by Judith Curry
Its your turn to introduce topics for discussion.
-
Search
Denizens
Recent comments
- jim2 on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- BA Bushaw (ganon1950) on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- jim2 on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- SCIENCE, CLIMATE, ENERGY AND POLITICAL NEWS ROUNDUP 2024 APRIL | wryheat on The extraordinary climate events of 2022-24
- Christos Vournas on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- BA Bushaw (ganon1950) on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Christos Vournas on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Jungletrunks on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Wagathon on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- antonk2 on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
-
Recent Posts
- How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- There is no human right to a safe or stable climate
- The extraordinary climate events of 2022-24
- Mann v. Steyn: Round 2
- IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph
- Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part 3
- Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part II
- JC’s ethics complaint against Michael Mann
- JC’s expert report
- Time to retire the term ‘renewable energy’ from serious discussion and energy policy directives
- Two model-observation comparisons confirm: CMIP6 models run too hot
- Mann vs Steyn and Simberg discussion thread
- 2023 –> 2024
- “Realistic” global warming projections for the 21st century
- Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing
Categories
Blogroll
- A chemist in Langley
- AndThenTheresPhysics
- Bill Hooke
- Cliff Mass
- Climate Audit
- Clive Best
- Ed Hawkins
- HeterodoxAcademy
- Kahn: Environmental & Urban Economics
- Paul Homewood
- Pragmatic Environmentalist
- Saravanan: MetaModel
- Science of Doom
- The Ethical Skeptic
- Watts Up With That?
- WoodForTrees
- Wx & Climate @ Reading
Archives
Email Subscription
Join 5,334 other subscribersMeta
I would like to see more views and evidence surrounding Tim Heller’s claims that NOAA/NCDC are manipulating past and current world temperature data. I would also like to see more about how the warmists can be so sure of the greenhouse gas effect of an increase in CO2. What studies quantify it?
The good folks at WUWT are addressing your concerns, daveandrews723!
Uh, we’re, still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz03p4ULD3c
Found a nutjob commenter on the internet! Good on ya FOMD! Saved you having to create a straw man.
The good folk at Common dreams also like to write goofy material:
“But now I know how to do everything, and I do it all if I want to. I grow a garden or buy local. I started a cottage industry that is 100% renewable, natural, can be organic, can be entirely local, and is a fiber product. I rarely drive. I have embraced my inner and outer peasant and am focusing on the basics ~ shelter, food, clothing, and my work. I keep the house cold and wear more clothes. I didn’t earn money for two years and will not have to pay taxes this year, either. I’ve blown through my savings, but there are perks….. I do have to drive sometimes, but I’m working on that, too….I don’t eat meat and haven’t for years, but I do eat eggs, and I feel lots better about my way in the world knowing that I’m not contributing to that cesspool of suffering and brutality of sentient beings that is the meat industry.”
This came from a really hilarious set of comments they were making about a video called “Disruption”. They ranged from goofy to disturbing, including comments from a survivalist+Marxist who claimed he was storing weapons and ammo.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/09/05/disruption-film-offers-grassroots-global-revolt-key-answer-climate-crisis
Everbody knows that fluoridation is the true cause of any warming that one might be seeing…..
Fan
Finally! Something to make me smile from one of your comments. How could that movie not make you smile.
There is one inarguable scientific fact regarding GHG. All else being equal, CO2 will trap heat in the atmosphere. This will then cause stratospheric cooling, as the heat is redistributed lower in the atmosphere.
Of course we have seen neither stratospheric cooling, nor tropsopheric warning for a couple of decades now, so “all else being equal” seems to be somewhat in doubt.
I don’t believe that “trap heat” is a good choice of words. GHG’s slow the rate at which heat will be radiated out of the atmosphere but they won’t keep it from happening. It would take a perfect insulator to do that and I don’t believe one yet exists.
I personally prefer “retain heat”, but you’re right about the “all else” part, it’s like the back end of an ants nest. The atmosphere is not an ideal gas.
Daveandrews,
There was a nice series of posts explaining the greenhouse effect on WUWT four years ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/
And regarding adjustments to surface temperature data, there is an informative blog post right here at Climate Etc:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
Dave, see essay When Data Isn’t in Blowing Smoke. Many examples from many countries, and very few from Tony Heller. The basic problem is in the homogenization algorithms. Footnote 24 goes into technical details concerning two of the fundamental flaws, with concrete examples.
Hey Rud Istvan, I assume you meant to say Footnote 25. Footnote 24 of that essay is a single sentence:
Whose link doesn’t even work. The post you intended to link to can be found here instead. You could even just fix the domain in the link:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/
Though that directs people to an monthly archive page with the title and introduction of the post. Users would have to click on another link to see the post itself.
Footnote 25 talks about the subject you mention here.
Brandon, old blog invited co-author, two points.
First, the ebook publisher was responsible for hyperlinks. Everything provided them worked when provided.
Second, far from the worst ‘typo’ they made. They had actually goofed upmthe graphic of Juneau, Alaska, in essay Pseudo Precision. Had somehow repeated Norfolk Virginia instead. At leastnI caught that one and made them republish. A rather hectic and unpleasant three days checking the rest of the text. Never checked the footnote hyperlinks.
Mea culpa.
Dave, take a look at the data on the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases. There you will find that the NOAA station at the South Pole recorded atmospheric CO2 data showing a rate of increase in concentration of 1.672 ppm per annum. At the same time the satellite data showed the lower tropospheric temperature to fall at the rate of 0.014 deg. C per century across the South Polar region. This corroborates with the Winter ice sheet extent reaching a maximum on 22 September 2014.
At the North Pole, the Summer ice sheet extent reached a record minimum on 19 September 2012. This corroborates with the satellite record giving a rate of temperature increase of 4.41 deg. C per century. Remarkably the Alert station in NW Canada (that closest to the Pole) gave a rate of increase of CO2 concentration of only 1.673 ppm per annum.
At the Pacific Ocean Equatorial NOAA/ESRA station, the CO2 concentration record gave a rate of increase of 1.718 ppm per annum. Interpolating from the above results, based on the proposition that increased CO2 causes increased temperature, the Pacific Equatorial Ocean could have increased in temperature at a rate of about 200 deg. C per century. The fact is that the satellite lower tropospheric temperature for the Tropics: Ocean increased at a rate of 0.6 deg C per century!
My further study of WDCGG data has, to date, shown no correlation whatsoever between CO2 concentration and temperature other than the well known seasonal effect whereby increasing temperature in Spring-Summer causes life forms to flourish and soak up CO2. This is followed in the Autumn-Winter when the life forms die and release CO2. This is temperature rise causing CO2 concentration fall, the exact opposite to the IPCC thesis and probably the only detectable, causal relationship between CO2 and temperature at the Earth’s surface.
The Illusion is backwards, in yet another of so many ways.
============
The argument comes down to this:
The difference between 1915 and 2000 since 2008:
http://climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20Jan1915%20and%20Jan2000.gif
The change caused by individual adjustments:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/slide14.jpg?w=500
“Data maturity” (how much the yearly data was adjusted since 2008):
http://climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif
The difference in average temperature between 1915 and 2000 is a moving target. It has been up to twice (around 0.59°C) the original difference. At the current time 1915 has been adjusted 28% down from the modern warming (post 1998) period.
The time of observation for 1915 and 2000 didn’t change between 2008 and the present. They are still observing 1915 and 2000 data at the same time as they did in 1915 and 2000. It goes without saying that the TOBS adjustment shouldn’t have changed at all since 2008 for dead data (2000 and earlier).
Homogenization is the other big factor. Presumably homogenization is what is being used to change historic temperatures. Homogenization improves the consistency of milk but seems to damage temperature data. Temperature data. should not be treated like milk.
If the NOAA adjustment staff had been fired in 2008, 1915 and 1936 – 1940 (the previous warm period) would be significantly warmer even after the TOBS adjustment. If they had been fired after 2000 the early temperatures would be even warmer since there was significant 20th century temperature adjustment between 2000 and 2008.
James Hansen has posted a new communication:
Good on `yah, James Hansen, for so ably articulating the moral and legal implications of climate-change science.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/gfx/jeh8.jpg
You are a TRUE exemplar of responsible, foresighted, science-respecting 21st century conservatism!
Fan
I am sorry that your horizons must be necessarily limited by your admirable concerns for your fellow men, which presumably translates in to your not feeling able to fly to business meetings or on leisure, or use a car for your transport or to accept goods you want to buy that depend on fossil fuels to get them to the shops, or to use medical services which use fossil fuels. Presumably also your home heating runs entirely on solar or wind?
You can usefully write a piece-co-authored with James Hansen- telling us how you manage and how we can all move to your enlightened way of life free of fossil fuels. It would be useful if this can also be translated into the languages of the biggest transgressors. How is your Chinese?
Ps Best turn off your computer for most of the time as they and their servers are big users of fuel.
tonyb
Also, I notice Hansen is wearing clothes made possible by fossil fuels. If anyone should be forced to go naked, it would be him.
“climate commons”
which overlords would enforce this?
and yet when we mention “one world government”
we are accused of heretical thinking
FOMD, good luck, nature will show her hand long before you convince India, Africa, and China to comply
For the sake of human kind, please no.
And what’s with Hansen having so many CO2-generating descendents? Also inconsistent with his pleading.
Except that, he would also not have the luxury of solar panel or windmill derived energy either, since those require fossil fuels to mine the raw materials needed to manufacture them, fossil fueled powered transport from mining to manufacturing to installation, and fossil fuel powered machinery for manufacture and installation. In the case of windmills, there is also a lot of site prep work required including building of roads strong enough to support the weight of the individual components and depending on location, the clearing of trees or other obstructions.
Top energy expert warns of collapsing Euro energy supply with Germany’s largest power company withdrawal from conventional
power generation.
http://notrickszone.com/
Look forward to you turning off the computer for the sake of the planet FOMD.
Merry christmas to you.
The point about an atmospheric commons just flew over their heads in these responses. It ends up just being personal, as usual. This is a sad state for a discussion blog.
jimd
We are well aware of the idea of an atmospheric commons. It worked well in London in the 1950’s to defeat the micro climate problem of smog.
But In Hansens paper and Fans comments we are having people pontificate on the need to switch energy to non co2 means (or much lower co2 emissions)
Hansen says in the linked paper;
‘This imbalance already has driven global temperature up 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit. From the measured energy imbalance today we know that more warming is “in the pipeline.” It is essential to our nation’s future that we act with courage and without delay to reduce the atmospheric CO2 to 350ppm or less.’
350ppm? How does that work when co2 is supposed to stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years? What realistic alternatives are being offered to REDUCE current levels?
We in the UK were the first in the world to mandate legally binding measures to restrict our emissions.
The result are rapidly escalating energy costs to the extent there are very many millions in fuel poverty. With Air passenger duty it costs a fortune to fly anywhere. With the Low emissions zone in London it costs a fortune to get anywhere in that area. Our fuel costs for cars are astronomic. Our energy policy is increasingly targeted to solar and wind. Today is a sunless and windless, so how does that work?
My point was that Fan and others who want to lecture us need to tell us how to reduce our emissions and by doing so they need to be transparent in what their own current usage is. US fuel costs for vehicles and energy costs for heating and to power homes and industry are far cheaper than ours . Hansen and Fan need to help to put their own US house by dramatically increasing your energy costs and substantially reducing your usage before he or Hansen can lecture the rest of us.
tonyb
As CO2 levels race towards 600 ppm and well above, even within the lifetimes of today’s children, scientists are concerned with good reason about unprecedented conditions in millions of years on Earth following. Belittling that concern, and sniping at the messengers, is a common pastime here. 350 ppm can be seen again, but only with abatement and a lot of waiting, if extraction methods are not found.
JimD – the sad state is that you and too many others still believe that the only possible explanation for climate change is Co2 levels.
jimd
you said
‘350 ppm can be seen again, but only with abatement and a lot of waiting, if extraction methods are not found.’
When and How? Unprecedennted?
tonyb
jimmy, jimmy
We are under no obligation to suffer your annoying little gaggle of messengers of doom in silence. If you can’t take the heat, take your feckless evangelizing elsewhere.
Jim D: The point about an atmospheric commons just flew over their heads in these responses.
The point that flies over your head is the extreme unlikelihood that an increase in UN government power is going to improve the governance of the commons. In the UN style of government, catastrophic tyrannies like Zimbabwe and Venezuela have the same power as beneficent and competent democracies like Canada and Israel. Do we really want a climate regime that funnels some of the privately held capitalist wealth to the governments of Syria, Burma, DRC, and Somalia and calls it “green”?
By focusing on CO2 in the climate commons we might be missing other greater threats to our air and water. So try to control temperatures or try to control pollution. Of course this is not an either/or choice with unlimited financial resources.
Same question to you Jim,
You first need to demonstrate how CO2 is a threat to clean air, clean water or the oceans. To date you haven’t made the case.
Jim D,
Belittling your self-stated concern for what happens millions of years from now is the least we can do. I suggest we should be concerned for the welfare on anyone who thinks this way. It is Abbynormal.
Reprising the role of Chicken Little is not advisable when you can’t even point to a single proven instance of harm directly relatable to CO2.
Very moving. I seeped bodily fluids from my eye stalks as I wondered where the human race got such wonderful prose form their hearts before becoming extinct due to global warming.
Come on FOMD you have to up your game. If you’re gonna appeal to our Kumbaya instincts you could at least provide us with a more multicultural picture of all those little kid things that we’re supposed to care about….. All i sees is white people…
Lol … that’s `cuz those banner-folks are Jim Hansen’s own children and grandchildren!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vagxyfQrncw
Your concern for humanity’s moral and physical sustainment is both touching and mature, nickels!
In my opinion FOMD too many kids is the problem….
And I was just teasing your kumbaya appeal ;)
Ooops, one more…
I dislike the hypocrisy of people who dump the earth full of offspring (who will essentially cause a lack of resources and the associated war and strife that results) and then go on and on about how we all need to be holy and look out for their future….
This would be great fan, If someone could demonstrate how CO2 is a threat to clean air, clean water or the oceans.
You believing it is just doesn’t cut the mustard. Legal or moral responsibility requires presentation of factual evidence.
‘ the level of atmospheric CO2 functions as the long-wave control knob on the planet’s thermostat’
I see that weasel phrase ‘long wave’ has somehow crept into Hansen’s polemic.
Can anybody suggest a better translations than
‘So far away as to be unobservable today, but you’d better do what I and my failed models say just in case’
‘Follow my instructions bud, or your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great (^N) grandchildren won’t have to heat their homes so much in winter 2514! And then you’ll be sorry’
Latimer
You are a selfish beast. You have to think of the unprecedented effects on the planet in millions of years.
tonyb
@tonyb
You say the nicest things! But please promise me – no tongues :-)
More seriously…the supposed harms (if indeed warming is a nett harm – an undemonstrated proposition IMO) seem to be forever receding into the distant future, while the costs of tackling them are here and now and becoming ever more evident. In UK the Climate Change Act is one of the most ludicrous and expensive pieces of legislation ever passed.
And – unlike Lord Stern – I don’t believe that a pound spent today to ‘avoid’ AGW (even if that were a sensible thing to do) is offset by a pound’s worth of savings in 200 years time. The discount rate is most decidely not zero.
I see Jimmy has no problem bringing more parasites to consume earth’s resources. Does his whole clan shun fossil fuels in the same way ol’ Jimmy the Traveling Man does?
Jimmy loves himself some jet planes.
What does messiah Hanson say about
– the Pause ?
– the lack robust ocean data ?
– the lack of robust energy budget data ?
– the geneal state of dishonesty in the profession that the Climategate coverups showed us
– …
Let me guess – he sticks to his correct politics and ploughs on regardless. A hero of our era. No wonder Fanny loves him.
The global warmers have a weak argument:
1. They can’t even prove that more CO2 isn’t beneficial let alone bad.
2. The statement that CO2 is pollution is an outright lie (cut CO2 to zero and say goodbye to virtually all animal life and most of the plants).
3. They can’t even prove the CO2 level can exceed 600 PPM if we do nothing. 600 PPM is a replay of the change to 400 PPM with almost exactly the same forcing increase. A replay of 20th century warming is beneficial not harmful.
As to the commons statement… the commons statement means that no one could claim property rights to the air (and charge rent from the little people for it).
The global warmers want to violate the commons concept and charge people for using air. This is an argument against the global warmers not for them.
November CET
daily max temperatures are back to the 20 year average, while daily min are still about 1 degree C above the 20 year average.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-dMm.htm
Also at WUWT they are pretty excited with “Global composite temp.: +0.33 C (about 0.60 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November. ” and have a whole post on just how warm November was in the 30-year context. Realization sinking in, anyone?
I just realized we must have a weak El Niño pushing surface temps up, in synch with CO2, and meanwhile clouds and orbital forcings are working in tandem to force temps down, and surface temperatures make another excursion up the ladder….but the models are still exaggerating climate sensitivity to CO2. And the beat goes on…
Jim D: Realization sinking in, anyone?
Sure. Assuming for the sake of argument that “warming” is “continuing”, the rate of warming is much lower than was predicted. At this rate, Hansen and his many descendants will be safe even with “business as usual”: there will be no catastrophe caused by warming. That’s even assuming that the assumed warming is due to CO2, in which case there is no need to curtail human CO2 emissions within the next 50 years.
vukcevic,
That’s what I find interesting, too. I would expect carbon-dioxide to be more obvious during the night when weather doesn’t have the sun’s energy to utilise. Here in the southern middle of England, my temperature record along with nearby weather-stations of Oxford and Bracknell have shown higher minimums for quite some years, but no significant difference to the maximum. My personal experience is that there are fewer overnight frosts and this is the warmest autumn for many years – we had our 4th frost of the winter this morning whereas normally we’d have regular frosts starting beginning to mid-October. Not to mention that some summer flowering plants which normally stop in Sept are still flowering now in December.
If the global average is being pulled up by the minimum values, it would make the scare stories of heat nonsense.
anng
Here are the seasons of CET from 1659
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/graph04.png
Whistlecraft in his book ‘Rural gleanings’ dated 1851 observes that our milder winters (during the period he wrote about) are almost all of them wetter than the colder ones, for warmer winds from South and West bring most rain and the opposite winds are dry and cold (we can see this very well in the records) the observations would be very familiar to a modern day person especially after the last few severe winters. The winters around 1851 were seen as exceptional and very cold and not the norm by that date. The author talks of summers of 1818 (two years after the ‘year without a summer’) 1826 1846 and 1847 as seen as being unequalled since 1780. He wrote when referring to matters of farming trade or science-‘and our records of daily things should be such as to be read by all and clearly understood by all kept in a plain manner without technical terms and not as we see them stuck in periodicals so as to interest only those who sent them.’
September in the UK was exceptionally dry whilst Oct and Nov have been exceptionally wet (as the winds changed direction)
tonyb
It’s always 12 noon and the middle of summer under the sun but CO2 is global and is a well mixed gas and therefore atmospheric concentrations should not change due to local daylight or season changes, should it?
One might argue since the Pacific is so large more CO2 could be released when heated by the sun each day, but…
We should learn to like or even love the CO2 gas, and if it was responsible for a part of the rising temperatures since the end of 19th century, even more so. In my view global warming (along with the advances in technology and medicine) is the best thing that happened to the humanity during the last 100+ years,.
If the NOAA numbers for the land temperatures are accurate, then the current global warming (since 1900) has been even greater and more beneficial than assumed. According to my calculation NOAA underestimates temperature rise by about 0.2C, whereby the natural variability appears to be responsible for about + or – 0.4C (0.8C pp). Is the CO2 gas or some other factor responsible for the rest, I wouldn’t be able to say.
Ann
Ah, the ever changing British Weather! You might be interested in this extract
‘A farmer from Buchan in North East Scotland, one of the snowiest parts of lowland Britain, wrote in the agricultural section of the local newspaper during the exceptionally mild winter of 1933/34.
“1934 has opened true to the modern tradition of open, snowless winters. The long ago winters are no precedent for our modern samples. During the last decade, during several Januarys the lark has heralded spring up in the lift from the middle to the end of the month. Not full fledged songs but preliminary bars in an effort to adapt to our climatic change.”
It then goes on to say;
“It is unwise to assume that the modern winters have displaced the old indefinitely”
and also; “Our modern winters have induced an altered agricultural regime”
tonyb
Tonyb,
Many thanks for the graph – that was interesting.
I remember that the science labs (both secondary school, Birmingham, and university, Brighton, 1959-1969) was always between 14 and 16 degrees in June/July when we were taking exams. The winters were always frosty from early October to end March/April; with snow in February at the latest. Early Nov 1967 sticks in my mind as a completely unexpected 4 ins of snow in the evening. Getting home was a nightmare.
The rhyme “Ne’re cast a clout ’til May is out; Button to chin til May is in” was always relevant. My birthday is end May and Mum was always in bed due to the damp and cold. This poor little girl never had a birthday party!
And then the warmth in Essex in 1970s. My baby daughter didn’t see snow for the 1st 5 years of her life. Born 1972, 1st snow ~Feb 78. And the springs were what I thought of as summer weather from early April. But then it got colder in the 80s and we had snow ~ 8th May 1980.
Ann.
From the article:
OPEC won’t stop US oil production growth
…
But analysts say the U.S. industry, which has turned around its fortunes with new technologies in less than a decade, is expected to drill the most-efficient wells, and production will continue to grow—even with lower prices. There is also a gusher of new offshore oil production coming online in the Gulf of Mexico.
…
he Fed in its Beige Book Wednesday made note of the fact that drilling activity in shale production districts remained steady even with a sharp drop in crude prices. North Dakota showed an increase in November, and the Fed said officials there expect production to continue increasing over the next two years.
Citigroup analysts also expect production to rise, and in 2015, it should be in line with the 1 million barrels a day of production growth this year.
…
The expectation is that now with sharply lower prices, some shale wells will no longer be economical, and many that were planned will not be drilled. Already, applications for drilling permits have fallen sharply, down 40 percent to just more than 4,500 in November from October’s levels, according to a Reuters report quoting industry data firm DrillingInfo.
…
“No matter how low oil prices go, there will be no (shale) production shut in. The cash component (cost) will be, say, $15, $20, $25,” Gheit said, noting the expenditure for land and drilling has already been made. “Oil prices will have to go below $30 for some of these wells to be shut in, and even then the owners need the cash to survive. They will milk the cow until the cow drops dead.”
Morse said one factor that could keep the U.S. shale industry drilling is that there are a high number of incomplete wells that could easily be turned into productive wells. He estimates that there are thousands of such wells in Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Ohio and Wyoming.
…
“Each well currently being drilled in the main shale plays produces more than 550 barrels a day,” he said, noting that it was 150 barrels on average just several years ago. Now those wells run for three months before the decline starts, and costs are much lower, at $35 to $45 per barrel, in the Bakken of North Dakota and Eagle Ford in Texas.
Gheit said the industry has learned to be more efficient very quickly.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102234051
+ Thnks
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-27/singapore-wealthy-stung-as-crude-rout-sinks-bonds-asean-credit.html
Singapore Wealthy Stung as Crude Rout Sinks Bonds: Asean Credit
Jim2, when oil prices crashed in late 1985 I was requested by a senior VP to prepare a revised regional budget for a large oil multinational. The experience was very stressful, mostly because when I met with individual country managers they refused to accept that prices would stay down, and were so committed to their development plans they refused to budge and agree to budget cuts. I think many managers keep drilling because they have contracts, the people, and the supplies in the warehouse. But the momentum slows down and reverses. My guess is it will take 12 to 18 months before we see production increases flatline.
It’s not really innovation at this point. It’s more experience. We also fire low performers. It’s a very competitive industry with periodic rounds of chemotherapy. I used to tell my teams we had to be tough bacteria and evolve when prices went down. But I wouldn’t call it technical innovation.
We will run out of oil. My perception is that we have a lot of MBAs being gurus, but none of them can tell me specifically where the oil will come from, or what technology they plan to use. This is getting very serious, trust me. And if you don’t trust me, go look up how much oil are the super majors really producing.
Fernando – I’m not sure you read the article. It does not say crude will never peak. It says drilling will be reduced. It says oil can be produced from existing wells cheaply. It says there are many uncompleted wells that can be completed.
Could you copy and paste something from the article with which you disagree?
Fernando, Do you read Jim Hamilton and Steven Kopit on oil economics?
If not, I think you might like them.
http://econbrowser.com/
http://www.prienga.com/blog/
Jim I answering the Barnes comment, not your link. The one about innovation.
Aaron the “A glut of oil?” article in econbrowser has it spot on. I know there are disagreements over the costs and reserves, but that’s why some companies plunge in, and some call it quits. My sense is the large companies are moving to gas, and realize we ran out of “cheaper” oil.
I disagree with you, Fernando. Call it what you like, but the technology has improved and continues to do so. I suppose you are quibbling over the definition of “innovation,” but a 5 fold improvement in the initial flow rate is pretty danged impressive!
In other words, innovation is expected to win out again.
Saudi energy delegation to participate in WFES
Organizers of the World Future Energy Summit (WFES) announced Saturday that Abdullah bin Abdulrahman Al-Hussein, minister of water and electricity, will lead a Saudi delegation of senior energy ministers and officials from national energy companies, including Saudi Aramco and the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KACARE), at WFES in Abu Dhabi from Jan. 19-22.
Saudi Arabia’s participation in the region’s largest sustainable energy event comes as the country is accelerating the implementation of domestic renewable energy projects.
Earlier this year, KACARE announced its plans to build solar power plants in five regions across the country by the end of 2015 as it works to diversify its domestic energy supplies.
According to Saudi Arabia’s renewable energy roadmap, more than 17 gigawatts of operational solar power and six gigawatts of clean energy from wind, geothermal and waste-to-energy, will be fully operational by 2020.
Saudi Arabia has announced $109 billion for the development of 41 gigawatts of solar power, as part of a wider plan to install 54 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2032.
http://www.arabnews.com/economy/news/670826
It’s going to be the hottest year ever!
Now lets see if I catch as much grief for not using C&W as Judith did.
It’s usually according to NOAA, and it’s looking like a lock on NOAA.
GISS and HadCrut4 may not make a record.
I just finished reading “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” by Alex Epstein, which along with Rud Istvan’s “Blowing Smoke” is a powerful one two punch.
How do the “save the world catastrophists” live with themselves?
I agree entirely. Both books should be a must read for everyone, especially the MSM, politicians and AGW supporters. Problem is, few in the MSM/AGW supporter camps are open minded enough to even consider actually reading them.
What are the “best” Climate blogs/websites for laymen to follow (understandable) that are objective with balanced pro and con discussion on Climate issues?
Climate Dialogue appears to be a site of this type:
http://www.climatedialogue.org/
What are other blogs/websites like this?
Stephen,
This is a tough requirement since blogs that ‘warmists’ (such as myself) view to be objective are viewed not to be balanced by skeptics, while blogs that are viewed to be balanced by them are not viewed to be objective by warmists. The same could be said about blogs that cover any kind of controversial topic where there is both a consensus view and a minority of dissidents who are fighting for balance (rightly or wrongly).
Stephen
Judith participated in the blog you mention
http://www.climatedialogue.org/melting-of-the-arctic-sea-ice/
Perhaps she – or others- can comment on its objectivity as I have no personal knowledge of it
Tonyb
The stacks at RC are just like the stacks in an old library.
Dusty, unused, and filled with wrong information…
And if they are not your cup of tea, one can always check out the climate porn at SkS.
JCH: The stacks at RC are just like the stacks in an old library.
they post recently published work from time to time. It’s worthwhile to check them out now and again.
OK,let me rephrase my question. Who are some of the Climate Science “Good Guys”?
A “Good Guy” (1) does their research with total transparency with data and source code; (2) they handle disagreement and criticism well — and are not snarly; (3) they try and work with others to see if a consensus can be explained to the general public on things Scientists don’t yet understand very well (e.g., TCR) and the “big picture” of things that need to be resolved in achieving a consensus and road-map of unknowns; (4) they are not political or ideologues as to policy advocacy.
Transparency (data, code) rules out many like Gavin and Mike, all of GISS, NCDC, and HadCru. Lack of snarly rules out many others like Oreskes and Hansen and Holdren. Working with others takes out all of paleo, and almost all climate modelers. (cooperate on the pause?!). On the last of your criteria, Ideologues or just grant whores? Please clarify.
