemispheres would have about the same SST not a 3C imbalance. All it takes is small fluctuations in that imbalance and you can have up to 1.5C degree changes without any external forcing.
captd, now you are talking about SST when I was talking about OHC. You are a slippery fish. OHC doesn’t change without forcing. There just aren’t any other big enough reservoirs for the energy to hide. If you want to talk about tectonics and currents, that is a whole different kettle of fish. Yes, if the oceans are in different places and currents flowing in opposite directions, their OHC may be different due to that too.
JimD, “captd, now you are talking about SST when I was talking about OHC. You are a slippery fish.”
I added the caveat, “IF you have ocean heat content data back to the start of the instrumental record.” You don’t and you are assuming that the mixed data to 1955 is accurate enough to prove your point. It is not. If you look at that actual data by basin the margin of error allow for virtually zero deep ocean warming since 1954. If you want a laugh, there is a mistake in the OHC data where the error margins for 1955 are the same as 2010. That falls in the too good to be true category. That is not very uncommon in reanalysis, btw.
Now if you are through with the diversion, try the Toggweiler link.
DocMartyn:
“…forcing why do you think that in all other fields of thermodynamics scientists don’t use the term forcing?”
Increased CO2 causes temperature to rise (a).
Increased temperature (a) causes increased temperature (b) until it does not cause it anymore.
Perhaps like this:
+ CO2
+ Temperature (a)
+ Temperature (b)
Stop
Where (b) is caused by (a) until it is not.
Stop above is important for obvious reasons. Without Stop, the whole thing falls a part, the planet really. I believe it’s called net negative feedbacks. So it appears that most net negative feedbacks sleep during (a) and are awoken during (b), where they get down to business and do their thing, and yet once again, save us.
JimD said:
It’s even more pointless when Cappy has no clue to go about doing that, as he seems to lack the analytical skills. It’s actually quite straightforward to remove the subdecadal wiggles that come about from the natural variations, such as I do here:
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
I am experimenting with where to best host the server. For the last several weeks, I had it executing from an Amazon compute instance, but today I switched to a PC on my network.
Captn > It takes about 400 years for tropospheric temperatures to impact deep oceans with the standard lag on the order of 1700 years.
Gates > This is completely upside down thinking. With the net flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere, the idea that a warmer atmosphere is warming the ocean through energy transfer is nonsensical.
No, what is nonsensical is Gates’s ludicrous strawman, trying to suggest that Capn’s “impact” means heat going from cold to warm.
Or – perhaps he just doesn’t understand that a warmer atmosphere would slow the rate at which oceans cool into it?
Jim D. said:
“The latest uptick in the last decade is global and due to the ever-growing forcing. The LIA recovery is a myth. The long-term trend in the Holocene is downwards and that has been reversed by CO2. This is the current state of the knowledge taking into account the Milankovitch trend and the latest Holocene paleo data. The reversal of the Holocene is only just beginning, but it has already undone thousands of years of cooling in a century.”
——-
Yep, and the ” reversal of the Holocene” cooling is also known as the Anthropocene. A term which raises the ire of denialists.
Jim D: The overall trend for the last 40 years tells the story, and is 0.167 C per decade.
Do you think that’s what we should expect for the next century?
Only if emission rates flatten at today’s level, but they are rising fast.
Jim D: Only if emission rates flatten at today’s level, but they are rising fast.
Fair enough. I did ask for your “expectation”. Hansen (1981) repeatedly cited by FOMD projected 2.5C for a low fossil fuel scenario, and temps are now running below that projection, despite “high” fossil fuel consumption. The slopes for the early 20th century and late 20th century increases are indistinguishable, which actually is not that telling against the CO2 theory which is an equilibrium theory without a clear relationship between CO2 and rate of change. WebHubTelescope’s model (whether he likes it or not) projects a 2.1C increase for a doubling of CO2, and Vaughan Pratt’s model is very similar. The GCMs are already way off. I am 66. I no longer am optimistic that I’ll live long enough to see how it all shakes out; unless the sun’s output really tanks and the temp falls with it, really soon. With all of the science as it is now, at least all that I have read, I think the only justifiable expectation is to be wishy-washy.
I think I read all of your posts. Keep it up.
Matthew Marler, yes transient sensitivities like Web’s and Pratt’s underestimate the equilibrium value. They may incorporate a lag which increases their sensitivity, but is still not exactly like equilibrium sensitivity. Likewise my 2.5 C per doubling is transient, and a lower bound for the equilibrium value. At 700 ppm, I would expect a 4 C rise from pre-industrial of which we have had 0.7 C already. Therefore if we stop at 700 ppm by 2100, which is possible with mild (or half-hearted) mitigation, we would have more than 3 C warming by about a century from now. Sea levels would also be rising at an accelerating rate by then. The strictest possible mitigation can halt us nearer 500 ppm and save us about 2 C of warming.
Of course, because that is what I show when I present the results from my model. How could it be a matter of whether I “likes it or not”, when I present the value of 2.1C per doubling right there on the web page.
The point is that if you apply a different temperature series, such as the BEST land temperature data since 1880, it gives a higher value of 3.2C which is explainable by a lower heat capacity for land in comparison to the ocean.
WebHubTelescope: How could it be a matter of whether I “likes it or not”, when I present the value of 2.1C per doubling right there on the web page.
When I wrote it was 2.1 you wrote that it was really 3. I do not believe that your model entails a difference between ECS and TCS. You get that elsewhere. If the surface equilibrates rapidly and then the rest of the E takes a millenium to rise 2C, I do not see a serious problem for humans and other life on earth. Your model includes no time lag between the doubling of CO2 and the complete or near complete warming of the earth surface. If there is subsequent warming elsewhere, it is not in your model.
“Jim D: The overall trend for the last 40 years tells the story, and is 0.167 C per decade.
Matthew Marler: Do you think that’s what we should expect for the next century?”
—-
Very likely, or higher, depending on future rates of emissions. This is a critical juncture.
Marler pontificated
This points to several of Marler’s rehetorical strategies
1. Marler never does any deep analysis himself, he merely handwaves
2. He includes his own subjective opinion that 2C is not “a serious problem for humans and other life on earth”
3. He purposely neglects the fact that the majority of the people do not live on the ocean’s heat sink and thus are exposed to 3C
I do have a comprehensive ocean heat content model, and based on that, I can take as a premise that we can compartmentalize the effects of ocean heating and surface heating without completely screwing up the analysis.
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/ocean-heat-content-model.html
The CSALT model says that the land will continue on at a 3C sensitivity, the ocean at a 1.5C sensitivity and the combination at a 2C sensistivity. That’s what the model says Marler, and all your handwaving won”t change that.
WebHubTelescope: The CSALT model says that the land will continue on at a 3C sensitivity,
This debate would end immediately if you could calculate that from your model the way that I calculated 2.1 from your model.
I wrote that the derivative of T wrt CO2 is proportional to 1/CO2. Did you notice that the derivative of T wrt time is function of (1/CO2)(dCO2/dt)? If the other predictors in your model stay within historical bounds, your model does not predict increased T after CO2 stabilizes.
Your problem here is not that your model is wrong (I call it “live”) or that I do not do any “deep” analyses of my own; your problem is that your model has implications you don’t like and doesn’t have an implication that you want, namely ECS of 3.
Your model is totally uninformative on the questions of whether increased CO2 or T will increase cloud cover; or whether increased downwelling LWIR will have more of an effect on ocean surface temp or ocean surface evaporation.
You are right about one of my opinions: I used to think that a 2C rise might be a problem, but now after a few years more reading I have changed my mind. On the whole, I think a $3trillion global effort to reduce fossil fuel use rapidly will do more damage. Most of my reading on these topics has been standard climate/meteorology textbooks and peer-reviewed published articles. I think I am a member of a small but growing wolfpack: people who used to believe that AGW was a threat and don’t anymore.
You are scoring “own goals” Marler, so I can only thank you for that.
Obviously, since the model only uses current observational evidence, the values of TCR estimated are lower bound on what the actual values will be eventually. So the temperatures will continue to drift upward if CO2 suddenly stabilizes, due to the lagging ocean thermal response.
For land temperature response, another lower bound is also operable, as we have yet to see the slow feedbacks (due to long-term albedo and landform changes) which may eventually start to kick in.
I never like to exaggerate so a lower bound is appropriate for this work.
WebHubTelescope: Obviously, since the model only uses current observational evidence, the values of TCR estimated are lower bound on what the actual values will be eventually. So the temperatures will continue to drift upward if CO2 suddenly stabilizes, due to the lagging ocean thermal response.
For land temperature response, another lower bound is also operable, as we have yet to see the slow feedbacks (due to long-term albedo and landform changes) which may eventually start to kick in.
Is this your acknowledgment that a 3C ECS can not be calculated from your model? As I wrote, the 3C ECS comes from outside your model. Your model is compatible with 2.1C being a “sharp” lower bound, with the actual ECS being very close to the calculated lower bound of 2.1C (assuming for the sake of argument that the ECS refers to something in the actual climate, such as the global spatio-temporal mean.) Neither the long-term albedo effect nor the landform changes is incorporated in your model, and the sign of the albedo change to a future CO2 or temp change is not known based on currently available research.
Interesting article on Bert Bolin, one of the fathers of the IPCC
http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/the-man-who-got-the-world-to-agree-on-climate/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
“…one of the fathers of the IPCC”.
At risk of being censored, the IPCC is increasingly looking like a Bert Bolin Bastard.
JC
Have seen the following excellent presentation on fighting desertification?
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html
A reasonably good summary of the likely components and factors of the “pause” in tropospheric temperature rise over the past 10-15 years:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/08/open-thread-weekend-40/#comment-410798
RGatres
I am gett9ng confused as to which part of the Climate Etc E-salon we are supposed to be conversing in. Shall we stick to this room as it is very conveniently situated close to the water cooler and bathroom?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/08/open-thread-weekend-40/#comment-410809
tonyb
We shall…
Rgates
Ok, I am down here. This from above which now has hazard tape around it…;
RGates
Why it is ‘difficult’ for me, is that after trolling through a thousand years of weather observations, the effects of volcanic eruptions in real world weather APPEAR to be short lived.
A moderate increase in volcanic activity over the last decade (from a low or high point?) is something that needs demonstrating as having an impact. As your link says it is difficult to distinguish between aerosols from volcanic sources and human (Asian) activity, whilst the Hansen paper says the attribution is an ‘educated guess.’
May not be able to reply in next few hours as it is our Guy Fawkes night celebrations, held on the beach in an hour or two. Rain threatens and the wind is strong, which is bad news for Bonfires, fireworks and spectators…
tonyb
“…after trolling through a thousand years of weather observations, the effects of volcanic eruptions in real world weather APPEAR to be short lived”
—
Of course Tony we don’t have direct measurements of the optical depth from the sum of all volcanic activity over the course of the so-called Little Ice Age. We have historic and proxy data from only the larger volcanic eruptions. A record of the total aerosol loading from the the sum of all volcanic activity as measured by optical depth of aerosols in the stratosphere would be most useful to plot against the temperatures during the period of the LIA (like Lockwood, I really hate that term). The next best thing that we have is the ice core record from the period as a proxy for volcanic activity– and guess what it tells us?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01751/abstract
And a bit of the abstract:
“The most recent 700 years (A.D. 1400–1985) are characterized by the greatest number of eruptions (half of those recorded over the 2100 years of record) and, in general, the highest stratospheric loading and optical depth values for individual and the combined effects of multiple eruptions.”
Yep, the sum aerosol loading from all volcanic activity was greater during major parts of the LIA, not just from a few major eruptions. You might want to recheck some of your assumptions.
And of course:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD900233/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=true
Rgates
Your latest Wiley link is highly equivocal on the effects of aerosols as was the Hansen paper.
