by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Richard Betts has an interesting comment re 2 degrees, excerpt: I see the ‘2 degree limit’ as rather like a speed limit on a road – both are set by policymakers on the basis of a number of considerations. I see the climate policy focus on global mean temperature (eg. 2 degrees C) as playing a similar role – a simple indicator for policy purposes, and as basis for discussing pros and cons of different policy choices, but not to be taken too literally as a real threshold.
Stefan Rahmstorf has a good post at RealClimate: Ocean Heat Storage: A particularly lousy policy target. I don’t often agree with Stefan, but on this one I think he pretty much nails it.
Andy Revkin writes of a new play “Extreme Whether” that explores the clashing passions around human-driven global warming and our fossil fuel fixation. Sort of a stage version of Cli-Fi.
Chris Mooney has taken a staff position at the Washington Post. His first effort is There’s a surprisingly strong link between climate change and violence. Matt Briggs is not impressed (I’m with Matt on this one).
An article at Climate Central: Polar Vortex Spiked U.S. CO2 emissions in 2013. Ryan Maue tweets: Nasty feedback: cold weather caused by global warming leads to more CO2 emissions due to increased heating demands.
John Cook is teaching an online course: Making Sense of Climate Denial. I hope some ‘deniers’ sign up for this, maybe Cook will learn something.
PayPal Co-Founder is Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming because many refuse to allow debate on the subject.
Bonn UN Climate talks: key steps to protect the world’s most vulnerable [link]
An interesting article on Steve Schneider’s ‘double ethical bind’ [link]
Matt Nisbet has an interesting article in the Conversation Can people power drive action on climate change?
Washington Post: Companies shouldn’t cave in to demands of climate activists
Growing glaciers in the Himalayas – Nature arcticle [link] to press release
Pat Michaels: How to stop wasting money on science.
A new paper by Latif and colleagues on the AMO [link]
Global boom in hydropower expected this decade
This weekend, I am listening to the talks at the Rotman Institute Conference on Knowledge and Models in Climate Science: Philosophical, Historical and Scientific Perspectives. The program is [here], and access to video streaming and archived videos is [here]. I was invited to give a lecture, but unfortunately had to back out.
Re “…I see the 2 degree limit as rather like a speed limit on a road…” The speed limit is presumably set based on data on traffic fatalities vs. speed limit. I believe the 2 degree limit is based on a bunch of modeled “cost of pollution” measures put into a model going back to James Hansen in the 1980s at a time when our understanding / knowledge base was not well developed at all. And it is based on application of the precautionary principle as laid out in the UNFCCC protocols that said we shouldn’t let lack of knowledge/information be a reason for holding back policy making. “The 2 degree limit, the concept of climate sensitivity (temperature increase for doubling of CO2) etc. are story line type of things to feed the public, government officials and mainstream media and use in Al Gore and Michael Moore climate advocay – sensationalism movies. The limit has never been challenged, changed or updated with new information. Now it is time to do that.
sure physics is all a lie and no amount of temperature increase will cause problems will it? It’s all a big conspiracy theory right?
Try to understand markus. Despite a huge increase in CO2 temperatures did NOT go up for over 15 years.
The surface temperature variation over 15 years is the sum total of many forcings and is also influenced by ENSO. Most of the non-CO2 factors were cooling factors. Only CO2 was a warming factor.
PN – I thought co2 was THE control knob and nothing else mattered? Did you not get the memo?
Barnes, it’s the control knob because its effect is stable and cumulative while the other effects vary unpredictably, cause excursions about 0.1°C up and down, and have a tendency to revert to the mean after a couple decades. Recently they have had a tendency to pull temperatures up during the first half of the pause, and down during the last half. If they were to continue to pull down (mainly ENSO/PDO and the Sun), and never revert up, then maybe we’d get 2.8°C of surface warming in 2100 rather than 3.0°C (for instance).
Pierre-Normand, do you not find that it was intellectually dishonest to ignore the positive contributions of ocean cycles and solar influx changes when the temperature was warming and yet now the ‘Thermogeddonists’ demand that WE acknowledge them now you execrable models have failed.
I say no. You people have failed scientifically, ethically and on the human level. Temperatures are going down and will continue to decline. You can faff around with the thermometer record, making the past cooler and the present warmer, but it will buy you nothing.
You, and your warmesta collective have lost.
“You, and your warmesta collective have lost.”
Congratulation on your victory!
PN
Just face it you make up things as you go along. It takes a strong imagination to be a warmist these days.
markus | October 25, 2014 at 11:56 am |
“sure physics is all a lie and no amount of temperature increase will cause problems will it? It’s all a big conspiracy theory right?”
No Markus, physics is not a lie, it is just being misused, and AGW is just a THEORY (period) with no (repeat NO) data to back it up. The discussion is not about “…no amount of temperature increase will cause problems…” Accusations of “conspiracy” and trying to change the subject does not help your cause.
Pierre-Normand | October 25, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
“The surface temperature variation over 15 years is the sum total of many forcings and is also influenced by ENSO. Most of the non-CO2 factors were cooling factors. Only CO2 was a warming factor.”
Calculations, arguments, analysis, and explanations are not a substitute for data, which seem to be missing. Your arguments are interesting as an academic exercise to try to understand the climate. This is not, however, an academic exercise and the climate is not (repeat not) understood sufficiently for the EPA to impose a $20B to $90B program that, in their own words, “will result in global temperature being reduced …by 0.006 to 0.0015 ˚C by 2100.”
Pierre-Normand | October 25, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
“You, and your warmesta collective have lost.” Congratulation on your victory!
NPR has now joined other media organization by reducing their climate desk from 3 full time reporters to 1 part time reporter.
And there is no victory; only losers. Respect for science has lost, as has the poor around the world who are being driven into fuel poverty.
The warmest month on record, year on record and decade on record hhave just occurred and yet DocMartyn claims cooling. Odd.
Unprecedented warming won’t be a problem will it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#mediaviewer/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
One-third of all human emissions have occurred since 1998, since which temperatures have not changed much, if at all. Temperatures have in fact plateaued, albeit at a high level.
Surely the combination of these two facts should have changed somewhat the conversations we have about climate change.
Why hasn’t it?
Eric, according to HADCRUT4 Feb 1878 was warmer than Feb 2014.
How is that explained by CO2?
Tom Fuller | October 25, 2014 at 9:27 pm
“One-third of all human emissions have occurred since 1998, since which temperatures have not changed much, if at all. Temperatures have in fact plateaued, albeit at a high level.
Surely the combination of these two facts should have changed somewhat the conversations we have about climate change.
Why hasn’t it?”
The fact than no one will answer your question is an answer in and of itself.
The conversation is about egos, the conversation is about politics, the conversation is about vested interests, the conversation is not about temperature or CO2.
There is a lot of reanalysis of reanalyzed information to get to the hottest ever in the hottest temp anomaly series Eric.
Despite all that reanalyisis dalyplanet, they left February 1898 warmer than February 2014? Why? This conspiracy sure is hard to follow.
PMH;
A theory? Not hardly. Speculation, hypothesis, theory, law is the sequence, and AGW has not properly graduated to hypothesis, much less theory.
I wonder how many of the skeptics realize that the models underdid the warming from 1984-1998 by as much as they overdid it after 1998, and whether they can think of a reason why that may be. Natural variability perhaps? 1998 being an exceptional El Nino perhaps? Concentrating on post 1998 is just half the issue, especially given what 1998 was in terms of natural variability.
Eric, according to HADCRUT4 Feb 1878 was warmer than Feb 2014.
How is that explained by CO2?”
Some questions are so stupid they don’t deserve an actual response.
“Surely the combination of these two facts should have changed somewhat the conversations we have about climate change.
Why hasn’t it?”
It is the sheer inertia of a trillion dollar gravy train.
It’s the exception to prove the rules Eric?
So Pierre – how did we go about entering ice ages at times when Co2 levels were far higher than today? After all, if natural cycles always revert to mean, then shouldn’t the climate have always been stable before humans showed up and started burning all those evil fossil fuels?
Barnes, that’s because the Sun was fainter in those past epochs. That’s known from astronomy, the sort of star our Sun is, and where it’s located on the normal evolution sequence.
Again Pierre, why then were there warmer periods than now when the sun was so much cooler?
Barnes, because of much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
And around around we go – don’t you ever get dizzy? No need to answer, it was a rhetorical question.
There is no going around. The past (big) ice ages and warm epochs were strongly correlated to CO2 concentration. However the Sum being fainter, the onset of glaciation could occur despite higher CO2 levels. So the picture is consistent with known properties of CO2 and the argument is not circular.
Sorry pierce but your logic is faulty. You cannot claim that lower sun and higher co2 will create the same effect. The lower sunlight means less radiation to be absorbed by co2, you cannot make up for lower input because there is a limit on availability of radiation to absorb by co2. You are saying that higher co2 is simply absorbing more radiation, but the levels of co2 would have already easily absorbed all the lower sunlight inputs within those narrow bandwidths. More co2 cannot create more radiation where it is not being introduced into the system. Co2 can only cause the effect where there is extra radiation for it to absorb, in the low sunlight model there is less available radiation in the bandwidths that would already be more than saturated by elevated co2.
Pierre-Normand,
How has the Earth managed to cool to its present comfortable temperature over the last four and a half billion years?
Surely the primeval atmosphere of close to 100%CO2 and 100 bar pressure should have kept any water above boiling point? Isn’t the Warmist dogma pointing to the seas boiling again, unless we repent our sins, and adopt the Way of the Warm?
It’s all tosh and nonsense. You can no more demonstrate the magical warming abilities of CO2, any more than you can show that the world is warming.
Away with ye, laddie! Accept reality.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
The faint sun pertains to early earth – two to four billion years ago. The Eemian interglacial (120k years or so ago) is generally accepted to have been warmer, with more CO2, and sea levels several metres higher than today. The faint sun proposal cannot possibly have any role in the 100k year cyclic ice ages of the past million years, or the 40k year cycles for the million years before that.
Pierre-Normand blathers in the manner that all of the climate cultists ultimately do.
Why were temperatures colder during times when CO2 was much higher?
PN: Because the sun was colder!
Then why was it much warmer during times when the sun was colder?
PN: Because the CO2 was higher!
Rinse, repeat.
You climate cultists do not have a cogent theory of climate. All you have are a bunch of self-contradictory and non-quantitative talking points, that you trot out situationally to talk yourselves into your ideologically predetermined conclusions. This is the manner of religion. You are welcome to it, but kindly don’t try to force that crap on the rest of us.
The faint sun pertains to early earth – two to four billion years ago. The Eemian interglacial (120k years or so ago) is generally accepted to have been warmer”
No it isn’t.
“You climate cultists do not have a cogent theory of climate. All you have are a bunch of self-contradictory and non-quantitative talking points”
Why not use your brain?
If the Sun was fainter in the past then having more CO2 doesn’t automatically mean the Earth would be warmer.
markus | October 26, 2014 at 10:36 am
The faint sun pertains to early earth – two to four billion years ago. The Eemian interglacial (120k years or so ago) is generally accepted to have been warmer”
No it isn’t.
Yes it is.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past/
“The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.”
According to my understanding of temperature, 8°C higher is warmer (actually a lot warmer).
The majority of speed limits are set too low. They actually make roads less safe and less efficient.
“It takes a strong imagination to be a warmist these days…”
Perhaps. but I’d say underlying that would be a kind of willful blindness. They *must* see the holes in their arguments, otherwise one might reasonably begin to posit a kind of delusional disorder.
The will ter believe
is strong
in climate alarmists
who believe
that human enterprise
is wrong …
‘It’s back
ter the
Golden-Age.’
A-serf-released-from-slavery
-by-Ol’ King Coal..
“who believe that human enterprise is wrong.”
Always love your poems dear Beth. Still waiting for a warmist Beth to show up, or a warmist Kim, or any warmist with a creative spark. Where are they? There must be some…And sorry FAN, Wendell Berry doesn’ count.
Thx deer pokerguy.
(I know i shouldn’t …)
‘gooseberry, strawberry and wendleberry,
come buy my pretty cherries.’
Enjoy your slavery free life while it lasts, bts, the misinformed masses are looking to overthrow the most benevolent king
OT, but anyway…
“The speed limit is presumably set based on data on traffic fatalities vs. speed limit.”
Oh no – nothing like that.
The safest and best obeyed speed limits are those set to the 85th percentile – that is, the speed that 85% of drivers do not exceed on that stretch of road under good conditions and without other guidance and/or enforcement. This is a well known and robust conclusion – it doesn’t matter if the road is a freeway designed for 250km/h traffic, or a gravel country backroad with hairpin bends and 500m drop-offs, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the USA or Uganda, this formula minimises fatal and minor crashes and maximises compliance with the posted limit. Wisdom of the crowd, right?
But like “climate change”, road safety has been over-run by the “think of the children” brigade and in the process logic, common sense and plain good practice have been tossed aside to placate the loudest speaker making the most outrageous clams, despite significant evidence to the contrary, and anyone who dares to question the received wisdom of these self-appointed “experts” is (metaphorically at least) tarred and feathered and completely ignored – to the detriment of the very people these “experts” think they are helping.
Yeah, “sigh”, yes indeed.
The squeaky wheel… Since talking interrupts reasoning – giving in to the loudest voices is an unwise policy.
Ummm… Well…
The 2.0°C limit is nice.
How are we going to get to 2.0°C?
If that is CO2 only… there is currently 9.8 gigatons of carbon emissions going into the atmosphere. 6.2 gigatons of emissions is going from the atmosphere into the environment (less than 40% retention). Most of that environmental carbon is gone into the ocean at the poles and is effectively gone for good (thousands of years). There is considerable doubt we are going to get above 577 PPM of CO2. With all the interference from misinformed environmentalists we probably won’t even get to 577. 577 is a 44% increase.
Once the ECS gets bounded to something below 4.5 there is no chance of CO2 forcing reaching 2°C. The 1.67 “best guess” ECS would result in about 0.74°C of CO2 forcing. Even 600 PPM would only cause an 0.84°C rise in temperature.
So it kind of depends on the ECS. At this point until we get a better bound on ECS there really isn’t much reason to worry about catastrophic warming.
The bottom line is that we won’t get to the “2” limit before 2100 (4.54 is at the extreme high end of ECS estimates). Might as well take our time and sort through the science.
Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
models reproduce the global temperature evolution over the past 150 years quite well when driven by the known forcings. – See more at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/ocean-heat-storage-a-particularly-lousy-policy-target/#sthash.MJG9ktCG.dpuf
The most recent two decades of failure do question the quite well and the known forcings
Models reproduce the past because they’re essentially curve fitters. That’s what all those parameters do. They find the best fit to the past.