Well, that takes you down to a few. But Akasofu and Lindzen and Paltridge and Pielke Sr. are emeritus. I sought out a day with Lindzen two weeks before he retired, for critique of one chapter of the last book.
That leaves you mostly now with Judith, IMO. Maybe a little bit Richard Tol in the UK and Pielke Jr in the US concerning consequences- not climate science per se. Welcome to her blog. The reason I have chosen to guest post here, after enduring her laserlike (or PhD oral exam like) scrutiny on multiple occaisions. She is a great teacher from whom I have learned much already. Regards.
Didn’t Cowton and Way disclose data and code/formulae?
BEST?
GISS, NCDC, and HadCru.
GISS releases code and has done so since steve mcintyre and I lobbied them too.
NCDC releases code, they have for some time even back when the first adjustement code was written
hadcrut releases code.
many on real climate now release code. gavin has, mike has
Rud..
Stephen
I would reword (3)
The Scientists such as Judith Curry and Steven Koonin, and others, are on the stage telling all who will listen that climate science is not settled; that there needs to be more research.
I think you will see the
collaboration you seek when these people come together to formulate an integrated research plan. So in the future Dr. Curry will not have to say “not much”.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/24/econtalk-christy-and-emanuel/
I recall that after listening to this podcast exchange between Kerry Emanuel and John Christy, I had the opinion that these were two good guys with opposing view points but a reasonable approach. And if I were to sit down with one or both of them, we would be able to find a lot of common ground.
Steven Mosher, not exactly. Yes, Gavin and GISS have extensive documentation. That includes the website GIStemp Tokyo example of how UHI is handled. BUT when you compare properly gridded US raw/final, the reality is the opposite. And when you compare successive documented official versions, the past IS progressively cooled and the present warmed. Yes, NCDC did publish the documentation on USHCN (and similar GHCN) v2 PHA in 2007. But undocumented changes have been made since that added an additional 0.2C US warming, again by colling the past and warming the present. All three examples illustrated from their own materials in essay When Data Isn’t in Blowing Smoke.
Hey, if this stuff was so well documented and coded, there would have been no need for BEST. Hard to have it both ways.
Rud
‘Steven Mosher, not exactly. Yes, Gavin and GISS have extensive documentation. That includes the website GIStemp Tokyo example of how UHI is handled. BUT when you compare properly gridded US raw/final, the reality is the opposite.
WRONG: they supply the data and code.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/
your claim: They dont supply code. YOU ARE WRONG.
There method of handling UHI has these problems
A) they use nightlights
B) they do a bi linear adjustment
################################
And when you compare successive documented official versions, the past IS progressively cooled and the present warmed.
1) THIS is not about the effects of there METHOD, but the
AVAILABLE CODE. you denied this fact
2) The past is not cooled and the present is not warmed.
Over the course of time as more data is added to the sources that GISS uses, and as GISS has improved their method ESTIMATES of the past have cooled in certain areas and estimates of the present have warmed.
These changes were predictable, in fact I predicted them. Going forward, as more data is added in sparse areas you can expect the same.
###########################
Yes, NCDC did publish the documentation on USHCN (and similar GHCN) v2 PHA in 2007. But undocumented changes have been made since that added an additional 0.2C US warming, again by colling the past and warming the present. All three examples illustrated from their own materials in essay When Data Isn’t in Blowing Smoke.
WRONG AGAIN, the prior adjustments for shap, filnet, and tobs were also available. The code remains up to date.
##########################
Hey, if this stuff was so well documented and coded, there would have been no need for BEST. Hard to have it both ways.
WRONG AGAIN.
the purpose of BEST was to do these things.
A) add more data.
B) use only raw data.
C) ESTIMATE the error due to changes ( tobs, station moves, instrument changes ) WITHOUT a HUMAN deciding what to adjust or how to adjust.
This was important because of “doubters” who argued that the hand adjustments of NCDC were somehow bogus. So instead of adjusting stations, we use a statistical, hands off, approach to identifying stations that deviate from the fitted values of the temperature estimate.
It’s the Machina wot dunnit.
============
“B) use only raw data.”
Depends on what you mean by ‘raw’ though doesn’t it Mosher?
The objective balanced climate blog is over there, next to the objective balanced abortion blog.
I very rarely venture into the triple plus unscience of blogospheric echo chambers. There are reputable sites containing specialist data compiled at universities and government organisations usually.
e.g. http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php
This is easy to use and well worth understanding the dynamics of outward energy flux.
This one for ENSO.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
This one for ocean and atmosphere indices.
http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/
This one for sea surface temperature.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/
I’d recommend staying away from blogs as such – even this one.
Stephen Segrest, your “balancing” objective is impossible with respect to tobacco/health issues … because you’ll end up consorting with (literal) criminals.
And climate-change/sustainability issues are the same, eh Climate Etc readers?
A better question How can a globalized capitalist carbon-energy economy be any more moral and foresighted than the individuals to whom global carbon-capital is flowing?
http://sidfernando.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/sheik-mo-and-putin-march-31-09-putin-b1e.jpg
Do we really trust THESE individuals to control our children’s future? And our planet’s future?
The world wonders!
Stephen Segrest, your “balancing” objective is impossible with respect to tobacco/health issues … because you’ll end up consorting with persons of dubious legal status.
And climate-change/sustainability issues are the same, eh Climate Etc readers?
A better question Can a globalized capitalist carbon-energy economy be any more moral and foresighted than the individuals to whom global carbon-capital is flowing?
http://sidfernando.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/sheik-mo-and-putin-march-31-09-putin-b1e.jpg
Do we really trust THESE individuals to control our children’s future? And our planet’s future?
The world wonders!
the best thing to help the men pictured is to forswear oil extraction, fracking, and pipelines like Keystone, to further solidify their stranglehold on the world economy. Oh yeah, and spend energy development money on renewables that will never replace fossil fuels.
Of course we wouldn’t need those jets if we got the oil we are not going to replace anytime soon from peaceful and like-minded countries like Canada.
The best single thing we can do to hurt these two more is to allow US petroleum exports!
Fan, I’m afraid it’s too little too late! That was the real reason goggle engineers gave up on their renewable energy project. They found that even if they succeeded in developing alternative energy there is already too much CO2 going into the atmosphere to make a difference, among other reasons:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-goggle-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
Why do you think Hansen shifted his focus to nuclear? Regardless, all this hand wringing wont help. Your doomed! May as well take up smoking.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
Those Google types are greenhorns in this business, but they are smart. Geoengineering, anyone?
Not to worry, ordvic! `Cuz those “Goggle” engineers didn’t give up!
Just the opposite … they’ve set forth an in-depth science-respecting Hansen-style plan for global carbon neutrality!
Simple question When are the secretive global carbon-capitalists who sponsor institutions Heartland/CATO/CEI/WUWT gonna support the Google energy program?
Simple answer They ain’t never gonna support it.
http://www.all-creatures.org/hope/gw/AB_oil_sands_open_pit_mining_crop.jpg
`Cuz pits like this keep their cash-coffers filled, eh Climate Etc readers?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/USAF_F-16A_F-15C_F-15E_Desert_Storm_edit2.jpg
That the price of carbon-energy includes war doesn’t bother carbon-capitalists. Why should it?
The world wonders … at the immense stupidity of embracing a global carbon-energy economy.
Of course we wouldn’t need those jets if we got the oil we are not going to replace anytime soon from peaceful and like-minded countries like Canada.
a fan of *MORE* discourse: Just the opposite … they’ve set forth an in-depth science-respecting Hansen-style plan for global carbon neutrality!
The google engineers did not publish a “plan”, they published a “list”.
Simple question When are the secretive global carbon-capitalists who sponsor institutions Heartland/CATO/CEI/WUWT gonna support the Google energy program?
The answer is staring you in the face, as it was clearly articulated by the google engineers: When the google energy program doesn’t lose money! Had it been profitable,google would have continued and expanded their program. Assuming, that is, that the profitable elements are not prohibited by governments — for example, if it ever becomes profitable to operate solar and wind farms without subsidies and RPSs, California environmentalists will prohibit construction of them.
Fan, The 70-20-10 plan is not a solution it’s simply a priority reshuffling. Creaying carbon sinks is a good idea but what are they doing about it? Ultimately industry and countries (China, India, and Russia) will have to buy into a program that is realistic and not just political posturing like China’s agreement with Obama. You already disrespect industry so how do you think your pollyannaish vision is going to work? Pointing fingers like you and Hansen do will only harden views and opposition. You need a better plan.
Fan one caveat I will give you is ‘dispatchable power’. California has already committed to that and has actually bought some power storage facilities. I commend them for that. So I am on the same page as you in regards to that.
I’m afraid our friend Fan thinks trolling with these comments is funny. I think it reveals a real tragedy: pretty smart individuals with some understanding of climatology but no idea whatsoever of what a real plan is supposed to have. All these poor scientists..,they are so frustrated by their failure, but they don’t understand there is a missing universe in their heads….
‘Feature EnergyRenewables
What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change
‘Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?’
The Google project has been canned – but the question asked in the article is – even if it worked would it succeed in reducing emissions?
‘As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.’
Quite frequently with FOMBS the divergence from reality is simply mind boggling.
It’s much better to get that sticky mess off the ground and burn it. Later, the land can be reclaimed for office buildings, parking lot gratis.
a fan of *more* discourse: A better question Can a globalized capitalist carbon-energy economy be any more moral and foresighted than the individuals to whom global carbon-capital is flowing?
An even better question: Can the “morality” and “foresight” of the present regime be improved upon by increasing the regulatory power of a governing body in which each of nearly 200 governments has 1 vote? And most of those governments are kleptocracies kept in power by murderous assaults on their opponents? The answer is obvious to Climate Etc readers: Not likely!
Do we really trust THESE individuals to control our children’s future? And our planet’s future?
Not those individuals! that is for sure. That is why development of all US energy resources is important.
Matthew, nothing gets done in the UN unless all of the permanent members of the security council approve it.
Joseph: Matthew, nothing gets done in the UN unless all of the permanent members of the security council approve it.
Quite true.
Are all American progressives aligned to the idea that the US should oppose the imposition of rules agreed-upon by a large majority of the General Assembly? Those, for example, who supported ratification of the Kyoto Treaty? If a wealth transfer scheme like the Kyoto Treaty were to be passed by, say, 180 votes in the General Assembly, and the Pope liked it, would not FOMD be advocating the US to acquiesce?
I’d like to see some analysis of CO2 concentrations by region and season.
Particularly NH, SH, and pole-ward.
I recall a recent WUWT post on the increasing anual variability of CO2, is the variability one sided (decline increasing more than increase)?
Is more photosynthesis happening in the oceans over time?
Is it possible to study the albedo changes in light spectrum specific to photosythensis in oceans?
I think seasonal arctic sea ice cycle plays a big part.
Yes, it does. The variability is a major factor, the freeze thaw process is part of how it pull CO2 from the air. Algea population is another.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/22/claim-arctic-sea-ice-helps-remove-co2-from-the-atmosphere/
I’ve wondered if increasing bio mass in the ocean could account for a significant amount of missing heat. And if it could warm the deep ocean by sinking and decomposing.
aaron,
I recall a NOVA program on the satellite era and how theyhave revolutionized our understand of our planet. One thing that caught my attention was when they discussed the surprise of scientists at discovering huge algal blooms in the ocean off of S. America. I believe they were discussing gigatons.
That sounds a lot like carbon sequestration to me.
Just for fun, no comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A#t=86
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2000/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000/derivative/normalise
tim & aaron
…The surprise of scientists..
I’m sure there will be an endless list of surprises for scientists about the oceans as long as they don’t take their eye off the ball. So much to learn if the will is there and they don’t think they already have all the answers.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=5471
http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/07/week-in-review-34/#comment-646237
aaron | November 10, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
David, I agree. Fish also breed fast. Plant life in the ocean is consumed quickly. I brought this up in a couple comments on this post. http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/07/week-in-review-34/#comment-646123
Danny, I meant a decrease in the emissions growth rate. We seem to be approaching a linear growth rate.
Sinks are growing. With emissions rates growing, sinks have grown so much that concentration growth is almost linear.
I would think it is largely an increase in biomass, but not primarily vegetation. Think of the oceans, how much old plant growth is there? I imagine much is consumed by animals…
The oceans are huge, there is a lot of plant mass which reproduces quickly, is short-lived, and may be growing because of warming and CO2 (and keeping upper ocean CO2 lower than equilibrium with the increased atmospheric concentration). This mass is likely consumed by animal life rather quickly. Fish also breed very quickly, so both CO2 and energy may be sequestered in large increases in ocean biomass, and waste sinks and transports it to the deep ocean to decay (some of Trenberth’s direct deep ocean heating :) )
http://test.classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/340/flashcards/355340/jpg/biomass_period_-_aquatic_ecosystem.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)#Ocean_biomass
Edim, very cool.
Any thoughts on the accuracy and resolution of paleo data?
Had a thought on the methane bomb hypothesis. If it is as likely as believe, how often should similar events have happened in the past? How well is that reflected in paleo data?
Nottawa, no doubt.
The Thanksgiving open thread was long broken when I posted, you might like my pics of Black Friday Sail on lk st claire.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/27/open-thread-thanksgiving-edition/#comment-651513
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/20/mad-science-crops-to-blame-for-increased-annual-variation-of-co2/
I read this paper last weekend at the library and found it interesting:
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/346/6211/847
Antarctic role in Northern Hemisphere glaciation
(See the abstract)
A potential post topic:
How has the climate changed in a net negative manner over the last 100 years? What conditions have changed positively/negatively over the last 100 years and what makes us confident that we know of what changes will occur (and where) in the next 100 years.
I think the the global climate has been unusually stable for the last 100 years
prosperity unprecedented
hands down
predicting “global climate” (even if there is such a thing) 25, 50, 100 years out is absurd
too many variables even without human activity
they couldn’t even predict ’98 to 2015
where are the wise men?
existence is precarious
too bad we can’t see when we got it good
John
Absolutely agree with the first line of your comment.
As a result, in building our industrial infrastructure we have been lulled into a false sense of security as to what is normal and many things are likely to be vulnerable in future to what we can see from history is ‘normal’ weather.
That is to say extremes of all kinds can be expected, of which wind and rain in the UK at least are the most common exemplars. Railways, power lines, electrical installations etc are all likely to need upgrading.
tonyb
What happens when the roles are reversed –e.g., when bosses have had enough of being regulated out of existence and march in protest: PARIS — They jammed the boulevards, blowing whistles, tossing firecrackers, wearing locks and chains around their necks, and shouting into megaphones… “We feel like we’re being taken hostage,” said Laurence Manabre, owner of a home-maintenance business that has 28 workers — but could employ many more, she said, if not for onerous government-imposed labor rules… “Between regulations, taxes, new laws, and razor-thin margins… we’re being crushed little by little… France has high unemployment,” Ms. Manabre said. “But the French labor code is incomprehensible, and it just keeps getting more complex. How can I possibly hire more people?” (NYT, ‘In Twist on French Tradition, Bosses Take to Streets in Protest,’ 2014/12/01 )
How about those claims that 2014 is the hottest year on record? Not according to the satellite data, which is the most accurate data as it is not corrupted by UHI (Urban Heat Island) effect. UHI is caused by the inappropriate siting of official thermometers, like having them in the exhaust of a jets at airports where the snow is continually cleared off the tarmac while those living in the countryside are freezing. But then, the facilitators of global warming alarmism also claim that record cold and snow are further examples of AGW (human-caused climate change). As the world turns, so continues the hiatus, going on two or three decades, depending on how it’s measured.
Not sure where this will go, hopefully nowhere, but I’ve got a challenge to the conservatives out there…..
Put forth a moderate candidate in 16. Not someone who wants to take the country’s moral landscape back to the victorian era.
I might consider voting for one (although I serious could never imagine this). I’m fed up with my democrats on the subject of climate change, but also a lot of other issues where government intrusion is causing a disastor (such as presumption of guilt of men in campus assault cases, forced insurance for everyone, FDA labelling regulations, etc etc….)
Been there, done that with McCain. Problem is no one gets excited by a moderate, and so the voter turnout is really low, and the candidate looses. Conservatives need someone who can LEAD the country. Another McCain type is not going to get people behind him to make things happen. If you have someone specific in mind, maybe I could agree, but in general there will be no excitement with a moderate. No excitement = loosing.
Examples;
Mondale (D)
McCain (R)
Dole (R)
Dukakis (D)
I think most people would put Romney (R) in this category as well, after all he was for it before he was against it, right? I think the problem with Romney was a different one of conservatives actually voting against him, but I am not sure how much proof there is of that.
Anyway, not sure I could get excited about any of the above 4. In each case I did vote, but my excitement including concerned excitement was with the opponent regardless of which I actually voted for.
Maybe “conservatives” should go create their own party? I used to vote Republican, but these conservatives look really goofy. What the USA needs is a solid Republican. Somebody who won’t start wars all the time, and be a good money manager. Eisenhower sounds fine.
Thanks for the thoughts…. there is a definitely an opportunity for conservatives here….
Eisenhower was a little before my time, but apparently a moderate that could win. I could get behind another Eisenhower.
We need a new sheriff in D.C. This one would make a good President:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/12/02/milwaukee-county-sheriff-david-clarke-talks-megyn-kelly-about-ag-holder-ferguson
Another person willing to stand up to federal overreach. I think I really like him as well.
I like Tim Scott of SC, but he’s too unknown. I also like Jeb Bush, but the family name carries too much baggage for a lot of people. Scott Walker of Wisconsin is another potential candidate I like. Reigning in government employee unions is not right wing, it is simple common sense. It also seems to be sitting very well with the voters of Wisconsin. At least those who are not government employees.
Looked at Scott Walker, Wikipedia has enough negative stuff on him to make me like him a lot. Anyone who can make that many people that angry must be doing something right. Looks like a good candidate, but is he even considering it?
scales falling from eyes
Can you name a few Republican Presidential candidates in the last century, who wanted to take the country’s moral landscape back to the Victorian era?
Exactly the direction Im hoping the comment doesnt go :)
Its just weird, I took an online survey recently and came across as slightly republican and mostly libertarian.
Yet I would never vote republican because I’m not into the party….
Just curious what it would take for a republican nominee with a moderate social agenda to surface??
Democrat seems to be going more and more authoritarian and misandrous. Getting fed up….
So, if I take your meaning correctly you want someone who is conservative on fiscal things, and libertarian on social things. We may get a candidate like that, but at this point I am not sure even who is running. Have you looked at Ben Carson? He has been uncommitted for several years now. Since he has never been a candidate much of his views have to be taken from what he has said, and that doesn’t always translate into actions. However, you might find agreement with what he says anyway.
You failed to answer the question, nickels. Why don’t you just stick with the more moral party. They must be right about climate change.
People like you are exactly why I dont vote Rep Mr. Monfort ;)
Two party system sucks I guess.
@ATAndB
Perhaps even if the national dilemna is hopeless, I’ve been trying to eye the Rep. candidates more at the local level to see if can align at all….
You still haven’t answered the question, nickels. Why don’t you be honest and admit that you made a gross exaggeration? If the morals of McCain and Romney are too Victorian for you, then you must be amoral. Stick with the Demos.
Im not going to answer your question Mr. M. I wasnt really interested in making this thread about me. I was more interested to see if anyone else thought similarly which seems not to be the case so the whole thread kindo sucks. (althouth ATAndB brought up some interesting points).
Oh yes and Fernando’s points were appreciated.
I’m not dishonest, I just find you to be an obnoxious bully !!!cheers
Nickels,
I get where you are coming from. I would probably classify more as a Libratarian than a Republican, even though I am registered as the latter. I am not particularly happy with Republican leadership, but considering I pretty much have only the two parties to choose from, I recognize that however bad most Republican candidates might be, the candidates on the Democratic side are worse.
Perhaps this is why the Tea Party has experienced some success.
@timg56
“I pretty much have only the two parties to choose from”
Perhaps this relates to why climate is so much along parties lines in the US but not so much in Europe? My colleague here describes Europe as having more choices (yes, ignorant about European politics…)?
Now timmy is resorting to name calling. If you had the equipment to man up, you would have to admit that by your own logic your yammerings on this thread have been non-productive.
Do you have something against the military, timmy? Maybe you had an experience similar to Willis E. I bet you wouldn’t have called me out, if I had mentioned that I had distinguished myself as an engineering, or computer programmer. You are pathetic, timmy. Dismissed.
My question wasn’t about you, nickels. It was about the faulty premise of your comment, which started your sucky thread. You won’t answer the question, because you are dishonest. Case closed.
Peronsal message for Monfort: I’m not dishonest, I just find you to be an obnoxious bully !!!cheers
Sorry I intimidated you. Can I send you some daisies and chocolates?
If all I need is to feel intimidated to get a box of chocolates then count me as intimidated!
No Don, but if we ever meet you’re welcome to try whatever you would like and see how it goes.
Or you can just keep making cowardly online insults!
I struck a nerve with little nickels. Are you saying that your online persona is a wimp, but that in person you would stand up to a 6’4″ 228 lb obnoxious bully?
Don,
You are losing points in trying to press a point. Referring to Victorian era morals does not automatically imply that the other side has no morals. And while I have no problem coming up with a list of Democratic policies, agendas and politicians who I might consider amoral, I am just as capable of doing the same for Republicans. (I will say I expect the first list will be longer than the second.)
When discussing morality, I find it should be evaluated on an individual basis. Making the point the way you are trying to generally leads to a dead end.
PS – if you should happen to feel like sending me something, can the daisies and chocolate. The flowers will be dead in a week and I’m diabetic. Anything from the following list is acceptable:
Scotch, cigars, books, wine, cartridges.
RE: standing up to a 6’4″ 228 lb obnoxious bully?
I would note that size does not always matter. Nor is standing up always the recommended tactic. For example, I have found that the prone position makes for more accurate shooting. Not that I believe it would ever get to that extreme in your case.
6 4 228 pound bully. Thanks Monfort, you just lost.
You have missed my point, tim. Nickels is a victim of Democrat propaganda that is rolled out in every election to caricature Republican candidates as reactionary throwbacks who want to take away people’s bedroom rights and their social security checks.
I asked the little dude a legitimate question and he tells me I am the kind of person that keeps him from voting Republican and whines about bullying. In fact, I am the kind of person that has very nearly made the ultimate sacrifice numerous times, so that low information civilians like nickels may continue to have the right to negate my vote.
I don’t have any spare cigars or cartridges, tim. And the prone, or supine, position would be very likely for you, if it came to that:)
“In fact, I am the kind of person that has very nearly made the ultimate sacrifice numerous times, so that low information civilians like nickels may continue to have the right to negate my vote. ”
If in fact the first part is true then I have to thank you for that. And for the right vote either way.
And I understand that my original wording was provocative so I’ll thuink about that next time.
I will shake your hand and buy you a drink. But no daisies or chocolates.
I should probably be the one buying the drink :)
timg56 | December 4, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
PS – if you should happen to feel like sending me something, can the daisies and chocolate. The flowers will be dead in a week and I’m diabetic. Anything from the following list is acceptable:
Scotch, cigars, books, wine, cartridges.
Not the cigars please as not good for the blood vessels if diabetic.
This is a family blog.
On a sad note have > 12 bottles of good scotch at home as gifts but only drink the stuff once a year at Xmas, do not like it.
Nickels, he is not as big or heavy as Jack Reacher is he?
I got your point Don. I don’t disagree with it. I’m simply saying that once made, continuing to push becomes non-productive. Your point gets forgotten and how you make it becomes the point of attention.
PS – you are not the only vet commenting here.
Thanks for the advice, tim. I don’t know how I have gotten along without your counsel for so long. I will know the next time someone dodges a question with a snide comment, to just drop it. I don’t want to be non-productive. However, I will point out in my defense that in the interaction nickels and I achieved agreement and mutual respect. Contrast that with where you and I stand; you lecturing and me finding your lecturing gratuitous and silly.
Re. your PS: Why did you feel the need to tell me that I am not the only vet commenting here? Do you imagine that I thought I was the only one? Do you think I have said something that other vets may find offensive? What’s with you?
You do ass really well Don.
And if you understand the difference between observation and advice, you choose to ignore it in order to make gratuitous insults. Nice.
As for what is with me regarding the vet comment – you were the one wanting us to know how you very nearly made the ultimate sacrifice on numerous occasions.
This is advice – pay better attention to your own comments.
This goes here…so timmy doesn’t miss out
Now timmy is resorting to name calling. If you had the equipment to man up, you would have to admit that by your own logic your yammerings on this thread have been non-productive.
Do you have something against the military, timmy? Maybe you had an experience similar to Willis E. I bet you wouldn’t have called me out, if I had mentioned that I had distinguished myself as an engineering, or computer programmer. You are pathetic, timmy. Dismissed.
I challenge you to provide conservatives with a reason to accept such a challenge.
I think it’s pretty simple, yguy. The “conservatives” aren’t real Republicans. And people like me, who voted REPUBLICAN are getting really tired of conservatives. Maybe they need to form their own Conservative party. If they bring me along another crazy nut who sings “Bomb Iran” and picks a Sarah Palin type for VP I’d rather vote for Governor Moonbeam for president. We got too many legless veterans, and wars the “conservatives” didn’t know how to win, to risk another crazy nut in that job.
Just numbers is all… better chance to win, taking opportunity where it exists….
Which conservative wars are you talking about, Fernando? Korea-Truman? Vietnam-Kennedy/Johnson? First Gulf War-Bush Sr.? Second Gulf War- Bush Jr.? Weren’t the Bushes mainstream Republicans?
The only conservative President we have had in forever, was Ronald Reagan, who won the Cold War.
By the way, I predict that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for President, in 2016.
So in which GOP platform provision(s) do conservatives disbelieve?
Yeah, well people like me are getting really tired of those who are ignorant or contemptuous of the principles that make America worth living in.
If conservatives consent to the election of a President who has contempt for their ideals, what will they have won?
“If conservatives consent to the election of a President who has contempt for their ideals, what will they have won?”
Well, I see your point and accept your answer…. I think the polarization is a detriment to our country, though, but…. opinions…..
Nickels
I think I understand you, and I appreciate your closing dialogue with Don. Your a good man.
You are looking for a presidential candidate that you can enthusiastically vote for. It reminds me of 1980 and Ronald Reagan. Prior to his run I had been less than enthusiastic about any candidate; for the most part candidates were obviously saying what they thought would get them votes, and there was little difference between the parties. There was no vision. Reagan was different. His message was 100% vision and he was a sharp contrast with the old politics and with the Democrats. And I especially grabbed his economic message. It made sense and it was compatible with what I had learned during my MBA studies.
There appears, presently, to be about 24 people that might run. Most likely this will be cut in half by next fall. A winning candidate will need certain qualities. He/she must
1. Be a great orator.
2. Have a vision for America and the middle class
3. Have a record of success
There are two women on the list, and I like both: The governor of Arizona, and Carly Fiorina. I also like Ben Carson. Note that only one of my picks is a politician.
Have a great day
Richard
“I think I understand you, and I appreciate your closing dialogue with Don. Your a good man.”
Well, thx. People on the left need to not forget those who put themselves on the line for the rest of us. It seems to happen too often, although for the young’ens please cut em a break while they figure things out (been there).
I’m pretty mortified about who the likely Democratic candidates are going to be…
nickels,
Here is the candidate you are looking for, but he is not a Dem or Republican. Unfortunately, he was running for senate in Kansas during a republican wave. So he did about as well as could have been expected given the fact that he was taking on a republican in the reddest state in America. I’m not sure what is next for him, but I hope he takes another run at something.
Interesting, although I’d like to know more what he is about than just what he is against….
I’m kind of thinking having a split between pres and congress is the best possibility for the moment. At least they can block each others radical moves.
Until the day a true moderate comes back into office….
Soros does not fund non-liberals……and you don’t spend 3 million dollars of your OWN money to attain a 120K job ….without an expectation of gaining something in return…
Soros’s son and friends were interested in any candidate that would push Kansas to the left, even if they still end up right of center. There was a lot more out of state right wing money in that race.
If you have 10s of millions, you might not be too concerned about spending 1 or 2 for a opportunity to lead.