This one points out the limitations and that it came from one ice core and the mismatch with the 1259 volcano. That is the one that drove dr Mann mad in trying to prove the cooling that was supposed to have happened But apparently was not evident in his tree rings for a variety of complicated reasons.
It was also the period I posted actual observations about, several weeks ago.
So, to date the real world effects of aerosols are highly debatable as the various papers cited demonstrate. actual observations from the 1000 years of records seem to illustrate that the effects of volcanos on climate are short lived. I will take observations over computer models if the former can be verified from several different sources.
Tonyb
Tony said:
“This one points out the limitations and that it came from one ice core and the mismatch with the 1259 volcano. That is the one that drove dr Mann mad…”
—–
Well, at least that’s one attribution we can cross off our list– what drove Mann mad.
the effects of volcanos on climate are short lived
The effects on co2 are precipitous though eg Pinatubo
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1960/isolate:120/mean:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/isolate:120/mean:12/normalise
R. Gates: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01751/abstract
Thank you for another informative article, though I am stuck with just the abstract. I regret that I have not had time to read the full articles that you led me to a few days ago. I hope to make some headway soon.
Dust in the ice-cores indicates that when aerosol levels are high, the planet is cold, and the aquasphere is more productive, fixing and mineralizing more atmospheric CO2.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/vostok_icecore_wikipedia.png
Doc Martyn: the aquasphere is more productive, fixing and mineralizing more atmospheric CO2.
Where do you get that?
This is the link to the short letter I mentioned above by Emanuel, Hansen, Caldeira and Wigley asking for consideration of nuclear power to address the carbon problem.
https://plus.google.com/104173268819779064135/posts/Vs6Csiv1xYr
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising
greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global
surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find
that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase
in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar
insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical
change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of
anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur
emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among
global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative
forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known
warming and cooling effects. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Kaufmannetal2011PNAS_zpse215c523.png.html
It is always nice to have some actual data. The change in sulphate forcing since the mid 1990’s is about 0.1 W/m^2. The change in forcing (surface) in the 11 year solar cycle is about 0.25 W/m^2. The change in a quiet Sun seem to be about the same peak to peak since 2000.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ACRIMComposite_zps412a7879.png.html
The change in planetary energy content is instantaneous and depends only on the difference in incoming and outgoing energy over a period.
d(W&H) = power in – power out
Where W&H is work and heat.
The big change is in power out. The big changes in CERES are in SW in the period. This is a result of changes in cloud cover associated with changing sea surface temperature in the tropics especially (Palle and Laken 2013). A modest decrease in cloud in the period as the system swung from an intense La Nina early in the century to moderate El Nino over the bulk of the decade.
This can be seen in CERES and MODIS.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png.html?sort=3&o=69
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS-1.gif.html?sort=3&o=106
ChiefHydrologist: The change in planetary energy content is instantaneous and depends only on the difference in incoming and outgoing energy over a period.
Thank you for two more good links. Are the fulll papers available online?
Surely only the response near the surface is nearly instantaneous? (in pharmacokinetics we would say that the surface energy content rapidly “equilibrates”, meaning it rapidly attains close to its steady-state value, when a steady-state is possible.) It must take a long time for an increase in the surface temperature to produce a warming of the deep ocean?
The change in energy content is the difference between incoming and outgoing energy. Necessarily by the 1st law of thermodynamics.
I’m not sure that equilibrium is a useful concept. Ocean heat content follows net flux at TOA.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=148
ChiefHydrologist: Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising
greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global
surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find
that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase
in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings
thank you for another good article. If it is true that little increase in temperature has occurred because of little increase in forcings (a claim that the authors come a little short of writing, though I think it is clearly implied), does that not imply that the surface response to a change in forcing is very rapid, and that if there is any “warming in the pipeline” it can not be warming at or near the surface?
Sorry about the multiple comments but there is a limit to the number of links – and they are all significant.
The problem with CERES and MODIS is that they miss the shift in cloud that accompanied the 1998/2001 climate shift. This is captured in ISCCP-FD data and in Project Earthshine.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=36
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=12
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
The shift in cloud cover is the most significant proximate cause of the hiatus – that should really result in neither oceans or atmosphere warming. Ocean heat data seems problematic before ARGO – but Lyman and Johnson (2013) provide a reconstruction that is consistent with the the energy budget changes in the last decade inferred from satellite measurements.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=13
Matthew,
Palle E., & Laken B.A. (2013) What do we really know about cloud changes over the past decades?, AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 1531., doi:10.1063/1.4804857 – here’s the link to Ben Laken – it’s on the bottom of the page – but the page includes some interesting results on the non-linkage of cosmic rays and cloud – http://www.benlaken.com/publications.html
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
Are these the ones you were asking for?
CH, Are these the ones you were asking for?
Yes, thank you.
Pet peeve of mine (to put it mildly), and a pretty good demonstration of what can happen when governments declare “war” on things..
“Some 60,000 people have died across Mexico since 2006 when the previous government under Felipe Calderon deployed the military against the drugs gangs.”
In the name of common sense, can someone explain to me which is the greater evil, individuals exercising their God given right to do what they wish with their own bodies, or wholesale carnage in the streets?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24875961
I can’t imagine the attraction – but it could made a lot safer and less socially disruptive. I’d lace it with a tracer – and have random hair follicle drug tests for minors.
Of course there’d be no drug cartels were it not for the laws against. And the crimes committed by addicts in order to get unnecessarily expensive narcotics from dealers, many of whom are addicts themselves, would largely disappear as well.
We never learn. The ongoing “war on drugs” is so stupid I can barely wrap my mind around it. We never learn.
poker guy,
I agree. It seems even more bizarre that the “war on drugs” seems to gain most of its impetus from a society which seems to be heavily dependent on booze, gambling, sex, and the relentless pursuit of money at all costs, preferably by litigation.
This indicates a bit of a contradiction – it seems more of a case of “do as I say, rather than do as I do”.
That’s life, I guess, but I wonder whether fighting a war you can’t possibly win achieves much, other than to send you broke, eventually.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Just about all recreational drugs should be legalized and not taxed to the point that the black market rises again. The “War on Drugs” has been a major pillar of the current police state in the US. The sooner we legalize the better.
@pokerguy, Mike Flynn, jim2:
The ‘War on Drugs’ has been one of the most successful wars EVER.
Not successful in eliminating drug use; no one could possibly be so stupid to believe that legal fiat, in the face of the ‘Law of Supply and Demand’, could eliminate the supply of ANYTHING, which actually existed, for which there exists a multi-billion annual market in the US alone.
It has been HUGELY successful in expanding the power of the state and essentially making the Constitution a dead letter. Asset forfeiture, currency reporting, random searches, bank and credit card transaction reporting, electronic surveillance, ad infinitum. Of course we now have the ‘War on Terrorism’ (a tactic rather than a substance, but the same principle) that enabled the state to ‘double down’ on all the the power expansions and personal autonomy restrictions that were initiated by the ‘WOD’ and ‘WOT’.
Now comes the ‘War on CO2’. We have exactly the same chance of ‘setting the thermostat of the Earth’ through controlling the output of CO2 by the human race as we have in eliminating drug use by conducting a ‘War on Drugs’ or in eliminating terrorism by conducting a ‘War on Terror’. Zero.
All these ‘Wars on Something or Other’ have however been HUGELY successful in advancing us toward the progressive Shangri-La in which everything not commanded is forbidden, with the progressives doing the commanding and forbidding. Which was the point all along.
Bob Ludwick
“It has been HUGELY successful in expanding the power of the state and essentially making the Constitution a dead letter. Asset forfeiture, currency reporting, random searches, bank and credit card transaction reporting, electronic surveillance, ad infinitum. Of course we now have the ‘War on Terrorism’ (a tactic rather than a substance, but the same principle) that enabled the state to ‘double down’ on all the the power expansions and personal autonomy restrictions that were initiated by the ‘WOD’ and ‘WOT’.”
Bob,
I find myself nodding my head vigorously. And let’s not forget the penal industry which is now dependent on cycling drug addicts in and out of prisons, sometimes keeping them for many years at a stretch for ingesting substances which often grow naturally. Essentially, a person can go to prison for decades, for eating a certain kind of plant.
I couldn’t agree more with your point about the general perniciousness of governmental “wars” on things. The “war” on Co2 the latest absurd, and transparent example in a long line.
By the way, it’s well known that Nixon officially declared the “war on drugs”. What isn’t well known is that he actually emphasized treating addicts as sick people, not criminals. That gradually went away of course, when politicians realized how successful a tactic it is to be “tough on crime.”
“In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a critical report on the War on Drugs, declaring “The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.”[11] The report was criticized by organizations that oppose a general legalization of drugs.[10]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Commission_on_Drug_Policy
I should say, “when politicians realized all over again.” It’s not a new tactic.
From Nasim Taleb on Facebook:
Friends, let us build a list of historical cases of “scientistic sucker problems” (similar to, say, transfat, thalidomide) that satisfy the following:
A – DENIAL OF COMPLEXITY: Something foreign to the human body or nature-as-a-complex-system was introduced (in the sense of not being part of the long term history of the process),
B – Benefits (though small) were visible and trumpeted,
C -MISTAKING ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE: “Scientific” *evidence of absence* of harm was presented. (Consider tobacco).
D – SCIENTISM: Arguments against skeptics were presented a la Michael Shermer as being “against science”.
E – MORAL HAZARD: consider tobacco’s lobbying to show safety on “scientific” grounds.
These cases of small visible benefits and large hidden harm (particularly delayed) are prime cases of fragility (thick left tail, thin right tail).
The aim is to integrate these human sucker problems into the general *precautionary principle*. In the complex domain, one cannot predict adverse consequences beyond small steps, hence the idea of countering history (Bar Yam).
Please do not stray from the topic, which is to build a historical list, in the physical/health (not socioeconomic) domain. This is not a debate: rather a catalogue.
Judy, Thalidomide was the most tested drug of its time. It sailed through animal tests.
Read points 1-5 of this paper and see how descriptions of biological processes align with climatic processes.
http://www6.miami.edu/ethics/jpsl/archives/all/TestingThalidomide.html
Thalidomide is the major reason biomedicals don’t trust models and regulatory authorities distrust scientific reports from biomedicals.
Today Thalidomide is back and has found an actual medical use for completely different purposes, leprosy and several types of cancer.
Thanks for this link Doc. I learned a lot.
Excellent, I have been calling it “capture the uncertainty” then the tail is always on your side.
curryja: Friends, let us build a list of historical cases of “scientistic sucker problems” (similar to, say, transfat, thalidomide) that satisfy the following:
How much documentation would you like. Some of my favorites are aspartame, acrilonitrile and alar. Fluoride was in the news seemingly for 2 decades. Does thimerasol count? (It was based on an outright fraud.)
“Does thimerasol count? (It was based on an outright fraud.)”
1) Thimerasol is essentially a salt of ethyl-mercury.
2) Ethylmercury is a lipophilic cation and if it enters a cell it partitions into mitochondria.
3) Ethylmercury is capable of destroying mitochondria and inducing apoptosis in normal human astrocytes
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2012/373678/
4) A significant fraction of children with Autism have mitochondrial dysfunction.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=282214
5) A significant fraction of B-Cells derived from children with Autism, and some of their siblings, appear to have mitochondrial dysfunction.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajmg.b.30366/abstract
http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v3/n6/full/tp201351a.html
6) B-cells from some Autistics, and some of their siblings, are hyper-sensitive to ethylmercury toxicity, and this toxicity appears to be based on mitochondrial sensitivity
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2013/801517/
7) Hannah Poling, a child with a genetically identified mitochondrial dysfunction, was awarded damages from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, for the harm caused by Thimerasol preserved vaccines.
http://autismsciencefoundation.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/why-was-hannah-poling-compensated/
It is hard enough to work in the Autism field, attempting to identify environmental triggers of this condition, as it is.