They have zero predictive value because they don’t get the physics right. Nobody does.
It’s as if you fit the last 150 years with a degree 150 polynomial. Perfect fit for the past, insane prediction for next year.
years quite well when driven by the known forcings.
Ay, there’s the rub.
First time in years that Arctic sea ice has a good chance to get back to average. The large amount of re freeze in the Novaya Zemlya says that this area should outperform this year. Hudson Bay should fill quickly and it all depends on how quickly the ice will reform in the Bering sea.
Arctic Sea ice blog is still using alarmist death spirals and September ice extents from 2012. As Judith graciously links to this site I would hope that Neven reads this and gets off his backside and asks for updates. Some of the graphs by Wipneus were said to not have a physical basis when used at a recent Royal Society Arctic presentation but I doubt that this could be true at a reputable site.
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb07952492970d-pi
The C&W style global climate temperature will be dropped in haste if the arctic ice does recover in the near feature.
Not
I thought that it was C&W which does the transubstantiation of water into rock; was that you instead Steve?
The method wont be dropped because its a superior method.
The method wont be dropped because its a superior method.
Well, it may or may not be superior, but if the Arctic sea ice reverts to the mean, the Arctic will likely be colder and C&W will indicate trends lower than other analyses, so the confirminatti may drop it.
Steven Mosher on
“The method wont be dropped because its a superior method.”
Lol, it’s not even better than BEST, and that’s not saying much. :)
“PayPal Co-Founder is Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming because many refuse to allow debate on the subject.”
That’s my position, more or less. Two things that I know to be wrong are accepted by the climate clique when they’re obviously wrong. Something’s wrong with the clique.
Anything the clique says is worthless. Right or wrong at random, as if they didn’t matter.
How they get political power is a matter for sociology and the madness of crowds.
wait doesn’t Judith and many other bloggers refuse to allow skydragons to debate the greenhouse effect on their blogs?
I think the main reason is because they spam all the threads (like me recently!) and spawn an continuous stream of new sock-puppets.
John Sidles posts all the time.
I have in mind (1) inability to get numerical solutions to the Navier Stokes equations, and (2) inability to tell a cycle from a trend for long cycles, both of them mathematical barriers that are ignored when solutions are offered anyhow.
The logic is that nobody in the entire climate clique called the mistakes out, which means there’s no serious science anywhere in it.
While Peter Theil makes a valid point about warmists refusing to debate, you can tell he’s not paying a great deal of attention to the subject when he says: ” The hockey stick that Al Gore predicted in the early 2000s on the climate has not happened.”
John Cook repeated this statement that is used by most of the alarmists.
in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
I do know a lot of scientists. I was in NASA for 44 years and have studied Climate Science for six and a half years. I do find the 97%.
Who are they? I would like to see a list, signed and dated.
The skeptics put together a list with more than thirty thousand. That means the consensus people should have a list with nearly three hundred thousand.
I do find the 97% because they are a small enough group to easily find.
The alarmists submit names like posh spice in order to try and discredit the list, the list removes those bs names as they cannot be verified. Alarmists use posh spice to shout down the list, even though that name lasted a couple days before the checks identified the attempted sabotage and removed it. Proving two things, that the list is moderately robust and that the alarmists are acting to undermine any attempt to accurately quantify skepticism. So when you say look posh spice was on the list, you are drawing attention to the sabotage , done by the alarmists, and away from the other 29,998 names. None of those things engender must trust or faith in the alarmists.
I personally know many scientists and all but one have varying degrees of skepticism in climate science. The most common position of my scientific friends is that we clearly don’t have enough information to make the claims we make about climate.
Likewise, Climate Depot posts a list of over 1000 scientists who were willing to sign a letter stating their disagreement with the consensus. Does this appeal to authority prove anything? I think now, just as the 97% consensus claim proves nothing other than demonstrating AGW advocates ability to construct very poorl studies or surveys designed to achieve a desired result. Pretty much like the approach used by climate modelers.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Survey-confirms-scientific-consensus-human-caused-global-warming.html
The latest survey as (see link) said that only 55% of scientists that published 0-3 papers per year believed in “strong” global warming. Since 1% of scientist publish about 42% of the papers… that is 55% of 90-99% of scientists. About 28% are for “moderate” warming. 17% are in the “slight warming”/cooling/unknown/don’t know/don’t care camps.
30,000 climate scientists? I don’t think so.
“30,000 climate scientists? I don’t think so.”
It allegedly included Posh Spice, Michael Jackson and Mickey Mouse, so it’s multi-disciplinary.
“It allegedly included Posh Spice, Michael Jackson and Mickey Mouse”
Stop making a prat of yourself.
Pierre-Normand,
Climate is the historical average of weather. Climate science? You must be joking!
You couldn’t even refer to them as average scientists with a straight face could you? Below average would seem to fit the bill! All sharing a common delusion, without a shred of experimental evidence to back up their ridiculous suppositions.
Come on then – point me to the verifiable experimental support for the warming effect of CO2. There is none, as far as I know, but surely the billions of dollars of so called climate change effort achieved something. If nothing at all has actually occurred to benefit mankind, then it was all a colossal waste of money, wouldn’t you say?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
catweazle, you upvoted me at Telegraph online, where I have a chimp photo and my real name, Michael Cunningham. Just connected that you use both sites. Hi!
it was not 30,000 climate scientists.
It was 30,000 scientists and engineers and others.
We want to see the 97% consensus list.
I have not seen the first 97 yet. I know about Mann and Hansen and some others, but I do want to see a significant list.
They will not debate with us and I believe they will not sign anything that commits them to theory that has no data to support it.
They need at least 97.
31,487 scientists at current count so they have replaced Posh already.
Since the names and degree are listed – unless the AGW (aggravating global warmers) crowd can disqualify about 5% of the list they are still above 30,000.
Lets drop the lie that those 30,000 on the list are “scientists” shall we.
That might work on joe public but I am a bit more educated about the “list” you are talking about.
Once again, the alarmists can’t be bothered to check actual facts. From the Petition Project web site:
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.
Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.
1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)
1. Atmosphere (579)
I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,240)
I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (986)
I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)
1. Computer Science (242)
2. Math (693)
I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)
1. Physics (5,225)
I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
2. Aerospace Engineering (587)
Chemistry (4,822)
1. Chemistry (3,129)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)
1. Biochemistry (744)
I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
2. Biology (1,438)
I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
3. Agriculture (783)
I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)
1. Medical Science (719)
2. Medicine (2,327)
General Engineering & General Science (10,102)
1. General Engineering (9,833)
I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
2. General Science (269)
“Once again, the alarmists can’t be bothered to check actual facts. From the Petition Project web site:”
Ah. I thought it was the Oregon Petition.
And your point Pierre? I think the original distinction that PG was making is that there are actual warm bodied scientists who are willing to put their names to paper dissenting from the supposed consensus view. There is no such list of the same magnitude coming from the alarmists side – just a few shoddy surveys or studies put out by alarmists like John Cook that all somehow come to the 97% conclusion. I think PG is right, the consensus club is a small one, but vocal, and supported by a media looking to create news stories they can sell.
Barnes, there aren’t any lists of people endorsing the claim that man has set foot on the Moon, that Al Qaeda planned the 9/11 attacks, or that vaccines don’t cause autism (to my knowledge, there aren’t any). The fact that there aren’t any such lists doesn’t prove that most people or relevant specialists don’t endorse those claims.
As I said in a separate comment Pierre, general appeals to authority mean very little if anything. However, it is the alarmists side that continues to spew out the 97% consensus nonsense and it pops up in the MSM constantly even though the 97% surveys have been shown to be complete garbage. The point is, there is more actual proof of a consensus on the skeptical side than the alarmist side, for whatever that is worth.
Well, if the CAGW crowd (catastrophically aggravating global warmers) wants to prove that there is an overwhelming majority of scientists backing their position – start a petition of scientists that believe CO2 will cause a 2+°C temperature increase by 2100.
That is the minimum needed to even discuss CO2 warming being a problem. Please be transparent about the petition (like the Petition Project) with degrees and field listed so we don’t have Posh and DiCaprio showing up on the CAGW list.
Reality: There is a consensus among climate science experts that man is the primary driver of global warming.
Fantasy: if we allow anyone with a science degree, irrespective of their expertise, to sign a piece of paper and get 30,000 signatures , even though there must be at least one million people in the US who have a science degree in the US, then we can pretend there isn’t a consensus among actual experts. That’s how desperate we are to deny reality.
markus | October 26, 2014 at 10:58 am |
Reality: There is a consensus among climate science experts that man is the primary driver of global warming.
Well, there is a consensus among people whose livelihoods depend on government grants to study global warming (that seems to be your definition of a expert).
This is like asking members of the teachers union their opinion of charter schools.
The press release about the Karakoram glaciers explains model performance improved a lot when they used a refined grid. I´m used to introducing grid refinements in model sectors with steep property gradient changes, and I can´t see why the climate models can´t introduce such refinements in key areas. Are those models are expected to run so sloppy that grid refinements can´t help them avoid poor results?
“a simple indicator for policy purposes, and as basis for discussing pros and cons of different policy choices, but not to be taken too literally as a real threshold.”
In other words, Not Science. Never was.
Andrew
We don’t have a “fossil fuel fixation”. Fossil fuels are taken for granted. We actually lack a fixation on a technological revolution which has given us a bounty of goods, services, life-expectancy, mobility and freedom which is nothing short of stupendous when compared with past living standards.
Like celebrating Earth Hour in exciting urban venues? Like your Prius, your expensive “green” products, your sustainable home with planet-saving fittings, your trips to weekend markets where everything is organic and Fair Trade and stamped virtuous? Your jet trails to activist conferences? Fossil fuels give you all that. Without fossil fuels, none of that.
As for me, I like the fact that people even on the lowest stratum can afford not just to eat but to overeat. I’m proud of shopping malls, the abundance and variety of cheap food and cheap goods and the democratization of consumption. Seriously, I’m proud to be part of it.
We lack a fossil fuel fixation. We guzzle the benefits then whine like bored gourmets at the least blemish in the service. We elevate the primitive and flirt with it – knowing we will never have to live primitively.
We need a fossil fuel fixation in the form of gratitude.
+ 10
@mosomoso
“We need a fossil fuel fixation in the form of gratitude.”
+++
We need to start a ‘Fossil Fuel Day.’
Bravo!
“Strong LInk between Climate Change and Violence”?? There has to be a sanity check for “studies” like this. Good grief. This is reeking of political influence in coming elections, grasping… More far-reaching silliness..
CAGW is the perfect liberal cause – you can blame pretty much everything on it.
The people who should be policing garbage like this are the consensus. Why would they give Marc Morano more ammunition?
I would agree there´s a link between climate change and violence. I suspect some of the barbarian invasions into the Roman and other empires were caused by cold spells causing crop failures as well as decreased herd populations. This in turn drove desperate, horse mounted tribes to move into warmer gentler climates in Europe. The ones who fought well made it into the history books. The ones which failed starved to death or were destroyed. It´s a fairly simple idea.
We had a climate change conference in Las Vegas in July.
600 people attended. There were 66 speakers from all over the world. The consensus people were invited and none came.
I suspect the consensus people don’t have conferences because they know the skeptics would come and they do not discuss and debate with anyone who disagrees.
I would like for them to write out what it is that they all have consensus on and then sign and date it for us to really know who they are and their record for being right about stuff and what it is that they really believe.
The IPCC the gathering that is supposed to put it all together, but each IPCC does not have the same consensus as the previous IPCC.
One time they have a hockey stick and the next time they don’t.
How can you have consensus and make that large of a change in just a few years? Less and less real scientists do take part each time the IPCC meets. Any who disagree do not get invited back. That is how the maintain their 97%, they kick out those who disagree. They only get to 97% because they cannot kick them all out fast enough. As their clique gets smaller and smaller, this may become easier.
Correction:
The IPCC is the gathering that is supposed to put it all together, but each IPCC does not have the same consensus as the previous IPCC.
“We had a climate change conference in Las Vegas in July.
600 people attended. There were 66 speakers from all over the world. The consensus people were invited and none came.”
——-
Wasn’t their year to put on the tin foil hat and stick a knife in their career.
And your comment makes me think the climate must be quite repressive in certain academic quarters. It smacks of religious intolerance. Who would I label your Torquemada?
It is impossible for any serious academic to hurt his career by attending any gathering with the intent of discussing science. Unless of course, his academic discipline is peopled by nasty, vicious, vindictive bigots who enforce groupthink by destroying anyone who dares think for himself or behaves in a manner that deviates from the approved statement of religious faith. Such a group, though, would have no real scientists in it.
They do have conferences, but you need to be funded by a billionaire to attend.
And yet no smack down when Tamino allowed carte balance at his site on one of our own, Fan?
Misogynists can be of any persuasion Fan, not just the far right.
Whether one hates women or deniers, haters are all the same are they not Fan?
Lucky we do not fall into that camp, eh!
Tamino doesn’t appear to have a new post since July.
Did he say all he had to say about climate and move on to something else?
FOMD, off topic but… Look this up.
http://in-the-sky.org/physics/balls.php
The difference is that air molecules can release their energy to space via radiation. If there were no Sun and you suddenly created the atmosphere at 30 C, it would radiate until the temperature was near absolute zero.
Ultimately, it is the Sun that keeps the atmosphere a gas and suspended above the surface.
This was a response to
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/25/week-in-review-30/#comment-641268
test
jim2, the threading is broken because a post was deleted.
jim2, was this a comment about the box simulation? This was not meant to have any relevance to any discussion on this thread. It’s referring to an old topic.
Update Here it is: Dominic Ford‘s wonderful website Bouncing Balls and the Boltzmann Distribution
Good on `yah, Dominic Ford and Pierre-Normand, for an outstanding educational contribution!
Please take careful notes, Rob Ellison/DocMartyn/”Physicist”/D C (etc.)!
———————-
In regard to scrupulously civil climate-change discourse — rational! responsible! respectful! — James Hansen’s latest communication Rain-Making and Benefunder is commended to all Climate Etc readers.
Good on `yah, James Hansen, for sustained scrupulously rational-responsible-respectful communications!
I have taken note, you are a fool. The temperature of the Earths surface is about 288K and space 4K; between the two is an atmosphere that you state is isothermal. We know that as one goes higher temperature falls; however, you deliberately combine actual temperature and potential energy and state that this is temperature, when of course it is not. Moreover, you use classical equilibrium formulation to describe a system that is far from equilibrium, because you do not have the ability to describe non-equilibrium steady states.
You are a disgrace to academia.