But don’t worry, it didn’t happen, Kansas will be represented by a 78 year old resident of Virginia. A senator who doesn’t bother to show up for work most of the time. A guy who has been in Washington for nearly half a century taking orders from his party bosses.
Judith, forgive me for being self-centered, but I’d like to see more discussion of my Cartoon Climate Change book, recently named one of the Wall Street Journal’s “7 best books about science to give for the holidays”: http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-wsj-on-the-seven-best-books-about-science-to-give-for-the-holidays-1416604313
More about the book (including excerpts and blurbs from everyone from Jim Hansen to the American Enterprise Institute’s Kevin Hassett) can be found at http://standupeconomist.com/category/books/
Yoram
Can you clarify the age group this is intended for so I can read it in its proper context. I would guess around the transition to senior school-around 10 or 11 years of age?
tonyb
climatereason: A smart 12-year-old could read it, but it’s also used in some high school and even college courses. You can read it in a fairly superficial way or you can dig into the page notes, which are at http://standupeconomist.com/cartoon-climate-change-page-notes/
Yoram
The Notes are good and the cartoons well drawn. However judging by how excited Big bangs Sheldon and Leonard Get when visiting the comic book store I think that cartoons for older people are much more in your culture than ours in the UK. I do not find the format of particular interest to someone in my age group so am not the right person to comment.
Tonyb.
Yoram, I recall that when you raised the project some time ago, it appeared that you took a line with which most CE posters would disagree. One of your reviews refers to “An often amusing graphic primer about an issue the authors recognize as apocalyptically serious,” and “Bauman and Klein … reinforce the realities of global warming, fossil fuels and greenhouse gases as potentially catastrophic.” The general view here, I think, was that your book was overly warmist and alarmist and ignored many concerns expressed here about alleged CAGW and measures taken or proposed to counter it. It would appear that that you have not taken account of such comments before publication, why should we discuss it now? As an economist, my view is that whether or not dangerous warming is in prospect (and I’m sceptical of that), the best approach to dealing with the always uncertain future is not by economically damaging GHG-emsissions reductions driven by centralising governments but by policies which increase our capacity to deal well with whatever future unfolds. That is, pro-market policies which encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, self-reliance, flexibility etc. Does your book touch on this? I suspect not. Engagement is a two-way process.
Faustino: The review that references “potentially catastrophic” is presumably a reference to pp128-129 (in the chapter on Uncertainty), which says:
pp128: If reality turns out to be better than we’d thought (climate sensitivity is low, ecosystems are resilient, people find ways to adapt) then business as usual might not be so bad.
pp129: But if reality turns out to be worse than we’d thought (climate sensitivity is high, ice sheets disintegrate, the amazon burns up, bread baskets become dust bowls) then business as usual could be catastrophic.
Is that really so bad? Does it really not touch on your point of finding ways to “increase our capacity to deal well with whatever future unfolds”?
How about pp193 (in the closing chapter), which says:
Lots of economists dream of carbon pricing… but it’s okay if your dream is different [four vignettes: all-out mobilization, government-funded clean energy research, planning and adaptation, and low-carbon lifestyles].
So: Do you want to change your suspicion about whether the book touches on your ideas? I hope so!
Here are a few of the cartoons I think:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/326721047/the-cartoon-introduction-to-climate-change
I find a bit to disagree with, the slant being a warmist one. “Market forces are the most powerful way to promote innovation in clean technology… …and the best way to harness market forces is to put a price on carbon” When I read the word harness and spur, it brings to mind an economy where some smart economist can get in the saddle and tell it where to go and be confident it will do that. The economist could raise or lower taxes, borrow or pay off debt, and/or increase or decrease the money supply. They can poke the economy with a stick while having no special insight into the future when compared to the markets themselves which are made up of many individual decisions. To try to further make my point, this comes after a prior book on economics. As you know, most brokers cannot beat the S&P 500 index on a consistent basis. Bottom line, they don’t know any more about the future than I do. Same with economists. So any spurring or harnessing is bound to waste resources. The first part of the quote was good which I’ll rephrase, Market force are the way to promote innovation. Full stop. There is no supercharged ‘most powerful’ way and no individual can put on a cape and tell us what that is. Our politicians can no more pick winners than our brokers can. There is no, insert politics into innovative research to get a better innovations. There is marketing that tries to convince that you can. All the failed subsidized renewable companies as well as some countries pullbacks from renewables is showing us how markets work, and how we might pretend they work until another subsidized renewable company goes bankrupt. Every failure is reinforcing the message of how markets really work.
Yoram Bauman:
My link failed, there’s are some cartoons on the same page as the video which is what I thought the link would go to. I am sorry about this. Maybe a link to just the cartoons is there somewhere?
Ragnaar: So you don’t believe in market failures relating to pollution? Or for that matter market failures relating to the public-goods aspect of R&D?
But I agree with you about brokers not being able to pick winners. This is covered in my Cartoon Introduction to Economics, Volume 1: Microeconomics. I hope you’ll take a look: http://standupeconomist.com/category/books/
Yes I believe there are market failure relating to pollution. I’ve been to the extreme libertarian positions in my past. Someone should be paying for mercury released into the atmosphere from burning coal. We could say its the utilities to pay but the consumers are equally responsible. How to do this in a way that is acceptable? Tax and then spend the money to compensate those effected by the mercury. Far from perfect but attempting to further the idea of moral responsibility. I think you’re saying that R&D is underfunded without public money. I suppose my position on that is an extreme one. I can’t see that governments make better decisions than investors about R&D. Yet not long I commented that loan guarantees or something similar for new nuclear plants, wasn’t that much to be concerned about. Contradicting myself it turns out.
1) So if there are market failures relating to pollution then doesn’t it make sense that there’s insufficient financial incentives to pursue clean technologies? (So if nobody is paying for mercury released into the atmosphere then there will be insufficient incentive for pursuing technologies that take the mercury out of the coal, right?) That’s all I’m saying when I write “Market forces are the most powerful way to promote innovation in clean technology… …and the best way to harness market forces is to put a price on carbon”.
2) You write “How to do this in a way that is acceptable? Tax and then spend the money to compensate those effected by the mercury.” Note that economic theory agrees with the “tax” part of this but not necessarily with the “compensate” part of it. Partly that’s because if you compensate then you might be providing inappropriate incentives to those affected by the mercury, and partly that’s because lots of different allocations of the revenue are plausible in the eyes of economic theory. What you suggest is something of a Coasian outcome, which is fine… but there are other efficient outcomes too.
3) You write “I can’t see that governments make better decisions than investors about R&D.” Okay, there are things that the government can do to make R&D more attractive _in general_ that don’t involve picking winners. For example, if you think that there are market failures that lead to underfunding of R&D then you could support a government policy that provides an R&D tax credit. That’s a way to boost incentives for R&D across the board, yes?
4) I don’t know about the nuclear power loan guarantees either… it’s a tricky one I guess :)
I suppose I’m saying my example of a tax on mercury emissions is a market intervention for a possible greater good. I’ve mentioned the shallow lake behind my office. Located in the same sub-watershed as what used to be called, the descriptively named Dump Road. My lake is the last stop before the water flows into Lake Minnetonka depending on its level. It’s mercury impaired. So I guess I am using a purist’s definition of markets. That may not effect your message as libertarian purist’s are a small minority. Your target market for that cartoon is the middle of the bell curve I suppose. I agree the mercury compensation is going to be far from ideal. But I think we still are supposed to try to compensate those we have harmed. About that tax credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_%26_Experimentation_Tax_Credit#Economic_Effect_of_the_Credit I suppose I am ambiguous about it. Lot’s of paper work and not a lot of money currently being claimed. Businesses currently do write off their R&D if they don’t take the credit. I think it’s the preference for write offs that explains the low amount of credits claimed. I think it’s like this: If the credit is 20% and corporate tax rate is 35% plus any state’s tax rate, we’re looking at the write off and not the credit.
I’d be interested if anyone here has read the attached study done by GE Consulting for PJM Interconnection re: Renewable Integration.
http://pjm.com/~/media/committees-groups/task-forces/irtf/postings/pris-executive-summary.ashx
And, by the way, what are your thoughts on it.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Just read it. Three major things. First, is from the perspective of the transmission grid, which obviously can be built out to carry whatever generation from wherever. See page 18.
Second the study is biased toward renewables by assuming capacity factors much higher than reality in the region. See page 30.
Third, with 20% renewable penetration. (62k MW, table 3) this grid will have to install about a Gigawatt of extra backup generation capacity more than otherwise from coal, natural gas, or nuclear. The money table 5 is on page 15. Those numbers are understated by more than half due to the overoptimistic capacity factors. And the cost that is apparently not factored into renewable ‘savings’, which themselves apparently do not include capital amortization, just operating (fuel, labor, maintenance and repair…) costs.
So study says sure you can put that much renewable onto a built out grid with more backup. It does not say whether that is a wise investment.
Rud – thanks for taking the time to read through the paper and respond so quickly. I don’t have the technical background to interpret the much of the report but my general take away was fairly positive, at least wrt to recommendations made at the end, but I also got the sense the the report was a little optimistic which is why I wanted a little more dissection from those who can understand it better than I can. While I am not a fan of RPS, or wind/solar in their current state of development, I do think companies like PJM need to be figuring out how to mange them given our current political environment.
The cost of grid maintenance is contributing more and more to the cost of electricity. Building new grid to distant wind and solar installations is expensive – and for what? Intermittent power.
From the article:
…
For example, the typical electric utility customer in New York City is charged more for the delivery of an electron than the generation of electron.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/williampentland/files/2013/01/NYC_Commercial_Large1.jpg
And this gap is likely to widen considerably in coming years as utilities scramble to strengthen an aging and dangerously anemic power delivery system built on technologies developed largely in the 1950′s or earlier.
…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/01/02/the-perverse-economics-of-the-electric-grid/
Denialists have no answers to these tough-but-fair questions, do they JimD?
That is why, as was said of the gravito-thermal effect, the comments from Climate Etc’s denialists have distilled down to irrelevant quibbling, angry ranting, impotent frothing, and pointless abuse … eh Climate Etc readers?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Vladimir_Putin_in_Saudi_Arabia_11-12_February_2007-1.jpg
— — — We global carbon-capital holders heartily approve of denialist quibbling, ranting, frothing, and abuse! The more irrational the denialism, the better for us! — — —
Fan might be right. I think all us skeptics should fly to Lima and talk about reducing our carbon footprint.
Been to Lima, the pollution there is pretty bad. Did they hold a climate conference there? If they did that would be really funny. Peru is a wonderful place to visit, I simply advise against staying for extended periods of time in the larger cities. The food in Peru is the best in my opinion.
Happening as we type as far as I know.
http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/lima_dec_2014/application/pdf/cop20cmp10_overview_schedule.pdf
I can understand why they went there. So many of the climate scientists of the world are located in that area it only makes sense to avoid excess traveling. Not like they wanted a new vacation spot or anything (wink wink). I’ve never been to Peru but I loved Brazil and Venezuela so a skeptic conference there seems like an ideal location.
Fan
love the photos
I, for one, can’t answer your question
’cause “globalized capitalist carbon energy economy”
is nonsensical to me
and economies can’t really have morals
“atmospheric commons”
ok
pray tell, what governmental authority will police it?
IPCC?
can I vote for the next leader of the IPCC?
Putin and some Arab guys are scary
FOMT, you are a disgusting human being overflowing with ad homs, and that is why few here bother to engage you in any substantive way. You don’t “argue fair” and you are not fit for rational, open-minded discussion.
There might not be any “warming in the pipeline”, or at least not as much as we have been warned about:
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-co2-effects-felt-decade-emitted.html
If they are correct, the Earth has already exhibited the effects of CO2 accumulation through 2004.
original with abstract:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
Katharine L Ricke and Ken Caldeira 2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002
Abstract
It is known that carbon dioxide emissions cause the Earth to warm, but no previous study has focused on examining how long it takes to reach maximum warming following a particular CO2 emission. Using conjoined results of carbon-cycle and physical-climate model intercomparison projects (Taylor et al 2012, Joos et al 2013), we find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years. We evaluate uncertainties in timing and amount of warming, partitioning them into three contributing factors: carbon cycle, climate sensitivity and ocean thermal inertia. If uncertainty in any one factor is reduced to zero without reducing uncertainty in the other factors, the majority of overall uncertainty remains. Thus, narrowing uncertainty in century-scale warming depends on narrowing uncertainty in all contributing factors. Our results indicate that benefit from avoided climate damage from avoided CO2 emissions will be manifested within the lifetimes of people who acted to avoid that emission. While such avoidance could be expected to benefit future generations, there is potential for emissions avoidance to provide substantial benefit to current generations.
it’s open access
> There might not be any “warming in the pipeline”, or at least not as much as we have been warned about
OTOH, what’s in the pipeline still matters:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article
IIRC, someone named Swartz did a mathematical analysis and found primary surface temp lags 5-8yrs, minimal after that and full warming after 30yr.
Lubos Motl posted on it.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/stephen-schwartz-brookhaven-climate.html
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/quantifying-climate-change-too-rosy.html
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/stephen-schwartz-vs-scientific.html
aaron: Lubos Motl posted on it.
Thank you for the links.
Aye, Climate Etc lassies and laddies, now *THAT’s* a “long tail” for yah!
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/9/12/124002/Full/erl505119f1_online.jpg
Question Did yah read the article and understand it, Matthew R Marler?
Do committed climate-change denialists ever read the climate-science literature with responsible care and thoughtful understanding?
The world wonders!
a fan of *MORE* discourse: Question Did yah read the article and understand it, Matthew R Marler?
According to the median estimate in that graph, the maximum warming from the CO2 injected into the atmosphere by 2004 has already occurred; CO2 accumulated through 2004 will produce no future warming — there is no “warming in the pipeline” from that. According to that graph, the maximum warming from CO2 emitted up through 2014 will have been observed by 2024 — there is very little “warming in the pipeline” due to CO2 accumulated from 2004 through 2014.
That graph shows that, according to their model, the warming once obtained is maintained as long as the CO2 level is maintained. It does not show that there is additional warming after the peak occurs at about 10 years post CO2 increase.
Fan
I am not disagreeing with your comment but surely that item from Matthew ( who never froths) negates hansens desire to return to 350 ppm ( your link upthread) as the warming is already in the pipeline? Therefore all the sacrifice is surely pointless if we cant affect it.
Still waiting for your reply to my earlier comment immediately under your original lInk as I want to be inspired by your joint examples of low carbon usage.
Tonyb
> According to the median estimate in that graph, the maximum warming from the CO2 injected into the atmosphere by 2004 has already occurred; CO2 accumulated through 2004 will produce no future warming — there is no “warming in the pipeline” from that.
I guess it depends what “from that” means:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article
Must be a vocabulary thing.
It’s a realistic thingy in my case. I’d rather focus on geoengineering and solar, and nuclear R&D. The world can’t afford the solutions proposed by the warmist camp pseudo engineers, who don’t understand much about real life decisions outside the ivory towers.
And to be honest I’m much more worried about the fact that we are running out of oil. We can do ok with sea level 5 meters higher. But the lack of a liquid fuel like oil, and the associated shortages of raw materials for plastics is going to get a lot of people killed.
Fan, I ignore your stuff for many reasons, but I can’t recall that you are often grossly uncivil. You certainly are with your comment on one of the most thorough and precise commentors here, when you say: “Question Did yah read the article and understand it, Matthew R Marler?” I invite you to withdraw that gratuitous comment.
Climate was assumed to equilibriate over hundreds of years.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig9-1.gif
The reality is pulsed increases in forcing – but very slow increases 0f some 0.04W/m2 per annum.
This is swamped by natural variability.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ceres-net-seasonal.png
Which results in coincident.changes in ocean heat.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/argo-temperature.jpg
The reality is (not) pulsed….
Realistic thingy. Geoengineering. Check.
Matthew, I am not particularly sure where FOMD is coming from, but ~10 years is consistent with Schwart’s estimate of 8 +/- 2.5 year bulk ocean lag. Schwartz came to an ECS of 1.9 +/- 1K and it looks like his last update was June of last year.
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2: ~10 years is consistent with Schwart’s estimate of 8 +/- 2.5 year bulk ocean lag
thanks for the note
a fan of *MORE* discourse: Our [Ricke-Caldiera] results provide additional evidence that on time scales substantially longer than a decade, the warming from a CO2 emission can be approximated by a step function increase in temperature that then remains approximately constant for an extended period of time.
That’s what I wrote. The “step” from CO2 accumulated up through 2004 has already occurred.
Summary The Ricke-Caldiera results greatly assist Climate Etc readers in discounting the irrelevant quibbling, angry ranting, impotent frothing, and pointless abuse that is so characteristic of climate-change denialism!
Who has denied climate change? Not I, who posted the link to Ricke-Caldera in the first place. I repeatedly assert that climate changes.
Notice that they answer a question that I have posed before: When thinking of TCS and ECS, how much time elapses between the transient and equilibrium responses? I wrote an inference from the csalt model of
WebHubTelescope that the time might be very short, like a couple of years. Ricke and Caldeira get a median estimate of 10 years from climate simulations. If they are correct (all research results require corroboration), the only “warming in the pipeline” is from the CO2 emitted in years since 2004.
Fan
No, that wasn’t what I said was it?
According to your original link, James Hansen wants to return to 350ppm. However your interpretation of the Ricke and Caldeira paper is that there is unavoidable strong warming in the pipeline .
In other words, whatever we do there will be unavoidable strong warming so there seems little purpose in trying to return to 350ppm as it seems quite impossible to achieve and will have no impact anyway.
I was also looking forward to your inspirational ideas as to how we can all kick the carbon habit quickly as I assume you must be a wonderful example of frugal carbon use that we can all emulate? At the very least you must be agitating for very substantial price rises so your fellow citizens in the US will also be forced to kick the carbon habit and follow your good example. We in the UK have already taken this harsh medicine.
The millions here that can’t afford to heat their homes are praying for a very mild winter.
tonyb
“The Ricke-Caldiera results greatly assist Climate Etc readers in discounting the irrelevant quibbling, angry ranting, impotent frothing, and pointless abuse that is so characteristic of climate-change denialism!”
_____
So very true. Pseudoscience tends toward quibbling and ranting and frothing when reality doesn’t match expectations.
We all struggle to discuss scientific issues impersonally, TonyB.
http://illuminutti.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ten-10-commandments_600px.jpg
Don’t give up!
R. Gates: Pseudoscience tends toward quibbling and ranting and frothing when reality doesn’t match expectations.
Where is the pseudoscience in the Ricke-Caldeira paper?
“Where is the pseudoscience in the Ricke-Caldeira paper?”
______
Seems the pseudoscience is in the interpretation of the results by the pseudoscience cult, which fail to understand the differences between direct effects and indirect effects from an initial forcing. In the final analysis, it is the Earth System Response that really matters from an initial forcing. The shorter term tropospheric effects (owing the small thermal inertia) are the least most important part. This same short-term thinking is the failure of many who insist that a mega-volcano might only affect the Earth climate system for a “year or two”, whereas the sea ice and ocean feedbacks can linger and affect the climate system for decades.
A couple more quotes to hint at complexity: Table 1.
Best-fit ocean model parameters for CMIP5 models based on two-box and 1D diffusion models. The ‘better fit’ model was used in our study. The climate sensitivity parameter, effective vertical diffusivity and better fit model were first presented in Caldeira and Myhrvold (2013).
Consult the table and paper for more details. Their models accounted for ocean warming.
While the maximum warming effect of a CO2 emission may manifest itself in only one decade, other impact-relevant effects, such as sea level rise, will quite clearly not reach their maximum until after the first century (see, e.g.,figure 2(c) of Joos et al (2013 )). For many impacts, such as changes to natural ecosystems, degradation is the result of the cumulative effects of consecutive years of warming or precipitation
change (Parmesan and Yohe 2003 ). Ice sheet melting can persist for thousands of years following a warming (Huybrechts et al 2011). As such, even if maximum warming occurs within a decade, maximum impact may not be reached until much later. From this perspective, Steven Chu’s state-ment that today’s damage ‘will not be seen for at least 50 years’ may well be accurate.
That is probably R. Gates’ point. Even without “warming in the pipeline”, there may be future consequences of the warming that has occurred to date. Loss of Antarctic ice was one he listed. The authors mention precipitation change, but there isn’t agreement that precipitation will either increase or decrease. Authors do not mention forest growth or agricultural improvement as possible consequences. I was focusing, as the authors mostly did, on the warming itself.
Fan; “The comments of Climate Etc denialists have distslled down to irrelevant quibbling, angry ranting, impotent frothing and pointless abuse eh Climate Etc readers?”
How many rational debate commandments did you break with that one, eh?
No worries. Warming is good.
Very hard to do this
Off the cuff
Love a challenge
Can I do it
And yes there’s time
Now is the moment if I can seize it
Or may be not.
A whole sentence without a barbed reference at Fan or Gates.
The irrelevant quibbling, angry ranting, impotent frothing, and pointless abuse and denialism that they demonstrate as their positions recede is one of the main reasons I love engaging with them.
Matthew R Marler: I was focusing, as the authors mostly did, on the warming itself.
However, upon rereading I find that I did write “all of the effects of CO2 accumulation” which was a mistake. So Gates was right to challenge me on it.
Warmists violating the Ten commandments of Rational Debate:
1. (“Ad hominem”) Calling people deniers.
2. (“Straw Man Fallacy”) Calling lukewarmers deniers.
3. (“Hasty Generalization”) Yamal.
4. (“Begging the Question”) CAGW.
5. (“Post Hoc/False Claim”) California’s drought.
6. (“Fake Dichotomy”) Calling lukewarmers deniers.
7. (“Ad Ignorantiam”) Precautionary Principle.
8. (“Burden of Proof Reversal”) Were the Climategate emails stolen or leaked?
9. (“Non Sequitor”) Current victims of climate change.
10. (“Bandwagon Fallacy”) 97 percent consensus.
oops
Every correction contains an error. I wrote “the effects” not “all of the effects.” What I meant was “the effects of CO2 on warming” not “the effects of CO2 including those mediated by warming”.
It will not increase the SAT in an amount greater than the amount in the 10th year, but it continues warming for for a very very long time. That’s the pipeline.
Regarding “warming in the pipeline”, the Earth System Response to a forcing actually takes years to work through the system owing the very long response time or high thermal inertia of parts of the system. The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica for example, would continue to decline for decades even if we somehow magically stopped CO2 right now at 400 ppm. Their decline adds both to sea level increase but also has other positive feedbacks involved which continue the initial warming out over many decades.
So, even though a certain increase in CO2 might reach its maximum warming potential after a decade or so, the spin off earth system feedbacks to that warming pulse carries through the Earth System far longer as the troposphere has the lowest thermal inertia but other parts of the system have much greater thermal inertia.
A fan of *MORE* discourse,
You seem to have left off the last part of your name. It should be:
A fan of *MORE* discourse: as long as it my views that are being shoved down everyone else’s throat.
Fan was trying to make some point about multi-layered insulation in another thread. It takes about 60 layers of near perfect radiant barrier with vacuum voids to get to the point of no reasonable return on effort for a space blanket. I am sure he a point in there somewhere, but I could not decipher it.
Fan Sackur-Tetrode does correct for the original issues with Boltzmann, but I don’t see that it “proves” there is no possible variation in temperature if someone picks an extreme case. As I have mentioned before, the “effect” is supposed to be very small.
The point was simply that Gravito-Thermal Effect is *NOT* real, whereas the Greenhouse Effect *IS* real, and (therefore) the climate-change concerns of James Hansen, Pope Francis, Naomi Oreskes, Kate Ricke, and Ken Caldeira are scientifically warranted.
http://eqat.org/EQAT-logo.gif
It is a pleasure to assist your understanding, and the understanding of Climate Etc readers, captdallas!
It is very easy to say there is no gravito-thermal effect on the basis of a thought bubble about not finding stellar temperatures in a centrifuge.
I find it quite impossible to say it does or that it doesn’t exist.
‘There seems to be a dearth of experimental data. We study an ideal gas in a centrifuge and invoke the equivalence principle to relate this situation to atmospheres. Experiments are proposed. (Section 3.8).’
– See more at: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/3/1515/htm#sthash.NZC7a5DJ.dpuf’
That’s why the comments from FOMBS has ‘distilled down to irrelevant quibbling, angry ranting, impotent frothing, and pointless abuse … eh Climate Etc readers?’ Is his purpose, practice and lack of substance not abundantly evident? Oh well.
Actually, the gravito-thermal effect there result of a poor definition of entropy/equilibrium and the Greenhouse Gas Effect is a part of an overall atmospheric effect. You can overestimate the impact of each :)
As more data has become available the CO2 portion of the Atmospheric effects is becoming better understood and the estimated impact per doubling is approaching a lower value, currently around 1.6 C per doubling with less indication of the longer term “pipeline” impact being as high as originally estimated. That is good news Fan!! It is likely not as bad as we thought!!! Add smilies at your leisure.
The only way the gravito-thermal effect and greenhouse effect are related is that poor assumptions of “equilibrium” can lead to “unbelievably large” errors in estimates.
‘The equilibrium state of any ideal gas with a finite adiabatic index is essentially polytropic. Here, it is important to make precise what we mean by equilibrium. We use the term in the context of a mathematical model; it refers to a solution of the equations of motion with the property that all flows vanish and all the fields are time independent. Polytropic models of earthly and stellar atmospheres are very widely used, and the stationary configurations of such atmospheres are equilibria in this sense, although the physical configurations that they are meant to represent are not states of true thermodynamic equilibrium. An issue that we wish to understand is the precise role that is played by radiation. We should hope to develop an understanding of what would happen if the intensity of radiation were continuously reduced to zero. The possibility that the limit might turn out to be other than isothermal is not easy to accept, for it goes against one of the basic tenets of thermodynamics: Clausius’ statement of the second law (Section 3.7). The question is not entirely academic, but it has no direct bearing on the validity of our approach, for we apply it to the standard, polytropic atmospheres, just as has been done since the pioneering work of Lane (1870).’
All I can do is quote the literature.
Givens:
1) Equilibrium point is maximum entropy.
2) Maximum entropy is when there is no mechanical energy gradient.
3) Mechanical energy gradient includes gravitational potential and kinetic energy together.
Therefore, since the gravity field establishes a potential energy gradient from zero at elevation zero to maximum at elevation maximum then temperature gradient will adjust so that there is no mechanical energy gradient. The temperature gradient is established by collision strength being made asymmetrical in the vertical axis – kinetic energy flows downward because molecular collisions are stronger in the downward direction aided by gravity and weaker in the upward direction opposed by gravity.
Well *THERE’S* yer problem!
http://triggerplug.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/well-theres-your-problem-facehugger-copy1.jpg
Fact The well-validated Sackur-Tetrode entropy function depends upon *BOTH* mechanical energy *AND* particle density.
Consequence The distribution of density and temperature, in a gravitational column at maximal entropy, is stationary under variations of *BOTH* mechanical energy *AND* particle density.
Result When density and energy *BOTH* are varied, subject to conservation of total energy and total mass, and the total entropy is required to be stationary, then the gravito-thermal effect disappears, and all the results of standard thermodynamics (like Boyle’s Law) are obtained.
It is a pleasure to concretely assist your thermodynamical understanding, David Springer!
It seems quite insane that you can get a result by arm waving at an equation with no obvious application to the problem. Please enlighten us by all means.
Here’s a calculator FOMBS – by all means supply some numbers. Although if stellar temps in a centrifuge are any indication – don’t assume reliability.
Rob asks, history answers!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Joseph_Wright_of_Derby._An_Experiment_on_a_Bird_in_the_Air_Pump._Detail.child.jpg
Seriously, Rob Ellisonif you have trouble carrying through the two-quantity entropy variation that yields the orthodox ideal-gas equation-of-state (and does *NOT* yield the gravito-thermic equation of state), then please post the point where you get stuck, and FOMD will be pleased to assist your understanding.
Still from alien – arm waving – oil painting – more arm waving.
I don’t have any problem calculating entropy – but what that has to do with isentrophy in a gas under gravity is quite unclear. By all means enlighten us.
A all-details machine-checkable Mathematica derivation of the maximum-entropy/uniform-temperature gas law for an ideal gas in a gravitational potential will (hopefully) emerge from moderation pretty soon.