Many workers slave away, screening environmental pollutants, returning mostly, unpublishable, negative results.
This is not the case with ethylmercury, which is a bonafide neurotoxin and a plausible candidate for triggering Autism, in a sub-population of children.
The work is hard and the politics are vile enough as things stand, without accusing investigators of ‘fraud’. Wakefield fraudulent research finding stressed a linkage between auto-immune disease, vaccination and Autism; his falsified work did not finger ethylmercury.
Fanbait. Won’t be long.
Cut and paste quote from a scientist : –
“There appears to be no question that prayer works. We have many studies now that document that. The science is very solid in excellent peer-reviewed publications. The science is so solid, that it is criminally negligent for physicians not to recommend it.”
Sounds a bit like the climate science promoters, doesn’t it?
Unfortunately, there are studies demonstrating negative outcomes for intercessory prayer – who to believe?
Just as interesting are studies showing double strength placebos providing better clinical outcomes than single strength placebos, but without a similar increase in negative side effects. A placebo supposedly has no active ingredients. Who says so?
How much peanut butter is required to kill a person by means of anaphylactic shock? Does anyone know?
It takes just one sperm to fertilise one human egg. Small enough, but huge compared with a virus. Presumably, it takes just one virus to kill by infecting you with something like Ebola. Keep going. One prion can kill. It can be a really, really, small sucker.
All this says to me that we really have very little idea of what goes on in the human organism. Make your assumptions, believe whom you want to believe. So far, I have not noticed any negative side effects from seeking to live a quiet life. But who knows the future?
Parallels to weather, climate, and science in general? Many.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Nice review. It’s nice to have a calm and polite contrarian like Tom Nagel out and about.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115279/joshua-greenes-moral-tribes-reviewed-thomas-nagel
Using HadCRU4 – degrees C
year……..Temp anom
1976…….-0.251
1977……. 0.033
1996……..0.142
1998……..0.490
Total warming in those 2 ENSO transition periods was 0.632 degrees C. The total warming is 0.741 degrees C. So some 85% of the total was ENSO just in those 2 periods.
The warming between 1977 and 1996 is 0.109 degrees C – or about 0.054 degrees C/decade.
More than half of that seems to be decadal variability.
Here’s the model – that also suggests non-warming for a while yet.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/rc_fig1_zpsf24786ae.jpg.html?sort=3&o=29
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
A simple reality check – such as engineers are trained in. When will sanity prevail? God only knows.
No regrets actions are warranted – because by definition they have net benefits without consideration of greenhouse gas externals. Energy innovation is warranted to bring on more efficient and cheaper energy sources for enhanced economic growth. Dismantling of the AGW industry is warranted because it is just a distraction from the real issues facing humanity this century.
Chief Hydrologist: Total warming in those 2 ENSO transition periods was 0.632 degrees C. The total warming is 0.741 degrees C. So some 85% of the total was ENSO just in those 2 periods.
OK, but where did the ENSO energy come from. I don’t think your analysis rules out extra accumulation of energy caused by increased CO2. Multidimensional nonlinear dissipative systems produce wave-like behavior even with constant input on homogeneous surfaces. Surely a system as complex as the atmosphere in 3 spatial dimensions could be at least as complicated in its outputs, including apparent “step” changes in selected regions.
Devil’s advocate?
It is not really a difficult question . Most of the energy in the latter period is from cloud cover variation.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/WongFig2-1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=68
Most of the earlier century warming was TSI or some other component of solar variability.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tsireconstruction_zps0ee199b5.png.html?sort=3&o=11
ENSO in its current form has existed for all of the Quaternary. In the Holocene we have El Nino intensity more than twice that of 1998.
‘According to Fig. 5, a series of intense El Nino events
(high red color intensity) begins at about 1450 BC that will
last for centuries. In that period normal (La Nina) conditions have all but disappeared. For comparison, the very strong 1998 El Nino event scores 89 in red color intensity. During the time when the Minoans were fading, El Nino events reach values in red color intensity over 200.’ http://www.clim-past.net/6/525/2010/cp-6-525-2010.pdf
The Medieval warm period had similar El Nino frequency and intensity as the modern period. More salt in the Law Dome = La Nina.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=90
CH:Devil’s advocate?
Not really. I just don’t believe that the evidence to date can rule out a role for CO2. So, I sort of probe or challenge lots of assertions. I appreciate your links.
“OK, but where did the ENSO energy come from.”
——-
Please, let’s not create a new category of energy called “ENSO”. The vast majority of energy in the ocean comes from the sun. The best way to understand ENSO is a part of the valve that controls the general flow of energy between ocean and atmosphere. During ENSO neutral periods, average amounts of energy flow from ocean to atmosphere. During El Niño periods slightly more energy flows, and during La Nina’s, slightly less.
“OK, but where did the ENSO energy come from”
Read Paul Vaughan on the top of this thread or the Dickey paper. He seems to be pretty worked up about it.
Calling it a valve misses all the behavioral richness of ENSO. The satellite data shows that most of the change in global energy in the recent warming was reduced cloud cover. I find it hard to get past that data when there are a couple of sources and consistent ocean heat data.
There are cloud changes associated with ENSO.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wongetal2006fig8_zps88e7615f.jpg.htm
But there are changes also with longer term variability of ocean and atmosphere circulation.
Responding to R. Gates’ comment about ENSO, Chief said:
“Calling it a valve misses all the behavioral richness of ENSO.”
—–
In regard to energy flow between ocean and atmosphere, it can be thought of as a valve, opening more during El Niño and less during La Niña, and furthermore, it is a valve with a directional component.
Chief Hydrologist: Calling it a valve misses all the behavioral richness of ENSO.
It looks to me (another opinion!) like an important component of that richness. If, in the current state of the climate, the peak of ENSO were to produce enough increased cloud cover to induce net cooling, that would be important by itself, even though incomplete. And, on the evidence, that looks eminently possible.
Looking at ENSO from an energy flow perspective is exceptionally useful, but one must not make the mistake of only looking at sensible heat in the troposphere as a metric for overall energy. Remember that a cloud forming over the ocean represents energy being transferred from ocean to atmosphere, and that energy would specifically not be measured by sensible heat. This is so fundamental a point yet is so frequently missed by those who myopically only want to focus on tropospheric sensible heat– both “skeptic” and warmist alike.
R Gates: Looking at ENSO from an energy flow perspective is exceptionally useful, but one must not make the mistake of only looking at sensible heat in the troposphere as a metric for overall energy. Remember that a cloud forming over the ocean represents energy being transferred from ocean to atmosphere, and that energy would specifically not be measured by sensible heat. This is so fundamental a point yet is so frequently missed by those who myopically only want to focus on tropospheric sensible heat– both “skeptic” and warmist alike.
I agree.
This one – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=73
Science has been restored to its proper place:
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/384027396019462144
Obamacare doesn’t have to be repealed and replaced, Obama needs to be repealed and replaced. Impeachment proceedings should begin post haste. Then we need small government people running the Federal government who will cut it down to a small size.
Just give Barry some magnets and he’ll stay busy for hours.
Maybe that’ll work with Fanny? Got any?
pathological science
* The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
* The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
* There are claims of great accuracy.
* Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
* Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
* The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
Let me introduce new topic for discussion. It’s all over CNN. Is Haiyan the strongest typhoon?
Warmists will again connect this super typhoon to global warming. News media claim Haiyan is the strongest typhoon ever recorded. Sensationalism. Untrue. Haiyan had sustained winds of 195 mph before making landfall in the Philippines. Five typhoons in the 1960s and 1958 are equal to or stronger than Haiyan. These are Nancy, Violet, Ida, Kit and Sally.
There may be more typhoons in the past stronger than Haiyan that we don’t know of. About 20 typhoons hit the Philippine islands every year. The Philippine weather bureau was established in 1901. There are no records before 1901. We have no idea how strong the over 40,000 typhoons that hit the country since ancient times.
News media claim Haiyan was 1,800 km long. Another sensationalism. That’s the extent of the cloud system as viewed from space. The typhoon was much smaller. Haiyan made a landfall on Mindoro island, which 240 km from Manila. The typhoon was not felt in Manila. Apparently Haiyan had a radius of less than 240 km.
The world’s strongest measured at landfall. Officially 195 mph sustained winds, 220 mph gusts as it made landfall on the Philippines.
A great deal of energy was released from ocean to atmosphere during this storm. With ocean heat content running at record levels, we are bound to get more and more of these superstorms in the future. Denialists will not be inclined to admit the necessity if such.
R. Gates
Try being a bit more “skeptical” in the future, Gates, if you are going to claim this mantle.
The postulated 0.005C warming of the ocean is going to cause “more and more of these superstorms in the future”?
You just set off my BS meter with that one.
Max
R,Gates, “A great deal of energy was released from ocean to atmosphere during this storm. With ocean heat content running at record levels, we are bound to get more and more of these superstorms in the future. Denialists will not be inclined to admit the necessity if such.”
That Storm released around the same energy as Hurricane Camile and it is stronger than normal for the region because the ocean energy in that region is higher than normal. There has been a general trend of ocean energy shifting to the westerly Pacific region which appears to be part of a century scale ENSO related shift so there will be stronger storms in that region until the energy gradient reduces.
CO2 is a uniform “forcing”. It should reduce the surface temperature gradient and increase the vertical temperature gradient causing more uniformly distributed super storms if it impacts storm trends at all.
So that storm is definitely not a “Signature” of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It was a nice compact storm that might have some indication of CO2 related forcing related to its compact size to energy though.
I must assume using your logic that Hurricane Camile must have taken advantage of record 0-2000 meter OHC back in 1969. Considering the accuracy of the 0-2000 meter OHC in 1969 though, it is a little hard to tell :)
Now the Memorial Day Storm of 1935 must have been faulty data. There is no way that there possibly could have been enough OHC back then to generate such a strong storm. That must have just been some Conch Tall Tale HUH?
R. Gates: With ocean heat content running at record levels, we are bound to get more and more of these superstorms in the future. Denialists will not be inclined to admit the necessity if such.
Do you follow Ryan Maue?http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php
I mean “follow” as in “pay attention to”, not as an acolyte.
Typhoon Haiyan brought the accumulated cyclone energy of the Western N. Pacific very close to average (which he labels “normal”).
2011 publication here: http://models.weatherbell.com/maue_grl_2011.pdf
Capt. said:
“CO2 is a uniform “forcing”. It should reduce the surface temperature gradient and increase the vertical temperature gradient causing more uniformly distributed super storms if it impacts storm trends at all.’
______
There is no scientific justification for this assumption. As a continual added forcing to the climate system, increasing GH gases can be seen to enhance already existing processes such as the hydrological cycle, Brewer-Dobson circulation, etc. As there are already specific areas that are more prone to the formation of superstorms, this tendency and focus on those regions may also be ehnahnced.
The discussion about Super-Typhoon Haiyan, or Hurricane Sandy, or the Russian Heat wave, the US Heat Wave of March 2012, or even here in my home state of Colorado- the unusual flooding events of September 2013, all come back to the same thing- How unusual is this event and how frequent (collectively) are these events becoming on a global basis? This is not just an academic issue, but a practical one being discussed by insurance companies and regional emergency response planners all over the world.
One additional thought: the energy being “released” by storms like Super Typhoon Haiyan, or any typhoon is not being released from the climate system, but more represents a transfer of that energy from ocean to atmosphere and from lower latitude to higher. It is one way the tropical ocean advects energy away, following the natural thermo gradients of the planet. In the transfer of energy from ocean to atmosphere in typhoons or hurricanes, few people will think about measuring how much energy is being transferred in terms of the change in sensible heat, as usually the storms bring massive rain to an area and the sensible heat as measured might actually decrease– yet we know the actual energy being transferred from ocean to atmosphere via latent and kinetic energy is enormous. This is just a simple example of why measuring only sensible heat in the troposphere is a poor metric for overall energy in the troposphere, and as an extension– an even poorer measurement of overall energy in the Earth system.