DocMartyn, I did not state that the atmosphere is isothermal. We were discussing an isothermal state in a small box, in another thread. This has nothing to do with the atmosphere. Now, you’re just going to give a pretext to someone I shall not mention to jump to my throat.
FOMD did
Where, when?
Testing – Is the threading on this thread broken already?
[Repost]
I wouldn’t take any notice of Science Daily as a reliable source on projected future hydro power developments
Where’s the justification for that statement? None. I say it’s BS.
Oh yea, right! If we used that approach the whole world should be powered by nuclear by now. And by solar and by wind and by hydrogen and by biofuels and by pedal-power.
Take a look a this recent survey by ROAM Consulting for the Australian Energy Market Operator for the politically instigated (by the Greens) to determine if Australia’s electricity grid could be powered by 100% renewable generated electricity. 68 pumped hydro schemes are identified and costed. Despite the greenies enthusiasm not one of them is viable.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/files/reducing-carbon/APPENDIX4-ROAM-report-on-pumped-storage.pdf
But lots of useful reference information on pumped hydro anyway.
https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-tax/world-not-agree-pricing-carbon-ii/
I’ll repost my response. Mr. Lang, the article is correct. Emerging countries are building a large number of hydroelectric facilities and global production of electricity from hydropower will double over the next couple of decades as they come online. China is bulding many of them, both in China and in other areas of the developing world.
Sadly, this will not increase the percentage of global electricity supplied by hydropower, as overall energy consumption is increasing faster than the construction of hydroelectric facilities.
[Repost – previous attempt disappeared]
Tom Fuller,
You said the article is correct, but didn’t provide any numbers to substantiate that. The statement I quoted that I say is BS is:
As I recall, when I was working on hydro projects all over the world in the 1970s and 1980s, hydro was a higher proportion of total electricity generation than it is now and the capacity was increasing faster as a proportion of total electricity generation than it is now. So, unless you can provide figures showing that hydro generating capacity as a proportion of total electricity generating capacity is growing faster now than ever before, I still say the claim of “unprecedented boom in hydropower dam construction is underway” is BS. The hydro boom was in the 1950s to 1970s. it will not be repeated – at least not on planet earth :).
By the way, here is one of ‘my’ projects – 2600 MW run of the river with a bit of water to spare :): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POm4kjzy7sg
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mGU0W_2tU&sns=em
What a beauty, eh?
And here’s my pet project: Pumped hydro, 9 GW generating capacity and 400 GWh storage capacity.!! :)
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/05/pumped-hydro-system-cost/
Would you like to invest in it? $15 billion might be enough to give it a chance :)
The decadal variations of the AMOC obtained in that way are shown to precede the observed decadal variations in basin-wide North Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST), known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which strongly impacts societally important quantities such as Atlantic hurricane activity and Sahel rainfall. The future evolution of the AMO is forecast using the AMOC reconstructed up to 2010. The present warm phase of the AMO is predicted to continue until the end of the next decade, but with a negative tendency.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smeed-fig-7.png
So here is the missing mechanism for the AMO – it relates to AMOC – which you could guess to be the case if pushed – which in turns is linked to changes in the Arctic Oscillation – which itself is linked to solar activity.
It suggests cooling for decades at least – ‘statistically’.
There is the other big news – in which the structure of the atmosphere is modelled by bouncing balls with a Boltzmann velocity distribution at a few degrees above absolute zero.
http://in-the-sky.org/physics/balls.php
Which can entirely be described by –
Total energy = m.g.h + 1/2.m.V^2
There is an intuitively *proven* corollary – the FOMBS corollary – that kinetic energy is constant at every height.
the missing mechanism
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EAS.htm.
I’ll try again in correct place
Test – I tried to post a comment and it disappeared.
Quote from Forbes article:
The Nuclear Gap In Obama’s Clean Power Plan
“If we want to arrest climate change, all we need are more renewables like wind and solar, right? Not exactly, according to a newly published Canadian report on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”). In fact, the report, which is based on 246 studies covering various power generation scenarios and constraints, concluded that nuclear power beats wind and natural gas on an ‘apples-to-apples’ basis for battling climate change.
Full disclosure: The report, from Hatch Ltd., a Toronto-based consultant, was commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Association. It compares lifecycle GHG emissions from nuclear power, natural gas-fired power, and wind power, all the way from fuel extraction through to plant construction, operation, and decommissioning.
How is possible that nukes have a smaller carbon footprint than the wind-natural gas duet? Well, wind power is intermittent and needs back-up from natural gas-fired electricity. Nuclear is a 24/7/365 power generation with zero carbon emissions. This is no back-of-the-envelope calculation. The methodology used by Hatch was in conformance with ISO 14040, the international standard governing lifecycle assessments. You can read more about the solid methodology on pages 2 and 3 of the report.
Below is some meat from the report itself:”
read on here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrancer/2014/10/27/the-nuclear-gap-in-obamas-clean-power-plan/
Hatch, where my daughter worked for eight years and her husband still works. Must be credible. And keep up the free advertising. ;-)
or the missing mechanism is
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EAS.htm.
Peter
This raises the interesting question of the life of Hydro electric dams of which the Kariba dam is possibly the most urgent.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/apr/13/zimbabwe-africa
I don’t know if maintenance of such dams is more difficult than equivalent power generating sources although the possibility of a collapse raises concerns about not just losing hydro electric but substantial risks to population and land.
tonyb
Tonyb
Yes, when dam failure occurs it can have enormous consequences. It’s interesting to see the probabilities and consequences of severe accidents in the energy in comparison on one chart. The chart here is from ExterneE an authoritative source: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/
By far the worst individual accidents, although rare, are hydro dam failures. Some examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures :
• 1975 Banjaio, China, 26,000 dead from direct flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless. Caused loss of generation, dam failed by overtopping
• 2009 Sayano–Shushenskaya power station accident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano%E2%80%93Shushenskaya_power_station_accident . I have an excellent power point presentation of the accident and the investigation. The slides are all annotated. But6 it’s not available online.
• 1959 Vajont, Italy, 2000 fatalities, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam This was very relevant for my work in Canada on stabilisation of the 2 km by 2 km by 900 m thick landslide that was moving slowly into the Columbia River upstream of the Revelstoke Dam.
• Teeton Dam, USA, about 22 from memory (I was in Canada at the time working on the Revelstoke Project (see link in previous comment) and we visited it soon after the collapse (so its imprinted on my brain).
So, engineers are very conscious of the issue and the maintenance and monitoring of them. Failures can and do still happen of course, but they are rare.
Hydro systems can have a life in the order of a hundred years or so with proper monitoring and maintenance.
I hope this is a useful reply to your comment.
The real “Chinatown” disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam
The center of the dam was built on a fault contact between vertical dipping , landslide prone pre-cambrian schist and an eocene unconsolidated conglomerate that dissolved in water.
Howard,
Yes in deed. And we BC Hydro and consultants and put an enormous amount of work into studying and estimating the risk of that fault over a period of over 10 years before the decision was made to build. So far, its seems they did it right. There is so much to tell about the geotechnical aspects of the Revelstoke Dam it could take a 1000 pages to explain it all. It’s fascination. But then, so is every dam.
By far the biggest risk to the dam, and the 13 other dams downstream to Portland Washington, was the Downie Slide – 2 km x 2 km z 900 ft thick.
Howard,
Woops, I didn’t respond to your comment and reference to the St. Francis Dam disaster, Los Angeles. Sorry. I did a logic leap. I was referring to the major fault under the Revelstoke Dam between the Monashee Mountains and the Rocky Mountains.
‘”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
I caught a program on AI. Apparently the big threat to the planet is that the Ikea factory AI becomes self aware and turns the world into Ikea furniture.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/significant-other-beings/5128312
Apocalypse guaranteed. No need then to wreck the economy to avoid a climate meltdown – eh – Joshua. What a disingenuous little ponce de twerp he is. .
Hi Mr. Lang, the title of the report on BCC Research was ‘Global Markets for Renewable Energy 2010-2015’ (maybe 2014). It’s still on their website and still available for sale. And I still get a royalty check when and if you buy it.
There is a new paper on ocean circulation that includes Yari Rosenthal and Kari Lawrence as co-authors which paywalled.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/24/past-climate-change-was-caused-by-the-ocean-not-just-the-atmosphere-new-rutgers-study-finds/
It appears to get into a lot more detail on impact of ocean heat transport versus CO2 forcing, something very pertinent since there is a hemispheric see saw that doesn’t stop magically.
The ocean conveyor belt map seemed to line up nicely with the North Pacific gyre. This has me thinking it’s influencing the PDO phase. The paper seems to be another that suggests the natural variability of the oceans.
The biggest point it should make is that attempting to estimate sensitivity to CO2 with paleo is a waste of time without one kick butt ocean model.
Ragnaar: There is a long and very rich literature that clearly demonstrates that ocean circulation changes drive climate change. None of this is new.
This 10-year old webpage is a nice overview
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/how-the-isthmus-of-panama-put-ice-in-the-arctic
Captdallas:
That’s the rub. Like Fernando said about refining model node density around rapidly changing features in the Himalayan glacier article, the same is true for ocean models. However, the model node density required and the limited supercomputer computational ability makes this, at present, impossible. A different modeling approach is needed to solve this problem.
Howard, the problem isn”t so much the models required as much as getting people to understand that they are required. This paper is supposed to go a bit further than previous based on some comments I read a few years ago by Lawrence. Hopefully, it made Science because of something really new.
Capt: Yeah, one would hope it has something new. I couldn’t find a full pdf and the abstract is pretty worthless. Paywalls suck
Ryan Maue tweets: Nasty feedback: cold weather caused by global warming leads to more CO2 emissions due to increased heating demands.
*****
The best Hollywood writers couldn’t make this stuff up.
This article might be of transitory interest only to a tiny minority interested in a possible geo-solar magnetic connection.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375/document
Don’t be modest Vuk, well done.
Tonyb
Fascinating. Thanks.
a fan of *MORE* discourse: http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.607997013860876438
The link is to a photo of Gloria Steinem.
What exactly is your objection to the photo of Naomi Oreskes? We agreed some comments were bad, but there is nothing wrong with that photo. You wanted her glammed up beyond recognition, maybe?
Dr. Curry commented on the Planning Engineer post that people are dismissive of external costs numbers even though they haven’t really looked into the methodology.
I am somewhat dismissive of them, but not altogether. The reason that I am somewhat dismissive of them is that I never seem them presented in context and also I suspect the methodology used to determine the external costs are rife with assumptions and leaps of logic.
As to the context part, we never see the external costs of say, petroleum, compared to the benefits of same. The external costs of a fossil fuel is presented in a vacuum.
It would be much more instructive to determine the external costs associated with an end use of fossil fuels with and without the fossil fuel externality cost.
For example, use the same methodology to determine the external costs of a 10,000 acre corn farm in Iowa. The, one could compare the external costs of the farm with and without diesel fuel. Even if the external cost methodology is flawed, at least we could compare apples to apples, rotten or not. Then we could look at the benefit of the farm vs external costs of the farm. We could look at the benefit of the farm with and without diesel. We could look at the direct cost of running the farm with and without diesel (meaning use of some other energy source.)
Same for building a skyscraper. Same for operation of skyscraper. Building a highway. Operating a highway.
I think the context supplied by these exercises would give policy makers more realistic guidance of whether fossil fuel externalities are truly a problem compared to other externalities.
“I never seem” should be “I never see”
Jim2 — I’ve written numerous Electric Utility System Planning Models (engineering economics) in my day, and for the life of me, can never remember coding an externality into my code. Give me an EPA Reg and sure, I would have reflected it.
A primary way that the Federal Government addresses externalities is in Federal Tax Laws. Anyone who has read just about any CBO (Congressional Budget Office) analysis/discussion of tax law and environmental and energy issues can see that externalities are always discussed at length.
Think about and answer this question: Why do we need nuclear power? And a follow up question: Why have specific tax benefits been given to the nuclear power industry?
Any student of reading historical CBO analysis can tell you a big driver is externalities.
SS – Post the universe of external costs and external benefits so we can see how they balance, then we can discuss your questions.
To my knowledge, the CBO doesn’t get into detailed quantification — they just address general costs and benefits.
Here is an example of a CBO Report:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-06-FuelsandEnergy_Brief.pdf
That’s not what I’m talking about SS. If a person’s life is extended 20 years due to external benefits and reduced by 2 years due to fossil fuels, then that person is ahead in the game and deserves no compensation. Recall that I don’t live in a bubble, so I am included in the set of persons.
Jim, this takes us back to the models used to estimate CO2 impacts via the change it induces in the climate (sea level, temperature, etc). I´ve reviewed the models (DICE, etc), and they are fairly rough. They also seem somewhat inflexible.
For example, one of the major impacts is on maize (corn) crops. But the models fail to account for dynamic reactions to a corn crop reduction (in this case a simple and very cost efficient response would be to end corn ethanol subsidies, thus redirecting corn to food rather than fuel, ending an inefficient industry and encouraging ethanol industries in tropical nations using sugar cane, which makes a lot more sense than corn ethanol).
The lack of rational dynamic response may actually be reasonable only if we continue to have governments adopt irrational solutions. We could also assume that climate change would eventually lead to a more efficient political machine. On the other hand human history shows we tend to get the leaders we deserve…
This is obviously more BS from FOMBS. Everyone in the political arena gets slimed. Men and women.
What about this FOMBS. Why aren’t you up on your snooty-snoot soap box about this? :
WASHINGTON – Following widespread criticism, CNN anchor Carol Costello apologized in a written statement on Thursday for joking on-air about an alleged altercation involving Bristol Palin and a man at a party accused of pushing her younger sister.
“Over the past few days I have been roundly criticized for joking about a brawl involving the Palin family. In retrospect, I deserve such criticism and would like to apologize,” Costello said in a statement.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/24/cnn-anchor-apologizes/
The correct answer is: clueless left wing hack.
Past 12 month period (Oct 2013- Sept 2014) was the warmest globally on record. Odd sort of way for the “one or three decades” of cooling to be progressing. Cooling in a warming sort of way, ey? And all without an El Niño- yet.
http://ipad.aol.com/article/2014/10/20/warming-earth-heading-for-hottest-year-on-record/20981316/
R Gates. Only if you (a) homogenize the temperature record to cool the past and warm the present and (b) ignore both satellite records since 1979, and (c) ignore that the difference is not statistically significant, and has not been for 19 years in HadCrut4 per the recent McKittrick paper.
Parroting a provably biased source does not make it true in fact.
Points a-c are amplyndocumented in the essay When Data Isn’t in Blowing Smoke, forward by Dr. Curry herself. You might learn some things by reading it and studing the footnotes.