It is a pleasure to assist your understanding, Rob Ellison!
Fan, “A all-details machine-checkable Mathematica derivation of the maximum-entropy/uniform-temperature gas law for an ideal gas in a gravitational potential will (hopefully) emerge from moderation pretty soon.”
I wish you well on both the moderation and ending the gravito-thermal debate, but I have my doubts the debate will end.
For example, if you use your 60 layer mylar insulation to create a shell around the Earth to isolate the atmosphere, the atmosphere would tend toward isothermal but at a temperature close to the core temperature of the Earth. If you pick a different volume the Sky Dragons will toss in an other wrinkle.
I am not particular sure why, “meh, it’s insignificant in a real atmosphere.” isn’t better than claiming exact knowledge of every conceivable case.
CD wrote: “I am not particular sure why, “meh, it’s insignificant in a real atmosphere.” isn’t better than claiming exact knowledge of every conceivable case.”
It’s not the claims of knowledge regarding hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios that are important as much as the understanding that their study provide. It is likely illusory of claim understanding for some complex system (such as the Earth atmosphere) when very simple subsystems and closely related idealized cases are fundamentally misunderstood.
P-N, “It is likely illusory of claim understanding for some complex system (such as the Earth atmosphere) when very simple subsystems and closely related idealized cases are fundamentally misunderstood.”
As I have said before, the “fundamentals” provide limits that are to be compared with reality. Fundamentally, a doubling of CO2 would produce between 0.8 and 1.2 C depending on your choice of surface and the ever present, “all things remaining equal.” Abstractly, you can take to fundamentals to a variety of hypothetical limits.
The Gravito-thermal problem is a good illustration of limits of assumed “equilibrium”. Curry and others mention that with longer term natural warming/variability, ~300 years worth, the “estimated” normal state would need to consider longer term climate or increase ranges of certainty. As an engineer, I am pretty used to as-built systems not performing up to exact design expectations, with ‘proven systems” generally getting much closer to spec than “novel” systems. Fans position reminds me of a few systems that could be described affectionately as Clusterplucks.
The End of the Hockey Stick.
If you haven’t see it as yet, look at McIntyre’s latest post. It is devastating.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/04/sheep-mountain-update/
Like so many other factors, it’s effect on Earth’s climate is impossible for us to quantify.
http://dsx.weather.com//util/image/w/a92172df-c8c4-4ee8-ac81-bf1f00cc661c.jpg?v=at&w=980&h=551&api=7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0?w-400
http://dsx.weather.com//util/image/w/a92172df-c8c4-4ee8-ac81-bf1f00cc661c.jpg?w=400
It would be good to have an open discussion about what it would or would not mean if 2014 turns out to be the warmest year globally on instrument record. I have never been a fan of using one year of tropospheric sensible heat as a proxy for anything related to anthropogenic climate change, but have always thought that a decadal average in temperatures is the least amount of time you need to tell you anything meaningful about a longer term forcing. Regarding 2014 being the “warmest year”, only to the extent that it adds to a warmer decadal average is it meaningful. Actually, I think that the bigger climate story is the record warmth of the oceans this year, all the way down to 2000m. I’ve always felt the oceans are a better proxy for long-term changes in the climate than tropospheric sensible heat. This year, certainly the record, or near record tropospheric temperatures are directly related to ocean temperatures being so high, and all without the benefit of a super-El Nino or El Nino as we had in the other two warmest years of 2010 and 1998.
There’s a super La Nina coming next year (2015/16), fasten your seat belt.
I’m just bracing for the impending media hypegasm.
It’s not going to be a warmest year on the satellite series.
Today the latest ENSO ONI number was posted: +0.5.
2014 may not be the warmest year on GISS and HadCrut4. NOAA looks like a lock.
Cowtan and Way looks unlikely.
So it’s not an earthquake.
If ENSO neutral continues through 2015, then back-to-back warmest years will be an earthquake.
The NOAA October record was .04 C over 1998 and 2010 with a margin of error of .11 C. So lets assume that by 2035 the trend line from now ends up being 0 C. If we have records set every 5 or 10 years at ,04 or close to that, interspersed with slightly cooler years, who cares. You got your alarmist headlines and the complicit press will satisfy their guilt trip after milking it for all its worth and Fan will be in a lather and Gates will go jiggy and Web will be laying around in a laughing fit but the reality is that if you heat up .0anything the earth is not warming at anywhere near what the IPCC has projected. So go ahead and get all hot and bothered. Cooler heads will take their usual measured and scientific approach.
The instrument record before satellites in 1979 is not global and cannot be used for comparison. At least a 60-year cycle with global measurement is needed otherwise a record is insignificant. Further making the measure meaningless is solar cycles. The twentieth century saw a solar grand maximum and the effects of waxing and waning solar activity is not well known except to say that known regional warming and cooling (eg. Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period) lasting many decades in the past spookily align with changes in solar activity directly observed through sunspot counts and indirectly recorded with changes in radio-isotope production in the atmosphere corresponding with more or fewer very high energy particles impacting same.
‘Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends’
Roger A. Pielke Sr.et al 2007
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JD008229/full
I believe this is from IPCC AR5:
http://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/blog/climate-at-imperial/files/2014/09/Figure-1-heat-taken-up.jpg
The oceans don’t seem to be taking up more heat than they have been since around 1978. The oceans are handling large amounts of changes in joules compared to the atmosphere. The oceans are about plus 250 ZJs while I’d guess the atmosphere is about plus 2.5 ZJs. So we could say while the CO2 atmospheric effect has trapped 2.5 ZJs at the same time it caused 100 times that effect to the oceans. But that seems a bit incredible. To me it’s like saying, we can add insulation between the surface and the TOA to trap 2.5 ZJs. That in turn will trap 250 ZJs in the oceans. It also would mean that in terms of total Zjs over the past 40 years, the CO2 effect is 100 times more on the oceans, which actually might be temporarily plausible. As the oceans have 1000 time the energy content, they’ve changed theirs by 1/10 the amount the atmosphere has relative to each of their total energy contents.
2.5 ZJ / 1 energy content = 2.5 ZJ / energy content
250 ZJ / 1000 energy content = 0.25 ZJ / energy content
Where 1 energy content equals the atmosphere and 1000 energy content equals the oceans. Maybe it is true that increased CO2 will put 100 times the ZJ into the oceans as it did to the atmosphere using the above link. If we had a green house over a swimming pool at equilibrium, adding CO2 to the greenhouse of say 80 ppm could be argued to capture 1 unit of energy in air and capture 100 units in the pool, okay. But to me this is hinting at massive energy capture in the pool for not a lot of effort. We on the land can really control the temperature of the oceans top to bottom? I think it’s more likely if the linked chart is correct, it’s mostly decreased albedo or the same average albedo and a recovery from a colder time.
Tisdale has a post over at WUWT about CO2 and the oceans warming. I made a few comment there:
Roughly put, it is says that the CO2 caused the atmosphere to acquire 2.5 ZJs. At the same time the oceans acquired 250s ZJ. That 100 times the effect on the ocean surfaces, as compared to the TOA seems difficult to believe. If the case was the oceans had stayed at the same heat content, then that 250 ZJs likely would’ve passed through the TOA, and if it did not, it would be quite warm. I don’t get how CO2 can trap so much more heat in the oceans than it does in the atmosphere? I think the more likely answer is a decreased albedo and/or a recovery from a cooler time.
This subject seems to be not agreed upon and I wish it could be resolved. Attributing the last 40 years of OHC gains to CO2 means that the next 40 years will be about the same as the CO2 effect is not going to diminish. The problem solves itself or pushes itself quite a distance into the future. We can now avoid 250 ZJs of heat over the next 40 years by doing nothing with CO2 mitigation. CO2 saves us by keeping the heat where it really doesn’t matter for I’d guess a few centuries.
———————
If we agree that CO2 can do what is claimed over the past 40 years to the oceans, why would it stop? I’d appreciates anyone’s comment I what I am mostly likely not understanding here.
It’s not going to stop. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere reduces net radiation, which means SW energy stays in the ocean longer: meaning greater storage of energy. When there is less downwelling, the surface area of the oceans where that energy is in close proximity to the surface goes way up and you have a big spike in the GMT: see 2013 and 2014. There is no silver lining. You keep trying to find one. There’s none.
JCH:
I am going to add insulation to the atmosphere that will warm it and capture 2.5 ZJs over 40 years. I am interested in what that does to the oceans? I find that this captures 250 ZJs in the oceans as the AR5 graph indicates. If I don’t add the insulation, the atmosphere will not warm and the oceans will not gain 250 ZJs. That’s a control knob I can appreciate.
Rgates
It looks like CET is on track to be the warmest in the record since daily records were kept from 1772. This gives us the opportunity of determining why.
Is it because of co2 or just that the weather patterns have evolved over the past year that have created slightly warmer than normal temperatures? Nothing especially hot and nothing especially cold.
We have had lots of westerly winds and lots of southerly winds which, for us, means warmish weather and in the case of westerly winds often means wettish weather. We had a warmish wet winter in 2013/14. This is the period when temperature differential is greatest, so a cold or warm winter will likely determine the year.
Has the anthropogenic factor had anything to do with shaping the weather and the high and low pressures that sit in the position they have done and caused winds from the different directions described?
The Met office have the chance to examine this day by day but instead they have just proclaimed the warmest ever and it must be due to man. (or at least partially)
tonyb
tony
will you be updating your graphs after the end of the year so we can see how 2014 fits in with the entire record?
Ceresco kid
Here are the Hadley CET figures to 1772 which are up to date
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
I tend to update my own graphs when I write an article that requires them. I hope to be completing the Follow up to ‘the long Slow Thaw’ sometime over the winter so that will update the (reconstructed) CET to around 1200AD.
We can observe an upwards temperature trend for some 320 years
tonyb
“It looks like CET is on track to be the warmest in the record since daily records were kept from 1772. This gives us the opportunity of determining why.”
—–
Any given year can’t tell us much, but to see some longer-term forcing, take a look at what the warmest decadal average was in the CET. If the warmest year occurs during the warmest decade that is probably more meaningful than a warm year sticking out like a black swan in an average or cool decade in terms of long-term climate forcing.
Rgates
My thoughts precisely. I carried out the CET decadal exercise last year
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/graph09.png
The last decade was the warmest, not the current one. In my reconstruction I have identified around seven yearsfrom 1538 back to around 1220AD that appear to be at least as warm as 2014. (not the 15th Century which I haven’t researched)
I would say one of them came out of nowhere, but the others appeared in warm periods ranging from a decade to several decades.
tonyb
tonyb
thanks for the Met CET link
the anomalies make me curious in that they create a perception of much greater variation than if the graphic showed all the the data
if I understand correctly
if so, bugs me a bit
Rgates
I replied to your 3.10 but it ended up elsewhere so will try again
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/04/open-thread-22/#comment-652881
tonyb
Tony,
Thanks for that CET chart. Globally, the period of 2000-2009 was easily the warmest decade on record so far and the period of 2010-2019 is shaping up to be warmer still..
Politicized science keeps trucking along.
“The leaked note says that the scientists agreed to select authors to produce four papers and co-ordinate their publication to “obtain the necessary policy change, to have these pesticides banned”.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4286838.ece
A stronger
game plan for humanity.
A critique of current objectives.
The micronutrient initiative.
Baroque pop
Riche and Caldeira add a pules of CO2 – and determine an equilibrium response very much shorter than previously.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/katharine-l-ricke-and-ken-caldeira.png
But what happens when forcing changes incrementally?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/wong2006figure7.gif
The idea – btw – that temps change as a step function and then don’t change for a decade seems a trifle contrived.
Rob Ellison,
I was interested in the Riche & Caldeira paper regarding a pulse of CO2 and the model simulation estimate of a climate sensitivity number.
I had noted a while back that the Mt. Pinatubo eruption had impacted the global surface temperature record which resumed its pre-eruption baseline three years later. I have also been aware that the gases that are emitted include CO2, and according to Timothy Casey October 2009, http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net, more CO2 may be ejected than SO2. To me, the eruption of Pinatubo is the same experiment in nature that R&C performed by model simulation.
To me, the return to baseline of the global surface temperature record after Pinatubo, suggests that the CO2 warming effect was either minuscule and/or not long lasting such that when the SO2 and other aerosols rained out, the earth was no warmer than before the eruption. A CO2 sensitivity would then be very low.
I’m just wondering out loud.
Rih008
I am not sure if the item you linked to specifically covered something I would be interested in resolving
That volcanoes emit much less co2 than man has done in recent decades, bearing in mind that co2 is supposed to hang around for hundreds if not thousands of years, over the last 1000 years have volcanoes emitted enough co2 to materially affect the temperature?
Tonyb
TonyB
Just saying, if the amount of SO2 emitted is sufficient to cool the planet for a year or three, and by assumption that CO2 is emitted in the same amount as SO2 if not more, then I would have anticipated a CO2 impact. As far as I can tell, the eruption of El Chichon did the same cooling during an El Nino event, just not as much.
Experience leads me to believe that an object being heated by a steady radiant heat source in a vacuum will reach a maximum temperature, regardless of how long it remains exposed to the heat source, or the temperature of the source.
Once this temperature is reached, nothing can cause it to increase, all else remaining equal.
However, the temperature of the heated object can be reduced, locally or otherwise, by the simple expedient of refusing the amount of energy reaching the object. For example, interpose a layer of gas – any gas at all will do – and the object will cool.
If anybody objects, and claims a particular gas is transparent to energy, I suggest they might care to examine why the speed of light is specified in a vacuum, ie in the absence of any gas of any type. The only truly transparent thing is a thing which consists of nothing at all. A vacuum.
Of course particulate matter suspended in a gas will work even better – let us call the combination an atmosphere.
Given the right sorts of particulate matter, and the right conditions, clouds will form. Anybody who has had more or less direct sunlight intercepted by a passing cloud will appreciate the cooling and subsequent re warming effect.
Parasols, sunshades, verandas, shade structured, all provide local warming and cooling, even though the perceived order may depend on where you live, how old you are, and such like.
As an example, I believe that in many localities, persons under the age of eighteen years have experienced no global warming on their lifetime. Others may have experienced no sea level rise, or fall, during that period. I mention this as sea level rise – or land subsidence – is supposed to prove the existence of global warming.
The cooling phenomenon is well understood, as is the apparent warming associated with its removal. I am unaware of any demonstrated mechanism which can raise the equilibrium temperature of an object exposed to a steady radiative source in a vacuum.
To date, nobody has managed to provide an example of this effect, which presumably involves the application of closely guarded Warmist magical spells, and fails to work in the presence of unbelievers. Somewhat like Uri Geller’s telepathic spoon bending skills, I guess.
I am curious as to whether my logic or appreciation of physics is faulty, and would appreciate comment. I admit to being occasionally wrong, as recently I followed the Mannian procedure of interpreting a data set incorrectly. Of course, I promptly apologised for being so foolish.
Seriously, I wonder if people occasionally confuse a reduction in cooling with a non concomitant increase in temperature, if you know what I mean.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Science-respecting transformation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFilkxTNlcs
A stronger game plan for humanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKBZpmGxniw&list=PLNdEBvVYMvsCDmFDz-9P4k8jqHBJ2nGUf&index=6
Escaping false dichotomies.
The difference is spending $2.5 trillion to 2030 on smart goals with practical objectives – and continuing to waste our time with insane ideas of social and economic transformation.
FOMBS is a master only of the frivolous and the superficial. Does there seem to be a pattern emerging here?
Keen insight by Rob Ellison, link by FOMD!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CBW3aFvxVs&t=0h11m46s
Common sense It’s not likely that the 21st century will end WITHOUT social and economic transformation, eh Climate Etc readers?
After all, the previous six centuries haven’t!
FOMBS predictably focuses in on structural transformation – a notion that lacks any concrete detail – in society rather than practical and pragmatic solutions to hunger, grinding poverty and the exclusion of many from access to 21st century energy resources.
The nebulous notions of transformation are profoundly repellent if sound notions evolved over centuries of the scientific enlightenment of democracy, the rule of law, freedom, free markets are thrown over for some inevitably totalitarian form. There is room enough for transformation in the social contract forges in the cut and thrust of democracy. There is no room for romantic reinterpretations of the norms of freedom so long fought for and so hard won.
Such views seem always to stem from a inchoate revolutionary fervour – they require disaster of one sort or another to provide a transforming moment – they are ideas utterly alien to the bulk of humanity. The bulk of humanity want economic growth, scientific innovation, technical mastery, peace, a certain level of security and environmental and social progress and freedom. It is a very simple equation.
People like FOMBS – and Unger – are enemies of freedom even if they haven’t quite made the connection.
‘From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.’ Hayek
The true progressive has a place – at the fringe of politics and society. That way they can be largely ignored – but monitored and called out when they cross the line. The celebrity progressive has an especially important role in this. To be laughed at for hypocrisy and to be held up for contempt at the least provocation.
http://www.history2u.com/thomas_paine-common_sense.jpg
Don’t ferget tah jail `em too!
“If there had been no Rousseau, there would have been no Revolution, and without the Revolution, I should have been impossible.” Napolean
Perhaps an apologist for the tumbrel and the reign of terror is not the best exemplar for common sense.
Over the long haul of history, the progressive ideals of Rousseau, Condorcet, Paine, and Jefferson have prevailed.
That’s a mighty plain fact, isn’t it Rob Ellison?
Rob Ellifson
You are correct in that a very powerful element in Thomas Paine’s skill set was the ability to foment revolution and mass murder around the world. Like-minded thinkers [FOMBS?] and perhaps the obligingly naive elevate Paine to personal hero.
A note worth repeating is that only 5 people attended Paine’s funeral in America. That includes two grave-diggers, a reporter and the presiding official.
misspelled Ellison, sorry.
and i misspelled FOMD, too. sorry.
“and i misspelled FOMD, too. sorry.”
I think in the spirit of previous warnings — and in spite of Rob’s defiant promise never to cooperate with her — Judith is committed to snip or remove posts where he purposefully makes use of this misspelling.
Lol … two of Paine’s mourners were freed slaves and the minister was an (anti-slavery) Quaker.
Paine’s then-radical ideas regarding freeing of slaves, universal public education, civil liberties, and the institution of social security programs were scorned by his conservative neighbors … yet nowadays Paine’s radical ideas are the law of the land, in the United States and in every advanced nation around the world.
What a pity indeed, that “Paine’s works are not today the schoolbooks for all children!”, eh Climate Etc readers?
Does Tom Paine’s spirit yet live? and still inspire?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6um6g0hZj4
Lol … he world doesn’t wonder!
And yet FOMBS list consists of slave owners, mass murderers – or at least apologists for mass murderers – slave owners and rapists.
‘In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the “people’s democracies.” His call for the “sovereign” to force men to be free if necessary in the interests of the “General Will” harks back to the Lycurgus of Sparta instead of to the pluralism of Athens; the legacy of Rousseau is Robespierre and the radical Jacobins of the Terror who followed and worshipped him passionately. In the 20th century, his influence is further felt by tyrants who would arouse the egalitarian passions of the masses not so much in the interests of social justice as social control….
Can you force a person or people to be free? Can one person – or small group of people – truly discern a clear “General Will” which represents the entire people? Is this not in practice a call for dictatorship? Can we read “The Social Contract” and find any of the spirit of Athens and parliamentary democracy in those pages? I cannot. It seems to me all Sparta and the austere egalitarianism of the collectivist society and ideological justifications for the nightmare regimes of modern totalitarianism.’
There is a history of long fought for and hard won classic liberal freedoms that FOMBS mendaciously redefines as progressive in the modern sense. It may be progressive but it is not the freedoms hard won and to be stoutly defended. It seems more the authoritarian impulse of the modern progressive masquerading as enlightenment values. It leads to dark places if allowed to fester in the body politic.
“What Tocqueville did not consider was how long such a government would remain in the hands of benevolent despots when it would be so much more easy for any group of ruffians to keep itself indefinitely in power by disregarding all the traditional decencies of political life.”
― Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
This is ever the threat to be guarded against.
AFOMD,
It is a pity that you are forced to suffer the present global warming due to the ignorance of your parents and grandparents not being able to foresee the consequences of their inability to halt progress.
I trust you – and other Warmists – will take steps not to fall into the same trap as your antecedents, and ensure that at the very least, you take immediate and effective steps to avoid producing children, grandchildren and so on.
Or do people like Hansen not have the courage of their convictions? If you realise that 97% of the world’s population cares not what you think, surely you must accept the majority decision, and stop producing grandchildren. Otherwise you might well be liable to prosecution for child abuse, inasmuch as you are knowingly introducing children into a situation of starvation, flooding, droughts, civil commotion, storms, and the collapse of civilisation generally.
Have you no moral fibre, or sense of responsibility to your offspring and theirs?
A person who would exhibit such a cavalier attitude to the well-being of small children surely deserves to be brought to justice! Wouldn’t you agree that the most severe sanctions should be levelled against such a fiend?
Away with ye, AFOMD laddie! Deniers pale into insignificance when compared with child abusers!
If you have already taken steps to avoid the production of children, I offer my most fulsome apology, and my congratulations for ensuring the safety and well being of the children and grandchildren you are not going to produce, even indirectly!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
OMG – the cliches – the cliches
@ Mike Flynn
Jerry Pournelle often says, accurately, that cheap, plentiful energy is the key to freedom and prosperity.
Does it not seem odd then that EVERY energy policy advocated by the progressives, who make up the only subset of the population at large with more than a casual interest in ‘government climate policy’, appears to be specifically designed to either increase the price of energy, decrease its supply, or both?
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘Hi, I’m from the government and here to help'” – Ronald Reagan 1986
Keep Warm,
Richard
• An nine-word lie “Market efficiency versus Marxism: these are your only choices.”
http://front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/corporatepeople500.jpg
• A three-word mistake “Corporations are people.”
Wow. Is it not a trifle distasteful to use fallen heroes as ideological fodder?
Rob Ellison, you are free to avert your eyes, and free to not think about the price these heroes paid, in large measure to sustain a deranged carbon-burning energy-economy.
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/USMC_pursian_gulf.jpg
But the families that wait (even today) for the planes from Landstuhl to land, bearing wounded and dead, do not have that luxury.
Utterly, unequivocably contemptible.
Rob,
fan gets a pass on this one.
FOMT, there are vast numbers of service members and their family members who do not share your nutty beliefs, so for you to manipulate and besmirch the deaths of people in combat to further your personal ideological crusade is purely despicable.
Refuge scoundrels,
Eff N Gee ground rules.
==============
Arguing with a colourful genius who uses words “intractable” and “slow” interchangeably, and who knows that every seamount is a sunken atoll, is hopeless.
Rls
Surely, the most terrifying words in the English language are those written on flat pack furniture;. ‘simple self assembly required.’
tonyb
The end of the world is most likely to occur as a result of an AI in an Ikea factory becoming self aware and converting all global resources into flat pack furniture.
Lets just hope the AI develops on a Windows platform or else we’re done. But Windows is so full of hole should be no problem to bring it down….
Tony,
In the 1970s I worked for Ford Motor Co as a process engineer, developing process sheets that instructed each assembly plant how to assemble the automobile it produced. The sheets included line by line instructions, illustrations, screws, tools, and torques; I also had to develop some of the tools, fixtures, and test equipment. Can you believe it?
The sheets were used by the industrial engineers to determine labor hours and could be found in the plants on each foreman’s stand. And each summer I would go to the plants for what was called “launch” to show the foremen how to do build the cars.
Thank you for the opportunity to blow my mind!
Cheers
Richard
“Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind.”
> • A three-word mistake “Corporations are people.”
So a group of people is not people.
Tuppence,
You can’t put a corporation in jail, people you can. Leaves a lot of room for naughtiness w/o ramification IMO.
Interesting dichotomy here in that I often read about individual rights and responsibilities and yet corporate shells can act as a shield (if we let them).
Entire organizations (Enron) have had people act inappropriately leading to damage to the corporation. Corporations as an entity can also act inappropriately damaging people, yet corporations are not held to the same level of responsibility as individuals. So, in this case, groups of people are not people (when incorporated).
It’s the law, and laws are rules by which we play the game, but then entities are not the same.
IUCN’s Anti-Neonic Pesticide Task Force: An exposé into activist science
http://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2014/12/02/iucn%E2%80%99s-anti-neonic-pesticide-task-force-an-expose-into-activist-science/#.VID4LlJ0xhH
◾Under the auspices of the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, a group of activists map out a four-year campaign strategy to attack the pesticide industry and seek the banning of neonicotinoids.
◾The idea is to collect like-minded researchers, get funding to set up a task-force to attack neonics using the IUCN as a base with WWF (or some other NGO) doing the lobbying.
◾Once funding is in place for the campaign organisation, start the research, write a main high-impact report and get a few other articles published (find some big names to use).
◾On that basis, organise a broader campaign (with the support of several high-impact PR specialists) to promote their anti-neonic publication.
◾Brace for reactions and blowback from other scientists and industry.
[ … ]
They were also more successful than they would have ever have imagined, getting neonics banned in the EU 16 months ahead of their strategic plan.
Via Reason.com
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/04/bee-apocalypse-science-scandal-update-an
If you believe Hansen is well intentioned and not just an anarchist then the answer would be for developed economies to use only renewables and poor countries to use only conventional fuels including fossil and nuclear. If the entire world were connected in a grid the production and consumption theoretically would not be divided geographically by national boundaries, but could be delivered and consumed globally – “licensed out” among nations according to GDP/capita – consumption by nations, which in turn could further subdivide within countries out by income demographics. The allowable BTU, gigawatts, kilojoules, BTU, etc. of energy production globally would be determined by GDP total/distribution. Having said this, I wish I had never even mentioned it because it is about as far from a free market system …. as fire is to water. Only a horribly bureaucratic world organization like the UN would do something like this, and be sure they would make a total mess of it. All for the common good of course.
Speaking of free code, data, and papers; this is a step forward. But maybe scientists should just start putting their papers on line with the peer-review published right along with it. After all, this is the age of the cloud.
From the article:
Nature makes all articles free to view
Publisher permits subscribers and media to share read-only versions of its papers.
…
All research papers from Nature will be made free to read in a proprietary screen-view format that can be annotated but not copied, printed or downloaded, the journal’s publisher Macmillan announced on 2 December.
…
The content-sharing policy, which also applies to 48 other journals in Macmillan’s Nature Publishing Group (NPG) division, including Nature Genetics, Nature Medicine and Nature Physics, marks an attempt to let scientists freely read and share articles while preserving NPG’s primary source of income — the subscription fees libraries and individuals pay to gain access to articles.
…
http://www.nature.com/news/nature-makes-all-articles-free-to-view-1.16460
>Nature makes all articles free to view
Nope
An existing subscriber must forward you the read-only PDF link which itself only works inside a proprietary programme that Nature publishers have a large investment in
As a person who outright despises the expensive paywall model of critical information, this is NOT an advance. We proles are still kept at bay
ianl8888,
You proles need to be kept at bay!
It’s a well known fact that science degrees, particularly PhDs, confer immediate IQ elevation to at least genius level, and the ability to offer sage and expert advice on anything from family relationships to politics.
Additionally, graduates are awarded a lifetime pass to stick their snouts into the closest Government trough. You proles should be grateful for the opportunity to support your betters in the lifestyle to which they would like to become accustomed. After all, look at all the benefits you have received from those with PhDs in Climatology!
You, sir, are an ungrateful swine! For all I know, you would be prepared to challenge the word of the esteemed and mighty Nobel Laureate Michael Mann – even making the outrageous demand that he show his data and methods to a prole – without payment!
Civilisation would collapse, if the general public were allowed to peruse the results of the research for which they had paid, without exorbitant additional costs. The Department of Scientific Secrecy – Prole Scrutiny Avoidance Division – has your name. Their motto is “We don’t need no stinkin’ FOI legislation.”
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Just keep paying, and keep your smelly cake-hole closed!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
From the article:
…
Saudi Arabia and the core Opec states are taking an immense political gamble by letting crude oil prices crash to $66 a barrel, if their aim is to shake out the weakest shale producers in the US. A deep slump in prices might equally heighten geostrategic turmoil across the broader Middle East and boomerang against the Gulf’s petro-sheikhdoms before it inflicts a knock-out blow on US rivals.