R. Gates
Yep.
And the tendency “may also be reduced.”
Take your pick, as a “skeptical warmist”.
This “skeptical warmist” says that means “no substantiated impact”.
Max
Gates, why do you suppose the OHC is increasing and the surface is warming?
According to the GW theory, it’s because the net flow of energy from the surface (and ocean) to the atmosphere is reduced.
But now, according to you, the net flow of energy to the atmosphere is increased.
Which one is it, Gates? You can’t have it both ways.
phatboy intelligently asks:
“Gates, why do you suppose the OHC is increasing and the surface is warming?
According to the GW theory, it’s because the net flow of energy from the surface (and ocean) to the atmosphere is reduced.
But now, according to you, the net flow of energy to the atmosphere is increased.
Which one is it, Gates? You can’t have it both ways.”
______
I’ll make an honest attempt to break this down one piece at a time. First, the natural net flow of energy on the planet is from ocean to atmosphere. At any given time over 50% of the energy in the atmosphere came directly from the ocean. The thermal gradient between ocean (as source) and outer space (as sink) is determined by the composition of the intermediary of the atmosphere. The thicker the atmosphere is with gases that can absorb LW radiation, the slower the heat will flow from ocean to space. In addition to the vertical thermal gradient on the planet (ocean to space) there is also a horizontal thermal gradient between the tropics and polar regions. Energy naturally will flow from tropics to the poles, via normal advection in both the ocean itself, and in the atmosphere. As energy in the ocean increases, because of either increases SW solar, or increases in GH gases. In the case of anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases, a warmer atmosphere should not be seen as their primary effect, but rather a warmer ocean. A warmer atmosphere (a measurement of sensible heat) is a control valve to regulating the flow of energy from ocean to space. Thus, a slightly warmer atmosphere via increased greenhouse gases can allow the ocean to retain a lot more relative energy, but energy is always still going to be flowing from ocean to atmosphere, and sometimes this energy may come out in bursts such as in a supertyphoon.
Nice try, Gates, but some will see it as yet more confused waffling on your part – I couldn’t possibly comment.
“phatboy | November 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
Nice try, Gates, but some will see it as yet more confused waffling on your part – I couldn’t possibly comment.”
____
phatboy, certain memeplexes will not allow for the notion that a slightly warmer atmosphere can lead to a much more relative energy being stored in the ocean. The idea that a little energy can be used to control a lot of energy seems to be impossible for them the grasp. This impossibility will then be projected back on to my as “waffling” I suppose, as their own cognitive dissonance must be kept to a minimum. Hence why I am (or was) so aggressively attacked on sites like WUWT.
Gates, only you know what you’re talking about.
A convenient outlet for you to reduce your cognitive dissonance phatboy.
Stop waffling and quantify it!
R. Gates: One additional thought: the energy being “released” by storms like Super Typhoon Haiyan, or any typhoon is not being released from the climate system, but more represents a transfer of that energy from ocean to atmosphere and from lower latitude to higher.
true enough, but there is no evidence for an overall increase in annual accumulated energy in these transfers compared to past decades.
Jim D
Sounds to me like it tied with Camille, not including the five equally strong (or stronger) cyclones cited by Dr. Strangelove above..
But the record only goes back a few years, so “strongest…in world history” is misleading (and alarmist).
But there is no question: Haiyan was one helluva storm.
Max
The others listed by Dr. Strangelove did not make landfall with those intensities, so this is why Haiyan stands out. Also the strength puts it close to the fabled category 6 that Al Gore suggested we may need. It is as much beyond the low end of category 5, as the whole width of the range of category 4. Cat 6 should start around 185 mph or 160 kt by extrapolation.
Bat killers.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/09/Wind-turbines-blamed-in-death-of-estimated-600-000-bats-in-2012
“Writing in the journal BioScience, the researchers said they used sophisticated statistical techniques to infer the probable number of bat deaths at wind energy facilities from the number of dead bats found at 21 locations.”
Sophisticated statistical techniques can’t ever be wrong.
How many deadly mosquitoes weren’t eaten due to all the dead bats? The horrible effects of windmills haven’t been adequately evaluated!
Nah, the multiple millions of bats still alive are just fatter.
Fat bats can’t catch mosquitoes. Ever seen a fat kid try to catch a baseball?
Fatter is a relative term. They say around 7 million bats a year are dying from a fungus. To regain the lead, we have to build way more wind farms. I do not like losing to a freakin’ fungus.
JCH
Forget fungus.
More wind farms => more bat deaths
More bat deaths => fewer bats
Fewer bats => fewer mosquitoes eaten by bats
Fewer mosquitos eaten by bats => more mosquitos
More mosquitoes => more malaria and dengue fever
More malaria and dengue fever => more human deaths (especially children)
Ergo:
More wind farms => more human deaths (especially children)
Max
manacker – stop it with the logic already, you will confuse the CAGWers!
Skyscrapers (glass objects) are said to kill birds by the 100s of millions. We know how to make them fall down. So many skyscrapers. Are there enough airplanes?
House cats are said to kill more than one billion birds per year. Will you join me in shooting all the cats? Sounds like great fun.
Do you honestly believe 600,000 dead bats makes a bit of difference? JFC. Lol. Why do you believe the number? Because you’re against wind mills? Oh hell no. You’re objective.
There are lots of things human beings have been doing that cause millions of bats to die. For instance, we are habitually killing off their food supply by spraying and dusting their habitats with bug killing chemicals. Have you been against that. I’m not.
Somewhere I read heat waves have been killing bats by the thousands. They just fall out of the sky. Are you against heat waves? Lol.
How to make even more Republicans:
> Wilson, a gleeful political troublemaker, printed direct mail pieces strongly implying that he’s black. His fliers were decorated with photographs of smiling African-American faces — which he readily admits he just lifted off websites — and captioned with the words “Please vote for our friend and neighbor Dave Wilson.”
http://www.khou.com/news/local/White-guy-wins-after-leading-voters-to-believe-hes-black-231222981.html
Heh! Lefties hoisted by their own Alinsky.
Gadzooks!
You mean voting in USA is racially motivated?
I’m truly shocked.
Max
No doubt many have heard of the problems Aistralia are having with asylum seekers arriving in leaky boats from Indonesia and many have dird at sea. The new Australian government has a policy of turning the boats back when it is safe to do so. However the Indonesian government refuses to cooperate. Now all countries are responsible for ensuring that ships that leave their ports are seaworthy but the Indonesian government refuses to accept that responsibility. Despite that refugees arrive in Indonesia with money to buy y passage on old boats. Indonesia does nothing to stop the trade and does nothing to promote navigation safety and there are suggestions that there are links with people smugglers.
Australia already has a generous intake of refugees and we would expect Indonesia as.a good neighbour to cooperate.
I agree.
Get the Catalina out and go and ‘accidentally’ drop a bomb. I understand that can happen accidentally :)
Thanks for the comment, Peter.
Thousands of people have died in the Philippines and Anthony Watts tries to downplay the severity of the storm. That’s just sick.
me
Thousands of people have died in the Philippines and Anthony Watts tries to downplay the severity of the storm. That’s just sick.
Did Watts downplay the deaths, or are you just a sick charlatan tying to make political capital out of the deaths?
Do you deny that WUWT is downplaying the severity of the storm?
Do you deny that the BBC, Mail and others are up-playing the severity of the storm?
So, ‘me’, by ducking the question, you admit that WUWT did not downplay the severity of the deaths, and that you are just a cheap muckraker.
> Ah those wind speed estimates, they don’t always meet up with reality later.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/09/super-typhoon-haiyanyolanda-another-overhyped-storm-that-didnt-match-early-reports/
> With winds like that, expect to see complete devastation as it makes landfall. That of course will be hyped into an AGW caused storm, just like Katrina. Al Gore and Bill McKibben are already testing lies language on Twitter. Bear in mind that we have a very short historical record of Typhoon strength, and any claims that this is the strongest storm ever need to be qualified with that fact. Nobody has any credible record of typhoon strength back more than a few decades.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/07/super-typhoon-haiyan-one-of-strongest-storms-ever-heads-for-philippines/
“Do you deny that WUWT is downplaying the severity of the storm?”
WUWT says our [US and UK] news media are saying the winds were higher than what is reported in the Philippines.
The memeplex that infects the minds of those who hang on every word at WUWT will not be inclined to accept the reality and necessity of stronger storms arising from rising ocean heat content. They would not even be inclined to admit the likely validity of the approximately 0,5 x 10^22 joules of energy that have been annually added to the ocean heat content every years for at least the past 40 years as GH gas concentrations have soared.
R. Gates
C’mon. Get serious, Gates.
We have some measures for the past 10 years, since ARGO started, but no meaningful ones prior to 2003.
And since 2003 we have had warming of around 1.4 x 10^22 joules of energy per decade.
This is equal to warming of 0.05C per decade or 0.005C per year.
And that is going to cause an increase of intense typhoons?
Duh!
You’ve got to be pretty “unskeptical” to swallow that, Gates.
Max
Oh dear, the memeplex of WUWT must have infected My Way News:
“Haiyan hit the eastern seaboard of the Philippine archipelago on Friday and quickly barreled across its central islands before exiting into the South China Sea, packing winds of 235 kilometers per hour (147 miles per hour) that gusted to 275 kph (170 mph), and a storm surge that caused sea waters to rise 6 meters (20 feet).”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131110/DA9VLS880.html
One area that climate scientists have not been as formal as they could have is in the topic of heat forcing.
For land, the temperature rise is a perfectly valid substitute for the heat forcing. Since there is little heat capacity, all the GHG forcing goes directly into a temperature increase.
For the ocean, the bulk of the volume absorbs a considerable fraction of the excess heat, which doesn’t immediately get reflected as a surface temperature rise.
What climate scientists should do is create an equivalent temperature rise that would occur if the ocean did not act as a heat sink. This would place the land and ocean on a more equal footing for comparison purposes.
This should be done for the sake of completeness, but of course it would ultimately completely confuse people like Manacker.
Oh no, even BBC:
“Typhoon Haiyan – one of the most powerful storms on record to make landfall – swept through six central Philippine islands on Friday.
It brought sustained winds of 235km/h (147mph), with gusts of 275 km/h (170 mph), with waves as high as 15m (45ft), bringing up to 400mm (15.75 inches) of rain in places.
The speeds will decrease greatly before the typhoon hits Vietnam.
Sustained wind speeds are currently forecast to be in the region of 75-85mph (120-140 km/h), with gusts to 120 mph.”
But then again perhaps the sinister plot was hatched, here:
http://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/
“What climate scientists should do is create an equivalent temperature rise that would occur if the ocean did not act as a heat sink. This would place the land and ocean on a more equal footing for comparison purposes.”
Yep, that would be just as good a model as they have already.
Gates-
Stronger storms arising from the rising heat content. Is that why there has been no Cat 3 to strike US mainland in 3000 days…..and counting?
Webby
Theoretical “what if?” analyses seem to be your strength and passion.
But they don’t mean much.
Over the 1980s and 1990s the (air immediately over the) land warmed faster than the (air immediately over the) oceans.
Since 2002 the (air immediately over the) oceans has cooled faster than the (air immediately over the) land.
Go figure.
Max
Sorry Max, “No Sale” on your opinion. I’ll trust the estimates of experts who have studied the issue at bit more thoroughly than you. 0.5 x 10 ^22 Joules per year over the past 40+ years is a very reasonable estimate for how much energy has been added to the global ocean down to 2000 meters, based on numerous studies.
Dennis Adams smartly asked:
“Gates-
Stronger storms arising from the rising heat content. Is that why there has been no Cat 3 to strike US mainland in 3000 days…..and counting?”