Conspiracies!
“ignore that the difference is not statistically significant, and has not been for 19 years in HadCrut4 per the recent McKittrick paper. Parroting a provably biased source…”
I would say McKittrick is a biased source yes.
More importantly though it is interesting how a result of >90% confidence that there has been warming over the last 19 years in HadCrut4 is turned into a headline that there has been no warming in the last 19 years.
>90% confidence = zero confidence.
Amazing.
But go on believing in conspiracy theories that the data is all adjusted. I’ll stick with the multiple ocean, land and satellite records that show ongoing warming.
Markus – did you bother to read the post by zeke?
Why haven’t we seen any continental high temp records broken in the CO2 age?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
1) That’s weather, not climate
2) Highest temperature excursions predicted to be in colder latitudes
3) Warming expected to be at nighttime.
The more important question is why we haven’t seen any increase in common sense and intellectual honesty in the information age?
Read more, post less. Desert high temperatures is not the fingerprint you are looking for. What other nincompoops say about record temperatures does not factor in to reality. Time to hit the books instead of the bottle. It will help cut down on your feminized emotionalism, love of gossip and gotcha fetish.
Schopenhauer had your number nearly 200 years ago:
.
That’s a lot of lame diversionary BS, howie. Where is the fingerprint we should be looking for? Is it the hot spot in the tropical troposphere? The stronger and more frequent El Ninos? A couple of dead polar bears? You can’t handle the pause, howie.
> The more important question is why we haven’t seen any increase in common sense and intellectual honesty in the information age?
The Internet provides justification for everything. Except perhaps the fact that the Internet exists. And even then:
http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/329/rupert-murdoch-the-internet-does-not-exist.html
Don: The pause rather than an expected decline due to ocean cycles stadium wave natural variation is a strong indicator of anthropogenic forcing. There are no fingerprints: only smears and echos. The complex reality of geologic processes are not conducive to your primitive dualistic operating system Your sloganeering as argument while pathetic, it’s all you have. It must be frustrating to be “not even impotent”: that’s why you keep picking on Joshua.
Ah, the pause was expected. I don’t think even little joshie will go for that one.
The alarmist settled science crowd didn’t try to stampede the public into taking the vow of energy poverty over smears and echoes, howie. That’s some pretty vague BS. Your allegedly learned crowd confidently predicted unambiguous fingerprints: hot spots, increasing rate of warming and sea level rise, sea ice disappearing, dead polar bears raining down in mid-town Manhattan, prostitutes galore, wars, famine, cats sleeping with dogs.
As Schopenhauer said 200 years ago:”The chickens will be coming home to roost.”
The pause is killing the cause. Carry on without me, howie. Case closed.
How do you know we have not seen any such records if the temperature record is not to be trusted? Do you trust the temperature record Don?
Silly question, eric. I don’t have any more time for you clowns, today.
R. Gates said:
Past 12 month period (Oct 2013- Sept 2014) was the warmest globally on record.
These “warmest on record” statements are a reliable indicator of a lack of scientific integrity. Do you know why that is, R. Gates?
Of the temperatures are going down, the faux skeptics trust the record but if we have the warmest 12 month period in during the much beloved “cooling” period then it must be wrong or distortion of data.
Nope. Not even a good try.
Here’s a hint: how long does “on record” refer to?
Gates, was it you who claimed the surface temperature was increasing at 0.1 degrees per decade since 1998?
“Fernando Leanme | October 26, 2014 at 7:21 am |
Gates, was it you who claimed the surface temperature was increasing at 0.1 degrees per decade since 1998?”
——-
Nope.
Which temperature index R. Gates?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:2005/mean:12/plot/rss/from:2005/mean:12/plot/uah/from:2005/mean:12
R. Gates: Exactly. The fact that we are in a pause rather than a decline along with continued Arctic Ice declines is an indication that CO2 influences climate. The predictable autonomic responses from the tweedledees and tweedledumers just serves to make your point stronger.
However, unwinding the CO2 influence from natural (coupled ocean-atmosphere) variability, all of the other potential anthropogenic forcings, and the anisotropic and heterogeneous mix of positive and negative feedbacks is just now starting to be investigated. On top of that, it is obvious that this “system” is too complex and large to model with our current soft and hard tools. Overconfidence is the trap that the tweedledees and tweedledumers on your alarmist team falls into.
None of you folks (The Skep-Scichotics and Whaaat’s Up Dude yentas) realize that playing gottcha is not science.
But the fact that there is a “pause” ( something you cannot say until warming resumes, if you are even remotely scientific you would refer to a plateau) , instead of the predicted warming, should allow you to take pause and consider that the anthropogenic influence is less than estimated. Nothing shows the true nature of one’s position on agw than people who talk like the pause is of no importance to the agw debate simply because warming will probably resume in the future. Recognizing the natural processes that are offsetting the anthropogenic forcing (although to be fair we have zero proof the positive feedbacks will exaggerate the warming above the actual 1.2 c forcing estimated) is important to predictions of future climate. But somehow the alarmaholics forget such pesky little facts. They instead act like the predictions based on non-paused warming somehow don’t have to be adjusted because the pause will end someday.
“something you cannot say until warming resumes”
The trend since 2000 in hadcrut4 is +0.05C/decade. That’s 0.15C warming since 2000. Strongly suggests warming has not stopped. The pause is a misleading term.
0.05C per decade? Really? After the IPCC predicted 0.2C per decade for the first decades of this century?
Check your math Marcus
Linear trends are pretty meaningless. Just look how every crank has a custom wood for trees plot to make their silly points appear correct.
I don’t know what a Skep-Scichotic is, but if it’s good I’m it.
I do not see much of a trend in Hadcrut4 in the new millennium:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend
Howard | October 25, 2014 at 3:22 pm
“None of you folks (The Skep-Scichotics and Whaaat’s Up Dude yentas) realize that playing gottcha is not science.”
Well… There are solar, GHG, nature variation (mostly ocean driven), aerosol and perhaps other influences on temperature. According to Dr. Spencer RSS shows surface wind speeds are currently very low.
With the current climate doldrums it is hard to tell which if any of the influences is dominant. The claim of the IPCC that 110% of the late 20th century warming was CO2 driven look laughable at this point – but in 1999 the claim wasn’t as funny.
We’ll see. The temperature can’t stay stable forever. By 2030 we will have hit the magical 30 year point and have a better idea about the trend for this century and the forces driving climate.
Markus, do you really feel that .05C per decade is a significant trend?
Remember that “pause” is the politically correct term coined by alarmists so they didn’t have to say “lack of statistically significant warming”, which was the original accusation leveled by sceptics. A .05 per decade trend is exactly that, a lack of statistically significant warming. And frankly nobody is buying that the adjusted, infilled and homogenized temps are accurate to 100ths of a degree.
And basic math fails says that 1.4 x .05 does not equal .15. So be honest and put the correct .07 warming since 2000.
And additionally, the non statistical warming of .07C in 14 years that was predicted to have .28C warming is not a strong endorsement of settled understanding on climate.
It’s still there but it was moved down after your comment was deleted!
“Chris Mooney has taken a staff position at the Washington Post. His first effort is There’s a surprisingly strong link between climate change and violence.
There’s a surprisingly strong link between moon bat quackery and climate alarmism..”Stupid” doesn’t cover it.
I’m surprised he didn’t say Republicans are causing AGW and therefore violence. Give him time, he’ll get there.
After searching “external costs,” I find a plethora of articles. Searching “external benefits,” I find articles on social security.
It is painfully obvious that almost all research efforts goes into “finding” external costs. Of course, the remedy for excessive external costs is higher taxes on a product.
This imbalance is wholly unacceptable. Society is composed of individuals. We need to know not only the costs to individuals but also benefits that are free to those individuals. Then, we can see what the net externalities are for a given class of people.
IMO, we would have to include welfare as an external benefit. I suspect that just about all of us enjoy more external benefits than costs. But due to the, at least apparent, lack of research into external benefits, we just don’t know.
I detect a sense of frustration and fatigue with official excuses for less-than candid science, now almost five years after Climategate emails first surfaced in late Nov 2009.
The lies, deceit, and unethical behavior (and the morals of a weasel) shown the climategate files are probably the primary reason.
Climategate basically pulled the plug on CAGW. It demonstrated conclusively that many of the skeptical accusations about malfeasance in the climate arena were correct.
Surprisingly, there is a strong link but it is between… power and violence not climate change and violence.
From the article:
Japan’s reboot of nuclear power, expected to begin early next year, is set to punish oil imports the most as utilities slash the use of their highest-cost fuel and shut aging oil-fired plants, a survey of Japan’s nine biggest power companies showed.
Utilities in Japan are keen to close oil-burning units, not only because crude and fuel oil are their most expensive fossil fuels, but also because the plants are costly to maintain.
This could see the world’s No 3 oil consumer cutting use further just as weak global demand and ample supply are already pushing the international Brent benchmark to multi-year lows.
In the fiscal year ended March 31, Japan’s big utilities burned 18% less oil – mostly opting for cheaper coal – after oil for power use hit a 16-year high the previous year.
…
http://www.therakyatpost.com/business/2014/10/07/japan-nuclear-power-restart-punish-global-oil-prices/
Chris Mooney was hired by the wash post???!!!
Whoa. I don’t have much respect for journalism in general, but I didn’t think the profession had fallen this far.
Jef Bezos probably wants to shore up profits by hiring provocative writers. Maybe mooney can be assigned a desk next to George Will.
The reason that Schneider’s comments on his ethical bind continue to resonate with skeptics is because of his behavior and his support for the unethical behavior of others in the years subsequent which more fully explained what he apparently meant.
I wouldn’t take any notice of Science Daily as a reliable source on projected future hydro power developments
Where’s the justification for that statement? None. I say it’s BS.
Oh yea, right! If we used that approach the whole world should be powered by nuclear by now. And by solar and by wind and by hydrogen and by biofuels and by pedal-power.
Take a look a this recent survey by ROAM Consulting for the Australian Energy Market Operator for the politically instigated (by the Greens) to determine if Australia’s electricity grid could be powered by 100% renewable generated electricity. 68 pumped hydro schemes are identified and costed. Despite the greenies enthusiasm not one of them is viable.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/files/reducing-carbon/APPENDIX4-ROAM-report-on-pumped-storage.pdf
But lots of useful reference information on pumped hydro anyway.
Mr. Lang, I documented hydropower construction projects underway in 2010 for a report published by BCC Research. It is real. Hydropower will at least double over the coming decades. Sadly, it will remain the same as a percentage of the total, as total energy consumption will also double.
Tom Fuller,
Thank you for the reply. However, you did not offer substantiation for the unsupported statement I quoted; i.e.
As I recall, when I was working on hydro projects all over the world in the 1970s and 1980s, hydro was a higher proportion of total electricity generation than it is now and the capacity was increasing faster as a proportion of total electricity generation than it is now. So, unless you can provide figures showing that hydro generating capacity as a proportion of total electricity generating capacity is growing faster now than ever before, I still say the claim of “unprecedented boom in hydropower dam construction is underway” is BS. The hydro boom was in the 1950s to 1970s. it will not be repeated – at least not on planet earth :).
Mr. Lang, you’re welcome to believe as you like, do the research yourself–whatever. I published the report in 2010. If you think it’s untrue, do your own work or believe, as I said, what you want.
Tom Fuller,
That response is a cop out. You’ve dodged the point that your assertion the growth rate of hydro is unprecedented is unsupported, If you’d done the analysis you should be able to make a simple statement with figures to show your statement is correct. The fact you haven’t suggest my point is correct and your statement was over the top, exaggeration, and incorrect.
Can you tell me the proportions of global electricity generation by hydro at the start of each decade since 1950? That would show whether or not your point correct. If you can’t give those figures, I guess it demonstrates you cannot substantiate your point.
@Peter Lang, off topic but I lost the other thread.
You were right. CVEs were turned out in under 200 days. That was a surprise to me.
Sorry about the O T.
.5mt (Tom Shipman),
Thanks for that. Much appreciated. Actually, they got it down to 101 days. Twenty of the fifty ships in the Casablanca class (aircraft carriers) were built in under 130 days (see this comment: http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/22/myths-and-realities-of-renewable-energy/#comment-641796).
You might be interested in my final comment where I brough this back to th relevance to how nuclear power cost could be reduced by appropriate deregulation. It’s here: http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/22/myths-and-realities-of-renewable-energy/#comment-641807
The old thread is dead, so I’ll repost the comment here:
‘What if’ deregulating nuclear power could reduce the build time in same proportion as deregulating build of military aircraft carriers?
Aim: to compare the construction time of ships built to Military Standards vs those that weren’t and use that ratio as an indication of the potential impact of reducing the regulatory impediments on nuclear power plants.
I see about five classes of aircraft carrier of about 8,000 to 12,000 ton displacement with first ship in class laid down between 1941 and 1944 here: http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/bx53056(a66996z1b)(a162248z1b)/259869/a0.htm
I understand the Casablanca Class was not built to Military Standards. I am not sure which of these Classes is most comparable to the Casablanca class but built to Military Standards?
Comparison of three classes:
• USS Casablanca Class, 50 ships , 8,200 tons, 1942-44 took 101 to 277 days (not built to Military Standards): http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/269245×269223/8330/a0.htm
• USS Bogue Class, 11 ships , 8,390 tons, 1941-42 took 270 to 413 days (Military Standards ???): http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/87714×53056/161934/a0.htm
• USS Independence class, 12 ships, 10,663 tons, 1941-43 took 425 to 633 days (built to Military Standards): http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/270927×269223/8330/a0.htm
Therefore,
• if the USS Bogue Class was built to Military Standards and the Casablanca was not, then it would seem that deregulation can save 60% of the construction time (i.e. 101 days / 277 days).
• if the USS Independence Class was built to Military Standards and the Casablanca was not, then it would seem that deregulation can save 75% of the construction time (i.e. 101 days / 425 days).
Discussion point: If we (appropriately) deregulate the nuclear power industry and the same proportionate reduction to the build time for nuclear power plants is achieved, the cost of electricity from nuclear power might be nearly halved.
There is an appalling review of Naomi Klein’s latest trip in the Weekend Australian Review. Here’s my letter in response:
Jane Gleeson-White and Naomi Klein are completely off the wall (“Dire tales of climate change drive call for urgent action,” Review, 25-26/10). They see the urgent and defining battle of our age as between “resource extractivists” and those opposed to the mining and transport of fossil fuels.
The battle is urgent and defining: but it is between those who understand how billions have been lifted from poverty, illness and servitude by human ingenuity, capitalism, free trade and economic growth, and those who decry the processes which have brought about this great transformation in human well-being. The pair see – correctly – the issue of climate change as not about climate per se but as a mobilising force for those who wish to impose their dystopian view of the world on those who do not share it.