Caliphate leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has already opened a “second front” in North Africa, targeting Algeria and Libya – two states that live off energy exports – as well as Egypt and the Sahel as far as northern Nigeria. “The resilience of US shale may prove greater than the resilience of Opec,” said Alistair Newton, head of political risk at Nomura.
Chris Skrebowski, former editor of Petroleum Review, said the Saudis want to cut the annual growth rate of US shale output from 1m barrels per day (bpd) to 500,000 bpd to bring the market closer to balance. “They want to unnerve the shale oil model and undermine financial confidence, but they won’t stop the growth altogether,” he said.
…
The country had a trade deficit of $354bn in oil and gas as recently as 2011. Citigroup said this will return to balance by 2018, one of the most extraordinary turnarounds in modern economic history.
“When it comes to crude and other hydrocarbons, the US is bursting at the seams,” said Edward Morse, Citigroup’s commodities chief. “This situation is unlikely to stop, even if prevailing prices for oil fall significantly. The US should become a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products combined by 2019, if not 2018.”
…
Efficiency is improving and drillers are switching to lower-cost spots, confronting Opec with a moving target. “The (price) floor is falling and may not be nearly as firm as the Saudi view assumes,” said Citigroup.
Mr Morse says the “full cycle” cost for shale production is $70 to $80, but this includes the original land grab and infrastructure. “The remaining capex required to bring on an additional well is far lower, and could be as low as the high-$30s range,” he said.
…
In the meantime, oil below $70 is already playing havoc with budgets across the global petro-nexus. The fiscal break-even cost is $161 for Venezuela, $160 for Yemen, $132 for Algeria, $131 for Iran, $126 for Nigeria, and $125 for Bahrain, $111 for Iraq, and $105 for Russia, and even $98 for Saudi Arabia itself, according to Citigroup.
…
The Sunni Salafist tornado sweeping across the Middle East – so strangely like the lightning expansion of Islam in the mid-7th century – is moving to its own inner rhythms. It is not a simple function of economic welfare, let alone oil prices.
Yet Saudi Arabia’s ruling dynasty tests fate if it is betting that the Middle East’s fraying political order can withstand a regional economic shock for another two years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11263851/Saudis-risk-playing-with-fire-in-shale-price-showdown-as-crude-crashes.html
Dr. Curry, you are always presenting what the Warmist OR Skeptics say – would you like to broaden the discussion and show what a ”denier” knows. They all speculate – I have all the profs necessary ” beyond any reasonable doubt” No need for guessing – my post will win on the end, because I have ALL the undeniable facts: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/
You’re saying that analogizing Earth to a greenhouse — as if it existed in a closed system — is an error because it is constantly sweeping through the cold interminable vastness of eternal nothingness, right?
Stephan,
I read your whole synopsis there and have no good reason to believe it or not believe it. I would describe it as I have most of these types of dissertations as a discourse from an authoritative dialog style that leaves an ignorant, or someone without a scientific educational background, type of person to either take it on face value or reject it from intuitive belief based on previous learning from science material. I am not saying you are wrong as I don’t have the scientific chops to refute it. I would say I am skeptical as it runs counter to everything I’ve learned so far regarding this subject. There is not even any way you could convince me beyond what you have already said. I think most of the warmists and skeptics would probably say it is bunk. That is really all I can say about that. I’m sure you believe it to be true so I wish you well in your attempt to convince others.
I would like to see more information on the research being done on the nonlinearity of the interactions between the zones and how changes might impact global weather / climate patterns regardless of whether it is getting warmer, getting colder or staying the same. What was the mechanism behind the middle warming period shifting to the little ice age.
Another area of interest would be a comparison between green house gases from flaring vs. coal fired power plants.
Why is it always about temperature and not humidity? It seems to me that the energy contained in a mass of air is a combination of both. There are global humidity data sets but nobody ever seems to talk about them. Does humidity change much regionally over time? maybe depending on land use? Are there corrections to the temperature record to account for humidity? Is there any index that takes both temperature and humidity into account? Is there a paleo-temperature-humidity data set?
Willis Eschenbach has an article up at WUWT
Argo And Ocean Heat ContentThe earth is closest to the sun in January, so the earth gains energy around that time, and loses it in the other half of the year. please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH.
Time for me to get on a hobby horse and get knocked off.
I understand what you are trying to say but disagree with the concept.
The energy in equals the energy out on a 24 hour basis.
Hence when the earth is closer to the sun in January yes there is more energy in but also more energy out to balance.
The atmosphere is naturally hotter as the sun is closer.
But the earth does not retain more energy stored in the sea. Any heat that has gone deep is balanced by colder water elsewhere as the earth has to give up all the energy it takes in over the 24 hour cycle.
If that heat went deep somewhere else had to radiate the equivalent back to space.
Yes there are Kelvin waves, yes, there are pockets of down-welling hot water.
But these do not store extra heat, they only carry heat that has already been balanced by the outgoing radiation from the rest of the sea and land.
That is why “the net TOA imbalance generally only varies by something on the order of ± half a watt per square metre over the thirteen years of the record, with no statistically significant trend at all”
not astounding at all.
TOA is simply the heat in, heat out interface.
Hence so called stored heat cannot come back to bite us. It has already gone back to space.
ENSO and stadium waves and El Nino’s are simply descriptors of current weather patterns.
Yes El Nino is real, the sea is warmer but there is no more heat in the system because of it.
There must be more heat in the system causing El Nino.
The simplest explanation for this would be altered albedo due to cloud cover. This lets more heat into the atmosphere which then heats up.
More complex would be altered albedo due to atmospheric factors we have not taken into account.
Choppy surface water in storms, dust storms, forest fires.
or even factors in the sea which might cause increased reflectance off water.
The last would be simple variance in the amount of energy emitted by the sun which we are reluctant to consider.
angech wrote: “Willis Eschenbach has an article up at WUWT
Argo And Ocean Heat ContentThe earth is closest to the sun in January, so the earth gains energy around that time, and loses it in the other half of the year. please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH.”
Who is this comment directed to? There is nothing much to disagree with. Notice, though, that if this feature of the Earth’s orbit has an effect on absolute surface temperatures, together with other seasonal effects, such effects will be subtracted from temperature anomaly records. Since the common surface and lower troposphere temperature records are anomaly records, such a fact will contribute nothing in explaining higher than average anomalies around January.
In simple terms, how can there be a planetary energy imbalance if E in equals E out?
“In simple terms, how can there be a planetary energy imbalance if E in equals E out?”
There can’t. That’s the very definition of energy balance.
But we currently have an energy imbalance, right?
Yes, we do, which is why more surface warming is to be expected even if we would maintain greenhouse gas concentration constant beginning now.
So why isn’t the stratosphere cooling in the past two decades?
angech, It is interesting how the deep ocean temperature varies. For there to be a reasonable steady state with the atmosphere, sea surface temperature has to vary with respect to the whole atmosphere not just the portion of the atmosphere above the actual ocean surface. The oceans have to “make up” for the land heat capacity short comings. So if you consider the ratio of ocean to the total surface area, the change in the 0-700 meter temperature looks a little bit different than the OHC for the tropical and sub-tropical regions.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8RxoFF2L8ME/VIHUMo2mu0I/AAAAAAAAL5w/D2ev3amZV6Q/w720-h445-no/0-700%2Bmeter%2Bocean%2Bregions%2Bscaled.png
There the temperature anomaly is scaled to the ratio of ocean surface to total surface area for the three regions.
The northern subtropics take about 10 to 20 years to catch up with changes in the rest of the oceans. There isn’t really enough 0-2000 meter data IMO , but that would take longer to “catch up”. Anyway, looking at just SST or just OHC changes without considering the surface ratios doesn’t paint a complete picture.
I just don’t know HOW we will tolerate a 0.15 degree increase in the 0-700 m ocean!
0-700m is a volume about seven times larger than the well-mixed layer. The latter is warming much faster.
It’s a shame that you have to import Willis stuff
Over here. You wonder why?
Wuwt supposes that readers will do peer review.
Sadly it’s more like pal review
Sorry Steve.
Willis stuff is incidental to a concept I am trying to sort out.
Forget Willis.
I was trying to understand how if the energy in equals the energy out on a daily basis, which should be the case, how everyone is missing the fact that we are not really warming or cooling on a daily basis as a planet.
Yes we have hot and cold surface temperatures over a year but in reality, if the sun input does not change and the volcano’s stay average then the energy input equal output and the warm years are purely due to the atmosphere having more heat while other parts have less heat.
So air heat content] plus sea heat content plus land heat content plus ice heat content equals x, if the air heat content is higher then some of the other 3 must be lower.
Instead of looking for missing heat in the oceans we should be looking for missing cold.
CO2 and GHG help keep the air heat content at a a certain level responsive to the solar energy passing through.
The message is that no extra energy cannot be stored in the sea as energy in must equal energy out.
Your contention that CO2 is a prime driver of the air heat content is true. My contention is that we have not allowed for what amount of energy is getting through for the GHG effect to take place.
If albedo increases or the sun puts in less energy at times then the CO2 effect cannot be the cause of a rise in sea surface temps/air heat content. when the amount of energy it has to react to is less.
*solar energy varies with elliptical orbit [proviso].
I think this concept that we are dealing with a chimera of climate change when the scientific reality is counter intuitive deserves a much bigger discussion.
angech – energy in does NOT equal energy out on an hourly basis; on a 12-hour basis; on a daily basis; on a weekly basis; or on a yearly basis.
Your confusion stems from the fact that on a 24-hour basis there is an approximate balance, 12 hours of warming, and 12 hours of cooling (all taken locally; globally it approximately evens out at all times.) There is a similar smaller but global effect of half-year warming when the Earth is closest to the sun, followed by a half-year cooling. So we have a 24-hour cycle and a 365.25 day cycle. Climate change is any change above these basic cycles.
angech – P.S. Don’t confuse a half-year planetary warming and cooling (a global effect) with a summer-winter cycle, a local effect of a completely different origin.
Curious George | December 6,angech – energy in does NOT equal energy out on an hourly basis; on a 12-hour basis; on a daily basis; on a weekly basis; or on a yearly basis.
As one of the voices of reason on this blog, I appreciate your comment.
The sun is the source of energy for the earth, basically.
The sun’s energy is practically constant.
The earth receives this energy which varies.
A little on the wobble and inclination of the earth as it is not completely spherical hence the amount of energy received is in slow flux but never mentioned 1-2% [guess].
A lot on the elliptical orbit which may vary the input up to 6% [guess].
A lot on the albedo which can vary markedly for a number of factors you are aware of -3 to + 6 [guess].
Conservation of energy and black body emissivity dictates that the energy we receive in 24 hours [rotation period of the earth +/_] should be equal.
I cannot be more insistent on that.
As a corollary to that it is true that the energy in on an hourly basis; on a 12-hour basis; on a daily basis; on a weekly basis; or on a yearly basis,
for the earth as a whole must be equal. I do not wish to nitpick on endogenous earth heat or energy trapped by chemical processes and photo-sensitivity, just the big picture.
angech – I agree with you on most points. Where I disagree is that “Conservation of energy and black body emissivity dictates that the energy we receive in 24 hours [rotation period of the earth +/_] should be equal.”. No. Why pick a rotation period? It should be almost equal not just over 24 hours, but at all times, the surplus or deficit manifesting themselves as a (slight) warming or cooling.
You have a great point regarding the albedo; I believe this is the main mechanism Mother Nature uses to stabilize the planet’s temperature. But there may be effects in infrared or UV that we don’t see and therefore consider..
CG thanks, you are right about not picking a rotation period but it helps with the concept that the whole earth gets the same amount of energy in a rotation which might confuse some people if they think of only one side in the dark in a shorter time frame.
‘Tis albedo,
Short term cloud,
Long term ice.
There, that’s loud,
And nice.
==========
Water can store heat, which means less current emissions on its way to the TOA. It can capture solar and hold it which moderates fluctuations. So we can have high solar income over water while having less longwave loss. I have a shallow 8 foot average depth 140 acre lake behind my office. Max temperature at a 1 meter depth is about 20 C each Summer. Assumed minimum is 1 C each year. So it generally spends 6 months warming followed by 6 months of cooling. So with a tiny magnitude it runs counter to the atmosphere, warming it a bit in Fall and cooling by energy absorption in Spring and Summer. However on a annual basis starting at when it’s 1 C, it kind of zeroes out each year. Returning to about the same energy content equivalent of whatever 1 C is. The oceans however are able to shuffle heat in many more ways with their many various circulations over many time scales.
Water can store heat, which means less current emissions on its way to the TOA. It can capture solar and hold it which moderates fluctuations.
True. but energy in equal energy out.
The total amount of energy in the sea/atmosphere/earth is a measure of the impedance of those mediums. The capacity to hold heat depends on the density of those mediums and their conductance and emissivity. at the end of 24 hours an ice block can only be an ice block if the local conditions are right. There is no extra energy ever stored in the system as a whole.
angech:
I am an accountant so I see many things as they relate to accounting. The TOA primarily lets in solar energy. That is our revenue. Our spending is seen as TOA long wave emissions to space. The roughly 4 C the oceans have trapped is our savings account. It represents most of the past differences seen at the TOA. From time zero that’s all we’ve managed to hang on to. You are correct that everything that happens below the TOA basically zeros out, except for changes in our savings. Changes in savings is, though it’s hard to measure, directly proportional to changes in incoming and outgoing at the TOA. Above I disregarded the atmosphere, and ice due to their relatively low heat capacity. You are correct about heat diving into the North Atlantic or a Monster El Nino. Such changes do not instantaneously change anything, we’ll maybe albedo I guess. The system has the same amount of energy, it’s just shuffling it. Long term, a new sorting of energy is likely to change the system’s total heat.
WRONG! The TOA also lets out reflected solar (shortwave) energy..
Changes to how much is reflected are not directly correlated with changes to the energy of the system, but rather controlled, in a very complex way by changes to the details of its distribution. The assumption that those details will “cancel out” in any sort of averaging process is totally unwarranted.
Here’s what it looks like.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/argo-200m.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/argo-700m.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/argo-temperature1.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ceres-net-seasonal.png
The ocean temps can be graphed with the Global Argo Marine Atlas and CERES data at CERES data products.
All the ocean warming is in the southern hemisphere.
The annual peak in both net toa flux (positive warming) and ocean occur in January and February. These large changes in outgoing energy completely dominate – almost – changes in incoming energy. The changes in outgoing energy is the net change in out of phase changes in short wave and longwave variability. The out of phase changes are due to differences in land and ocean areas between the NH and SH.
The ocean warming in the last couple of years is due in part to increase in solar intensity in the 11 year cycle.
Water can store heat, which means less current emissions on its way to the TOA. Here’s what it looks like.
Rob, are these variations in heat content purely due to the closeness of the sun to the earth in January/February?
These are reflected shortwave (RSW) and outgoing longwave.(OLR)
RSW peaks in December or January
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_toa_shortwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000toaugust-2014.png
OLR peaks July or August
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_toa_longwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000toaugust-2014.png
‘Changes in orbital eccentricity affect the Earth-sun distance. Currently, a difference of only 3 percent (5 million kilometers) exists between closest approach (perihelion), which occurs on or about January 3, and furthest departure (aphelion), which occurs on or about July 4. This difference in distance amounts to about a 6 percent increase in incoming solar radiation (insolation) from July to January.’
So it looks like it warms in the SH summer and cools in the NH summer. Mostly as a result of orbits.
Pierre, the earth is in energy balance whether the sun is near or far. It has more energy coming in and going out so technically it does not gain energy.
Angech,
Planets that are nearer to the Sun (e.g. Mercury) are in energy balance at a higher temperature than planets that are further away (e.g Mars). It is precisely because they are warmer that they are in energy balance despite the larger solar power that they receive, as it enables them to radiate energy back to space also with a larger power. So, the Earth likewise can be expected to warm is it is nearer to the Sun (other things being equal), for the very same reason. Being nearer to the Sun makes the Earth (temporarily) more like Mercury and less like Mars.
true it is warmer nearer the sun, but it is in energy balance,It’s warmth is a function of it’s distance from the sun not the fact that it is storing any new energy.
Energy in equals energy out, the radiative temp is higher.
Yes, ‘energy in’ = ‘energy out’ *after* it has achieved the surface temperature (and atmospheric temperature profile) that enables this planetary energy balance to be maintained. The change in surface temperature, while it occurs, also has an effect on the energy fluxes below the surface. In the oceans, for instance, the top 100m or so (on average) constitutes a well mixed layer. If the average sea surface temperature changes for a sustained period, then it must also warm (or cool) by nearly the same amount throughout this whole well mixed layer, and this temperature change throughout the volume of the well mixed layer entails a large change in heat content.
As the energy in equals the energy out and can only change from solar position or level of radiation how could the sea store more energy? there is no extra energy to store.
If GHG goes up as in CO2 It will have to heat the atmosphere a little first, then this will have to transfer to the top level of the sea and over many thousands of years the temperature will go up incrementally a hundredth of a degree if the CO2 was to stay around this long.
The sea surface temperature changes we see are short term ephemeral in nature lasting 3-30 years with even a 100 year length only a twinkle of natural variability.
Look at the immense amount of water that has to be heated up by that incredibly small amount of atmosphere and think a little.
angech – according to Willis’ article, the temperature of the ocean increased by a few hundredths of a degree. That isn’t going to increase outgoing radiation from the ocean by much at all.
We don’t really have to worry much about a few hundredths of a degree.
jim2 wrote: “angech – according to Willis’ article, the temperature of the ocean increased by a few hundredths of a degree. That isn’t going to increase outgoing radiation from the ocean by much at all.”
This is the temperature change averaged over the whole ocean volume, I think. Oceans are 4km deep on average (13,000 feet). The temperature change of the mixed layer (top ~100m) is much larger and much more representative of the surface temperature change. The long time for heat to diffuse into deeper layers is relevant to the time required for surface temperatures to manifest equilibrium climate sensitivity as a response to forcing. Transient climate sensitivity is rather more directly indicative of the temperature change of the well mixed layer.
P-N: What temperature differential do you posit for the surface of the ocean? A several 100th of a degree?
Yes. For HADSST3, that would be about 0.4°C since 1950. So, I would expect something similar for the well-mixed layer. That’s not a posit; just an estimate. To rather propose that the oceans warmed 0.02°C uniformly over the whole volume, not this would be a strange posit.
P-N, ” To rather propose that the oceans warmed 0.02°C uniformly over the whole volume, not this would be a strange posit.”
To posit that the 0-700 meter layer will warm by some large value over whatever is guessed to be the “pipeline” time frame is also a bit strange.
Now posing that the maximum impact of a forcing change is felt in ~10 years, doesn’t appear to be all that strange since that is what the data would seem to indicate. You might notice that the scaled 0-700 meter temperature plot I provided has a hint of a CO2 forcing signature.
CD, who said anything about the 700m deep surface layer? There is nothing special about this layer. It’s just the maximum depth that was usefully sampled by the early ARGO network. The well mixed-layer is about 7 times less voluminous and it warms much faster.
Terminological mistake: when I said ‘well mixed layer’ (sic — no such beast), I meant ‘mixed layer’.
P-N, “CD, who said anything about the 700m deep surface layer? There is nothing special about this layer. It’s just the maximum depth that was usefully sampled by the early ARGO network. The well mixed-layer is about 7 times less voluminous and it warms much faster.”
Right, the 0-100 meter layer warms almost exactly in step with the surface. There isn’t any “pipeline” potential there. The “pipeline” would be continued warming over time that would cause the ECS to be greater than the TCR. Generally, when a skeptic mentions that TCR is decreasing a believer will mention “Equilibrium” climate sensitivity “can” be something like 70% greater than TCR or some other number pulled out of a hat. As you say, there isn’t anything “special” about 0-700 meters other than we have more data for that layer. That data indicates a 10 to 20 year lag which is consistent with Schwartz, Riche and Caldera.
In other words, more and more data seems to support the lower end of the estimated impact range than the upper end.
CD: “Right, the 0-100 meter layer warms almost exactly in step with the surface. There isn’t any “pipeline” potential there.”
That’s a non sequitur. There wouldn’t any pipeline potential from this layer if it would warm in step with the external forcing so as to immediately eliminate a top of atmosphere imbalance. That’s not the case. A 100m depth of water still has a lot of thermal inertia. That’s why transient climate sensitivity is defined as the surface temperature response after 70 years to a 1% annual increase to a CO2 doubling forcing equivalent (compounded to 100%).
P-N, “That’s a non sequitur.” Not in my opinion. Energy flows from the oceans to the atmosphere. The atmospheric DWLR is due to mainly ocean heat loss and solar absorbed in the atmosphere. The “pipeline” would be increases in atmospheric absorption of SW and gradual warming of the greater ocean depths plus glacial loss which is near a minimum and a bit complicated with the Black carbon issue. Riche and Caldera indicates that “:most” of the warming would be expected in 10 years, The Schwartz model indicates that “most” the the bulk ocean layer warming will take about 8.5 +/- 2.5 years and the data we have on ocean temperature anomalies tend to agree.
My estimate of “sensitivity” is 0.8 +/- 0.2 C and is lower than Schwartz (by about a 10th of a degree) because I consider the long term persistent warming of the oceans from the LIA.
So transient response is much greater than equilibrium response. Mixed layer warms rapidly in response to imbalance while deep ocean slowly cools the rapidly warmed surface layer.
Thanks for pointing that out, P-N. Most useful contribution you’ve made to date.
David, “So transient response is much greater than equilibrium response. Mixed layer warms rapidly in response to imbalance while deep ocean slowly cools the rapidly warmed surface layer.”
Now just because that is what the Riche Caldera model indicates don’t make it so. I am sure FOMD can pick some new equilibrium condition that would change that to something really catastrophic.
I just had a quick look at Ricke and Caldeira and I notice that their 10.1 years median maximum warming response is a response to a single pulse of emissions followed immediately by a continued slow uptake of the excess CO2 by the oceans and terrestrial biomass. That’s not a entirely realistic scenario in the context of discussing ‘the pipeline’. Earlier, I was myself discussing the response following a stabilisation of CO2 concentration, not a complete stop to emissions. The temperature would obviously peak much later, in that case. (Technically, it would never peak at all — merely growing asymptotically towards the equilibrium value). It would be a fair question to ask after how long half, or 90%, of the ‘pipeline’, say would be realized. I am prepared to accept that isn’t much longer than a couple decades but I don’t know the answer to that.
P-N, ” That’s not a entirely realistic scenario in the context of discussing ‘the pipeline’.” No, but it is better than nothing. When Schwartz did his estimate he used Pinatubo as his perturbation. When you consider the implication, max impact about 10 years after perturbation, some of the model inconsistencies make more sense.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-d48q2Rqc3Hg/VG_F-lCAhHI/AAAAAAAALxg/u113_LIqXiI/w729-h431-no/giss%2Bv%2Bmodel.png
That compares GISS E model runs with GISS. there was an ~1885 perturbation with the maximum response in about 1910 or so. Of course there was another perturbation around 1900 to complicate things, but in general the models don’t properly consider internal lag times which seem to vary from around 5 to 30 years. 10.1 years sounds like a pretty reasonable mean to expect.to me, but 30 years is reasonable too.
I think this focus on the ocean is appropriate. But don’t forget the warmer ocean will put more water into the atmosphere. And when it comes to climate rock-paper-scissors, clouds cover the ocean.
I think I’ve never played so loud
The children’s games among the clouds.
================
ten thousand saw I at a glance
There is a 30% heat loss to the lower levels of the ocean from the top 700 meters… so:
(700 m * 3990 W*s*kg-1*K-1 * 1027 kg/m3)/(365 d *24 h/d *3600 s/h *0.7) = 130 W-Y
Well – it takes 130 W-Y (Watt-years) to warm the top 700 meters 1 K (Kelvin).
Global warming theory says that 2 W are being applied to the ocean surface.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/figure-2-tempering-effect-of-ocean-on-global-warming.png?w=640
Current heat content trend is 8.6 E22 joules/decade. The surface area of the ocean is 362 million km2. 8.6 E22 joules applied to 362 million km2 of ocean for one decade is 0.75 W/m2 (joules per second).
So the CO2 induced heating is only 37.5 % usefully applied which is pretty much what you would expect because only about 1/3 of the ocean heat loss is through radiation.
At an effectively applied heating of 0.75 W/m2 the ocean is going to take a while to warm up.
Why would you think the earth is in radiative balance? Paleo data (sealevel rise) suggest the earth is rarely in radiative balance.
Anyway, it’s not just that the earth is closer to the sun, it’s that its lowest albeo regions are closest to the sun. The oceans in particular, which may not give up the heat immediately.
aaron | December 5, 2014
Why would you think the earth is in radiative balance? Paleo data (seal evel rise) suggest the earth is rarely in radiative balance.
Sorry, settled science, the real type, says energy in equals energy out.
Whether the oceans are rising or falling whether the earth is hot or cold. The energy coming in from the sun daily equals the energy out.
The earth is always in radiative balance.
The amount of energy held by the atmosphere or oceans can vary immensely due to factors like cloud albedo and GHG while the earth remains in perfect radiative balance.
11/27. 10:42 ET.
OIL________68.92
BRENT______72.49
NAT GAS_____4.22
RBOB GAS____1.91
11/28. 8:48 AM ET.
_________Price____Change
OIL_____69.55____-4.14
BRENT___73.40_____0.69
11/30 9:03 PM ET
OIL_____64.72__-1.43
BRENT___68.40__-1.75
NAT GAS__3.995_-0.093
12/1/2014 8:00 PM ET
OIL______68.71___-0.29
BRENT____72.23___-0.31
NAT GAS___4.01____0.003
RBOB GAS__1.8771_-0.0039
12/2/14 9:51 PM ET
OIL_____67.74
BRENT___71.20
NAT GAS__3.846
12/5/14 9:45 AM ET
OIL_____66.50____-0.31
BRENT___69.27____-0.37
NAT GAS__3.715____0.066
RBOB GAS_1.7807__-0.0131
12/5/14 6:49 PM ET
OIL______65.84____-0.97
BRENT___68.94____-0.70
NAT GAS__3.802____0.153
RBOB GAS_1.7734__-0.0214
Damn !
Economic growth in China was below expectations.
12/7. 8:21 PM ET.
OIL_______64.95___-0.89
BRENT____68.08___-0.99
NAT GAS ___3.747__-0.055
RBOB GAS__1.754__-0.0194
12/8 8:24 PM ET
OIL_________62.90__-0.15
BRENT______66.13__-0.06
NAT GAS_____3.633__0.038
RBOB GAS____1.71__0.0034
12/9 8:29 PM ET
OIL__________63.06__-0.76
BRENT_______66.13__-0.71
NAT GAS ______3.644__-0.008
RBOB GAS____1.6984__-0.0252
12/10 9:34 PM ET
OIL__________61.42__0.48
BRENT_______64.78__0.54
NAT GAS______3.713__0.007
RBOB GAS____1.654__0.0122
12/11 8:40 PM ET
OIL_______59.17__-0.78
BRENT____63.20__-0.48
NAT GAS___3.655__0.021
RBOB GAS__1.6184
12/12 6:52 PM ET
OIL_________57.81__-2.14
BRENT______61.65__-2.03
NAT GAS _____3.795__0.161
RBOB GAS____1.5973__-0.0271
Looks like the Russians will be the biggest loser of the oil wars.
From the article:
…
Even with less drilling, U.S. oil production next year should help keep world markets awash in crude and that may prompt OPEC action by the middle of next year, analysts say.
…
“The problem for OPEC is if they don’t blink, and let’s say they do shut down the rate of production growth in the U.S., and they get a price back to where they like it to be, U.S. production growth starts again,” said Edward Morse, head of global commodities research at Citigroup.
Morse said he expects oil prices to stabilize, but that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will likely be forced into taking action and could cut production in the April, May time frame when prices are seasonally weaker. Saudi Arabia can easily weather lower prices, but other OPEC members cannot. If OPEC does not cut, West Texas Intermediate could drop to about $58 per barrel.
…
“It’s a threshold of pain. Saudi Arabia has enough money,” said Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer. He said the Saudis could take low prices for more than a year. But other countries, like Iran, Venezuela and Russia, will be increasingly impacted. “Saudi Arabia is applying pressure on Iran. They have to bring Iran to its knees to bring it to the negotiating table, … and (Russian President Vladimir) Putin has to put his shirt back on and stop acting like a thug.”