_____
This is an excellent observation (I am assuming it to be true). But the assumption that you are making (which Captn. Dallas also made) is that somehow a general warming of the oceans should uniformly affect the whole ocean exactly the same, and by extension, that other natural cycles are in play as well. Think about this, here in my home state of Colorado we got a year’s worth of rain in 4 days in September, causing widespread destruction and even loss of life. Now that moisture came directly from the tropics, you could follow the moisture being advected right up to Colorado. This represented energy that was being moved from tropical ocean to atmosphere and higher latitudes- exactly the same thing that hurricanes do, simply by a different dynamical process. The bottom line is: the warming of the oceans may have effects that are not just measured by the number of Cat 3, 4, or 5 hurricanes to strike the US mainland.
The number of Atlantic named tropical storms this year so far is 12, which is already above the average (11.5). The last three full years had 15 or more, a streak of values that used to be rare. Don’t be fooled by landfalling hurricane statistics. Those storms are still out there in high numbers.
Manacker said:
Of course Manacker is too low in this estimate. In a decade, the addition is at least 10 times this amount given a forcing of 1.7 watts/m^2.
Chief Manacker is like the little two-year-old at a dinner party, running around without diapers on. All he does is create a stink and the adults are left to clean up the mess he leaves.
me
Like it or not, it’s usually the poor who suffer the most from natural disasters.
The relatively minor earthquake in Haiti created a disaster while a much larger one in Chile a few weeks later caused almost no deaths.
The video coverage of the typhoon in the Philippines shows pieces of makeshift shacks flying around, shanty towns being inundated and all the human misery that goes with it.
A few newscasters took advantage of this human misery to pound on the CAGW drum but, as you write, this is “sick”.
Max
Another PR lesson about how to make even more Republicans:
> If statehood was health care, moocher states like Mississippi and Missouri would be rejected as having a preexisting condition.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-10-2013/medican-t—-taker–states
Maybe you can pony up some money, Willard. The money does have to come from somewhere you know. Or, Willard! You do know that, don’t you???!!!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2011/04/04/state-finances.html#slide1
And, looking at the video, where did the women get all that medication. She obviously has it already. She dresses OK. Where’s the big problem?
There’s a great book on Lincoln called “Forced into Glory” by Lerone Bennett. It’s a good book and there’s a great passage in there by a reconstruction Republican … who says that Lincoln shouldn’t be allowed to ride into glory on the borrowed plumage, from somebody else’s hat, from their glorious ride. I think there’s some truth to that … He wasn’t a god, he was a politician. He came into his glory because of some people who were greater than he was … the abolitionists who pushed him kicking and screaming toward emancipation.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/11/rand_paul_completely_mangles_lincoln/
Willard posts a non-response, having no authentic comeback.
“But the lady’s dress” was so much responsive to the fact that 23 states out of the 26 that refused to take Medicaid are already “takers”.
Again, Willard, the women had her meds right there on the table. And how can a state that refused to take Federal money be labelled a “taker”? That states inhabitants are being forced at the point of a gun to pay for health insurance or pay a fine to the Federal government. Taker indeed. This is just one more example showing that lefties have no grip on reality at all!
Those damn Republicans! How dare they have come up with this mandate concept, in the name of “personal responsibility.”
Oh….wait…
Not many Republicans voted for it, maybe not any.
Colorado Woman Who Championed Obamacare Loses Insurance Plan
…
Cathy Wagner says she isn’t political and has never written a lawmaker, much less the president, but with Obamacare she felt compelled.
“I really just wanted him to know … I was so hopeful that this plan was going to move us forward, but in fact I think it’s moving us backward,” Wagner said.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/11/08/colorado-woman-who-championed-obamacare-loses-insurance-plan/
Mr. Paul’s inner circle privately derides Mr. Cruz as “the chief of the wacko birds,” echoing a phrase from Senator John McCain of Arizona. And, while allowing Mr. Cruz to lead the charge on Obamacare, the Kentucky senator has quietly been reaching out to more establishment forces within the Republican Party, trying to prove to big donors and mainline Republican organizations that he is more than a Tea Party figure or a rerun of his father’s failed candidacies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/us/politics/republican-rivalry-simmers-as-paths-and-styles-diverge.html?_r=1&
Another nonsequiter from Willard. Out of bullets, Willard?
I happen to like Cruz’s father – because he knows what god thinks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/07/rafael-cruz-death-penalty_n_4235831.html
Thank you for that. It’s completely unrelated to the woman who lost her insurance.
That’s true, jim. It is also completely unrelated to the numbers of people in this country who declare bankruptcy to handle their medical bills, the poor healthcare outcomes in those country compared to many others relative to dollars spent, the wide disparity in access to healthcare in this country associated with income levels, etc.
Josh, the previous system wasn’t perfect, that is true, but even with that, the previous system was way better than this bureaucratic, socialist mess that even a lawyer can’t make sense of.
We needed reform, not fascism.
From Merrium-Webster …
fas·cism
noun \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
: very harsh control or authority
Dictionaries are of little help against facts like this:
> Because they live in states largely controlled by Republicans that have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid, the medical insurance program for the poor, they are among the eight million Americans who are impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help. The federal government will pay for the expansion through 2016 and no less than 90 percent of costs in later years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/health/millions-of-poor-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html
Ah, the NYT’s, always an unbiased source of analysis of the internal political maneuvers of the Republican Party.
Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.
My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.
My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446
So this cancer patient loses her insurance so people who already have maintenance medication can get it for free? Thank you so much Obama, you know so much better than the citizens.
Sorry to hear that you’re one of the losers, jim. Good luck with your continued strug….
Oh wait… that wasn’t you. It was from an article.
So that what is really meaningful is to compare winners and losers in the full context. Isolating specific examples might seem like exploiting someone’s misfortune, otherwise, and we know you’d not want to do that.
Thanks for that data, Josh.
Sen. Fred Thomas, in his Nov. 4 guest column, while spouting numerous statistics about Medicaid expansion, was not exactly truthful.
He states that the Legislature was right to reject Medicaid expansion. The truth is that the Legislature was unable to vote on it because Republican House Speaker Mark Blasdel buried the bill so that it wouldn’t come to a vote, and it was widely thought that if put to a vote it would pass, gathering a reasonable number of votes from Republicans.
It is truly disappointing to see this kind of rhetoric from a legislator who once was a statesman, spout the party (of no) line. So those who are denied Medicaid can thank Thomas and his Republican friends. They won one for the party, but their constituents lost.
Hey, Fred Thomas – remember term limits?
http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/medicaid-expansion-thank-gop-for-lack-of-coverage/article_fcb46a5e-4899-11e3-95d0-001a4bcf887a.html
One of the most prominent Democrats in favor of comprehensive immigration reform said he would no longer work with a group that has been organizing DREAMers to leave the country and re-enter seeking political asylum, accusing the group’s leader of making racist statements and manipulating illegal immigrants.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) denounced the National Immigrant Youth Allianace (NIYA), which was behind the “Dream 9” and “Dream 30,” for secretly recording conversations Gutierrez had with the parents of two DREAMers who were being held in a Texas detention center. Gutierrez said he would “no longer work with NIYA and DREAMActivist.org.,” which is an affiliate organization.
“It just shows me how dangerous they are,” Gutierrez told Fox News Latino of the recordings. “How Nixonian… Why target the leading voices in the Senate and House for immigration reform?”
The nine DREAMers in the “Dream 9” and the 30 DREAMers in the “Dream 30” have tried to use the publicity they have received after they re-entered the United States to get comprehensive immigration reform enacted. Some immigration advocates have criticized these tactics for being dangerous and potentially undermining their goal for comprehensive immigration reform.
According to Fox News Latino, “Gutierrez said the leader of NIYA, Mohammad Abdollahi, who was born in Iran and raised in Michigan, has expressed racist [anti-white] views on the Internet, and bragged about how hard it would be for the United States to deport a gay person to Iran.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/06/Report-Rep-Gutierrez-Splits-from-DREAMer-Group-Accuses-Leader-of-Anti-White-Racism
One of the most prominent Democrats in favor of comprehensive immigration reform said he would no longer work with a group that has been organizing DREAMers to leave the country and re-enter seeking political asylum, accusing the group’s leader of making racist statements and manipulating illegal immigrants.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) denounced the National Immigrant Youth Allianace (NIYA), which was behind the “Dream 9” and “Dream 30,” for secretly recording conversations Gutierrez had with the parents of two DREAMers who were being held in a Texas detention center. Gutierrez said he would “no longer work with NIYA and DREAMActivist.org.,” which is an affiliate organization.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/06/Report-Rep-Gutierrez-Splits-from-DREAMer-Group-Accuses-Leader-of-Anti-White-Racism
more from the article:
“It just shows me how dangerous they are,” Gutierrez told Fox News Latino of the recordings. “How Nixonian… Why target the leading voices in the Senate and House for immigration reform?”
The nine DREAMers in the “Dream 9” and the 30 DREAMers in the “Dream 30” have tried to use the publicity they have received after they re-entered the United States to get comprehensive immigration reform enacted. Some immigration advocates have criticized these tactics for being dangerous and potentially undermining their goal for comprehensive immigration reform.
According to Fox News Latino, “Gutierrez said the leader of NIYA, Mohammad Abdollahi, who was born in Iran and raised in Michigan, has expressed racist [anti-white] views on the Internet, and bragged about how hard it would be for the United States to deport a gay person to Iran.”
https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/399308301592035328
Another post that tries to change the subject.
More on immigration reform:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/498/the-one-thing-youre-not-supposed-to-do
Oh, and in case I forget:
Yes, but it’s uncertain.
Yes, but it’s complex.
Yes, but activism.
> Just one day after The Washington Times ended Sen. Rand Paul’s column over plagiarism charges, the Kentucky Republican’s musings have found a new home at Breitbart.com.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/11/rand-paul-column-moves-to-breitbart-176949.html
Late last month, Donna Atkins, a waitress at a barbecue restaurant, learned from Dr. Guy Petruzzelli, a surgeon here, that she has throat cancer. She does not have insurance and had a sore throat for a year before going to a doctor. She was advised to get a specialized image of her neck, but it would have cost $2,300, more than she makes in a month.
“I didn’t have the money even to walk in the door of that office,” said Ms. Atkins, speaking in a low, throaty whisper.
Dr. Petruzzelli has a phrase for her situation: “She failed the wallet biopsy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/health/cuts-in-hospital-subsidies-threaten-safety-net-care.html?hp&_r=0
And, wow, look at that, she did have surgery after all. Some quotes from the article.
” Now, in a perverse twist, many of the poor people who rely on safety-net hospitals like Memorial will be doubly unlucky. A government subsidy, little known outside health policy circles but critical to the hospitals’ survival, is being sharply reduced under the new health law.
The subsidy, which for years has helped defray the cost of uncompensated and undercompensated care, was cut substantially on the assumption that the hospitals would replace much of the lost income with payments for patients newly covered by Medicaid or private insurance. But now the hospitals in states like Georgia will get neither the new Medicaid patients nor most of the old subsidies, which many say are crucial to the mission of care for the poor.
“We were so thrilled when the law passed, but it has backfired,” said Lindsay Caulfield, senior vice president for planning and marketing at Grady Health in Atlanta, the largest safety-net hospital in Georgia. ”
…
“I didn’t have the money even to walk in the door of that office,” said Ms. Atkins, speaking in a low, throaty whisper.
Dr. Petruzzelli has a phrase for her situation: “She failed the wallet biopsy.”