It is increasingly clear that those who warned of global warming doom have not first attemped to understand the drivers of climate, and have exaggerated both the link between CO2 and warming and the alleged net harm which might arise from it. It is time for reason to prevail, for us to step back and stop further damaging our economies while learning more about the complexities of our always-changing climate.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/naomi-kleins-third-book-calls-for-urgent-action-on-climate-change/story-fn9n8gph-1227100133199
Your point is entirely correct. Faustino!
*EVERYONE* appreciates the moral and economic force of this science-respecting guidance … for common-sense reasons, eh Climate Etc readers?
http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/ArcticEscalator500.gif
How science sees temperature variability in the Arctic.
://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/chylek-arctic-temps.png
But I suppose all that is *statistics*
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/chylek-arctic-temps.png
Fan. I’m sorry if I’ve shocked you by replying. I have some comments on ethics in my post below @ 6.54.
I think that all of our actions require a “moral imperative.” The current pope seems to have good volition. However, good volition, while essential, is never enough. Acting wisely to the benefit of others also requires understanding and wisdom. The pope unfortunately appears not to understand this: he has often made strong but misguided pronouncements in areas of which he has no knowledge, notably economics. And his comment of a “moral covenant” with our environment is nonsense.
Wiki: “A covenant, in its most general sense and historical sense, is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action.” Those who are spiritually developed do not need specific covenants, they will have rid themselves of the capacity to harm others, and will at all times act from pure volition, with wisdom and without ego. Of course, few may have attained this happy state, but those on the path will generally act in a way which is good for them and good for others. The pope would best serve humanity by understanding this and helping others to develop spiritually, rather than making fatuous comments on areas outside his expertise.
No offence intended to papists. Of all the CE posters, my world view is closest to that of GaryM, although he is a strong Catholic and I do not believe in a god or gods and have little regard for organised religion. The fact that I would generally fully endorse Gary’s comments indicates to me that belief or non-belief in God is not the critical factor in spiritual development or a benign view on what most benefits the world.
Here endeth the lesson (it’s Sunday in Oz).
AFOMD,
I’m not sure how the non-Christian majority of the world’s population are going to be forced to agree to the moral superiority of the Holy See.
Bring back the Inquisition perhaps? Declare Rome to be the centre of the moral universe?
I wish you well, but appeal to a minority religious authority still won’t result in the temperature increasing, unless it occurs in your febrile imagination.
Fact eventually triumphs over faith – just look at the predictions of Death Trains Hansen to date – even though it may take the odd century or two to shake off the chains of ingrained dogmatism.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
It’s obvious Warmistas are under the mistaken impression that only Arctic ice has a high albedo. Otherwise they would be looking at this chart instead:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Global sea ice has been remarkably steady for at least 25 years. The pause that refreshes!
Only little problem with that is that Antarctic sea ice has no effect on sunlight absorbed in the Arctic ocean.
So Marcus believes the materials under non-Arctic sea ice have a high albedo?
How realists view arctic sea ice:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
Pope Francis speaks against corruption:
It’s good that you and I share an interest in the Carbon Cabal’s moral face, Faustino.
Take notes, abusers/doxxers/denialists/market-fundamentalists!
Fan, I’m not sure as to the point of this post (no need to enlighten me, thanks!). Honesty and integrity have been my watchwords since early child, and I have always abhorred corruption. Fortunately, leading a wholesome life (leaving aside some aspects back in the ’60s and early ’70s), I have not been prone to encounter corrupt people. Exceptions have been in the London Metropolitan Police and the Queensland Public Service, not in carbon-intensive industries.
I am not aware of a Carbon Cabal, and my regard for morality is across the board rather than sectional. I treat people as people, whatever their vocation or affiliation. I commend this approach to you.
No further correspondence will be entered into.
AFOMD,
If corruption includes fools or frauds accepting money whilst providing absolutely nothing useful in return, then all self proclaimed climate scientists with a belief in CO2 induced warming should be prosecuted, surely?
You wrote –
“Corrupt folks can not accept criticism, disqualify anyone who tries, belittle moral authority, do not value others, and insult anyone who thinks differently.” Does this sound like Michael Mann or James Hansen, or anyone else in the Warmist cult? Of course not, you will say.
Oh well, the world doesn’t need to wonder about your objectivity anymore, does it now, Waffling Woeful Warmist?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
It’s my continuing pleasure to assist Climate Etc readers to:
• dispel their chemistry illusions, and
• dispel their thermodynamical illusions, and
• accept the sobering reality that energy-balance climate-change worldviews are scientifically robust, that the “hockey-stick blade” of climate-change is lengthening without pause or obvious limit, and that the ecological, economic, and social implications of climate-change are of urgent political concern.
Pope Francis’s Circa il delitto di corruzione reminds us that incapacity to face up to these realities responsibly, respectfully, and rationally is a form of corruption that is worse than sinful … a corruption that deprives humanity even of the capacity to appreciate sin.
Good on `yah for facing up to these realities responsibly, respectfully, and rationally, Climate Etc readers!
Not sure where this post will show, but it’s intended for Faustino. All that to say excellent letter. Our limited resources would be much better directed at adaptation to an ever changing climate, not towards destroying that which has brought us much prosperity.
“John Cook is teaching an online course: Making Sense of Climate Denial. I hope some ‘deniers’ sign up for this, maybe Cook will learn something.” Wishful thinking, Judith, but I’m registered with EDX, maybe I’ll join and provide a counter-view. If all the Australian CE posters joined, we’d almost certainly far out-gun remaining participants (and Cook, of course) in terms of actual knowledge of the CAGW issues and alleged denialism. Come on, chaps and chapesses, what do you say?
Faustino – “…John Cook…online course…CE posters joined…”
Sure, why not? What the heck, it’s free.
Actually, Justin, looking at who is involved in the course, their views and some comments on it, I don’t know if I could cope. I guessed that the d-word in the quote from Judith was a flag.
Faustino
Yeah it would be hard to listen to the same old same old but, with patience and an open mind, we might be able to keep the honest.
Nothing is more dangerous than someone with nothing to lose. What can they do, give us a failing grade? :)
Aaagh! I’ve been modded for quoting Judith’s comment on John Cook’s course, which contains a flaggable word! How did the head-post get through? ;-)
What is the flaggable word? GroUNd?
Faustino,
Are you saying you are being denied the right to participate in a tax payer funded course to persuade deniers they are deniers?
Richard Betts is of the new klimatariat. He promotes the same potty ideas while making respectful references to a reality he intends to ignore.
I prefer the old guard of fundamentalists and literalists who skipped reality at the very start and went straight to the non-Kardashian models and mad extrapolations.
Gimme that old time religion.
:-) I’ll be interested to see Tony B’s response – I think he knows Betts quite well. And epitomises British decorum.
Faustino, He does seem an attractive character. Gentle right arm orthodox and cucumber sandwiches between innings? Walks immediately when dismissed? I have come to love the type, especially since my Euro passport hunt revealed I’m a quarter Pom.
But like all people who believe in “tackling” climate and setting “targets” for climate, Betts is quite potty. The moderate flavouring just makes his ideas pottier.
Tackle climate change with a “simplistic indicator” to help guide and focus? Set more flexible targets for future temperatures? Quite mad. Mad as mist and snow.
No argument. And I won’t mention Pakistan in Dubai or thereabouts.
Oops! Too late!
Are not all the taxi drivers in Dubai from Pakistan?
Alexej, when I was in Dubai in 2007, about 45% of the population was Indian. I have a feeling that some taxi drivers were Yemeni.
According to Wikipedia, 30% of the UAE-population are Indians, 21 % Pakistani.
But my own sample of about half a dozen taxi-drivers around the old part of Dubai was 100% Pakistani.
I disagree. Betts is a force for good in this debate. He is on the other side of the fence from you, mosomoso, but you should not classify all such as full of potty ideas. You should be praising him, not seeking to bury him.
I like him, Tom, but potty is potty. My fear is that we have grown numb to glaring absurdity when it is framed as science. Pick any science/environment page of the Guardian or New York Times and you are in danger of digesting one of these sober-seeming absurdities, given authority by some “paper” or by the “recent findings” of some “team”.
Decorating the absurdity with a little modesty or realism just gives it a much longer life. Having conferences about “targets” for manipulating the climate not of a ballroom or of an air-conditioned stadium but of an entire planet is…well, you pick the word.
Perhaps I defend him because you might use the same arguments about me :)
mosomoso
Having met Richard Betts I not only like him but would consider him somewhat sceptical, in as much he is not certain that todays climate is unprecedented and admits to great uncertainties about the past couple of thousand years.
I have offered to take Him and his colleagues on a magical mystery tour**of nearby upland Dartmoor where evidence of a past warmer climate from this period can be seen and is admitted to on the official web sites. .
The ‘potty’ ones are such as Julia Slingo. It may be that if I met her I might change my views but she seems pretty hardcore.
**Magical Mystery tour was partly filmed on the moor and the bus got stuck on one of the very narrow bridges
tonyb
The Pat Michaels piece is about how government funding of science may do no good, but climate change is an example of how agenda driven funding does actual harm, to people and to science. See also his http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/08/12/patrick-j-michaels/state-funded-science-its-worse-you-think
From the article:
…
West Texas Intermediate crude fell to an intraday low of $80.36 before inching back up to $81. Oil has slid below the $80 mark recently but has not breached it for long. Oil was weak Friday despite a stronger equity market and weaker dollar, both factors that have lifted crude prices lately.
…
Oil has been hit by the double whammy of strong supply and weakening demand growth. In addition to a more than 7 million barrel build in U.S. crude stocks last week, demand for products like gasoline, heating oil, and distillates are also falling, which impacts the price of crude used to make those products.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102119448
From the article:
…
…
Halliburton, the world’s No.2 oilfield services provider, reported a better-than-expected quarterly profit, helped by buoyant shale drilling activity in North America.
…
“Service intensity levels surged to unprecedented levels, as completion volumes per well were up more than 50 percent compared to the third quarter of last year,” Chief Executive Dave Lesar said. “We expect this level of activity to continue.”
Market leader Schlumberger Ltd also reported a better-than-expected quarterly profit on Thursday, helped by strong drilling in North America.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102102451
From the article:
…
The oil market narrative is changing, with U.S. supply a new protagonist.
While U.S. oil supply moderated price volatility in 2013, today it may be helping solidify a new price floor.
The impact of future demand growth from non-advanced economies weighs more heavily on supply, demand and price fundamentals than short-term factors.
…
U.S. producers can respond relatively fast to prices with shale production. And this may change the calculus on how quickly U.S. production responds to lower prices. If U.S. producers slow their production down, we import more again; supply then declines, and as the oil market tightens back up, prices rise. For this reason, I believe price impacts will correct even faster. The reason has to do with pricing in expectations. Expectations also are a driver of market prices in addition to fundamental supply and demand drivers. (See deeper, updated research on commodity prices.)
…
“What I can tell you is that in recent conversations with our North America customers, we have not received any indication of activity levels slowing as we transition into 2015. For example, last week the IEA commented that approximately 98% of North America liquids projects have a breakeven price below $80 per barrel and over 80% work below $60 a barrel.”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2590005-global-oil-markets-there-and-back-again
More leftist propaganda brought to you by the rich from Hollywood.
From the review:
…
One of the few known facts about Interstellar‘s plot is that it features a group of explorers who travel through a wormhole to seek out the far reaches of the universe, but fresh story details from the Fort Macleod Gazette reveal the motivation behind the mission. That motivation is… climate change! More specifically, a crop famine that has been brought about by the effects of climate change, with corn as the last crop to be cultivated.
…
http://screenrant.com/insterstellar-movie-image-gallery-photos-story-spoilers/
My comment at paleoseismicity.org:
In an essay on ethics, you quote “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” I completely disagree: if we are to be effective, we must be completely honest: it is a foundation stone of morality.
The issue here in part is about scientists and advocacy: scientists have a particular specialisation, which may give them knowledge of importance to policy. But they rarely have expertise in policy, nor the knowledge to balance what they think is required on a particular issue with alternative demands on resources. A scientist, such as Schneider, might consider that what is happening in their field is of paramount importance. But first, it might not be, and second, the policies which they think are required might not in fact be appropriate, as I would argue has been the case with alleged CAGW.
You write that “One reason for this likely lack of success is that politicians, and the public that impel them, expect a clear ‘call to arms’ from scientists engaged in an issue for which there is a high degree of technical consensus.” As someone with several decades of experience as an economic policy adviser, including to bodies chaired by the Prime Ministers of the UK and Australia, I disagree with that. Taking Schneider’s issue as an example, I was asked to brief the Premier and Cabinet of Queensland on what attitude they should take to Australia signing the Kyoto protocol. My task involved, inter alia, reading a great deal of the relevant scientific literature, or summaries and abstracts of it, as well as discussions with scientists with relevant expertise. I could never, whatever the issue, take on trust what a particular expert or group of experts believed was a cause for action. As it happens, I had been following the issue since the 1980s, and was briefed by the IPCC’s Chief Scientist in 1989 or ’90. One thing which emerged from my research was just how wide and complex the subject was, and how little was understood of the potential effects at a micro level. In the end, I decided that while it was not yet clear that significant harm would arise, there was reason to take precautionary measures while focussing on research to better understand the issue. Of course, I could not advise that in isolation from the economic aspects. I directed modelling of the impacts on the Queensland economy, which suggested that ten years hence, growth in State GDP would be about ten per cent less if Kyoto measures were adopted (32% growth v 35% growth). The Kyoto period was 2008-2012, my advice was given in 1997. It was that if the damage from warming was as dire as suggested, then a reduced rate of growth was justified as insurance. However, we should continue to investigate the issue thoroughly, and wind back growth-reducing policies if the warnings proved over-blown. I also advocated beginning with least-cost emissions reductions. (Not “no regrets” policies per se, I think that both in theory and practice it is extremely hard to find any “no regrets” policies, but that’s another issue.)
You note that Schneider “stressed how critical it is to draw attention to the degree of certainty we assign to our assessments, and to explain the degree of subjectivity or speculation we invoke to estimate that confidence level.” It is clear that the IPCC (which of course is a political body with scientific input) has tended to exaggerate the certain of, and confidence in, its findings and projections – cf critiques over several years by Judith Curry. Once politics enters the equation, the parameters and incentives change.