…
“It’s hard to figure out what the Saudis are trying to do,” Morse said. “Market share is part of it. I think what they’re really doing is saying, ‘We can test out U.S. production now while we have a lot of money in the bank, and if production turns out to be robust we can figure out another course of action.'” If the Saudis instead cut production, shoring up prices, they could see it as subsidizing U.S. production while not solving the supply problem, he added.
…
There is also more oil coming to market from other sources. Morse said a new pipeline though Chicago should carry another 300,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude to the Gulf Coast in the near future.
More supply could also come from elsewhere. “Iraq and the Kurds just agreed on revenue sharing. We’re going to see a lot more exports out of Kurdistan over the course of the next year,” said Andrew Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. “Oil could take a run at $60.”
Some crude will also come off the market as producers pull back from high-priced operations.
…
“Russian production is going to slow down. It’s going to reverse,” Morse said, estimating the potential loss of 200,000 barrels a day next year. “Most of the areas where they need production, it’s not occurring because they can’t get the technology.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102241579?trknav=homestack:topnews:2
Very interesting piece by Dan Sarewitz on politicisation of science
http://www.nature.com/news/science-should-keep-out-of-partisan-politics-1.16473
“Science should keep out of partisan politics.
The Republican urge to cut funding is not necessarily anti-science, and the research community ought not to pick political sides,…”
It would be interesting to get Judith’s opinion. I guess she’d agree with him.
The irony is this. To get politics out of science they have to use politics. There is a way to do this but it involves more funding not less.
In no field does “more funding automatically translate into more social benefit.” On the contrary, it often leads to cost-padding, gold-plating and lack of prioritisation. A government must allocate money between competing uses so as to maximise public benefit. Very often, this will mean leaving the money with the tax-payer rather than finding new means to tax (or borrow) and spend. The choices made are inevitably political, but hopefully are driven by understanding of relative costs and benefits.
A public body such as the AAAS can contribute to the debate by demonstrating costs and benefits in its area of expertise, not by becoming politically partisan. One cannot assume that government-funded programs in science and R&D are more effective than non-government-funded programs across the board, or that increased funding best serves community benefit.
Mosher, it is nonsense to say that getting politics out of science involves more funding not less. Whatever level of funding is available, politics and self-interest will always be at play in gaining access to it.
Look at what more government money did for solar. It funneled money into the pockets of Obama’s funders and cronies. Big government money draws big government fraudster flies.
More funding targeted at counter balancing the funding effect
Simple
More funding for the FBI if the government would choose to enforce the law for a change.
The AAAS sides with conservatives and Republicans against anti-science liberals and Democrats on the topic of Genetically modified food.
http://www.aaas.org/news/statement-aaas-board-directors-labeling-genetically-modified-foods
The AAAS sides with conservatives and Republicans against anti-science liberals and Democrats on the topic of nuclear power.
http://www.aaas.org/news/energy-expert-calls-more-nuclear-power-us-energy-portfolio
So, naturally, we get a story suggesting that scientists assume conservatives and Republicans are anti-science. If you don’t want politicized science, stop politicizing science. Sarewitz is right.
Do Democrats have a position on GMO”s?
“Joseph
Do Democrats have a position on GMO”s?”
Oh yes, it is the opposite of the Republican parties position.
Do you have a link, Doc?
Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D
http://tinyurl.com/pkd7w7q
Science and Politics : Global Warming and Eugenics
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/180_Eugenics.pdf
short clip:
How Science can be Politically Useful
http://tinyurl.com/mlqc849
Assignment Demonstrate that the maximum entropy principle, for a vertical gas-column in a gravitational field, implies that the temperature of the gas-column is uniform, such that there is *NO* gravito-thermal effect. Show all work explicitly.
Showing the work Here we derive temperature-uniformity solely from the assumption of maximum entropy, (using the symbolic programming language Mathematica to avoid sign-errors).
To anticipate, here is the output of the analysis-code (which will follow in a separate comment).
Implications of the Sackur-Tetrode entropy function
***************************************************
ideal gas law: T -> (2*U)/(3*k*N)
ideal gas law: P -> (2*U)/(3*V)
Verified: P*V == N*k*T
ideal-gas law: \[Epsilon] -> (3*P)/2
ideal-gas law: \[Rho] -> (m*P)/(k*T)
maximum-entropy gas-column: T -> T0
maximum-entropy gas-column: P -> P0/E^((g*m*z)/(k*T0))
*******************************************************
Verified: the maximum-entropy equilibrium is isothermal
(i.e., there is no gravito-thermal effect)
Result The maximum-entropy state of an ideal gas-column in a gravitational field has uniform temperature, such that there is *NO* gravito-thermal effect.
Here is copy-and-paste standalone Mathematica code that generates the above result. It will be understood pretty easily by folks who already have attempted the derivation … otherwise it’s tough-sledding!
(* *********************************** *)
"\"//
Print;
(* begin with the Wikipedia definition
of the Sackur-Tetrode entropy *)
U::usage = "kinetic energy of the gas (units J/m^3)";
V::usage = "volume of the gas (units m^3)";
N::usage = "number of particles in the gas";
h::usage = "the Plank constant";
m::usage = "the mass of a gas particle";
k::usage = "Boltzmann constant";
(* define intrinsic thermodynamical variables *)
z::usage = "vertical gas-column spatial coordinate";
g::usage = "gravitational acceleration (units m/s^2)";
\[Rho]::usage = "mass-density of the gas: \[Rho] \[Congruent] N*m/V";
\[Epsilon]::usage = "kinetic energy-density of the gas: \[Epsilon] \[Congruent] U/V";
\[ScriptCapitalE]::usage = "total energy-density of the gas: \[ScriptCapitalE] = \[Epsilon]+\[Rho]*g*z";
(* **************************** *)
(* specify the entropy function *)
(* **************************** *)
Sfun$UVN::usage = "Sackur-Tetrode entropy function";
Sfun$UVN[U_,V_,N_] = k*N*Log[(V/N)(U/N)^(3/2)] +
(3/2)*k*N*(5/3 + Log[(4 Pi m)/(3 h^2)]);
(* ************************ *)
(* derive the ideal gas law *)
(* ************************ *)
T$UVN::usage = "temperature of the gas";
P$UVN::usage = "pressure of the gas";
T$UVN = {1/(T) == D[Sfun$UVN[U,V,N],U]}//
Solve[#,T]&//Flatten//
ReplaceAll[T,#]&;
Print["ideal gas law: T -> ",T$UVN//InputForm];
P$UVN = D[Sfun$UVN[U-P*\[Delta]V,V+\[Delta]V,N],\[Delta]V]//
Limit[#,\[Delta]V->0]&//Solve[#==0,P]&//Flatten//
ReplaceAll[P,#]&;
Print["ideal gas law: P -> ",P$UVN//InputForm];
(* verify that ideal gas law is satisfied *)
P*V == N*k*T//
ReplaceAll[#,{T->T$UVN,P->P$UVN}]&//
If[#//TrueQ,
Print["Verified: P*V == N*k*T"];
,
Print["Invalidation: P*V != N*k*T, yikes!"];
Throw["Invalidation"];
]&;
(* derive rules for change of variables *)
toPVrules = {T == T$UVN,P == P$UVN}//
ReplaceAll[#,{U->\[Epsilon]*V,N->\[Rho]*V/m}]&//
Solve[#,{\[Epsilon],\[Rho]}]&//Flatten;
Map[Print["ideal-gas law: ",#//InputForm]&,toPVrules];
(* ******************************* *)
(* find gas-column maximum entropy *)
(* ******************************* *)
(* compute the equilibrium equations *)
\[Lambda]1::usage = "Lagrance multiplier for energy-conservation";
\[Lambda]2::usage = "Lagrance multiplier for mass-conservation";
equilibriumEquations = (Sfun$UVN[U,V,N]/V + \[Lambda]1*\[ScriptCapitalE] + \[Lambda]2*\[Rho])//
ReplaceRepeated[#,{
U->V*(\[ScriptCapitalE]-\[Rho]*g*z),
N->V*\[Rho]/m
}]&//{D[#,\[ScriptCapitalE]],D[#,\[Rho]]}&//
ReplaceRepeated[#,{\[ScriptCapitalE]->\[Epsilon]+\[Rho]*g*z}~Join~toPVrules]&//
Simplify//PowerExpand//Simplify//
Map[#==0&,#]&;
(* it is simpler to verify the equilibrium solution
as an ansatz than to construct it ab initio (although
the ab initio construction is entirely feasible) *)
equilibriumSolutionAnsatz = {
T -> T0, (* NOTE: *no* gravito-thermal effect *)
P -> P0 Exp[-g*m*z/(k T0)]
};
equilibriumSolutionAnsatz//
Map[Print["maximum-entropy gas-column: ",#//InputForm]&,#]&;
equilibriumEquations//
ReplaceAll[#,equilibriumSolutionAnsatz]&//
PowerExpand//Solve[#,{\[Lambda]1,\[Lambda]2}]&//Flatten//
FreeQ[#,z]&//
If[#//TrueQ,
Print["\"];
,
Print["Invalidation: isothermal disequilibrium, yikes!"];
Throw["Error"];
]&;
Best wishes for enjoyable holiday-season thermodynamic analysis are extended to all Shtetl Optimized readers!
FOMD, I don’t have Mathematica, so I can’t run this. (And I don’t know the language, so I can’t check it.) But thanks! You ought to post this in the Gravito-Thermal thread also, for the record.
… within a closed system, ceteris paribus.
For the system being open of closed doesn’t have much bearing on the result. The question addressed by FOMD concerns which state maximizes entropy. The calculation of the entropy of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium doesn’t depend on the system being open or closed (modulo a small caveat addressed by Román, White and Velasco, and that lapses at the thermodynamic limit — that is when the number of particles is very large)
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/s-velasco.pdf
…without gravity there is *NO* gas-column
You can have a gas column in a box. Most advocates of the gravito-thermal effect predict it to occur also in a container. Only possibly Rob Ellison may dissent on this count. And a gas container can be adiabatic, or it can be thermally conductive.
…what happens when you open the box?
Then the Jack escapes.
wag, “…what happens when you open the box?”
You lose a lot of mass. Then when you close the box again, you have a new initial condition.
If you start at a point where you aren’t going to lose mass by opening the top of the box, you can have a small temperature differential. If you just pick any arbirtary volume though, there will never be a “gravito-thermal” effect. That is what makes it an interesting, but about completely worthless in practicality, problem.
Surely it makes a difference if the bottom of the box is made of rock vs. water and in any event the lid is always open, no?
CD wrote: “You lose a lot of mass. Then when you close the box again, you have a new initial condition.”
That’s only because you forgot to put the Jack back in the box before closing the lid.
P-N, “That’s only because you forgot to put the Jack back in the box before closing the lid.”
I did forget about Jack. Some say he is negligible.
Jack lives so long as you don’t look inside.
Wag, “Jack lives so long as you don’t look inside.”
So Jack is probably a cat. That make negligible a reasonable assumption.
… or, we can reasonably assume Jack both alive and dead, which is illogical.
Here is one more attempt at paste-ready Mathematica code … `cuz the above attempt mutilated the “<” character and the ” ” character …
If this doesn’t work, yer on yer own!
(* *********************************** *)
"\<\
Implications of the Sackur-Tetrode entropy function
***************************************************\>"//
Print;
(* begin with the Wikipedia definition
of the Sackur-Tetrode entropy *)
U::usage = "kinetic energy of the gas (units J/m^3)";
V::usage = "volume of the gas (units m^3)";
N::usage = "number of particles in the gas";
h::usage = "the Plank constant";
m::usage = "the mass of a gas particle";
k::usage = "Boltzmann constant";
(* define intrinsic thermodynamical variables *)
z::usage = "vertical gas-column spatial coordinate";
g::usage = "gravitational acceleration (units m/s^2)";
\[Rho]::usage = "mass-density of the gas: \[Rho] \[Congruent] N*m/V";
\[Epsilon]::usage = "kinetic energy-density of the gas: \[Epsilon] \[Congruent] U/V";
\[ScriptCapitalE]::usage = "total energy-density of the gas: \[ScriptCapitalE] = \[Epsilon]+\[Rho]*g*z";
(* **************************** *)
(* specify the entropy function *)
(* **************************** *)
Sfun$UVN::usage = "Sackur-Tetrode entropy function";
Sfun$UVN[U_,V_,N_] = k*N*Log[(V/N)(U/N)^(3/2)] +
(3/2)*k*N*(5/3 + Log[(4 Pi m)/(3 h^2)]);
(* ************************ *)
(* derive the ideal gas law *)
(* ************************ *)
T$UVN::usage = "temperature of the gas";
P$UVN::usage = "pressure of the gas";
T$UVN = {1/(T) == D[Sfun$UVN[U,V,N],U]}//
Solve[#,T]&//Flatten//
ReplaceAll[T,#]&;
Print["ideal gas law: T -> ",T$UVN//InputForm];
P$UVN = D[Sfun$UVN[U-P*\[Delta]V,V+\[Delta]V,N],\[Delta]V]//
Limit[#,\[Delta]V->0]&//Solve[#==0,P]&//Flatten//
ReplaceAll[P,#]&;
Print["ideal gas law: P -> ",P$UVN//InputForm];
(* verify that ideal gas law is satisfied *)
P*V == N*k*T//
ReplaceAll[#,{T->T$UVN,P->P$UVN}]&//
If[#//TrueQ,
Print["Verified: P*V == N*k*T"];
,
Print["Invalidation: P*V != N*k*T, yikes!"];
Throw["Invalidation"];
]&;
(* derive rules for change of variables *)
toPVrules = {T == T$UVN,P == P$UVN}//
ReplaceAll[#,{U->\[Epsilon]*V,N->\[Rho]*V/m}]&//
Solve[#,{\[Epsilon],\[Rho]}]&//Flatten;
Map[Print["ideal-gas law: ",#//InputForm]&,toPVrules];
(* ******************************* *)
(* find gas-column maximum entropy *)
(* ******************************* *)
(* compute the equilibrium equations *)
\[Lambda]1::usage = "Lagrance multiplier for energy-conservation";
\[Lambda]2::usage = "Lagrance multiplier for mass-conservation";
equilibriumEquations = (Sfun$UVN[U,V,N]/V + \[Lambda]1*\[ScriptCapitalE] + \[Lambda]2*\[Rho])//
ReplaceRepeated[#,{
U->V*(\[ScriptCapitalE]-\[Rho]*g*z),
N->V*\[Rho]/m
}]&//{D[#,\[ScriptCapitalE]],D[#,\[Rho]]}&//
ReplaceRepeated[#,{\[ScriptCapitalE]->\[Epsilon]+\[Rho]*g*z}~Join~toPVrules]&//
Simplify//PowerExpand//Simplify//
Map[#==0&,#]&;
(* it is simpler to verify the equilibrium solution
as an ansatz than to construct it ab initio (although
the ab initio construction is entirely feasible) *)
equilibriumSolutionAnsatz = {
T -> T0, (* NOTE: *no* gravito-thermal effect *)
P -> P0 Exp[-g*m*z/(k T0)]
};
equilibriumSolutionAnsatz//
Map[Print["maximum-entropy gas-column: ",#//InputForm]&,#]&;
equilibriumEquations//
ReplaceAll[#,equilibriumSolutionAnsatz]&//
PowerExpand//Solve[#,{\[Lambda]1,\[Lambda]2}]&//Flatten//
FreeQ[#,z]&//
If[#//TrueQ,
Print["\<\
*******************************************************
Verified: the maximum-entropy equilibrium is isothermal
(i.e., there is no gravito-thermal effect)\>"];
,
Print["Invalidation: isothermal disequilibrium, yikes!"];
Throw["Error"];
]&;
Best holiday wishes (again) are extended to everyone, without regard to math, science, politics and ideology!
I think WordPress has a code tag.
Yay! This last attempt works (at least in Mathematica version 10.0) as simple cut-and-paste code
http://maddmedic.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/oklefty.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KKwdXYHThws/Sf4En8Eqy5I/AAAAAAAAEHw/qBsAAjHB730/s400/coexist-earth2.jpg
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bumper-Sticker-Gainesville-Coexistence-is-Futile2.jpg
Uhhh … *SINCERE* best wishes for happy end-of-year holidays are extended to all Climate Etc readers, without regard to political differences!
Which I’m using… but this tab (regrettably) mutilates “<” characters and drops initial ” ” (space) characters.
Ouch. An awkward fix is to substitute raw HTML codes for these two characters. It appears to be working now!
That’s a rather worthless code tag then! Good job. Please, do post this in the Gravito-Thermal thread.
It is done!
Code is simply an hypothesis. The output is a prediction. Experiment is used to test the prediction. Good luck testing your hypothesis.
“Best holiday wishes (again) are extended to everyone, without regard to math, science, politics and ideology”
Same. Dissent is appreciated.
Dissent is appreciated. Dat scent is too smelly.
Do I have to buy Mathematica to try your code?
Curious George, you have three options:
• Option I Using the supplied code as a guidance, assisted by the (free!) on-line Mathematica documentation, derive the results by hand.
• Option II Download Mathematica’s free 15-day trial. Downside: fifteen days is far too short a time to learn Mathematica.
• Option III Implement the same computation using free-as-in-freedom SAGE. Downside: SAGE ain’t easy to learn either!
No matter what, it’s best to begin with Option I (as FOMD did).
Because the sobering truth is that even though computers can be very helpful for locating and fixing errors, and for documenting the steps of a calculation, computers are *NOT* much help in finding overall strategies for computation.
Lesson-learned As Euclid wisely advised King Ptolemy: “There is no royal road to mathematics.” So work lots of problems!
Here’s a Sackur-Tetrode calculator.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Sackur-Tetrode+equation
Here’s a ideal gas equation calculator.
http://www.ajdesigner.com/idealgas/
Knock yourself out.
These two simple equations – Sackur–Tetrode and the ideal gas equation are statistical expressions for the system state at equilirium. We get a number for entropy – which is maximum for the equilibrium state and for pressure-volume-temperature relationships. So knowing pressure and volume we can determine temperature of the gas – for instance – and use it to calculate entropy for the equilibrium state.
To imagine that the solution to these equations – if that is in fact what happens – lacking assumptions for pressure and volume – or a coherent approach to the logic of progression in these simple equations – is a mathematical proof of anything at all is a complete sham or utter insanity. Take your pick. Complete nonsense masquerading as – well – complete nonsense.
http://quondam.webng.com/files/Thermal_Profiles.pdf
So they’ve back tested a model and show correlation between a period with higher GHG’s and more rainfall, but I seemed to have missed where the GHG’s originated 14,700 years ago. http://phys.org/news/2014-12-greenhouse-gases-linked-african-rainfall.html#inlRlv
and
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-reconstructing-african-humid-period.html
I’m still missing that minor detail as to causation. A little help, please.
Danny Thomas,
I think this explains it pretty well:
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2014/sep/study-resolves-discrepancy-greenland-temperatures-during-end-last-ice-age
Jim D, yes the LIA did follow precession however it was not due to distance (3 millon miles) but rather simply a solar minimum in combo with precession. Normally we would start to see an even bigger downward trend in trmperature in this time of the precession cycle but CO2 is counter acting that. This is in line with what was said by the guy in that WUWT article that the next ice age could be counteracted by CO2.
I believe this is why most scientists are worried in the short term (a few hundred years or just decades) about rising temperature and not so much about the next glaciation. CO2 could (maybe) be of benefit in the time frame of 4 or 5 thousand years regarding the next glaciation but it would only cause (probably too much) warming now. Only another solar minimum (maunder type) will help stop the warming now. That and any ocean type effects now in the so called hiatus.
Danny Thomas,
After thinking about it overnight there is a slight discrepancy in that account. They say two things warmed Greenland Solar Flux and CO2 from the deep oceans. They also say there was three big temperature changes in Greenland between 18,000 yb and 11,000 yb. The first was an increase in temps, the second was a decrease and the third an increase into the Holocene optimal climate. They don’t explain why the temp went down. I suspect there was a big decrease in solar flux. The AMDO is also involved.
Here is an old chart showing fluctuations in temperatures in Greenland:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image61.png
It shows a big spike in temp at about 18,500 yb and then plummeting into Younger Dryas just after 16,000 yb. They used the old method so it probably doesn’t exactly reflect what the Oregon State study did. I mention this chart because it goes with an article at WUWT that discusses all the interglacial cycles. These are mostly explained by obiquity and more often by precession. Pointing that out as it seems that Solar usually trumps CO2:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
Danny and Jim D,
Danny, I agree with what you say. Solar trumps CO2 and IMO is the leading index. This is not to say CO2 is not a factor as I believe it is a factor.
In this case, I prefer to call it surface albedo forcing rather than solar forcing, because the source solar energy can stay the same, but its annual distribution on the earth’s surface changes the albedo which is the forcing for the Ice Age cycles.
Jim D, Yes I am beginning to see the importance of albedo. I posted a link to the Antarctic role in NH glaciation (above):
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/04/open-thread-22/#comment-652593
That is about the time leading into the ice ages and points to ocean circulation particularly Atlantic to deep Pacific during decreased NH ice and increased SH ice just like today. That is explained by the apisidal precession.
However, there is a half cycle of 11,000 years where the apisidal shifts from the NH to the SH and effects sea ice extent conversely. But more important there is another half cycle within that, that shifts from spring equinox to fall equinox of only 5.5 thousand years. Since the spring (NH) cycle would be effecting the continents more and the fall (SH) Cycle would
effect mostly oceans there would be a big albedo difference between the two. It seems to me this explains the dramatic spike in temperature around 18,000-19,000 yb and then plummeting into Younger Dryas around 16,000 yb.
As the obiquity waned toward the end of the last ice age the precession would have a more dramatic effect. Since it was during the spring/summer/fall cycle the added effect of ocean warming vs land warming would be in play. Thus, as you say, the albedo affect would have the dominant role.
I got that backwards, as spring is SH and fall is NH. We are at January 7th right now, moving toward spring (SH) one day every 58 years.
ordvic, I haven’t followed all that, but you might agree that we are now in a half cycle that favors Arctic sea-ice, so its diminishing now is against the Milankovitch tendency while the tendency between the Holocene Optimum and Little Ice Age was more the expected one for this part-cycle in precession.
Jim D replied above:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/04/open-thread-22/#comment-653194
These time scales are dominated by surface albedo changes with CO2 acting as a positive feedback as it is released from a warmer surface at about 10-15 ppm per degree C of warming.
Jim D & Ordvic,
Thanks to you both for your consideration and offerings on the questions posed regarding from where the GHG’s originate. By my read, and corrections are appreciated, this result seems to be counter to the AGW discussion that man caused CO2 leads to substantial heating, in that these discussions seem to indicate that the GHG’s were released AS A RESULT of warming.
I can see how they can receive comfort in the use of models based on the trends, but still do not find the GHG’s to be causative. Although these offerings seem to be intended to show that the models will be effective going forward in projecting associated climatic changes are they not doing so backwards? In other words, isn’t CO2/GHG a lagging indicator not leading as these discussions suggest? Much like what we’re witnessing in the Arctic today? As always, your aid is appreciated.
Like I said 10-15 ppm per degree C is to be expected. In a warming of 1 C, the atmosphere would gain this much from the warmer ocean/biosphere. This is why we went from 190 ppm to 280 ppm after the last Ice Age. Also, clearly established by this is that we went from 280 ppm to 400 ppm by a process that produced about ten times as much CO2 as the warming alone could have.
The government of Maldives has declared a state of emergency after a fire at a water treatment plant cut off drinking water to the capital. About 100,000 residents in Male have lost access to drinkable tap water. There are no permanent rivers or streams on the Maldives, and the country finds it difficult to obtain suitable drinking water. By far the most drinking water in the capital is provided by desalination plants.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30344155
So maybe changing climate and sea levels are not the Maldives’ biggest or more pressing problem.
…at least the UN-IPCC was half right — water is a problem only not enough of it.
Pix, Europe’s deep freeze …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/11270585/Europes-deep-freeze-Ice-storms-cause-widespread-winter-chaos-in-pictures.html
Those pictures remind me of an ice storm in the late 70s when we first moved to Oregon from Montana. I had never seen anything quite like it as the snow conditions in Montana were usually pretty dry.
This is how unnecessary government regulations kill nuclear power in the US (not China).
From the article:
…
Several years ago Toshiba Corp. wanted to build a new, small-scale reactor in the Yukon River community of Galena. The 10-megawatt reactor would have been buried underground and fuel would have lasted for 30 years. It was projected to slash energy prices from 20 cents per kilowatt hour to several cents, said Dennis Witmer, an energy consultant with ACEP who contributed to the report and previously worked at a nuclear power plant.
But the project never began the mandatory, lengthy and extremely costly process of gaining approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This would include a site license, which takes tens of millions of dollars and several years, as well as a design permit. No design of this type has ever been approved, though one other has made it through the first step of the process, which took about six years.
“The project in Galena is effectively stalled,” Witmer said.
A small reactor also was proposed for Ester a couple of years ago. The design, created by Hyperion Power Generation, was about the size of a hot tub and also buried underground. It was estimated to cost approximately $30 million and produce 25 megawatts, roughly the same as the Aurora Energy power plant. But the project was abandoned when the developer learned it could take 15 years to complete.
…
http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/why-nuclear-energy-is-on-hold-for-alaska/article_51958987-2a69-5528-aa4b-fd2755913460.html
More from the article:
…
The Northern Alaska Environmental Center does not support nuclear energy mainly because of waste storage concerns and the impact of uranium mining.
…
jim2, thank you for the link to that article about nuclear power in Alaska and how it might work for Fairbanks if it weren’t so expensive.
I’ll quote some things I noticed and comment on ’em
“That’s because Fairbanks has high energy costs and enough power demand to buy all the electricity produced. Even so, it wouldn’t be economical to switch until crude oil prices (now at about $90 per barrel) reach $140 to $160 per barrel, Schworer said.”
______
Boy Oh Boy, as a seller, I wish oil was $140 a barrel. I might even soften on my opposition to nuclear power at that price.
The article also said “Nuclear would be even more competitive if a carbon tax were imposed in the future.”
Sure, and jim2 that reminds me you are both pro-nuclear power and anti-carbon tax. In the interest of more nuclear, have you thought about softening your opposition to the carbon tax?
Sometimes we just can’t have things both ways. Children find that hard to accept. Some adults do too.
I don’t see any reason to have a carbon tax. Nuclear will stand on its own once regulations are rationalized and environmental groups are held at bay.
With a public afraid of nuclear power to begin with, talk of easing regulations is crazy talk. If we had a commie government like China, it might be different, but that ain’t gonna happen. And given China’s record on contaminated food, do you think we can trust em’ to have safe nuclear power?
I think you and Obama are wrong about nuclear power. Too much is going against it. Aside from safety concerns, it’s not a renewable source like wind and solar, and it’s enormous upfront cost and long payback period doesn’t attract investors. I fear nuclear power is just one more disaster away from being history.
MaxOK, Citizen Scientist: With a public afraid of nuclear power to begin with, talk of easing regulations is crazy talk.
Some publics are more afraid than others. Where the public is unafraid (right outside of Chicago is a site with 4 nuclear power plants that supply Chicago), more power plants can be built. It is worthwhile to remember that we are a heterogeneous lot. Here is an interesting electoral map:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/all-gop-controlled-states-outnumber-all-democratic-states-24-7/article/2557023
I would expect to see more nuclear power plants in the solid red states than in the solid blue states.
Many of the Red States are large producers of natural gas and coal. Nuclear power would reduce the demand for these fuels. States usually don’t look for ways to take butter off their bread.
This:
A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.
Paul Ehrlich,
or this:
If a vertical column of an adiabatically enclosed ideal gas is in thermal equilibrium, is the temperature the same throughout the column or is there a temperature gradient along the direction of the gravitational field? According to Coombes and Laue, there are two conflicting answers to the above question:
(1) The temperature is the same throughout because the
system is in equilibrium.
(2) The temperature decreases with the height because
of the following two reasons.
(a) Energy conservation implies that every
molecule loses kinetic energy as it travels
upward, so that the average kinetic energy of
all molecules decreases with height.