Ms. Atkins had surgery last Friday, two years after her first symptoms. It is unclear whether Ms. Atkins, whose income is right around the poverty line, will be left without Medicaid, or if she earns enough to qualify for subsidies to buy private insurance on the federal exchange. She appreciates the intent of the health law, but does not like the outcome: Her hours are being cut so her employer can count her as part-time to avoid having to offer insurance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/health/cuts-in-hospital-subsidies-threaten-safety-net-care.html?_r=0
jim2 omits the last paragraph from the first page:
> Patients with chronic conditions like hers often go in and out of emergency rooms for years without treatment because doctors are only required to treat immediately life-threatening conditions. Dr. Christopher Senkowski, a surgeon at Memorial, recalled examining a farmer with pancreatic cancer that had spread throughout his body after months of referrals to specialists that he could not afford.
That does nothing to make Obamacare a good thing.
An engineer-level derivation of what would make for a good thing would be nice.
A non-ad-hoc one would be even better.
My son is doing interviews for a residency in radiology. So far he has interviewed at Mayo, Mallinckrodt, and University of Michigan. In the next weeks he will do Johns Hopkins, MassGen, Beth Israel, and UCSF. He is still waiting to hear from Stanford. He will look at Texas programs, but he is not very impressed with the state’s decision to opt out of medicaid.
He says there are a lot of moronic things said about Obamacare.
Lefties live at the shallow end of the meme pool.
https://twitter.com/TeaPartyCat/status/398974650715471872
Willard tosses another red herring …
…
Based on the Census Bureau’s newly released report on national income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in 2012, the rates of those without health insurance declined nationally and in many states, including Texas and California.
Considering there is much noise in annual uninsured data, let us consider two-year average data from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012. These data show that across the nation the number of uninsured fell by 1.2 million to 48.2 million, decreasing the uninsured rate by 0.6% to 15.6%.
Between these two periods, California and Texas, the nation’s largest economies and populations, also noticed declines in their uninsured rates but for different reasons.
While Texas’ total uninsured remained essentially unchanged at 6.3 million, the uninsured rate fell by 0.9% to 24.2%. California’s uninsured decreased by 66,000 to 7.1 million, in which its uninsured rate fell by 0.6% to 18.8%. Although the greater decline in California’s total uninsured compared with Texas indicates that the Golden State’s health care coverage condition improved more than the Lone Star State’s (and this tends to make the headlines), this discounts the fact that the uninsured rate declined faster in Texas (see chart below) and overall does not tell the whole story.
Texas’ Uninsured Rate Improves Faster than California’s
There are several issues we must consider: 1. Population growth, 2. Uninsured characteristics, and 3. Access to care.
Over these two-year periods, Texas’ population increased by 3.5%, or 911,000, and California’s increased by only 2%, or 767,000. The flood of people looking for more opportunity in Texas also comes at a price of potentially more uninsured. With California’s total population totaling 1.5 times larger than in Texas, this 144,000 greater population increase in Texas reveals more about how substantial the decline in the poverty rate of 0.9% is compared with 0.6%.
We must also consider the make-up of the uninsured. A recent report notes that only a small percentage of Texans who want health insurance cannot afford it. Other uninsured Texans can afford to purchase it but choose not to, are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP but have not enrolled, or are undocumented workers.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/64711/number-of-uninsured-americans-in-texas-could-make-it-a-model-for-health-care
jim2 whines that Denizens ought to stick to the important topic of lefties and meme pools.
Way more important than diabetes:
> In a November 2012 study, KFF found that diabetics who are uninsured are significantly less likely to have a regular source of medical care, to have had a check-up in the past two years, or to have access to necessary medical care:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/05/2889501/gop-governors-medicaid-diabetes-month/
That’s a lie Willard, I didn’t say anything about what Denizens should or shouldn’t do. That’s what Obama does.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/08/open-thread-weekend-40/#comment-411205
Note the money quote. Texas’ strategy of economic growth is good for the poor. “Entitlements” have the opposite effect.
With California’s total population totaling 1.5 times larger than in Texas, this 144,000 greater population increase in Texas reveals more about how substantial the decline in the poverty rate of 0.9% is compared with 0.6%.
The Liar-in-Chief has pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes. What a great President we have.
I never said you said anything, jim2. You whined about topicality after committing an cheap ad hom. Don’t you realize how silly this is?
Empty ad homs open the board. You give your interlocutor a free hand on the choice of topics.
If you don’t like it, do as GaryM do: insert them in your epilogues, after introducing an angle to bash at progressivism or else.
How to make a bazillion more Republicans:
> Salon has discovered more examples of plagiarism in the work of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). In his speech at the Value Voters Summit on October 11, Paul appropriated written material from the Gatestone Institute, a think-tank chaired by John Bolton. The transcript of the speech has been removed from Paul’s web site – as have the transcripts from numerous other speeches while Paul battles an ongoing plagiarism scandal – but it can be found using Google cache.
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/08/salon_exclusive_more_rand_paul_plagiarism
”
Teachers and scholars consider the unattributed use of someone else’s words and ideas to be a very serious offense, but the public doesn’t seem to mind much, at least when it comes to politics. The incidents of plagiarism and fabrication that forced Joe Biden to quit the 1988 presidential race have drawn little comment since his selection as Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate—just as revelations of plagiarism by Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin scarcely hurt their book sales. In 1987, before Biden quit the race, he called the incidents “a tempest in a teapot.” Although most reporters disagreed then, at least enough to pursue the story, they seem now—perhaps jaded by two decades of scandal-mongering—to have come around to Biden’s view.
But Biden’s exit from the 1988 race is worth recalling in detail, because his transgressions far exceeded Obama’s own relatively innocent lifting of rhetorical set pieces from his friend Deval Patrick, which occasioned a brief flap last February. Biden’s misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect. In some ways, the 1988 campaign—in which scandal forced not just Biden but also Gary Hart from the race—marked a watershed in the absurd gotcha politics that have since marred our politics and punditry. But unlike Hart’s plight, Biden’s can’t be blamed on an overly intrusive or hectoring press corps. The press was right to dig into this one.
”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2008/08/the_write_stuff.html
Huckabee defends Rand against plagiarism charge:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/_cache/files/b411a630-d348-4ed0-bdc0-9d674146855a/Rand%20Paul%2011%207%2013.mp3
An interesting comment from FreedomFanatic, where I got the link:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432651-Rand-Paul-on-The-Mike-Huckabee-Show-11-7-13&p=5299811
Was that you, jim2?
Willard, it is November 2013. I will make a bet with you; there will be more Americans uninsured in November 2014 than there were in November 2012.
What are the odds, Doc?
What would it prove, BTW?
It would prove once again that Obama is an idiot and so are the people that think like him.
Thanks, Doc.
Uninsured at whose expense? The general public? Will the American taxpayer still be picking up the tab for the uninsured?
What’s with all these problems with “personal responsibility?”
Remember when Republicans used to think that a mandate was an important part of “personal responsibility?”
What could possibly have changed their perspective on that issue?
Seems to have changed right around November of 2008, if I recall.
I wonder what might have happened then to change their perspective?
I can’t imagine what it could possibly be….
What possibly could have been was rational insurance reform that wasn’t fascist.
jim –
You win the thread!!!
Not much to say to someone who thinks that we’re living in a fascist state. What’s the name for Godwinning w/o actual mention of Nazis?
I can certainly understand opposition to the ACA. There are legitimate issues, IMO. There could certainly have been better ways to address what was needed w/r/t providing access to healthcare insurance and even more certainly with addressing the problem of the cost of healthcare.
However, the notion that the ACA is somehow part of this march to fascism, (the road to serfdom, if you will), is absurd, IMO.
The shift on the “right” w/r/t the mandate is probably the best example I can think of to show the mechanism of “motivated reasoning.” (Of course, there are other good examples on the left).
What was a good policy just a few short years ago has now become evidence that Obama is a tyrant.
Get real!
Josh – you have to be kidding me. How can you assert that a government takeover of 1/6 of the economy isn’t fascist? What will happen to you if you don’t buy health insurance and don’t pay the fine? Think on that for a minute.
> How can you assert that a government takeover of 1/6 of the economy isn’t fascist?
Joshua doesn’t assert anything, jim2. You’re the one asserting that Obama runs a fascist government.
Please own your cheap, empty insults.
Willard …
http://www.poegles.com/how-to-make-a-poegle/submission-archives/how-to-be-a-gracious-loser/
Thanks for playing, jim2.
Another use of the same F word:
https://twitter.com/scottroth76/statuses/347908104438030337
Source:
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/bloomberg-marched-fascist.html
jim –
First, by what measure do you determine that the ACA = “the government taking over 1/6 of the econom?”
Second, even if nationalized healthcare were comparable to the ACA, and it isn’t, do you think that every country that has nationalized healthcare is a fascist country? In other words, do you think that every western country excepting the US is “fascist?” If so, how would you distinguish the fascism of Nazi Germany and the “fascism” of, say, Japan, or Norway, or Canada?
Third, is do you think that you apply to examining healthcare is representative of the type of analysis you apply to examining climate change?
Ya’ just gotta love climate “skeptics.”
Yes, Josh, I do think the countries with a single payer government system or one that is as heavily regulated as ACA are fascist in nature. Centralized control and all that.
jim –
Not being a moocher who intends to scam the system, I don’t need to worry about that.
But if you are concerned about that, I might suggest moving to a less “fascist” country. I hear that Somalia is welcoming folks “concerned” with American fascism with open arms.
jim –
So, all developed countries, in fact practically any country except those like Somalia = fascist states in your view?
Fascinating.
So by what measure do you distinguish between “fascist” Japan, Canada, and Norway, and fascist Nazi Germany?
Here you go, Jim.
A map of the fascist world.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/international/assets_c/2012/06/mf%20healthcaremap%20p-thumb-615×314-91612.jpg
How do you think it might overlap with a map of “first world countries?” Any congruency, do you expect?
You know what’s fascinating, Jim?
If you look at that map (and as the accompanying article describes), your “fascism” is almost categorically associated with higher standards of living, greater civil freedoms and populaces with greater amounts of political power, more functional civil society, longer life expectancies, etc.
Well, like they say, Mussulinni got the trains to run on time, eh?
jim2 is probably opting out of that fascist, but temptingly convenient, instrument called Medicare as we speak.
Heh – “Mussulinni”
My spelling in Italian is even worse than my spelling in English!
There is at least one similarity between Obama Care and climate change denialists, the denialists say,”Don’t worry about climate change, you can keep your same planet.”
Do you count the Medicaid expansion, or do you just mean through private insurance companies? If these people opt for the fine (a tax payment), that number may reduce as the rates increase in the next few years. It starts out generously low.
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/399340055669379072
https://twitter.com/Keeling_curve/status/399566066591858688
Face palm.
The media is hopeless.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493931/New-device-harvests-electricity-background-radiation-like-Wi-Fi.html
“It is capable of providing 7.3V of electricity. As the press release points out, current USB chargers provide around 5V.”
Sometimes all you can say is lol.
Why the face palm Harold? Power harvesting is a brilliant idea that has many applications.
A word to the wise – rather keep quiet on subjects you know nothing about and be thought a fool, rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I remember making a crystal radio as a kid, and thinking how amazing it was that the energy was being transmitted through the air– even in tiny amounts. Power harvesting, while dealing with only tiny amounts of energy, can play a role in powering electronics of all types that only require tiny amounts of energy to operate. It is s brilliant idea.
I built crystal radios as a kid, and made it my business to find out how radio waves work – so the only thing that amazed me was my ability to make the things work.
And you’re right about tiny amounts of energy – really tiny, really really really tiny.
Oh, and a volt is not a unit of energy. Nor is it a unit of power.
phatboy said: (as if providing information not known to those present)
“Oh, and a volt is not a unit of energy. Nor is it a unit of power.”
___
I did not see anyone claim a volt was a unit of energy. Was this a reminder to yourself?