In the Dead Sea case, of course, your published prognosis should be “brutally clear, and honest.” Which means, of course, carefully presenting all uncertainties, particularly on time-scale. It is then up to the relevant decision-makers to determine the extent of measures to take now, e.g. in restricting areas of building or tighter building codes for earthquake resistance, in the light of other priorities, many of which will be of a more immediate nature.
Finally, I would say that the highest welfare of humans comes from the spiritual development of each individual. Such development depends on a clear understanding of reality, as it is, and without honesty and integrity, this can never be achieved. Hence my opening statement: we can’t compartmentalise honesty, it must be integral to everything we do.
Faustino, while I agree with you in general on this comment, your specific example falls short in my opinion. Schneider was heavily engaged in policy related work starting from his work on nuclear winter (he helped debunk it) in the late 70s.
He may not have been formally trained in policy issues, but decades of experience probably supplied him with adequate on the job training for him to be expert in it.
Probably Michael Mann would have been a better example. He’s messed up everything he’s touched.
From the article:
Significant numbers of people are continuing to renounce their U.S. citizenship or end their long-term U.S. residency.
There are 776 names on the Treasury Department list published Friday for the third quarter of 2014.
That’s the third highest quarterly figure ever, according to Andrew Mitchel, an international tax lawyer in Centerbrook, Conn., who tracks the data. The total number of published renouncers so far in 2014 is 2,353, putting this year on pace to exceed last year’s record total of 2,999, adds Mr. Mitchel.
…
Experts say that the growing number of renunciations by U.S. citizens and permanent residents is linked to a five-year enforcement campaign against U.S. taxpayers who have undeclared offshore accounts. The campaign began after Swiss banking giant UBS UBSN.VX -0.45% admitted in 2009 that it had systematically encouraged U.S. taxpayers to hide assets in secret Swiss accounts.
…
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/10/24/more-americans-renounce-citizenship-with-2014-on-pace-for-a-record/?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_yourmoney
From the article:
…
We used the 1D model to obtain a consensus-supporting climate sensitivity when traditional forcings were used (mostly anthropogenic GHGs, aerosols, and volcanoes), but a much smaller 1.3 deg. C climate sensitivity if the observed history of ENSO was included, which was shown from CERES satellite measurements to modulate the Earth’s radiative budget naturally (what we called “internal radiative forcing” of the climate system).
…
Abraham et al. take great pains to fault the validity of a simple 1D climate model to examine climate sensitivity. But as we state in our paper (and as James Hansen has even written), in the global average all that really matters for the rate of rise of temperature is (1) forcing, (2) feedback, and (3) ocean mixing. These three basic processes can be addressed in a 1D model. Advective processes (horizontal transports) vanish in the global ocean average.
They further ignore the evidence we present (our Fig. 1 in Spencer & Braswell, 2014) that a 1D model might actually be preferable from the standpoint of energy conservation, since the 3D models do not appear to conserve energy – a basic requirement in virtually any physical modelling enterprise. Some of the CMIP3 models’ deep ocean temperature changes in apparent contradiction to whether the climate system is being radiative forced from above. Since the 3D models do not include a changing geothermal heat flux, this suggests a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. (Three of the 13 models we examined cooled most of deep ocean since 1955, despite increasing energy input from above. How does that happen?)
…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/our-initial-comments-on-the-abraham-et-al-critique-of-the-spencer-braswell-1d-model/
‘Richard Betts has an interesting comment re 2 degrees, excerpt: I see the ‘2 degree limit’ as rather like a speed limit on a road – both are set by policymakers on the basis of a number of considerations.’
Yes, a silly decision of the Copenhagen conference. What was needed was an agreed definition of climate sensitivity. Instead we got the integral of that which made no sense.
‘This weekend, I am listening to the talks at the Rotman Institute Conference on Knowledge and Models in Climate Science: Philosophical, Historical and Scientific Perspectives.’
I think it highly unlikely that anyone will propose a solution to the problem of the validation of cl[mate models. The modellers don’t seem to have a solution.
As I said, in response to your above comment on this, you haven’t substantiated your statement that the statement I quoted is correct. Show me the figures to support the statement:
As I recall from when I was working on hydro projects all over the world in the 1970s and 1980s, hydro was a higher proportion of total electricity generation than it is now and the capacity was increasing faster as a proportion of total electricity generation than it is now. So, unless you can provide figures showing that hydro generating capacity as a proportion of total electricity generating capacity is growing faster now than ever before, I still say the claim of “unprecedented boom in hydropower dam construction is underway” is BS. The hydro boom was in the 1950s to 1970s. it will not be repeated – at least not on planet earth :).
Regarding the article on hydro, many of the proposed new dams are in Brazil and are controversial. Many millions of acres of rain forest and tribal lands will be flooded. The Tapajos river, site of the next massive dam, is the last major undammed river in the Amazon Basin. Ponder that for a moment.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/04/us-brazil-indians-idUSBRE95310C20130604
On this path, many indigenous peoples and cultures will be damaged, if not wiped out. Note that the Indigenous people are, in the main, the last defenders of the forest. The Gold miners, beef ranchers, palm oil and soy farmers all want to burn it down in the dark of night so that they can proceed unimpeded. The Indians will shoot intruders on site (bola na pena – a shot in the arse), most of whom are on Indian lands with evil intent. The NGOs are sitting on their duffs while the Indians fight the good fight. Once the Indians are gone, you can kiss the rain forest goodbye.
There is no free lunch.
So the WaPo has hired Chris Mooney, son of two professors and a Yale graduate. He abhors conservatives and Republicans, whom he bashes mercilessly in his book “The Republican Mind…” and other writings. Krugman likes him. Surprise! More biased news from the MSM coming your way.
Should anyone want to read a credible book about violence, I recommend Steven Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our Nature”.
Mooney has done a lot of fawning, credulous, softball interviews with Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes and Steven Lewindowsky for the Point of Inquiry and Inquiring Minds podcasts. He’s also big on whining about “false balance” in the media.
Waiting for article titled “There’s A Surprisingly Strong Link Between Govt.-Funded Climate Studies And Refusal To Release Data”.
The decadal variations of the AMOC obtained in that way are shown to precede the observed decadal variations in basin-wide North Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST), known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which strongly impacts societally important quantities such as Atlantic hurricane activity and Sahel rainfall. The future evolution of the AMO is forecast using the AMOC reconstructed up to 2010. The present warm phase of the AMO is predicted to continue until the end of the next decade, but with a negative tendency.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smeed-fig-7.png
So here is the missing mechanism for the AMO – it relates to AMOC which in turns is linked to changes in the Arctic Oscillation – which itself is linked to solar activity.
There is the other big news – in which the structure of the atmosphere is modelled by bouncing balls with a Boltzmann velocity distribution at a few degrees above absolute zero.
http://in-the-sky.org/physics/balls.php
Which can entirely be described by –
Total energy = m.g.h + 1/2.m.V^2
There is an intuitively *proven* corollary – the FOMBS corollary – that kinetic energy is constant at every height.
BREAKING Climate Etc NEWS
Prominent Skeptic Moves Toward the Consensus
Now yer grasping it, Rob Ellison!
Exercise Now imagine that the internal radioactivity of the earth has been turned-off, and the sun’s radiation has been turned off, and furthermore the temperature of the interstellar black-body radiation has adjusted upwards from 4K to 50K (to match the now-vanished solar constant).
Remark To a good approximation, the velocity and rotation of the earth can be left as-is (that is, Doppler and relativistic effects are neglected).
Then we have:
The FOMD Corollary The equilibrium temperature distribution of of the atmosphere is isothermal — that is, the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect is utterly absent.
Needless to say, on this boring planet there is no wind and no weather … `cuz nothing of thermodynamical consequence ever happens at all.
It has been a pleasure to assist your thermodynamical understanding, Rob Ellison.
Kudos to astrophysicist Dominic Ford for a magnificent hard-sphere scattering simulation that concretely illustrates these key thermodynamical principles!
Off topic, but if I apply the equipartition principle to Dominic Ford’s bouncing balls simulation, I end up with a gravito-thermal effect.
a fan of *MORE* discourse: The equilibrium temperature distribution of of the atmosphere is isothermal
That would be what temperature, about 2.5K? With radiant energy input from the sun, the round, rotating Earth isn’t going to be in equilibrium.
Matthew R Marler: “That would be what temperature, about 2.5K? With radiant energy input from the sun, the round, rotating Earth isn’t going to be in equilibrium.”
He had made special assumptions earlier in the post. “Now imagine that the internal radioactivity of the earth has been turned-off, and the sun’s radiation has been turned off, […]
This was a followup on a discussion about the hypothetical gravito-thermal effect at equilibrium. It’s not a discussion of the actual climate-system.
willb: “Off topic, but if I apply the equipartition principle to Dominic Ford’s bouncing balls simulation, I end up with a gravito-thermal effect.”
How so? Each separate particle kind (with different masses) has its own Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of speed, and also its own vertical density distribution. So, it’s normal to have a some separation according to molecular mass. That’s not a gravito-thermal effect, since all speed distributions (and hence average kinetic energies) are independent of height.
Pierre-Normand, I suppose it would be better to discuss this on an open thread, but here is what I get when I (qualitatively) apply the equipartition principle to Dominic Ford’s 2-dimensional bouncing balls simulation:
1. The simulation is limited to two degrees of freedom – horizontal motion and vertical motion.
2. At any given height H, when Dominic’s “atoms” are in thermodynamic equilibrium, equipartition says that their kinetic energy in the horizontal direction is equal to their kinetic energy in the vertical direction.
3. In the horizontal direction, the mean atom velocity is zero ==> therefore all kinetic energy is thermal energy.
4. In the vertical direction, the mean atom velocity is shifted by gravity in the downward direction (i.e away from zero) ==> therefore some portion of the vertical KE is no longer thermal energy.
5. At height H + Δh, some of the non-thermal vertical KE is ‘lost’ to PE. To re-balance horizontal and vertical KE and maintain equilibrium under equipartition, a portion of horizontal KE must be converted to vertical KE.
6. Transferring horizontal KE, which is thermal energy, to vertical KE, which is not all thermal energy, reduces the temperature of the atoms at H + Δh.
7. The loss of thermal energy continues as height increases, resulting in a non-zero lapse rate due to gravity even though the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium.
So my conclusion is ==> The equipartition principle implies there is in fact a gravito-thermal effect in Dominic’s bouncing balls simulation.
willb
+1
The key part in Pekka’s paper is this:
“Expressed in other words, the above derivation shows how it’s possible that the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of the same temperature can be valid at all altitudes in spite of the fact that the vertical motion of the molecules is affected by the gravitation. The result is dependent on the mathematical form of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution through the equation (5), whose simple form is true specifically for the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution of the vertical velocity. In this specific case the gravitational acceleration, the density profile and the influence of the initial vertical velocities of the molecules combine to maintain the stationary density and temperature profiles.”
Why are we even discussing this? It is of exactly zero relevance.
For the vast majority of people who read this blog, there is no doubt that CO2 affects forcings. Getting sidetracked with nutcases who don’t believe in physics is not helpful to either “side.” It merely avoids addressing the real questions, and gives CAGW advocates ammunition in painting those who are skeptical of imminent catastrophe as loonies.
Catastrophists consistently engage with nonsense like this, probably because it is easier than addressing the real scientific issues. Unfortunately, it reinforces the perception that they are driven more by a desired belief than any actual concern for science.
fizzymagic, “Why are we even discussing this? It is of exactly zero relevance.”
Why does Fan and DC discuss anything :)
Pierre-Normand: He had made special assumptions earlier in the post.
Thanks,
My bad.
Hi willb,
“5. At height H + Δh, some of the non-thermal vertical KE is ‘lost’ to PE. To re-balance horizontal and vertical KE and maintain equilibrium under equipartition, a portion of horizontal KE must be converted to vertical KE.”
You are correct that if you follow a population of particles *that* all can climb from H to H+Δh, then some non-thermal energy is lost to the potential. However this does not result in a reduction of the Maxwell speed *distribution* for the particles at H+Δh compared with H. The reason is that many particles don’t have enough kinetic energy to make it from H to H+Δh. And there also is a skewing effect from the time that it takes particles of different velocities to sweep the volume from H to Δh. This drop off rate is consistent with the vertical exponential density distribution predicted by the barometric formula. It’s indeed a direct result of the Boltzmann distribution for PE = m*g*H. Those considerations have the effect of skewing the vertical velocity distribution back up to the same distribution for horizontal velocities, and ensure an isothermal speed distribution.
For three different formal demonstrations (from kinetic theory, stochastic, and from the Bolzmann distribution in phase-space) you can consult sections B, C and D of this paper:
On the barometric formula, Am. J. Phys., May 1997
http://web.ist.utl.pt/ist12219/data/43.pdf
Also quite useful for anchoring intuitions, this paper by Pekka:
Kinetic gas theory for gas in gravitational field
http://pirila.fi/energy/kuvat/barometric_derivation.pdf
pierre-normand. “In spite of its simplicity, namely the assumption of constant temperature, it applies reasonably well to the lower troposphere ~for altitudes up to 6 km,”
A small gravito-thermal effect is not the same as no gravitio-thermal effect. In a real atmosphere, escape velocity limits the energy of the smallest atoms contained in the system. By containing the system and reducing the size of the system, you just make the effect you are looking for more negligible.
With the luxury of infinite time, no rotation, perfect enclosures and ideal gases you can reach an ideal isothermal speed distribution, but it won’t change the price of tea in China.
Ideally, dT=lambda*dF, if you have infinite time.
captdalas: “A small gravito-thermal effect is not the same as no gravitio-thermal effect. In a real atmosphere, escape velocity limits the energy of the smallest atoms contained in the system.”
Even if there were a non-isothermal equilibrium solution for the atmosphere, I doubt it would have any relevance to the powerful radiative and convective effects that drive the (very far out of thermodynamical equilibrium) density and temperature profiles. As FOMD suggested, we’d need to shut down the Sun for any such effect to have any chance of being manifested after a very long time. Further, Maxwell and Boltzmann themselves argued more than a century ago that any such effect would likely violate the second law and allow for a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.
Pierre-Normand, ” I doubt it would have any relevance to the powerful radiative and convective effects that drive the (very far out of thermodynamical equilibrium) density and temperature profiles. ”
It doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Kinda the point. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and occasionalyl rear its ugly head in the likes of principa scientifica.
Hi Pierre-Normand,
Just to be clear, I’m not implying that my argument has any relevance to the real atmosphere. I’m only suggesting that Dominic Ford’s simulation is not an ironclad proof of isothermal equilibrium in a gravity field, as FOMD implied. Having said that:
The particles that don’t climb to H+Δh will reduce the particle density at the new height, but because their velocity distribution is identical to the rest of the particles in their “bin”, their failure to climb won’t affect the temperature.
willb wrote: “Just to be clear, I’m not implying that my argument has any relevance to the real atmosphere. I’m only suggesting that Dominic Ford’s simulation is not an ironclad proof of isothermal equilibrium in a gravity field, as FOMD implied.”