(b) Temperature is proportional to the average
molecular kinetic energy.
Which Is the more significant issue for societies and economies?
Obviously the gravito-thermal effect. There is obviously a temperature variation in a real atmosphere – despite immense gobbledegook masquerading as – well – immense gobbledegook.
In an isolated column – this odd mental construct – the physical process tending to isothermal conditions is conduction and convection. The counterpoint has to do with gravity accelerating or decelerating particles. Assuming the walls of the container are at the same temperature initially – the slower particles at the top absorb energy from the surface and faster particles at the bottom transfer it to the bottom surface.
The slower particles at the top of the adiabatic box spend more time at the top than at the bottom tending to disperse particles evenly throughout the volume. Particles move from denser to less dense regions. The classical idea of dispersion of gases through a volume. And I say this with trepidation lest I invoke extreme and quite trivial verbiage.
Where does entropy come into all this? Maximum entropy entails maximum dispersion within the volume. But the molecules in the upper half of the box are still moving at a lower velocity and therefore lower temperature. The gravity effect on velocities is however fractions of a percent of particle velocity at room temperature.
There are far more fundamental issues – that I raised above. These seem to have little interest for denizens. Not to mention baroque pop.
A stronger game plan for humanity – http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-united-nations-needs-a-shorter-stronger-game-plan-for-humanity/2014/11/21/a65e14d4-6f76-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html?mc_cid=96516c08bf&mc_eid=b51ec965d8.
A critique of current objectives – http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-29/un-development-goals-criticised-by-top-world-economists/5927798?mc_cid=96516c08bf&mc_eid=b51ec965d8.
The micronutrient initiative – http://www.micronutrient.org/english/view.asp?x=604
The only response was more silliness from FOMBS. Yes FOMBS – classic liberal values have triumphed in stable democracies and the hope of the world this century is the further spread of these values. This includes free markets bringing peace and prosperity.
e.g. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/free-markets-and-civil-peace.pdf
Fringe progressive extremists like FOMBS and Paul Erhlich notwithstanding.
http://trevorfung.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/bad-report-card.jpg
Rob Ellison, you forgot to show your work!
That’s strange FOMBS. I did introduce this paper that kick started the hopelessly incompetent nonsense from everyone concerned. The paper evolved a Lagrangian – you might BTW correct the spelling in your “proof” – for a Hamiltonian based on a Gibbs free energy action principle. No one remotely had the chops to comprehend and it all very quickly devolved into silly little thought experiments. Triple plus blogospheric unscience – in other words – with not a hint of data.
FOMBS – however – took it to another level. First not finding stellar temperatures in a centrifuge – and then pretending that the entropy and the ideal gas equation said anything interesting about an isolated gas system – other than entropy and pressure and temperature. Perhaps it is not sham – perhaps he truly believes that arm waving at two simple equations – without even solving them for realistic assumptions – provides a rigorous mathematical proof of something utterly unrelated. In that case it is utter proof of one thing only. FOMBS forgot to do a sanity check.
The ‘economics’ are perhaps the most important initiative in global development. Focusing resources on the most rewarding objectives – and continuing to fritter resources up against a wall.
‘In a world of limited resources, we can’t do everything, so which goals should we prioritize? The Copenhagen Consensus Center provides information on which targets will do the most social good (measured in dollars, but also incorporating e.g. welfare, health and environmental protection), relative to their costs.’ Copenhagen Consensus
The other ‘economics’ links to a new report on free markets and civil peace. By all means read the report – very interesting.
Here’s a radio interview on it – http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/free-markets-and-civil-peace/5671116
… and (not) continuing…
Rob, when Prof. Paul Ehrlich said “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States” I think he meant just to bring it in line with Australia or New Zealand.
He also said “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” That’s probably not far from the truth. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. If you ever drank a case of beer in a 24-hour period you might agree.
Yes we are aware – don’t approve – and it is obviously far from the truth. If you had a clue it would be lonely.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/our-high-energy-planet
I suspect Rob doesn’t care if natural resources are depleted and the environment is fouled because he doesn’t see it happening in his lifetime. That may seem perfectly rational, although selfish and maybe even psychopathic. But what if reincarnation actually happens, and Rob returns as a fish that has to swim around in an uncomfortably warm cesspool of chemical filth. I’ll bet he wouldn’t like that.
I suspect Maxy is talking through his arse as usual. The solutions to pollution are much more affordable for rich societies. The movement of nutrients and pollutants through fluvial and marine systems – and slowing it down – is something I have been working on for a long time.
Nor it is about not being innovative with energy sources – or indeed about population pressures, land use and other greenhouse gases and aerosols.
http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation
These people seem particularly badly informed and bombastic and supercilious at the same time. Maxy seems especially to lack any substantive background in anything but faux down home on the Okie farm homilies. Along with declarations of what he does and doesn’t like. Let me give you a clue Maxy. No one gives a rat’s arse what you like or don’t like.
Max
You said;
He also said “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” That’s probably not far from the truth. ‘
How cheap is your energy in the States? How cheap is the gas to run your vehicles? Is that of benefit to householders and to businesses that can be competitive on the world stage?
Here in the UK and Europe millions are in fuel poverty and either can’t heat their homes at all or heat them far less than is desirable. Energy is so expensive it is a significant cost factor for businesses and for transportation of our food.
We can only hope for a very mild winter as that will reduce cold weather deaths. Are you happy with that situation? You think we are irresponsible idiots to want to be able to afford to heat our homes or to be able to use our cars?
tonyb
Paul Ehrlich’s track record of doomsday predictions is waaaaa
aaaaaaay out. Consider his opening pronouncements on
famine in ‘The Population Bomb.’ Tsk! Has Paul Ehrlich ever acknowledged his mistakes? Well no. Has he ever had to pay
for his co$ly pronouncements as a profe$$ional oracle? Well,
no, again.
Now if Paul Ehrlich had lived under the Hammurabi Code of
professional, personal responsibility as medical and members
of engineering professions are still held to today, unlike yr
seers of academia, he’d be facing a tribunal and likely tuff
penalties, though not, perhaps quite as draconian as of yore.
Tony sez to Max
“You said;
He also said “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” That’s probably not far from the truth. ‘
How cheap is your energy in the States?…
_____
Not cheap enough. Tony, you forget I am an oil and natural gas seller. Because of the way oil has been falling in price I may have to reduce my donations to Greenpeace.
I suspect you exaggerate how cold the UK gets. I’ve been to your beautiful country three times in the middle of winters for hiking and I don’t remember ever being cold. But I dress scientifically and walking warms me up. Maybe Brits sit around too much with not enough clothes on.
Tony, I don’t mean to seem unsympathetic to those who suffer most when UK weather turns extremely cold, who are mostly the poor and the elderly, and particularly the elderly poor. I wouldn’t want to be uncomfortable and have to choose between “heat” and “eat.”
I am skeptical, however, about making a link between colder weather and more deaths. I ran across the following in a Guardian piece:
Statisticians warned against making a clear link between low temperatures and high deaths, pointing out that winter 2009-10 was exceptionally cold, but that the excess winter death rate was similar to years when there had been mild winters.
Although cold can have physiological effects, which may lead to thrombosis, increased blood pressure and lower resistance to respiratory infections in vulnerable people, the ONS says that temperature “only explains a small amount of the variance in winter mortality, and high levels of excess mortality can occur during relatively mild winters”.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/26/winter-deaths-rose-third
Max
You really must sTop reading the Guardian, virtually everyone in the UK has.
Here is a report by the National institute for clinical excellence who advise the UK govt on medical matters
http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-phg70/documents/excess-winter-deaths-and-illnesses-guideline-consultatation-draft-guideline-2
There are a variety of causes for winter deaths of which cold spells and cold homes are the two key ones as they impact on a variety of health problems.
People may sit in one room in front of a fire or dress in many layers of clothing. It is certainly not just the poor or the elderly who find themselves in this situation but many millions of ordinary people who receive no sort of hand out and dread winter and the bills it will bring. The elderly themselves receive a small winter fuel allowance which has remained the same for years and only pays for a fraction of the fuel they use, or would like to use.
The govt has closed down numerous coal fired power stations and done nothing to replace them except for silly wind farms and solar arrays which of course are inactive for most of the time, through a combination of lack of wind or sun or that it’s night time. Power from these sources is also very expensive as well as unreliable.
Raise the cost of power and gas to the levels we experience here and see how many greens remain in the US at the end of it.
Yes, we would like cheap power, like you have, why do you think we are too stupid to deserve it?
Tonyb
Tony, I remain skeptical severe winters cause higher rates of deaths in the UK than miilder winters. The aged are supposed to be at highest risk for death from the cold, particularly the elderly poor who can’t afford to buy more fuel. However, I’m not sure there’s a strong link here. My skepticism would fade if you could show me mortality rates of the elderly poor go up every time the temperature plummets. I emphasize “rates” because I know the UK has an aging population, and more old people would die even if there was no change in the mortality rate, simply because there are more old people to die.
You could actually find out something Maxy – rather than simply pulling it out of your arse.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health2/excess-winter-mortality-in-england-and-wales/2012-13–provisional–and-2011-12–final-/stb-ewm-12-13.html#tab-Summary
Rob, thanks for the link to the Statistical Bulletin, Excess Winter Mortality in England and Wales 2012/2013 (Provisional) and 2011/2012 (Final). In my message to Tony I said I remain skeptical that severe winters cause higher rates of death in the UK than milder winters, and after reading the Bulletin, I’m still not sure there’s much difference. Interestingly, European countries with milder winters than the UK have higher levels of Excess Winter Mortality (EMW) than the UK. Some statements from the Bulletin that caught my eye are quoted below.
“Figure 3 shows that the increased level of EWM coincided with a decrease in the average winter temperature. This suggests that the higher levels of EWM in 2012/13 may be due to a particularly prolonged winter with lower than average temperatures in February and March. However the link between average winter temperature and excess winter deaths is much less clear in other years, for example winter 2009/10 was exceptionally cold, but EWM was similar to years with mild winters.”
“A study by Healy (2003) showed that EWM varied widely within Europe. The results show that countries with low winter temperatures in Scandinavia and Northern Europe, such as Finland and Germany had very low rates of EWM. Conversely, countries with very mild winter temperatures in Southern Europe such as Portugal and Spain had very high rates of EWM. England and Wales both have higher than average EWM and exhibit high variation in seasonal mortality.”
“Previous research has shown that although mortality does increase as it gets colder, temperature only explains a small amount of the variance in winter mortality, and high levels of excess winter mortality can occur during relatively mild winters (Brown et al, 2010 (293 Kb Pdf)). Curwen and Devis (1988) showed that both temperature and levels of influenza were important predictors of excess winter mortality. Thus, the relationship between temperature, influenza and winter mortality is complex.”
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_337459.pdf
Post hoc justification will not cut any mustard Maxy – try reading before forming an opinion and I might show a little forbearance. Although there is little charity left for your usual pig ignorant and scurrilous nonsense.
Do you want an informed discussion now? Not with me I am afraid.
Rob, I know you are upset because a report you recommended, apparently without reading, makes me look good. But you should be happy for me.
MaxOk
I think you are missing the point. It is the temperature that homes are kept at during the winter that is important. Because of their harsh climate Scandinavian countries have historically been built with high levels of insulation. Also, they have a very high level of apartments which tend to be much warmer than the Detached or semi Detached homes we tend to have over here.
Other countries such as the UK, Italy, Spain and Southern France have not always been built with good insulation. I have been to Spain and Southern France and Southern Italy in the winter where, even if the days are mild, the nights are not (dark from 5)
The homes are often very cold due to lack of insulation and often a lack of heating in the first place.
We have cited you numerous reports illustrating that cold homes cause a variety of health problems which at their extreme cause Death and at their less extreme exacerbate other problems.
Half the homes in the UK that will be standing in 2050 have already been built. Their standards of insulation are not as high as modern buildings even though much has been done in recent years to improve them
Solar gain is also important in warming a winter home. In that respect we suffer badly. The sunshine yesterday raised our internal home temperature by up to 10degrees C over the previous dull cold day.
So cold weather and lack of affordability to heat our homes are all key factors. I can assure you as well that it is no fun sitting in a 14Degree C (or less ) home all day and evening.
Remind me of the cost of energy to heat your home and power your car? What would your fellow US citizens say about the green deal if they were the same cost as over here?
tonyb
Back ter the pre ol’ King Coal, Dark, Cold, Ages when life
expectancy averaged round thirty years. Oh well, top down,
feet up population control. Jest what the green leftists ordered,
I suppose.
Tony, you think I am missing your point and I think you are missing my point, but I believe we have some common ground. We agree mortality rates increase in winter. We also agree people suffer discomfort without adequate heat in their homes, and agree the cost of fuel can stand in the way of the poor having as much heat as they would like.
You, however, believe lower fuel costs for heating in the UK would mean lower mortality rates in winter, while I’m not so sure cheaper fuel would make much difference. If there were times in the past when fuel was more affordable, were mortality rates lower?
You also believe severe winters (unusually low temperatures) cause more deaths than mild winters, but I’m not convinced there is much difference. Have you read the EWM report cited inn this thread?
You allude to energy being cheaper in the U.S., as if this makes Americans less adversely affected by cold weather. Are you aware there’s little difference in the life expectancy of Americans and Brits?
Max
You said;
‘You, however, believe lower fuel costs for heating in the UK would mean lower mortality rates in winter, while I’m not so sure cheaper fuel would make much difference. If there were times in the past when fuel was more affordable, were mortality rates lower.
Its not just me that believes that cold is harmful, but the Govt, the agencies that advise them and various other bodies such as Age concern. Hospital admissions generally soar during the winter as do doctors waiting lists.
I think we both agree that living in a nice warm house has many benefits, it is better for your general health, well being and comfort than living in a cold house .Unfortunately warm homes are beyond the reach of many UK citizens as energy generally has become so expensive. This causes considerable physical discomfort, money concerns and generally poorer health for some, as damp thrives in cold homes and your body is less able to fight off winter illnesses in adverse conditions.
Why should we in the UK and Europe generally have to suffer such high energy costs compared to the US? What would people over there think if Obama was to raise energy and fuel costs to the levels we have over here?
As a starter, how about doubling the price of fuel for your cars and see what an outcry there is?
tonyb
TonyB,
We actually did that in 2008. Our auto fuel almost doubled, cars drove less, but semi’s hauling goods did not. Prices went up on food stuffs. Some folks drove personal vehicles less.
It’s more of a choice to drive less than it is to heat a dwelling.
Call me shallow, tonyb, but I don’t have to actually die before feeling the misery of a cold dwelling.
Also, I’m incapable of relating affordable power to an idiot child with a machine gun.
Of course, unlike Paul Ehrlich, I do not loathe myself.
Danny
Your auto fuel is still extremely cheap.
I agree that some people are able to choose to drive less but heating homes to a comfortable level is a medical and feel good necessity.
Tonyb
And thankfully for us, that price spike has been cut about 40% so it didn’t last. Just taught us to expect higher prices than before that top, and we’ve paid just that since. Currently, with the price of oil down, we’re near $3.10/$3.20 per gallon of diesel. You’re at what, $2.70/litre?
As you said, for home and comfort it’s a different story.
‘Rob, I know you are upset because a report you recommended, apparently without reading, makes me look good. But you should be happy for me.’
You start with quoting Erlich approvingly on energy and id_ot children, make up something silly, quote from a link I provided something that says the opposite and finish with the usual trite snark.
‘… Curwen and Devis (1988) showed that both temperature and levels of influenza were important predictors of excess winter mortality.’
Influenza is of course usually worse in colder conditions.
Quite frankly you are looking about as good as usual Maxy.
Danny
I make it roughly 9 US dollars per US gallon for diesel.
Mind you, when max becomes president he’ll make sure you pay a much greener price for your vehicle fuel and your heating fuel. You’re far too competitive in the world market with prices like you have for consumers and industry.
Tonyb
Ouch! Worst I saw here was $4.95/gallon USD and that was July of ’08.
Do you have refineries on the island? How much of that is taxes?
Tony asked me ” What would people over there think if Obama was to raise energy and fuel costs to the levels we have over her.”
Well, I don’t think he can do that, but I would be delighted if he did. The higher the prices of oil and natural gas, the more money I make. I’m sure others wouldn’t like the higher prices, but capitalism can’t please everyone.
Tony do you know If there were times in the past when heating fuel in the UK was more affordable, and whether winter mortality rates lower during those times?
Danny and Max
Around half the price of fuel for cars is tax of one sort or another. Yes we have refineries.
Max
You said;
“Tony do you know If there were times in the past when heating fuel in the UK was more affordable, and whether winter mortality rates lower during those times?”
. I would say it has become less affordable in the last 10 years through deliberate Govt policy. That coincided with a number of very cold winters which had the effect of causing problems in as much falling temperatures and rising fuel prices means you need to spend more in order to keep the same degree of warmth in your home or let the heat level fall as temperatures drop. Here is a graph showing that (Last winter was very mild)
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph11.png
I don’t think you can compare times in the past with today for a variety of reasons. A lot has been done in the last decade to improve insulation whilst social and medical services are more attune to identifying people who may be in need of help . I did note in one of the reports cited however that mortality had crept up again over the last 7 years (presumably not last winter due to its mildness)
Prince William is with Obama today I believe. I’ll have a word and see if he can get your President to double prices. Then with your increased profits you can pay my fuel bills. Deal?
tonyb
I had that Maxy’s rents had a farm in Oklahoma – with oil and gas resources. Adding taxes depresses demand – marginally – and productivity – depressing both profits in oil and gas and demand in the wider economy. Depressing demand even further. A bit of a economic death spiral there.
Maxy’s rents wouldn’t be happy.
I had (the idea) that…
Tony, thank you for your reply,
You said “I don’t think you can compare times in the past with today for a variety of reasons.”
I believe comparisons with the past would be difficult. I also believe analyses of relationships between excess winter mortality, temperature, flu outbreaks, and fuel prices would be difficult.
I remain skeptical of the notion increases in excess winter mortality in the UK are simply a result of increases in the cost of heating fuel.
That’s because you are a shallow ideologue Maxy. Why don’t you try – as I suggested – actually researching a topic.
It helps if you are capable of understanding what little you pretend to have read.
You’re teachers and parents should be so proud.
Rob Ellison said on December 8, 2014 at 3:27 am
I had that Maxy’s rents had a farm in Oklahoma – with oil and gas resources. Adding taxes depresses demand – marginally – and productivity – depressing both profits in oil and gas and demand in the wider economy. Depressing demand even further. A bit of a economic death spiral there.
________
No, dummy, I want a higher price on oil and gas at the well head, not a higher consumption tax on these fuels. Prices are falling now because there’s too much supply. It would helpful going forward if fracing were outlawed everywhere except Oklahoma. I don’t think Obama can do that, but if he could, I would be delighted. I’m glad he is opposing that stupid Keystone pipeline, because that would just make it easier for Canadians to compete with American mineral owners like myself.
I’m not wasting my time trying to explain any more of this to you, since you seem to have no head for business.
I thought you were for energy taxes Maxy – make up your mind.
Why stop with Oklahoma – perhaps you could organise for fracking to be banned everywhere but your ‘rents farm.
Little match girl u shouldn’t be lighting them matches!
http://www.online-literature.com/hans_christian_andersen/981/
In general, the closer one gets to the equator, the higher the winter death rate; the farther you get from the equator the lower the winter death rate.
This appears to be driven by the quality of housing. Finland, for example, does very well on winter deaths, and you can bet Pekka knows how to insulate his house.
.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/goklany_winter_deaths_figure4.png
Winter looks pretty deadly to me. Don’t see a strong correlation with latitude.
Your theory seems weak.
Lol. Highest death rate on your graph? Spain. How far is Spain form the equator? Next highest? Greece. How far is Greece from the equator. Let’s try Cyprus. Let’s try Italy.
Lowest winter death rate? Canada. Where is Canada?
The farther you get from the equator, the better the housing; the better the housing, the lower the winter death rate.
Seasonal flu is a factor, but not much of one. People die of the flu everywhere. It is heart disease in the elderly that kills disproportionately in the winter. It happens in Florida. It happens in South Texas. It happens in Alabama. It happens less in Minnesota and North Dakota. Why? Better housing.
Another cause of winter deaths is holiday drinking that results in fatal car accidents. There are spikes on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years.
You are not going to save very many elderly people by burning all the fossil fuels.
Well, it seems hard to find mortality data by month for countries near but not straddling the equator.
If you wish to make your point you need to pony up some mortality data.
Despite the above evidence, a number of observations cast doubt on a causal association between seasonal variations in temperature and seasonal variations in CHD. Living at higher altitude is associated with both exposure to lower temperature and a reduced incidence of CHD.49–,51 Also, the seasonal variations in CHD demonstrated in northern and southern hemisphere countries are also observed in equatorial countries where the temperature range is much lower.52 As a result, a number of investigators have suggested varying exposure to UV radiation as an alternative hypothesis.
CHD – coronary heart disease.
Will Cheap Oil Lead to Big Mergers?
http://online.wsj.com/articles/will-cheap-oil-lead-to-big-mergers-1417750974
A little investor/trader chatter on high yield implications of oil drop. https://twitter.com/JeffCNYC/status/540887521174245376
Will Cheap Oil Lead to Big Mergers?
Good question. It could lead to weaker firms being bought up by the firms with deep pockets. Good for consumers? Nope. Good for producers? Yep.
There already is a rumor that Royal D is acquiring BP.
To be called “Royal Dutch British Petroleum” ?
I hope not. That sounds almost as bad as Burlington Northern Santa Fe.
For anybody claiming “energy in = energy” out as being relevant to anything much.
If an object more energy than it radiates, it warms. If it radiates more energy than it absorbs, it cools. Usual conditions applying, of course.
If it radiates precisely as much as it absorbs, it is in thermal equilibrium, and its temperature remains constant. Or so I believe, at the macro level.
Now, quite demonstrably, the Earth has cooled – at least over the last few billion years. Therefore, it is logically impossible for energy in = energy out, when considering the Earth and its components as a whole.
An object on the surface of the Earth may gain energy from sunlight, and warm. More energy in than out. As the sun descends, the object cools, and continues to do during the night, all else being equal. More energy out than in.
At any given time, the Earth may be heating – in the absence of clouds, water vapour, GHGs, particulate matter etc, – allowing more sunlight to be absorbed by the Earth. Conversely, the energy balance may be the other way, and a short term imbalance may be noted in the energy ledger.
After some billion years, the ledger shows a net deficit. This is evidenced by the fact that the Earth has lost enough energy to cool to its present temperature. It appears that the present flora and fauna have evolved to maximise their enjoyment of the present temperature regime, but I have not bothered to see if this is necessarily true.
It is fairly obvious that anybody depending on radiative balance in their attempt to shove the bizarre theory of CO2 warming down your throat, is quite possibly a fool, a fraud, or mentally deranged. Or maybe it’s my misunderstanding, and a body in a state of radiative balance can, indeed, warm, cool, or stay the same temperature regardless of energy content.
As AFOMD might well say – the world wonders. Probably not very much, just the inevitable lunatic fringe.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Dear Professor Mike
You are absolutely right of course.
d(W&H)/dt = energy in (J/s) – energy out (J/s)
I have to add the Joules/s – or else some warmist fool or fraud will tell me that d(W&H)/dt is an energy term and inconsistent with the RHS. In fact it is pretty easy to convert from Watts to Joules. One Watt for one second is one Joule.
W&H is work and heat – two terms that are measured in terms of Joules.
It is a conceptually precise 1st differential global energy equation based on the 1st law of thermodynamics.
If – in any period – energy in is greater than energy out then d(W&H)/dt is positive and the planet is warming. And vice versa. This is a pure and undeniable truth. Scientifically – this is as good as it gets. This is better than relativity and quantum theory. Relativity can’t be reconciled with quantum theory and quantum theory can’t decide whether it’s a particle or a wave. The latest theory is that it is all resolved in interactions wit alternate timelines. Hah.
W&H is mostly heat in the oceans so if we actually look at some data.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/free-markets-and-civil-peace/5671116
We find that yes – the planet quite frequently warms and cools. We might be able to discern a bit of an trend even – particularly towards the end of the record. Although it is early days yet in Argo.
This results from small changes in energy in.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
But more from large changes in energy out.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Let’s look at anomalies – see if we can get an idea of any decadal trend.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
I have done the numbers and no there isn’t any linear trend over the whole period. There are periods over years where there is a bit of as trend – but then it reverses.
So is there a cause we can see for recent ocean warming – recent being the last couple of years? If you were putting money on balancing this equation – it would have to be the increase in total solar irradiance (incoming energy) in the 11 year Schwabe cycle.
What would we do without Professor Mike?
My bad – thought I checked?
Ocean temp
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/argo-temperature1.png
TSI
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Net CERES
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ceres-net-seasonal.png
Net CERES anomalies
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_anom_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojune-20141.png
Rob Ellison,
You wrote –
” This is better than relativity and quantum theory. Relativity can’t be reconciled with quantum theory and quantum theory can’t decide whether it’s a particle or a wave. The latest theory is that it is all resolved in interactions wit alternate timelines. Hah.”
I guess you would have no truck with relativistic quantum field theory – also known as quantum electrodynamics. I have no difficulty in reconciling at least the Special Theory of Relativity with quantum theory, even though some concepts make my head hurt at times. I don’t pretend to understand all of both, and I would be wary of dealing with anyone who claims complete knowledge.
You have stated your opinion as fact, and I have no choice but to respect it. I disagree of course, but this will make no difference to the rate at which the a Earth continued to cool.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Dear Professor Mike,
You are absolutley right yet again.
‘What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school … It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it. You see my physics students don’t understand it … That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.’
Richard Feynman
‘On a microscopic level, all four forces are not forces in the usual sense of the word. The way that physics today explains the forces of nature is by exchange of gauge particles. Gauge particles are particles which are exchanged between other particles that form the genuine constituents of matter (quarks and leptons). So when an electron repels or attracts another electron or positron, what happens is that there is a “force-carrying field” between them. In that particular case, it is actually a field composed of photons! Photons are the mediators of the electromagnetic interaction, and particles interacting electromagnetically constantly exchange photons between them (those photons can not be “seen” in the usual sense, but that is another story). Now when an electron emits or absorbs a photon, it more or less stays the same, only its momentum and spin might change.’ http://physics.info/qed/
It is all to do with virtual photons apparently – but I’m still working on wave/particle duality of non-virtual photons. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/qed.html And there seem to be quite limited applications to time and mass dilation in the large scale or even mass/energy equivalence at the small scale. The are aspects of string theory that relates electromagnetics and gravity – and not merely weak and electromagnetic forces in W and Z particles – in alternate universe interactions that suggest aspects of a unified field theory. But I’m waiting for the dimensional bridge experiment.
But you seem to be suggesting that the 1st law of thermodynamics is an opinion? Sorry about that.
Rob Ellison,
You wrote –
“If – in any period – energy in is greater than energy out then d(W&H)/dt is positive and the planet is warming. And vice versa. This is a pure and undeniable truth. Scientifically – this is as good as it gets. This is better than relativity and quantum theory. ”
I take your last sentence to be your opinion – maybe you have another, or maybe you are making an unsubstantiated assertion, hoping it will be accepted as fact. I have no way of knowing.
You go on to say –
“But you seem to be suggesting that the 1st law of thermodynamics is an opinion? Sorry about that.”
If you care to quote what I say, rather than what you assume that I seem to be suggesting, I might be able to provide a cogent response.
Finally, the phrasing of your statement –
“It is all to do with virtual photons apparently – but I’m still working on wave/particle duality of non-virtual photons. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/qed.html And there seem to be quite limited applications to time and mass dilation in the large scale or even mass/energy equivalence at the small scale.” – indicates to me that you do not yet understand the subject matter to which you refer. Fair enough, but why attack someone over matters which you admit you don’t understand? It seems odd to me, but obviously not to you. Maybe after you understand a bit more, you might give a little more credence to my thoughts, or maybe not.
It doesn’t really matter, does it? Nature rolls on regardless.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Dear Professor Mike
Obviously there are things you understand – and might easily explain them to Richard Feymann, Slbert Einstein and to the legendary 6 year old. But you wont. I understand. Pearls before 6 year old swine.