So Harold’s (justified) ridicule of the Mail article went completely over your head then.
phatboy,
The article, while not a great piece of science journalism, really wasn’t worth ridicule either. It never stated that power harvesting would provide the same power output as solar panels, only that this particular team’s device had achieved the same efficiency of output as current solar panels, as a caption from the solar panel picture reads:
“The device harvested microwaves with an efficiency of 36.8 percent, similar to the solar cells installed on this California home in a file photo.”
I’ve got this bridge I’d like to sell you
Many toll bridges can be extremely profitable for those who bought the bonds to pay for their construction, especially if they connect two points that commuters can’t get to any other way. You sort of have a guaranteed market for your service.
Right, if you want to power a flea’s hearing aid.
Fleas need to hear too.
I has potential applications, but it’s neither new nor a replacement for solar panels.
Back in the ’60s, there were “crystal radios” that operated on basically the same principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio
See above, yep, I made one of those radios. Of course power harvesting won’t replace solar panels, unless of course you’ve got an electronic device being powered off of that solar panel that could have been more efficiently powered from a harvesting technique. Sometimes “right sizing” the power source is a good idea. Decentralized, small power sources are far more efficient than centralized systems, both in your home and in communities.
No, no. no. A huge array of these things might be able to produce a watt. That may be enough to recharge your phone or iPod. But it will never be a significant energy source. You need a real energy source (like the sun) for that. All this can do is pick up a milliwatt here and a milliwatt there. There just isn’t the huge supply of radiation available in the ambient microwave spectrum comparable to the sun.
You’d have more success building an industrial size drinky bird.
“efficiency” isn’t a word which would enter the mind of anyone with any sort of engineering background when discussing microwatts of power.
When engineering power harvesting devices, efficiency would seem to be paramount.
Oh my!
Fortunately phatboy, many very smart people don’t say “oh my” to power harvesting as a viable engineering challenge:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6423204
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6402975&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6402975
http://www.digikey.com/us/en/techzone/energy-harvesting/resources/articles/tune-in-charge-up-rf-energy-harvesting.html
Harold said:
“I has potential applications, but it’s neither new nor a replacement for solar panels.”
___
And the article never said it would replace solar panels. It was only an comparison in efficiency of output.
A cat’s-whisker detector (sometimes called a crystal detector) is an antique electronic component consisting of a thin wire that lightly touches a crystal of semiconducting mineral (usually galena) to make a crude point-contact rectifier. Developed by early radio researchers Jagadish Chandra Bose, G. W. Pickard and others, this device was used as the detector in early crystal radios, from about 1906 through the Second World War. It gave this type of radio receiver its name. It was the first type of semiconductor diode, and in fact, the first semiconductor electronic device. The term cat’s whisker was also sometimes used to describe the crystal receiver itself. Cat’s whisker detectors are obsolete and are now only used in antique or antique-reproduction radios, and for educational purposes.
Contents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s-whisker_detector
Thank you for that history Jim2. These cats-whisker detectors were the first form of EMF energy harvesters, even if that energy was only ultimately turned into simple sound waves.
I used to build crystal detector sets when I was a kid and later with my kid. CR sets can get really complicated and people compete to build a set that can pick up stations at long distances. These are usually short wave sets. I still find them fascinating. Soldiers in WW 1 or 2, don’t remember which, built them from blued razor blades. There is also a Frenchman who builds vacuum tubes from scratch and builds radios with them. There is a really cool video of that process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxhole_radio
What a lot of people don’t realize is that the first transistor was also a cat whisker device. The transistor was invented in the 1920s (1923?), but the first practical transistor was developed by Ma Bell in 1948. Growing the whole thing from one crystal eliminated the unreliable and fragile cat whisker. The transistor principle was already 25 years old then.
Paul entertains an interesting counterfactual:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/04/242935941/book-news-rand-paul-to-plagiarism-accusers-if-dueling-were-legal-in-kentucky
> I hear that Somalia is welcoming folks “concerned” with American fascism with open arms.
Eritrea has programs for anyone with fundraising experience:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/502/this-call-may-be-recorded-to-save-your-life
The Sinai desert is full of history. By some libertarian twist of faith a minimal government rules over it.
Have you ever wondering why Quantitative Easing hasn’t led to runaway inflation? And why it isn’t making much difference to the US economy?
http://petermartin2001.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/money-government-bonds-and-quantitative-easing/
http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/nov/2/can-sea-life-adapt/
“Hofmann suspected variations in urchin DNA left some predisposed to handle acidified seas. Nature, quite by accident, had been preparing a long time for this very moment.”
By accident? I’d say, working as intended.
“The change is more pronounced in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. When heavy winds blow along shore, deep, cold water that naturally holds more CO2 suddenly wells up from the bottom and gets drawn toward the beach. That means some West Coast urchins have spent millions of years being exposed to high-CO2 waters.”
It seems that cold upwelling adds CO2 to the atmosphere if the previously cold water emits it. It would also seem a CO2 conveyor belt runs through the deeps Oceans recycling Carbon.
“But, importantly, half the fish didn’t seem to change at all, and they survived as well as normal, healthy fish. Does that mean that some of these Great Barrier Reef fish were genetically predisposed to dealing with higher CO2?”
It seems their genes did not bet everything on an equilibrium condition. What can we learn from fish?
Looks like the joint human effort to reduce ozone destroying chemicals also may have helped with “the pause”:
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-ozone-pact-cool-planet.html
Amazing how many different ways humans can affect the climate.
Statistics are amazing aren’t they. Now I guess since ozone destroying chemical reduction is causing the “pause” they may have caused the 1976 to 1998 Great Pacific Climate shift also.
Amazing how man can manipulate the climate.
The spiel says.
In September, the UN’s paramount group of climate experts scoffed at the “Pause,” essentially calling it a non-issue.
They said the period of 1998-2012 was far too short to give a long-term view of climate trends.
They also hinted at selective bias, noting that the period began with a strong El Nino, a heat-linked weather phenomenon, thus making following years seem cooler by comparison.
extending in further back prior to the el nino,we are at solar minimum and in the recovery phase from the concomitant volcanic excursions( Pinatabo/Mt Hudson. In the SH the 17+ trend is now no longer a pause but a negative trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1996.6/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1996.6/mean:12/trend
Some heavy lifting for Paul’s 2016 acceptance speech:
My fellow Americans,
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, I proudly accept your nomination for president of the United States, in the name of all those who do the work, pay the taxes, raise the kids and play by the rules, in the name of the hardworking Americans who make up our forgotten middle class.
Tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans, I ask for your support. I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people. This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. The new frontier of which I speak is spread like stars, like a thousand points of light. A society with the motto “every man a king.” Every man a king, so there would be no such thing as a man or woman who did not have the necessities of life, who would not be dependent upon the whims and caprices and ipsi dixit of the financial barons for a living. What do we propose by this society?
Read my lips: A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage; tear down this wall; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold; give me liberty or give me death.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-rand-paul-does-some-heavy-lifting-for-a-speech/2013/11/08/721126b4-488d-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html
Something is up with the sun.
Scientists say that solar activity is stranger than in a century or more, with the sun producing barely half the number of sunspots as expected and its magnetic poles oddly out of sync.
The sun generates immense magnetic fields as it spins. Sunspots—often broader in diameter than Earth—mark areas of intense magnetic force that brew disruptive solar storms. These storms may abruptly lash their charged particles across millions of miles of space toward Earth, where they can short-circuit satellites, smother cellular signals or damage electrical systems.
Based on historical records, astronomers say the sun this fall ought to be nearing the explosive climax of its approximate 11-year cycle of activity—the so-called solar maximum. But this peak is “a total punk,” said Jonathan Cirtain, who works at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as project scientist for the Japanese satellite Hinode, which maps solar magnetic fields.
Enlarge Image
“I would say it is the weakest in 200 years,” said David Hathaway, head of the solar physics group at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
Researchers are puzzled. They can’t tell if the lull is temporary or the onset of a decades-long decline, which might ease global warming a bit by altering the sun’s brightness or the wavelengths of its light.
“There is no scientist alive who has seen a solar cycle as weak as this one,” said Andrés Munoz-Jaramillo, who studies the solar-magnetic cycle at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579183940409194498
From Forbes:
Even as stories pour in of Americans facing steeply higher health insurance premiums and canceled coverage, Team TISI 0% Obama just imposed new regulations that will make those problems worse. It’s almost like they can’t help themselves.
On Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced new regulations mandating health insurers cover mental and behavioral health to the same extent they cover physical health care.
Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women Avik Roy Avik Roy Contributor
49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41% Avik Roy Avik Roy Contributor
A “mental health parity” mandate was passed by Congress in 2008, but Obama officials claim health insurers aren’t fully complying. (You’ll just have to overlook the irony of the Obama administration, which has postponed several provisions of Obamacare without any legal authority to do so, complaining that others aren’t complying with some law.)
The more likely explanation is the administration is desperately trying to redirect peoples’ attention from the Obamacare rollout that has become a non-stop string of stories about failed websites, higher premiums and canceled policies.
President Obama’s latest effort to divert public attention ignores a fundamental problem: it’s much easier to know when a broken bone has healed than a broken mind. That ambiguity opens the door to overtreatment and fraud.
Health insurers and actuaries have a lot of experience in this area because most states have passed some form of mental health parity legislation.
The Council for Affordable Health Insurance used to publish an annual chart tracking the number of state mandates, and health actuaries provided a general estimate of how much various mandates added to the cost of a basic health insurance policy. Depending on what it required, mental health parity was one of the most expensive mandates, adding between 5 percent and 10 percent. [Full disclosure: I ran CAHI for eight years.]
So while Obamacare is driving up the cost of a policy for many Americans by 50 percent to 100 percent, the new mental health rules will make coverage even more expensive—though it’s difficult to know by how much.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/11/11/new-mental-health-mandate-will-make-obamacare-more-expensive-increase-fraud-and-canceled-policies/
Psychology is a soft science with ill-defined illnesses with vague syndromes. It is ripe for fraud, and even without outright fraud, good-meaning people can unknowingly waste tons of money on “treatment.” It’s expensive, too.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee…
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-climate-change-20131112,0,6958165.story#axzz2kRAYHu21
I’m going to save that page until Nov 2023 and see how relevant it is then. I wonder if the LA Times will still be around then.
Precipitation Linked to Man-Made Global Warming; Intensifies Storms and Pushes Them to the Poles
Now how well will this stand up when tested?
Contrast Raising the bar on statistical significance by 500%.
(jim2): The unintended consequences of the fascist state:
“But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.
As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.
Five million acres of land set aside for conservation – more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined – have vanished on Obama’s watch.
Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.
Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can’t survive.
(AP) Graphic shows conservation land lost and corn acreage increase between 2006 and 2012; 6c x 17…
Full Image
The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131112/DAA11OTG2.html
We can add ethanol to Obamacare, the expansion of the food stamp and other welfare programs, the Obamaphone, lax enforcement of immigration laws, and other stuff – to Obama and the Dim’s attempt to buy more votes.
Jim2, that is a figment of your imagination. The geniuses will assure you that 10% ethanol in your gas was zero impact on small engines and older engines used intermittently.
More from this article:
The numbers behind the ethanol mandate have become so unworkable that, for the first time, the EPA is soon expected to reduce the amount of ethanol required to be added to the gasoline supply. An unusual coalition of big oil companies, environmental groups and food companies is pushing the government to go even further and reconsider the entire ethanol program.
The ethanol industry is fighting hard against that effort. Industry spokesman Brooke Coleman dismissed this story as “propaganda on a page.” An industry blog in Minnesota said the AP had succumbed “to Big Oil’s deep pockets and powerful influence.”
To understand how America got to an environmental policy with such harmful environmental consequences, it’s helpful to start in a field in Iowa.
And they don’t include the damage done to my weed eater by gasohol.
Now we wait for the wind and solar shoe to drop.