Yes, I understood that .
“The particles that don’t climb to H+Δh will reduce the particle density at the new height, but because their velocity distribution is identical to the rest of the particles in their “bin”, their failure to climb won’t affect the temperature.”
Since it’s the particles that can climb to some height above H, though they can’t go to H+Δh, that we are considering, it follows that their KE is very small at that height. That’s because it is such that KE < m*g*Δh. So, they certainly do contribute to the overall velocity distribution in the volume [H, H+Δh] as particles that occupy the lowest possible (v_z^2/2) energy state. But they don't participate to the flux across the surface z = H+Δh. This definitely skews the z velocity distribution up from the level H to the next level. Check my previous references for more details. There also is a relevant set of hyperphysics pages. (Go for the four links after: "we have a description of an ideal gas system which can be used to help develop a plausibility argument for the Maxwell velocity distribution.")
Development of the Boltzmann Distribution
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c5
Pierre-Normand: “…it follows that their KE is very small at that height.”
Not true. You are talking about the set of particles whose velocity vector is primarily in the horizontal direction. These particles do not have a small KE. They have the same KE distribution as particles whose velocity vector lies along any other direction in 2-D space.
willb wrote: “Not true. You are talking about the set of particles whose velocity vector is primarily in the horizontal direction. These particles do not have a small KE. They have the same KE distribution as particles whose velocity vector lies along any other direction in 2-D space.”
Yes, you are absolutely right. I had completely overlooked that. Thanks a lot. That’s my own fault, though. I’ll review the arguments in my references to see how it affects my understanding of them. It doesn’t seem to bear at all on the statistical derivation from the Boltzmann distribution law, though. That’s the one in the American Journal of Physics paper, section D.
Pierre-Normand, thanks for the interesting discussion. If you wish to continue, perhaps we should wait for an open thread?
“Pierre-Normand, thanks for the interesting discussion. If you wish to continue, perhaps we should wait for an open thread?”
Thanks to you! That’s a wise advice.
‘The equations (1), (2) and (3) represent the stationarity requirement that particles located in certain volume with certain velocities will at a later moment be replaced by an equal number of other particles which have the same velocities when the influence of gravity on velocity is taken into account. It’s shown that the isothermal atmosphere with Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution and barometric vertical density profile satisfies this requirement.’ http://pirila.fi/energy/kuvat/barometric_derivation.pdf
So Pekka finds that the molecules at any height in the gravity field of Earth have a Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution. We may assume therefore that the bouncing balls have an M-B velocity distribution at any height.
The energy of a bouncing ball is –
TE = KE + PE
and the energy of the balls at any height is the summation of the energies of the balls.
The strong claim is that average KE is constant at any height and the weak proof is that there is a M-B distribution.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/m-b1.png
Evaluated in one dimension.
It is certainly not true in the Earth environment where there is a temperature gradient. Velocities can be calculated at ground level and average Earth temperature – and at some height and lower temperature.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c3
The mean velocity is less at height and the distribution around it uniformly lower. It is quite obvious that the mean velocities and therefore the mean KE is far from constant with height.
Can it possibly work however for moon molecular projectiles – or bouncing balls? Frankly – who gives a rat’s arse. It is an example only of a thought bubble that has no basis but verbiage and is used as a rhetorical riff on inferior denier science.
Exercise Now imagine that the internal radioactivity of the earth has been turned-off, and the sun’s radiation has been turned off, and furthermore the temperature of the interstellar black-body radiation has adjusted upwards from 4K to 50K (to match the now-vanished solar constant).
Remark To a good approximation, the velocity and rotation of the earth can be left as-is (that is, Doppler and relativistic effects are neglected).
Then we have:
The FOMD Corollary The equilibrium temperature distribution of of the atmosphere is isothermal — that is, the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect is utterly absent.
Needless to say, on this boring planet there is no wind and no weather … `cuz nothing of thermodynamical consequence ever happens at all.
It has been a pleasure to assist your thermodynamical understanding, Rob Ellison.
Kudos to astrophysicist Dominic Ford for a magnificent hard-sphere scattering simulation that concretely illustrates these key thermodynamical principles!
The equilibrium temperature without energy inputs from the Sun would be the background temperature of the solar system and isothermal is of course a change in the system without a temperature change. Thermal equilibrium implies no change at it has nothing at all to say about any mooted gravito-thermal effect.
And we may of course neglect Doppler and relativistic effects.
It all just reinforces the observation that it is not about rational science or communication at all – but some mad riff using random scientific jargon – who can forget the symplectic manifold of the Hamiltonian – to posture about inferior denier science.
“So Pekka finds that the molecules at any height in the gravity field of Earth have a Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution.”
No. He has merely shown that a Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution is *consistent* with an isothermal atmosphere (with identical molecules) and a static barometric density profile. This is something that you have denied was possible on the ground that (allegedly) a gas can’t have a lower density, the same average molecular kinetic energy, and yet the same temperature. So, Pekka has shown what you thought to be impossible to be possible.
‘The equations (1), (2) and (3) represent the stationarity requirement that particles located in certain volume
with certain velocities will at a later moment be replaced by an equal number of other particles which have
the same velocities when the influence of gravity on velocity is taken into account. It’s shown that the isothermal atmosphere with Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution and barometric vertical density profile
satisfies this requirement.’
The particles in any volume have a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. In the atmosphere there is a pressure profile.
In a box at the classical limit?
‘Turning to the larger scale, the density is a state variable of a gas and the change in density during a process is governed by the laws of thermodynamics. Actual molecules of a gas are incredibly small. In one cubic meter the number of molecules is about ten to the 23rd power. (That’s 1 followed by 23 zero’s !!!) For a static gas, the molecules are in a completely random motion. Because there are so many molecules, and the motion of each molecule is random, the value of the density is the same throughout the container.’ http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/BGH/fluden.html
Sorry – I have indulged your bizarre ratiocination and gross misrepresentations sufficiently.
Rob Ellison wrote: “Sorry”
Apology accepted.
Peter
Yes, that’s interesting. I am aware that there are a number of ageing dams-such as the Kariba-some of which may not receive the maintenance they warrant and which could cause havoc if they failed
I note that the world bank is quite keen to fund hydro electric projects even though they may not be the optimal power generation source for that situation, as certain types of possibly more practical sources-such as coal fired would not be looked on favourably.
tonyb
David Rose has an article in the Sunday Mail: How a shadowy network funded by foreign millions is making our household energy bills soar – for a low carbon Britain
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807849/EXPOSED-shadowy-network-funded-foreign-millions-making-household-energy-bills-soar-low-carbon-Britain.html
I would like to hear from the resident Brits – what do you guys make of this?
jim2
In 2009 I wrote this artr8cle which looked at the UK politics of climate change
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/#comments
Roses’ article mirrors my comments about the close involvement of the Greens and how they had access to every level of Government.
As it is five years old no doubt some of the links wont be working, but I cite Parliamentary Committees that they had direct access to and they also had links into the BBC.
It was Tony Blair who really set about making a name for himself as the climate saviour of the West backed up by his DECC secretary Ed Milliband now leader of the Opposition.
David Cameron took up the green mantle and only 3 or 4 MP’s voted against the climate change Act.
Yes, our fuel has become very expensive to the detriment of individuals and business. Yes, our power supplies are precarious due to our obsession with barely useable renewables. Solar farms in the UK? Come off it, how mad is that?
As for ‘shadowy figures It seems to me this has been a quite open attempt by the Greens to impose their views.
If I spotted it and wrote on it five years ago its hardly shadowy albeit a bit frightening how such people can seize the levers of power despite having a tiny share of the popular vote
tonyb
Thanks for that commentary, Tony. I fear the same is happening now in the US.
“…Tony. I fear the same is happening now in the US.”
—–
Fear is the operative word hear. Exactly what Mr. Rose hoped for.
He makes the point in contrast that GWPF is the only skeptic organization, but has only UKP 300k and 3 people. If that was such a good idea, why so poorly supported? Makes you think. Also lobbying money is not quite the same as paying politicians in the UK. That is a fine art in the US through election-campaign money, which has no UK equivalent. Lobbying can only make a case to the politicians and public, and the politicians can think for themselves what to do without financial penalty.
If abstinence has such a great health benefit why is it so poorly supported? If the perfect diet is vegan, why is it so poorly supported?
Another nice job of fear-mongering by Mr. Rose. He’s very good at it, and of course sets up the GWPF as the little chap battling the vast Green Blog. Quite a good bit of fiction.
Rgates
Fiction in what way? I have been offering to swap energy bills with you for two years.
tonyb
Tony,
Looks like fracking is gearing up in GB, so you”ll enjoy those benefits for a while. But yes, Mr. Rose is spreading irrational fear of the “Green Blob” as it plays well on the high energy bills and anger about that. You and others are putty in Mr. Rose’s hands.
R. Gates – Green Blob denier.
The Green Blob will get you!!! Run for your wallets!!!
Rgates
Putty or potty?
tonyb
It is well known in the US that corporations and the rich lobby politicians by taking them to outings, wining and dining them, and paying for their campaigns.
But why do British politicians do what these rich people and groups want? Do the British really want high energy bills?
Jim2 – “But why do British politicians do what these rich people and groups want? Do the British really want high energy bills?”
Because those rich people give them money and the NGOs give them money, political foot soldiers, communication networks (mailing lists, twitter followers, blogs), and, best of all, votes.
This is what holds the whole thing in place. The only hope is that the people will read their energy bills, look at the life styles of the rich and connected, and feel that cognitive dissonance.
Jim2
Lobbying by rich people is not common as the press are very savage here.i think it comes down to a genuine case of morality, the. Govt really think they are
A) being of benefit to the planet
B ) doing something that will get them kudos and votes
B has turned out to be a chimera but politicians are very reluctant to step back, put their hands up and admit they were wrong. We see it everyday with ludicrous EU policies, defence of the daft Euro, and sticking to an energ policy which has few benefits except to make the left feel good.
Our energy is very expensive and because the EU has forced us to close down coal fired power stations etc, we are very very close to the total remainng energy capacity of our remaining power stations.
Britain was the first to enact a legally binding climate change act and has always thought it was a world leader in giving a good example. Don’t forget that the US didn’t even sign the Kyoto treaty and untill Obama renewed action in the lat year or two wasn’t really a world player let alone a leader.
Many people are in fuel poverty and prices continue to rise. Solar is daft in our situation and wind is so intermittent it can’t be relied on.there are a couple of nuclear power stations on order but the greens will make it very difficult to build them.
The govt has been trying to back pedal in recent months but it will still leave us with a parlours energy situation together with sky high prices.
Tonyb
tony – from what you say, it appears the press there is still a watch dog on the government. Our press is in the tank for the left, and doesn’t report faithfully the goings-on in the Obola Whitehouse.
On top of that and lot’s of other problems here, three of the Supreme Court justices think it’s A-OK not to positively identify people who want to vote in our elections. I’m not having a good feeling about the direction of the USA.
Jim2
Our tabloids are still to be feared.
My observations on the US , and I do not claim to be an expert but would suspect I would be closer to the democrats than the republicans, is that Obama has been the most ineffective president in my lifetime.
He seems unable to project American power and the west is rudderless.he seems incapable of putting together a strategy and making Big decisions when it matters.
So perhaps he sees the opportunity to be a world leader in climate change as some sort of substitute for not being a world leader on the international stage of politics, where real people bloodily kill each other, as opposed to the chimera of climate computer games where talk is cheap.
Tonyb
From the article:
…
Two of her former bosses, CBS Evening News executive producers Jim Murphy and Rick Kaplan, called her a “pit bull.”
That was when Sharyl was being nice.
Now that she’s no longer on the CBS payroll, this pit bull is off the leash and tearing flesh off the behinds of senior media and government officials. In her new memoir/exposé “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” (Harper), Attkisson unloads on her colleagues in big-time TV news for their cowardice and cheerleading for the Obama administration while unmasking the corruption, misdirection and outright lying of today’s Washington political machine.
…
http://nypost.com/2014/10/25/former-cbs-reporter-explains-how-the-liberal-media-protects-obama/
“It is well known in the US that corporations and the rich lobby politicians by taking them to outings, wining and dining them, and paying for their campaigns.”
—
Duh. That’s because the U.S. is a Plutocracy and that’s how a Plutocracy works. Of course the unwashed masses still wave their flags, send their young off to die for corporate profits and generally believe they still live in a Democracy– and that’s what makes the Plutocracy so much more effective.
Jim2,
You should rather hope for strict carbon policies are further enacted in GB and that the US follows suit. If this results in higher energy prices that will be the only way for the electorate to understand their own perspective on Climate Change and that there will be a price to pay. If green energy fails to deliver and nuclear is amped up the costs and effects will soon follow. A few winters of power outages and electric bills surpassing the Brits (or US) pocketbooks will provide a wake up call. Since I support that general direction I see it as a good thing. People need to see there is a price to pay. If we are really serious about a Cimate Change in energy usage then we better put up or shut up. If the experiment fails the people will have a reality check and stop relying on the ghost rhetoric of politicians.
Conservatives brainwashed by green lobbyists to support their policies? hmm.. Interesting..
Joseph
David Cameron, in opposition, thought it would be a vote catcher as green was highly fashionable.
Here he is in the arctic where he was taken by …er…WWF
http://blogs.wwf.org.uk/blog/business-government/green-economy/where-has-husky-hugging-david-cameron-gone/
Tonyb
hmm.. Interesting..
hmm.. interesting …is a signature of sorts
What does hmm interesting mean in this case mosh?
Tonyb
It’s puzzling to me how a supposedly pro-business party could be bamboozled by green lobbyists, Surely they have lobbyists from the other side to listen to.
Joseph
If you look at Cameron’s face on the photo, and bearing in mind who invited him there, I would say he was inspired by idealism which was in tune with the times. Don’t forget it was before the financial crash when many thought we could afford to be green.
Tonyb
I was referring back to the article and clarifying for Steven, if he didn’t understand what I was saying.
Tony & Joseph, I’ve always considered Cameron to be “Blair-lite.” He seems to have little in the way of core beliefs and tends to take the trendy option, as he did with alleged CAGW. He tends to stray towards left of centre while his traditional Conservative supporters tend to be well right of centre. Not someone I would vote for, not because of his particular stances but because of his lack of substance.
From Wikipedia:
From Peiser
The best part of this is Peiser’s insistence that he’s deeply concerned about alarmism.