I’m not making light of this tragedy, but I thought 10,000 people were killed. Was there a definitive determination of the max wind speed? I keep seeing 147 mph. Not 210.
From Bloomberg:
Philippine Typhoon Destruction Prompts UN Aid Appeal
By Joel Guinto, Cecilia Yap & Clarissa Batino – Nov 12, 2013 6:50 PM CT
The United Nations appealed for contributions to fund relief operations in the Philippines, where Super Typhoon Haiyan may have killed at least 2,500 people and rainfall was hampering relief efforts.
The UN is seeking $301 million from donors, David Carden, the agency’s humanitarian affairs representative in the Philippines, said yesterday in Manila. Priorities are food, sanitation, water, hygiene, medicine and communications, he said. About 6.9 million people have been affected by the storm across 41 provinces, with nearly 150,000 houses damaged, the government said
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/philippine-typhoon-destruction-prompts-un-aid-appeal.html
The highest measured by land stations was 147knots/mph they tend to confuse the two. There were satellite estimates in the 170knot range offshore indicating a solid cat 5 so it was a major storm by all means. The 195mph appears to be a conversion error by one of the media outlets and the original 10,000 was a second hand report that was never confirmed but made a sexy headline anyway. That got picked up by hundreds of media outlets that most down in the test listed “could be up to” but the headline is all most read and tweet.
According to Wikipedia, the “average” death toll for a major cyclone is around 2500 in the Philippines. The area hit hardest was coastal and had a huge immigration over the past decade which really put a strain on “normal” whatever that is, evacuation and shelter planning. The storm surge was big! Higher than the palm trees by one account. Bad storm in a bad spot.
I saw a report of it on CNBC – yep – SUPERSTORM … we can’t just have a regular devastating storm any more, it has to be a *** SUPERSTORM ***. Hmmm … do you think Mad Men were involved ??? …
jim2, “Hmmm … do you think Mad Men were involved ??? …”
oh ya, remember this cartoon?
http://pushpull.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/larson-cartoon1.jpg?w=495
:)
Brace yourself for another round of global warming! Glad we’ve got all that cheap nat gas laying around.
http://www.intellicast.com/Travel/Weather/Snow/Cover.aspx
This is the way it was under Hitler – not as bad, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get that way in the US. But hey, having a well-thought-out government policy and centralized control of all us morons is worth it, eh?
WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – In the wake of revelations about intrusive government surveillance, many American authors are worrying about the freedom of the press and some simply are avoiding controversial topics.
A new report from the PEN Center and the FDR Group entitled “Chilling Effects: NSA Surveillance Drives U.S. Writers to Self-Censor” finds that 85 percent of surveyed writers are worried about government surveillance of Americans, and nearly three-quarters (73 percent) “have never been as worried about privacy rights and freedom of the press as they are today.”
Sixteen percent of writers have avoided writing or speaking about certain topics due to threatening privacy concerns, and an additional 11 percent have seriously considered such avoidance.
Writer comments included statements such as, “I assume everything I do electronically is subject to monitoring.”
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/11/12/report-government-spying-causing-self-censorship-privacy-fears-among-us-writers/
“In obtaining comparable well data in Pershing Field I had difficulty finding IP rates. Conoco is the main operator here, and logs production in an unreliable fashion. Because it is not real good about removing producing days from the monthly sheets, results are inconsistent. Because of this, I have decided to use results from Siverston Field which is to the west of Pershing. I have pulled two wells from 3 different operators.
Well Operator Lateral Choke Stages Water Proppant IP 90 BOED Total Production BOE
24996 (NFX) 10193
18/64
32 62814 3602408 569 51210
24997 NFX 10039 18/64 32 62745 3563880 550 49500
23833 (XOM) 9567 36/64 30 75586 2888885 753 67770
23834 XOM 9533 36/64 30 80183 2895785 710 63900
24042 (SM) 10035 20/64 26 73275 2912881 535 48150
24044 SM 10049 18//64 26 76072 3028980 645 58050
As you can see, the Lillibridge 1H (90-Day IP of 1148 Boe/d) is much better than any of the other wells listed. In some cases it is twice as good. Lillibridge 1H accomplished this with shorter lateral lengths, tighter chokes and less water than any of the wells from Siverston Field. Using the 90 day initial production rate, Lillibridge 1H models to approximately 1200 MBoe. This wouldn’t be so shocking if it were in Parshall, Sanish or Grail Fields; but this well is too far west to be associated with such a good number. It gets more interesting when we analyze the Lillibridge 3H well. 3H looks to be on pace with 1H, and this shows the first was not an anomaly.”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1831352-bakken-update-abraxas-has-a-huge-quarter-as-its-well-results-are-twice-as-good-as-others-near-pershing-field
Round and round she goes,
Where she stops,
Nobody knows …
“It is truly remarkable how quickly the concept of high-density development in the Bakken – on tight spacing, in multiple stacked horizons, and using new-generation super-intensive fracs – has gone from a futuristic theory to actual reality.
It has been just one year since Continental Resources (CLR) made public its discovery of the lower benches in the Three Forks interval and suggested that the Bakken System may be producible from as many as five independent reservoirs stacked on top of each other.
It has been just one year since Continental Resources launched its daring downspacing pilot with horizontal wellbores spaced at previously unthinkable density for the Bakken: eight per 1,280-acre unit, in each of several horizons.
It has been just one year since a new generation of stimulation techniques found its way from the Eagle Ford into the Bakken and inspired a renaissance (using EOG’s term) in radical experimentation in the area of stimulation design.
With close to two hundred rigs continuously running in the play, a lot of progress can be accomplished in a short period of time. Last week, Continental announced that, based on positive initial results from its pilots, the company is accelerating its transition towards full development and is launching what is going to be the first in the Bakken full-development project.”
…
Continental has developed what it refers to as the “Ears Back” plan for the area (the name associates with a horse running “ears back,” i.e. going all out). Continental intends to run 4 operating rigs in the Antelope already next year. Based on its current plan, Continental expects the project to add ~50,000 Boe/d of production by 2017 when the development will be close to complete. Peak production may end up even higher if the development is accelerated or higher well densities are implemented (current plan is for 1,320-foot offsets between wellbores in the same horizon). The production ramp will be significant starting in 2015.
In order to accommodate such a tremendous production volume coming from a very compact area, Continental and its midstream partners have been working hard to build out sufficient infrastructure which will ultimately include high-capacity oil, water, and gas lines. Continental commented that topographically this area happens to be very challenging to work in. Still, significant progress has already been made and the company expects all necessary infrastructure for the 2014 activity to be in place by the time the development begins.
…
Completion Design Will Evolve
Many operators in the Bakken have been experimenting aggressively with completion techniques.
EOG Resources (EOG) has been at the forefront of completions innovation in the Bakken, having transferred to the play some of its successful approaches initially developed in the Eagle Ford.
Whiting Petroleum (WLL) during its third quarter conference call two weeks ago provided details of the significant completion modifications that it is implementing, including cemented liners, increased number of frac stages, and much greater amounts of proppant used to maximize fracturing of the rock around the wellbore (the slide below).
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1830882-bakkens-multi-dimentional-revolution-downspacing-stacking-up-super-fracking
Is it real, or is it satire?
The Heat Is On
John Meyer
Holiday 2013
The weather folks said the low tonight is supposed to be 21 degrees below zero. The last six weeks have been tough like that. I bought a new stove for the yurt, but ordered the wrong pipe three different times. Again, I fall asleep staring at the tape that covers the hole in the wall where the stovepipe should be.
At work, I’m briefing a lawsuit that is designed to stop a $550 million railroad from being built in southeast Montana. The government and railroad company have 12 attorneys on their side. There are two of us. The train will allow a multinational corporation to open up new mines. The train cars will haul 1.3 billion tons of coal that will eventually be burned in China. The planet will get warmer. Our grandchildren will inherit a radically different planet. I try to embrace the cold.
At 2:30 in the morning my feet wake me up; they’re swollen and throbbing. I am already wearing two pairs of socks, long johns and down pants. On top I’ve got a wool shirt, a heavy wool sweater and, finally, an old down coat. I’m wearing two hats. My down sleeping bag is rated to zero. On top of the sleeping bag I have a down comforter. On top of that a buffalo hide, then another, then an elk hide. The fur is face down – it seems to trap the heat better than the tanned side.
There is a man in Texas who owns a multimilliondollar house high on the hill above my yurt. He spends less than three weeks there every year. I laugh uncontrollably and wonder what his thermostat is set at. I entertain the idea of breaking in and staying the night. I think about selling out – quitting “enviro” law and making more than $20,000 per year. I weep uncontrollably. And then I shake up some hand warmers and throw them in between the two socks. I put on down booties and watch as the stars beam through the clear dome that sits on top of the yurt.
Sometimes voices haunt me, tell me I’m a dreamer, that I will fail. I shiver and try to shake them off, but I’m scared. If we don’t win this case, the fourth generation farmers and ranchers living in the far corner of our state will lose their property and the only life they’ve ever known. I’m scared that even if we do win, Cottonwood, our fledgling conservation organization, won’t be able to sustain itself. I close my eyes.
When I wake up, it is 6:30 a.m. The four hours of unbroken sleep have been spectacular. I feel my feet start burning again but know the pain will subside when I start moving. I put on my headlamp, jump out of bed and immediately put on my mittens. I watch as my frosty breath fills the yurt and take notice that my runny nose has again created a snotsicle near the collar of the sleeping bag. My mind flits to the forecasted high for today, and I wonder if the frozen snot will still be there when I get home from work tonight.
The stovepipe will be here any day.
http://www.patagonia.com/eu/deDE/patagonia.go?assetid=92898
jim2 –
More rock solid evidence of our fascist state, eh?
More media funny.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2503370/Quantum-physics-proves-IS-afterlife-claims-scientist.html
“Double split experiment”
“The new target is based on zero nuclear power in the future. We have to lower our ambition level,” said Hiroshi Minami, Japan’s chief negotiator at the U.N. talks taking place in Warsaw.”
Japan slashes greenhouse-gas reduction goal on nuclear shutdown
http://news.yahoo.com/japan-drastically-scales-back-co2-emissions-cut-target-002021962–business.html
Smith et al (2007): 0.3°C in 10 years
In 2007, a team of climate scientists from the UK Met Office led by Doug Smith wrote a paper “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model”, published in the journal Science. Although published in 2007, the paper made predictions for the decade 2004-2014. (Presumably the work was started around 2004 and it took some time for the paper to be published). The paper made claims about the “skill” of the model, for example “Having established the predictive skill of DePreSys…”
The Smith et al paper made the following specific predictions:
There would be 0.3°C warming over the decade 2004-2014
At least half of the years after 2009 would be warmer than the record year of 1998.
Note that at that time, 2007, the warmest year was thought to be 1998; subsequent adjustments to the method made 2005 warmer than 1998.
The predictions were spread far and wide. They were included in a Met Office Press release, and a glossy brochure on “Informing Government policy into the future”, with the almost obligatory scaremongering background pictures of black clouds and people wearing facemasks. Vicky Pope gave a talk on these predictions, saying that “these are very strong statements about what will happen over the next 10 years.”
And of course the faithful media reported the story without questioning it.
These predictions have turned out to be wrong. We are almost into 2014 and there has been no warming at all since 2004. Of the years since 2009, none of them have broken the record of 1998 according to HADCRUT3 data. Using HADCRUT4, 2010 is warmer by a meaningless 0.01°C (that’s one tenth of the error estimate). 2011 and 2012 were cooler and it’s now clear that 2013 will be cooler also.
The warming prediction was for 0.30° ± 0.21°C [5 to 95% confidence interval (CI)], so unless we get some significant warming over the next few months it looks as though the observations will be outside the CI of the model.
http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/the-skillful-predictions-of-climate-science/
We got scared for nothing. First time in history. Now, should we get scared of cooling? It depends upon the degree,
===============