Peiser’s as good at unintentional irony as are Don and Chief.
tony. joseph exhibits interesting and somewhat unique verbal patterns, thought patterns, and engagement styles.
more study required.
Faustino
Absolutely correct. In fact Cameron called himself the ‘heir to Blair’ to the dismay of traditional Tories.
I would call him a Chameleon politician in as much his colour changes according to the circumstances he finds himself in.
Deep Green policies are unpopular at present due to their perceived cost and environmental damage and inefficiency. I couldn’t see him pulling his Husky stunt in the present circumstances.
tonyb
Tonyb,
Not good enough. Work harder! Should be: ‘Green policies are viewed as repugnant.’
Report back when done. :)
Peter
To get policies from ‘un-popular’ to ‘repugnant’ I will need a very big grant. Very, very big.
Who should I apply to?
tonyb
Tony B,
Have you tried Nick Clegg?
Nowadays, if you want denialism in the UK, I think you are looking at UKIP.
To expand on TonyB’s comments, it is worth considering the history and structure of the British electorate, to understand why all our mainstream parties at least pay lip service to green politics.
The (formerly) industrial north of England traditionally vote Labour with barely a thought. Additional strength comes from those areas of Scotland and Wales where the Nationalist parties do not hold sway.
The more affluent areas of rural England and large parts of the south vote Conservative with barely a though (at least prior to the rise of UKIP).
There are relatively few (perhaps in the order of 50) Constituencies that are really in play between the two main parties at any General Election, most of which are urban or suburban and populated primarily by middle class professionals (i.e. me and those like me). It is accepted by both Parties that these voters are generally in favour of (in no particular order):
Relatively low taxes
Free market economics
Nationalised health care
Socially liberal policies (i.e. agaisnt discrimination on the grounds of nationality, race, sexuality etc)
Policies that are good for the Environment.
Now, whether the voters really are interested in all of these is a different discussion – recent surveys suggest that immigration has become a significant political issue in the UK, while envirionmental concerns usually come out as being amongst the lowest of voters concerns.
Obviously, some of these policy areas fall more clearly within the realms of the Conservatives (ecomnomics and tax) and others within the realms of Labour (NHS, social equality), so each party invests much of their time trying to demonstrate that their credentials in their weaker areas are strong enough for them to be a credible Government. Because the battleground is so narrow, we have ended up with leaders like Blair and Cameron, who occupy almost identical political positions despite leading parties where the members are a long way (respectively) to the left and right of them and their governments. Of course, Blair and Cameron also have the similarity of being rather ‘style over substance’.
This is one of the reasons whiy in the UK, and indeed much of the rest of Europe, climate change is not a significant party political issue, unlike with the USA.
as an unwashed mass, I can’t help but comment
about John Cook
“this course examines science of climate change denial”
oh great, a new junk science
I can’t believe anyone takes this seriously
SkS puts up a post and 2 people comment
CE gets 300 comments before noon (most of them readable and informative)
Some one here noticed how poorly most CAGW proponents express themselves, so true, with the exception of a few who comment here
SkS is unreadable
the 6 people who comment there produce one long winded logic pretzel after another
the nuclear bomb counter is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen
he turned me into a denier (and I haven’t gotten better)
thanks CE for allowing me to vent
Dr. Curry
in light of the new and exciting science of climate change denial
and since we now know that climate change causes violence
I think the only responsible thing for you to do is to provide a listing of climate change denier support groups on Climate Etc., at least in the US
perhaps Tonyb can provide a list for the UK and Faustino for Downunder
“hi, my name is John and I deny climate change”
Kim, I think, is too far gone and requires individual managed care
John
I am happy to confirm I offer a full UK wide denier support service which is available for a monthly retainer and a very reasonable daily fee (well its not really reasonable but I don’t want to scare away potential clients )
tonyb
Ha! :)
New paper on AOD for the past decade.
Hit the go button
Reference
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/14/26619/2014/acpd-14-26619-2014.pdf
Don”t know to what extent some are still touting Chinese aerosol as the explanation for the hiatus but this paper seems to suggest globally that aerosol levels have dropped over the 2001-2010 decade, all things being equal that should lead to warming I think.
WMO say the current 2012 global average temperature is 14.45 °C.
Can anyone answer how high temperature it will be if it has increased 2 C from preindustrial level, which is 1750. I have seen different numbers on how much it has increased since preindustrial level. Has ippc got a clear measure. It wuold be nice to know when we reach the acopalypse.
14.45 C, are you sure that is all the significant digits :)
I wonder what is the significant digits. Most papers operate with an increase og 8.5 C from preindustrial time until today. But the timing of preindustrial can be different. Most often 1850 or 1880. By then there had already been an increase in CO2. When I checked Hadcrut i found an increase of ca 7,2 C from 1880 to 2013. I think all this is not very well defined and rather confusing. There was very little temperature change between 1750 and 1880, So I think I can assume that an increase of 8,5 C from 1750 is the best digit. Then the huge global crisis come when we reach a global average temperature of 15,6 C if we shall believe som experts.
Link for global average temperature: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/global-temperatures-2012
Sorry. Some commas misplaced. It shall of course be 0,85 C and 0,72 C .
“PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, often considered one of the most influential people in Silicon Valley, said Tuesday that he is skeptical of man-made global warming because many refuse to allow debate the subject.”
And the same geniuses who are wondering why the public isn’t panicking about AGW are wondering why they are panicking about ebola.
Hi Judith,
This was an interesting article (free on PLOS)
Citation: Ioannidis JPA (2014) How to Make More Published Research True. PLoS Med 11(10): e1001747. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747
Thanks michael, i have flagged this paper.
social science continues to, ahem, evolve:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/montana-election-mailer-state-seal-stanford-dartmouth-professors
They apparently decided it would be fun to “research” what happens when they try to affect the results of an election. And they forged the state seal on their materials. Lovely.
“Their research experiment, which involved sending official-looking flyers to 100,000 Montana voters just weeks before Election Day, is now the subject of an official state inquiry that could lead to substantial fines against them or their schools.”
I wonder how many “science supporters” who comment here will want to know which party this aided before they commit to calling this unethical. The link is to a left-wing advocacy publication, by the way, and the anonymous quote they got in support of the “study” is priceless. The good news is that as of this morning, most of the commenters were appalled by the study.
The defending quote from the link: “I would say, just looking at the country at large, is the great threat to the integrity of our process good social science or is it the Koch brothers?”
Some on the left have such a deluded view of reality that their judgment simply can’t be trusted.
This study about as ethical and moral as using real people in crash tests because dummies aren’t realistic enough.
It is impossible that people could conceive of such a study unless they are operating in an ethical and moral vacuum.
And it was approved by the universities AND it got $350,000 in grant money so presumably it was approved by the granting agency.
The path that government and academic “science” is following is such that it won’t be long before the default assumption among the intelligent will be to ignore anything that comes out of it. For the left, this will be a way to avoid embarrassment while on the right it’s just plain common sense.
Bjorn Lomborg critices EU Agreement
10X RD&D will cost << than Subsidies!
Here is a fine little essay on Green ideology and the US war on coal: http://www.rightsidenews.com/2014102735030/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/epas-energy-requiem-for-the-common-man.html#/
Cost effective PV
Grameen Shakti shows that some solar pv for the poor is better than no electricity at all. They ave now reached 13% or 20 million people! Now to make dispatchable solar cheaper than coal electricity. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/25/solar-energy-revolution-everyones-ignoring-bangladesh/
Dr. Curry,
The FEC wants to regulate speech on Climate Etc., and your speech as a public figure.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/27/FEC-Chairman-DEM-FEC-Proposal-Would-Regulate-Public-Figures
“The Federal Election Commission Chairman, Lee Goodman, told Sirius-XM Patriot Channel’s David Webb recently that not only would every free political website posting be government regulated under fellow commissioner Amanda Ravel’s proposal, but public figures who give their opinions would also fall under the FEC’s purview.”
As a blog dedicated to discussing the “climate science and the science-policy interface,” you and your blog apparently need the guiding hand of government. Or so say the progressives/Democrats on the FEC.
Maybe you should start making political contributions to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
“Nice blog ya got here. Be a shame anything happened to it.”
Weather forecasts will become far more accurate, the Met Office has promised after it announced a new £97 million ‘supercomputer’ that it suggested will even bring an end to getting caught in the rain without an umbrella.
The Met Office said that from September it will be able to give forecasts six days ahead instead of the current four and calculate temperatures for the next 24 hours with up to 90 per cent accuracy. Currently, it can only do so for 12 hours.
Using one of the world’s most powerful computers — paid for by the government — scientists will analyse data once an hour, rather than every six hours, to give the most accurate predictions so far.
The Met Office hopes it will improve the forecasting of extreme events such as the floods at Boscastle in 2004 or the Somerset Level deluge last winter. “We’re pushing the boundaries of what’s possible,” said Rob Varley, the chief executive at the Met Office.
The Met Office has faced criticism in the past for its inaccurate forecasts, such as when Michael Fish wrongly dismissed the 1987 hurricane that killed 19 people.
After the 2007 prediction of a “barbecue summer” ended in a soggy washout, the Met Office pointed out that its seasonal forecast offered only a 65 per cent chance of being right.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/11191480/Met-Office-pledges-reliable-weather-forecasts-with-supercomputer.html
Faustino
I was sort of in at the start of this when I was a representative on the Environment Agency’s Flood defence committee for the South West during the Boscastle event for which the MO had to answer some awkward questions
The problem -particularly here in the West Country-is that we have many steep sided valleys, often with a river at the bottom.
Land use changes, fallen trees and heavy rain circulating round the valley can deposit vast quantities of water over a small area and a short time scale. Goggle Lynmouth flood.
The problem in both these events is that the cell of bad weather was too small to be picked up by conventional means. Hopefully this will change with the new computer.
The Met Office forecasts have a great problem with the many micro climates we experience here.
I am 15 miles from the Met Office which can forecast a poor day for my part of the coast which keeps the tourists away and often proves to be wrong for us.
I often go to the Met Office library and archives so its a great respouce for me and very important to the local economy. Mind you, you could buy an awful lot of Sinclair ZX81’s for £100 Million
tonyb
This is entertaining.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/27/republicans-climate-change_n_6057500.html
Jim D commented
Let’s not forget Al Gore intentionally made a movie showing how big a fool he is.
That was a redundant effort by the “Father of the Internet”.
I’ve have family in Tennessee and his reputation precedes him.
National Grid has warned that its capacity to supply electricity this winter will be at a seven-year low due to generator closures and breakdowns. Spare electricity capacity, which ran at about 5% over the winter months last year, would be nearer 4% this year, National Grid said. Three years ago the margin was 17%. But National Grid said it has contingency plans in place to manage supply, including paying big firms to switch off on cold winter evenings.
Professor Jim Watson of the UK Energy Research Centre, said: “I think it’s… very unlikely we will see blackouts in the UK, but what it does mean, this tight situation, is that lots and lots of extra measures are having to be layered on top of an already complicated policy framework.”
National Grid’s assessment, made in its 2014/15 Winter Outlook report, is based on similar demand to last winter but a fall in supply, due to generators closing and breaking down, and new plants not coming online quickly enough to replace them. Since 2012, 15 power plants have been closed or partially closed, taking out a large chunk of the UK’s energy-generating capacity.
In the event of disruption of Russian gas supplies to Europe, National Grid said more expensive gas could be imported. This would only happen in the “most extreme scenario”, it said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29794632
Just unearthed a letter I had in The Australian in June 2009. Still pertinent!
Alex Gardner trusts the IPCC, but notes that from 2001 to 2007 that body reduced by half its estimate of one major impact on global temperature. If the IPCC can make such a big adjustment in six years, how can it reliably estimate outcomes for 2100 AD? Science is never “settled”, and global warming processes are as yet little understood.
More global warming=climate change propaganda from npr: http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/10/28/353290458/as-great-barrier-reef-ails-australia-scrambles-to-save-it?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=atc&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2052
“The biggest one I see on a day-to-day basis is coral bleaching caused by climate change. So, just an increase of 2 degrees in water temperature causes all the algae to dispel from the coral,” he says. “That’s where we get the white corals. So if that doesn’t get resolved, the water temperature doesn’t sort itself out within six months, all the coral dies off.”
People (well climatologists anyway) don’t realise that the Second Law is about all forms of energy, not just the kinetic energy in molecules which gives them their temperature. The Second Law says thermodynamic equilibrium (not just thermal equilibrium) will evolve, and that includes mechanical equilibrium.
So, when a density gradient forms in a gravitational field that is an example of the Second Law in operation, and when a lake levels out again after rain falls on a small section of it, that also is the Second Law operating as entropy approaches the maximum level that is accessible within the constraints of the system.
I believe Josef Loschmidt (a brilliant physicist from the 19th century) realised this about the Second Law, and he deduced correctly that we need to consider the gravitational potential energy in molecules when determining the maximum entropy state, that is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that we only eliminate unbalanced energy potentials (maximising entropy) when the sum of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous. This means that there is always a propensity to form a temperature gradient in a gravitational field. However, radiating molecules do radiate to each other and have a temperature levelling effect that means that the overall state of thermodynamic equilibrium (taking this radiation into account) has a less steep gradient. In water it is almost eliminated, but not in Earth’s outer crust for example.
Now, the important point is that, when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained (being the same as what climatologists like to call hydrostatic equilibrium, even though they don’t really understand why it is equilibrium at all) then all net non-radiative heat transfer stops. If we add thermal energy at the bottom (for example, the Sun warms the Earth’s surface after dawn) then non-radiative heat flow starts again with net upward transfers. But if instead, we add new thermal energy at the top, as at dawn on Venus and Uranus, then new energy transfer starts again with a net downward direction, this being what I call “heat creep” up the temperature gradient. And this is what really supplies the necessary thermal energy to supplement the Sun’s energy entering Earth’s surface, not back radiation which can’t transfer thermal energy from a colder troposphere to a warmer surface.
Maybe this will help people understand. When we have thermodynamic equilibrium we have a temperature gradient in which, if we consider two horizontal planes of molecules separated by the mean free path, then the difference in mean KE equals the difference in gravitational PE. When a molecule with mean PE and KE at the top level moves downwards between the layers, by the time it collides with one on the lower level its KE has increased and its PE decreased so as to match one with mean KE and PE at the lower level. Hence when they collide they have the same KE and so the combined KE after the (assumed elastic) collision is the same as before, causing no further warming or cooling. The opposite happens for molecules moving upwards between the two planes. Hence we have thermodynamic equilibrium. And this also demonstrates why the density gradient is not altered once that same state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves, simply because there’s no further redistribution of KE during collisions.