‘If – in any period – energy in is greater than energy out then d(W&H)/dt is positive and the planet is warming. And vice versa. This is a pure and undeniable truth. Scientifically – this is as good as it gets. This is better than relativity and quantum theory. ”
I take your last sentence to be your opinion – maybe you have another, or maybe you are making an unsubstantiated assertion, hoping it will be accepted as fact. I have no way of knowing.
You go on to say –
“But you seem to be suggesting that the 1st law of thermodynamics is an opinion? Sorry about that.”
If you care to quote what I say, rather than what you assume that I seem to be suggesting, I might be able to provide a cogent response.
My apologies – I was suggesting that the 1st law was on firmer ground than relativity theory and the theory of quantum mechanics. A cogent response is very ambitious. Thank you very much.
Finally, the phrasing of your statement –
“It is all to do with virtual photons apparently – but I’m still working on wave/particle duality of non-virtual photons. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/qed.html And there seem to be quite limited applications to time and mass dilation in the large scale or even mass/energy equivalence at the small scale.” – indicates to me that you do not yet understand the subject matter to which you refer. Fair enough, but why attack someone over matters which you admit you don’t understand? It seems odd to me, but obviously not to you. Maybe after you understand a bit more, you might give a little more credence to my thoughts, or maybe not.
It was not me that admitted to not understanding – but Richard Feynman. Didn’t he win his Nobel Prize for this? Freakin’ dimwit.
I certainly don’t understand whom I might be attacking – but perhaps I did overstep the mark by suggesting there still a few i’s to dot in a unified field theory for gravity and elctromagnetics. Sorry it will never happen again.
Life’s too short for bad coffee
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
Rob
You have much more knowledge than I, but a professor in antenna design told me many years ago that a photon is merely the name given to the particle behavior of electromagnetic waves.
Cheers,
“If it radiates precisely as much as it absorbs, it is in thermal equilibrium, and its temperature remains constant”
Place a poker into a fire; at steady state the tip is red hot and the handle is cool enough to touch.
Equilibria and reversible thermodynamics are for amateurs, steady states and irreversible thermodynamics are for professionals.
DocMartyn,
And overall, if every part of that poker is absorbing as much energy as it is emitting, the individual parts will remain at precisely at the same temperature, as I said.
Now if you were to disrupt the energy balance at any point along your heated poker, the temperature would change, until it once again achieved thermal equilibrium with it’s surroundings.
For example, if you withdraw the heated end from the fire, it will cool. It is emitting more than it absorbs. If you raise the fire temperature with a bellows, the poker tip will absorb more than it emits, and it’s temperature will rise. Try it, if you don’t believe me.
If you cast the whole poker into a bath of molten lead, some parts will cool, and some parts will warm. I cannot see any mystery, but some do.
The laws of physics care naught about my social, educational or financial status. I used equilibrium in the sense of the commonly accepted way, I thought. Maybe not. I’m not sure of the intent of your poker analogy, but I hope you will accept that at ever point along it, unless the absorbed radiation is exactly equivalent to the emitted radiation, the temperature will be changing.
Obviously, the normal understanding of the phenomenon of conduction is incorrect, as quantum electrodynamics shows, but it’s hard enough to convince people that atoms are not small infinitely elastic balls, or that compressed gase are not necessarily warmer than their surroundings. Other examples abound. I am hoping that if I am wrong, someone might explain where, simply and without providing copious irrelevant quotes from questionable authorities, in an attempt to browbeat.
As you can see, wandering down the path of ananlogy provides wonderful opportunities for avoiding inconvenient truths.
In any case, the Earth appears to be not warming, but cooling. Energy lost must be exceeding energy gained, do you not agree?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Application – or not – of the gravito- thermal effect. Proof positive that you can slip a perpetual motion patent past the U.S. Patent Office, without the need for a working prototype. Just call it something else.
“Abstract: A method and apparatus for creating temperature differences in columns of gases, liquids or solids in a closed system under the influence of gravity is used to provide energy in the form of electricity or heat. A temperature differential element, optionally a solid, liquid or gas, is suspended vertically in a chamber inside an enclosure. The chamber optionally is either evacuated, filled with fibers, powder or small spheres, or otherwise arranged to minimize the effects of convection currents and radiation. Under the effect of gravity, the upper end of the temperature differential element becomes cooler than the lower end. A thermocouple can be used to generate electrical energy from the temperature difference between a vertical segment, for example the upper and lower ends, of the temperature differential element, or heat exchangers used to extract heat.”
If you believe in the effect, Roderich Graeff would be more than willing to accept your donations to develop his gravito-thermal free energy device. He obviously has the support of Professor Fronsdal who refers to Graeff’s experimental results as support of his own published work.
Alas and alack. It’s just more perpetual motion/ free energy nonsense. It doesn’t work, can’t work without magic, and will never work.
Feel free to support further research with your own money. Any takers? No? Why am I not surprised!
Well, it does say Climate ETC at the top!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Actually, he could have failed for a fraction of the cost of Solandra.
Dear Professor Mike,
‘Nor was it accepted by everybody. A famous incidence involves Loschmidt (1876) [28], who believed that an isolated atmosphere, at equilibrium in a gravitational field, would have a temperature gradient. However, arguments presented by Maxwell and Boltzmann (1896) [29] led Loschmidt to withdraw his objections, which is hardly surprising given the authority of these two. Nevertheless, it may be pointed out that no attempt was made, to our knowledge, to settle the question experimentally, until recently (Graeff, 2007 [30]).’ – See more at: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/3/1515/htm#sthash.jyRYYmPu.dpuf
Yes – I agree totally – a contemptible endorsement of empiricism.
Rob Ellison,
If you believe that Graeff’s experiment supports free energy from a gravito-thermal, why are you bothering to comment here?
Surely you should put your shoulder to the wheel, nose to the grindstone, dive in with both hands, and develop this amazing source of free energy. Just imagine. Greening the Sahel! Ridding the world of evil CO2! Boundless free energy to convert lead into gold! Endless water and crops from infinite desalination capacity.
An end to world poverty – and illness, no doubt – within your grasp!
Or maybe you would find yourself up to your neck in a pile of stinking ordure, vainly calling for help to extricate yourself. Would you consider investing your total assets in the scheme, and seeing how it goes?
I’ll be the first to offer a grovelling apology if you go down in history as the man who saved the world, so allow me the luxury of snorting with derision until that time.
Good luck!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Dear Professor Mike,
I stand in awe of your knowledge of physics and your skills at polemics and satire. You must understand however – that lesser mortals like me ultimately require observational evidence in accordance with this outdated idea of the scientific method.
However, should this energy source rely on gravity adding to and countering particle velocities the amount of extractable gravity energy might be relatively small. The equivalent of a swimming pool to power my ipod perhaps.
I could be wrong – but a solar cell and a car battery might be cheaper and more convenient.
Let’s experiment. Magrathea (I may have misspelled it – where is my copy of The Hitchhiker’s Guide when I need it) would be a place to start.
The 13 month average of global sea ice is well above the base line for the first time in about 10 years. Wow!! Call the media quick!!
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
More to come me thinks.
That is a question that every young person is well-advised to consider for themselves.
Question As we learn better now to answer these questions for ourselves as individuals and as families, perhaps we will come to a better appreciation, of how to answer these questions among nations and as a planet.
The world wonders … and hopes!
Best wishes for a loving holiday-season are extended to all young-hearted Climate Etc readers!
It is about hard headed and rigourous analysis of costs and benefits and not whatever cr@p FOMBS is on about now. Otherwise we are pissing resources up against a wall while young people die. You don’t get littler than that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5BDIBRwQ88
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus
You never miss a trick, do yah Potter?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGYTqwzJt6w
The world wonders!
It – in case he missed the links and the Youtube video – is about the getting most benefit from resources committed to the Millennium Development Goals.
The Copenhagen Consensus has identified ‘phenomenal’ goals (benefit to cost ratio of at least 15) for multinational development. It is a dozen ways to save the world for the post 2015 development and aid agenda.
1. Reduce barriers to productive employment for all including women and young people.
2. Reduce by 50% or more malnutrition in all its forms, notably stunting and wasting in children under five years of age.
3. By 2030 reverse the spread of,and significantly reduce deaths from tuberculosis and malaria, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases
4. Achieve universal health coverage (UHC), including financial risk protection, with particular attention to the most marginalized, assuming a gradual increase in coverage over time, focusing first on diseases where interventions have high benefits-to-costs.
5. Ensure universal access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health for all, including modern methods of family planning.
6. By 2030 ensure universal access to access and complete quality pre-primary education
7. By 2030 ensure equal access to education at all levels.
8. By 2030 ensure increased access to sustainable modern energy services.
9. By 2030 phase out fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption
10. Build resilience and adaptive capacity to climate induced hazards in all vulnerable countries.
11. Promote open, rules-based, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading and financial systems, including complying with the agricultural mandate of the WTO Doha Round.
12 Improve market access for agricultural and industrial exports of developing countries, especially Least Developed Countries, and at least double the share of LDCs’ exports in global exports by 2020
http://watertechbyrie.com/
Far from FOMBS mad characterisation – this is about building a fair, peaceful and prosperous global civilisation this century – it is about protecting, conserving and restoring ecosystems and agricultural lands – it is baout extending the energy advantages of the modern world to all.
It is about a high energy planet – http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/our-high-energy-planet
This is a vision in stark contrast to the dark future of FOMBS and his ilk with their technocratic and authoritarian impulse.
It is about a future for humanity that is bright, optimistic, prosperous, healthy and free.
check out the It’s a wonderful life alternate ending.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7sqx2_its-a-wonderful-life-lost-end_shortfilms
W.L alternate ending: + 10 :)
Fan:
Henry Potter is probably a strawman and a dinosaur. More money can be made from ‘satisfied and happy’ customers. Potter left a wake of tragedies in his path. That’s bad PR and drove business to his competition.
FOMD, I trust you have the decency to finally admit that The Wicked Hockey Stick of The West is finally dead.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/04/sheep-mountain-update/
The struggle against moral and economic nihilism isn’t easy, is it Skiphil?
Now in the 21st century, we find that science, technology, engineering, art, mathematics, and medicine — the STEAM² disciplines — are becoming objectively central to that enduring struggle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDl4_fK3G58&list=PLNdEBvVYMvsDw5FdQ6N9GGEvIwjnNZuiC
So there’s no excuse (any more) for willful ignorance, is there?
Conclusion There’s *FAR* more to human existence — both moral and economic — than considerations of “hard-nosed market efficiency”, eh Climate Etc readers?
http://www.eeweems.com/capra/_imagery/_wonderful_life/pottersville_470.jpg
No one wants the world to dumbly become an ignorant planetary-scale Pottersville, do they?
Remark In seeking to deny the 21st century’s burgeoning STEAM conceptions, even the most case-hardened market-fundamentalists slowly (and painfully) acquire a broader understanding.
God on `yah, Climate Etc knowledge-seekers of every persuasion!
ya. Fan we need to be more godlike. guy’s a nutjob
Steven Mosher, “ya. Fan we need to be more godlike. guy’s a nutjob”
Which god? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trickster_gods
a fan of *MORE* discourse: So there’s no excuse (any more) for willful ignorance, is there?
I can’t resist: What’s your excuse?
On a more serious note, you are not really denying, are you, that America’s current oil surplus was produced by free market entrepreneurs? Not only did they not get a loto of help from govt, but govt has been actively impeding them.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Gods-Neil-Gaiman/dp/0380789035
FOMT left out Unger’s quotation about our becoming God-like……. guess that aspiration reflects a lot about FOMT’s delirium on this site. Most people think it’s enough to become more human-like but FOMT thinks he IS God…..
Reply below!
Good on `yah for asking tough questions, Skiphil!
In order to consider using nuclear energy to replace some of the demands for fossil fuels, I urge the new Congress to ask the National Academy of Sciences to make an open and transparent evaluation of Galen Winson’s video on The Nuclear Scare Scam and report their conclusions to Congress:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA&feature=player_embedded
Reposting re another approach to the concept of atmospheric temperature changes.
The energy in equals the energy out on a 24 hour basis.
Hence when the earth is closer to the sun in January yes there is more energy in but also more energy out to balance.
The atmosphere is naturally hotter as the sun is closer.
But the earth does not retain more energy stored in the sea. Any heat that has gone deep is balanced by colder water elsewhere as the earth has to give up all the energy it takes in over the 24 hour cycle.
If that heat went deep somewhere else had to radiate the equivalent back to space.
There are Kelvin waves, yes, there are pockets of down-welling hot water, these do not store extra heat, they only carry heat that has already been balanced by the outgoing radiation from the rest of the sea and land.
That is why “the net TOA imbalance generally only varies by something on the order of ± half a watt per square meter over the thirteen years of the record, with no statistically significant trend at all”
TOA is simply the heat in, heat out interface.Hence so called stored heat cannot come back to bite us. It has already gone back to space.
ENSO and stadium waves and El Nino’s are simply descriptors of current weather patterns.Yes El Nino is real, the sea is warmer but there is no more heat in the system because of it.
There is more heat in the east Pacific sea during El Nino.
The simplest explanation for this would be decreased albedo due to less cloud cover. This lets more heat into the atmosphere which then heats up.
More complex would be altered albedo due to atmospheric factors we have not taken into account.
Choppy surface water in storms, dust storms, forest fires.
or even factors in the sea which might cause increased reflectance off water.
The last would be simple variance in the amount of energy emitted by the sun which we are reluctant to consider.
See http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/04/open-thread-22/#comment-653199
Just pointing out that all the flooding in Buffalo, New York due to “climate change” didn’t happen.
From the article:
…
BUFFALO, N.Y. — Tuesday brought minor flooding that closed some Western New York roads, but the region was largely spared flooding and wind damage overnight.
Crews are still working to clear sidewalks in the business districts of South Buffalo. Snow was cleared from sidewalks on South Park Avenue and Abbott Road the past two days, and Seneca Street is on the agenda for Wednesday.
…
http://buffalo.twcnews.com/content/news/788176/cleanup-continues–minor-flooding-but-western-new-york-spared-wind-damage/
Sorry, that’s weather, not climate.
Another cousin of AGW/Green self-human hatred culture, man-as-evil-God, “Peak Oil” debunked……again:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/12/05/quotpeak_oilquot_debunked_again_347109.html
EPA shuttering 72 GW Coal Power
Impact of EPA’s Regulatory Assault on Power Plants
It says this represents only one fifth of coal-generating capacity, so it seems that they have become surplus to needs with other power generation coming online. This is the way it should be.
For many of the AGW Skeptics here at CE, one wonders if there has been any EPA Reg or health initiative that is not considered a “Liberal” assault? The list includes mercury, smog, ozone hole, fluoridation in water (dental health), acid rain, lead (e.g., gasoline) — and of course AGW.
The Science will never be good enough, the cost/benefit never can be justified, the motivation is always a liberal agenda.
Don’t look at me. I’m pro-regulation, pro-welfare, pro-planning, pro-subsidised public transport, pro-conservation etc etc…
And I still say AGW is self-loathing, leftist bunk.
Stephen: The list includes mercury, smog, ozone hole, fluoridation in water (dental health), acid rain, lead (e.g., gasoline) — and of course AGW.
Aspertame, alar, saccharine, etc.
From a conservative point of view, it is always worthwhile to make the govt provide strong justification for new rules. And it is true that progressives often propose new regulations for lots of things with little justification: oversized sodas, for example, sugared sodas, alcoholic beverages, and those listed above — and CO2. It isn’t unusual for progressives to avoid the issue of costs entirely (i.e., the benefits of what is about to be prohibited), and unwanted effects (relocation of manufacturing to China and India.)
I wonder why water is strangely absent in that list. That’s the worst greenhouse gas – and therefore a pollutant – of all.
I think the primary motivating factor for movement of manufacturing to China is cheap labor. And how can we compete with essentially no environmental regulations by China? Do we want a race to the bottom so we can compete?
Joseph: Do we want a race to the bottom so we can compete?
Some composure and thoughtfulness would help.
I think the primary motivating factor for movement of manufacturing to China is cheap labor
Besides that there has been direct investment in manufacturing in China by EU companies to achieve EU “green goals”. China just announced that its interpretation of agree ments to date require the EU nations to continue subsidies of at least $10B per year for at least 10 more years.
Mathew, manufacturing has been moving overseas to China for decades and started in earnest in the 90’s. And I am not sure how investing in “green” improvements in manufacturing is going to encourage a company to move overseas. And finally most of the manufacturing losses are in the US.
Joseph: And I am not sure how investing in “green” improvements in manufacturing is going to encourage a company to move overseas. And finally most of the manufacturing losses are in the US.
You have not been reading up on this. Green schemes are not the only reason that companies have relocated their manufacturing to China from the EU, but companies have received monetary gains by, for example, closing a steel mill in the UK and expanding one in India.
The Daily Show – Spot the Africa :
http://youtu.be/AHO1a1kvZGo
Let us take a 30 m long and 1 m diameter cylinder and completely thermally isolate it. Fill it one their full with ammonia, so that it is filled with liquid to a height of 6 m, with ammonia gas filling the rest. Warm the whole thing to 25 degrees centigrade and allow the whole mass to come to equilibrium.
Now, from a small aperture at the top of the cylinder, remove a known amount of ammonia gas, say 1/100 of the total content.
Observe the drop in temperature.
Refill and again equilibrate to 25 degrees. This time open an aperture at the base and remove exactly the same, 1/100th, of the ammonia in the system.
Observe the drop in temperature.
Will there be a difference in the temperature drop in the two systems, when an equal amount of ammonia is removed from the base or the top,
Answer (FOMD’s instant guess) no temperature difference, `cuz the phase-transition at the (anhydrous ammonia) liquid-gas interface ensures isothermal expansion at either end.
http://www.bigiron.com/photos/20140402/AnhydrousAmmoniaTank_0001_029a00c0f4af4d159a915892c97ae2eb.jpg
It’s a tricky question … but on the other hand, farm-kids are thermodynamically savvy!
Answer (FOMD’s final answer) Upon quantitative reflection, venting off the top cools relatively more, `cuz relatively more work is done expanding into a relatively larger volume, leaving the top-vented tank relatively cooler than the bottom-vented tank.
http://www.tractorshed.com/gallery/uptest/a35166.jpg
Note farm-folks use top-venting to generate pressure-differences that transfer liquid anhydrous ammonia in the field.
Thanks for a fun question, DocMartyn!
Lol&nbdp;… on further reflection, it matters whether yah vent fast or slow which did you intend DocMartyn?
You can have a two phase system, in thermal equilibrium, and if you remove a defied mass from either phase, you get a different change in the equilibrium temperature.
DocMartyn,
And thus I defy you, ammonia!
You must be a defier. Is that better or worse than a denier?
I better stop before you strike me repeatedly with a strangely deranged Warmist – there are usually plenty on hand on this blog!
Sunday fun for all?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
FOLLOWUP to DocMartyn’s ammonia tank question
Readings The online notes for MIT’s Thermodynamics course, in particular Section 8.1, Behavior of Two-Phase Systems, affirms the correctness of *both* of FOMD’s answers.
Full Answer In the limit of slow venting there is no ammonia-tank temperature change (and no pressure change either).
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/fig6VaporDomeTV_web.jpg
Whereas for fast venting the vapor pressure drops, the liquid-phase boils, and the tank gets frosty (as plenty of farm-kids have observed).
Question Will this respectful, well referenced (and hopefully correct) thermodynamical answer receive a passing grade from DocMartyn?
The world wonders!
The tank is thermally isolated, so it does not frost up.
You think introducing a kinetic function, venting time, alters the thermodynamics of the system? Really, Fan, really? You believe that removing the upper gas phase quickly, as opposed to slowly, changes the thermodynamics of the second equilibrium?
Fast venting drops pressures and causes a rapid phase change, whereas slow venting doesn’t.
Explain your answer.
The ammonia-question is subtle, DocMartyn, and (to be candid) I have to think about it some more.
This remarkable video of the interior of a liquid-gas CO2 pressure cell — filmed by the refrigeration engineers of the Danfloss corporation — vividly shows the multiple thermodynamical phenomena that come into play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkSkKKlcVJQ
This video is highly recommended to thermodynamics-minded Climate Etc readers!
The online notes for MIT’s Thermodynamics course, in particular Section 8.1, Behavior of Two-Phase Systems also are excellent.
Congratulations on posing a question that even professional refrigeration engineers regard as subtle, DocMartyn!
Technical Note Carbon dioxide (CO2) and ammonia (NH3) both are used as refrigerants because their phase diagrams are similar.
http://biomodel.uah.es/Jmol/plots/phase-diagrams/pvt_co2.gif
http://biomodel.uah.es/Jmol/plots/phase-diagrams/pvt_nh3.gif
Thus DocMartyn’s question has the same answer for (essentially nontoxic) CO2 that it does for (strongly toxic) NH3.
FOMD’s present guess Venting from an insulated two-phase tank
• Venting from the tank, either from the top or the bottom, cools the tank.
• Venting a specified mass from the top cools the tank more than venting that same mass from the bottom.
What’s *NOT* evident (to FOMD) is whether venting the tank rapidly (or equivalently, expanding the volume of the tank rapidly) cools the contents more, less, or the same, compared to venting the tank slowly (or equivalently, expanding the volume of the tank adiabatically).
Note that rapid-versus-slow expansion questions are tricky even for monoatomic ideal gases. That’s why (for FOMD at least) further thought will be required.
Experimental evidence FOMD has personally seen the “ammonia dry ice” that results from from venting an ammonia-tank rapidly. Whereas “CO2 dry ice” is white, “NH3 dry ice” looks like brown grease!
Thank you DocMartyn, for asking a question whose subtlety induces humility (in FOMD anyway).
The question is a little more subtle than you have yet caught. One of the major differences between the thermally equilibrated liquid and gas phases is latent heat.
Now Fan, does removing xMoles of liquid (1) or xMoles (2) of gas leads to a different equilbrium temperature in the two system?
• Theoretically most efficient cooling: remove gas-phase slowly (quasistatically).
• Theoretically least efficient cooling: remove liquid-phase (or solid-phase) rapidly.
• In practice: vent the gas-phase briskly enough to facilitate reasonable liquid-phase transfer-rates … `cuz farmers can’t wait all day!
Is that right, DocMartyn?
DonMartyn,
Being a dreadfully lazy fellow, I just now got around to measuring the temperature of both systems. They appear to both be at exactly the same temperature.
I apologise that one tank now contains only ammonia gas, or close to. I forgot to close the tap at the base for a while.
Can I still get a pass?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Lol if we crack-open the needle-valve on the top of the tank, and the tank is well-insulated, and we walk away for a few hours, then the bottom of the tank will contain not liquid ammonia, but a chunk of ultra-cold solid ammonia!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLNHDxd6nDc
This is the same effect by which liquid-CO2 fire extinguishers, when vigorously vented, generate ultra-cold “dry ice” (solid CO2).
Is this right, DocMartyn?
Best holiday wishes to all, FOMD.
#MoneyGate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11266746/Capital-controls-feared-as-Russian-rouble-collapses.html
Recent post at Real Climate that questions the pause:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/
Change point analysis is discussed with an answer of no. Interesting diagram that might be related this:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n4/images_article/nclimate1143-f2.jpg
Look at the area under the line. It rearranges. Put the North pole on the right and the Equator somewhere to the left. “One of the most important and mysterious events in recent climate history is the climate shift in the mid-1970s. In the northern hemisphere 500-hPa atmospheric flow the shift manifested itself as a collapse of a persistent wave-3 anomaly pattern and the emergence of a strong wave-2 pattern.” – Tsonis. Just a thought.
A clarification, I’m suggesting the diagram shows the roughly 2000 transition from a wave-2 to our current wave-3 pattern.
Related to the above:
“Tipping points, at which complex systems can shift abruptly from one state to another, are notoriously difficult to predict. Theory proposes that early warning signals may be based on the phenomenon that recovery rates from small perturbations should tend to zero when approaching a tipping point”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/nature10723.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/images/nature10723-f1.2.jpg
The graph is of a cyanobacterial population, but it might as well be a Cessna 172 going from full power to low engine power in 12 1/2% increments while the pilot foolishly attempts to maintain altitude. The plane is going to land no matter what the terrain, or he’s going to stall it and nose into the ground. The recovery slope flattens. The plane’s controls become sluggish prior to a low power stall. During the stall, nose pitch control upwards is non-existent. This is consistent with the idea that the speed of the system slows prior to a collapse. If we were really smart, we’d look at whatever slopes are relevant and be able to predict collapses. Yes, the graph is one of nature’s hockey sticks.
I love fairy tales, too. Grimm Brothers are less scary and generally I prefer them.
Girma:
“So this idea of sudden climate change is baseless.”
There’s the glacial to inter-glacial transitions to figure out. That they occur I think argues that such changes occur on shorter time scales but with a lessor magnitudes, as well. We can also look at the salmon: “Dr. Nathan Mantua and his colleagues were the first to show that adult salmon catches in the Northeast Pacific were correlated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Mantua et al. 1997).”
Only the later, “Bowdlerized” versions. The original versions have blood and horror restored in new translation
[…]
[…]
Maria Tatar employed “the tools not only of a psychoanalyst but also of a folklorist, literary critic, and historian to examine the harsher aspects of these stories”, first published in 1987, now reissued in second edition.
http://press.princeton.edu/images/k2575.gif
NAS (2002) has a simple mechanical analogy that is very similar.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=12
Try this for ‘slowing down’ in climate – http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14308.full
‘Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies [cf. Roe, 2009]. If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle, 2008].’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
OMG – we are all going to die.
It took me 6 months I’d say to visualize a slowing system prior to a collapse. In the second graph above, we can see the system is struggling. Tonight’s thought. The perturbations are like soundings. We watch how it recovers and in very simple cases, it’s the recovery slope that is the tip off. Going a bridge too far as usual, if we look at the ENSO region we can look for recoveries. Energetic or lackadaisical?
Rob
The amount of energy stored in the oceans is so large that there is no energy other than the sun that can suddenly change it. So this idea of sudden climate change is baseless.
Actually, here is what Levitus wrote:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021592/pdf
In the NAS mechanical analogy – there are a couple of possibilities. In (a1) the arms are displaced but not sufficiently to cause the ball to cross the balance to the other side. In (a2) the balance is displaced with sufficient force to cause the ball to move to a new equilibrium state on the other arm. There is a third possibility in that the balance is hit with enough force to cause the ball to leave the track, roll off the table and under the sofa – there to plot revolution with the dust balls and lost potato crisps.
OMG – we are all going to die!!!!
Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1
Reality seems to be behaving quite differently Girma.
In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions.
This rule should be followed so that arguments based on induction be not be nullified by hypotheses. Isaac Newton
I realise the interweb is a bizarro world where hypothesis rules – but I don’t have to go along with it.
Rob
What the internal variability in the climate system does is redistribute the SOLAR ENERGY that is already STORED in the oceans. It does not create new energy.
Sudden climate change is a baseless.
All the energy that changes the surface of the ocean comes from the sun as shown:
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalTemperatureSunCorrelation.png
Look how the global surface temperature changes in PHASE with solar activity!
You are plotting sunspots against noise on wood for dimwits Girma.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/mean:12/scale:0.001
It is utter nonsense. You may peddle this cr@p all over the interweb for all I know – and I have largely ignored this nonsense here to date. But please leave me out of the loop.
Rob
That is the main problem.
You are comparing stored energy (global mean temperature) to instantaneous energy (solar activity).
Global mean temperature is the representation of the energy stored in the earth’s ocean.
To find the climate signal in the global mean surface temperature, you MUST remove the stored energy component (i.e the secular trend) from the global mean temperature, which gives you the excellent correlation between solar activity and instantaneous global mean surface temperature as shown:
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalTemperatureSunCorrelation.png
Exactly – you remove the signal, leave the noise and correlate it with sunspots. We know there is a solar component – but much else as well.
As I say – utter nonsense and leave me out of it.
Say Chief, there’s them
:: Cheshire Spots ::
and lots besides, Horatio,
sea – changes, oh so
rich and strange,
full – fathoms – five,
we -jest – don’t – know.
A dim-wit-serf.
Beth,
I was prompted today to read a little Joseph Campbell again after many years. The hero with a thousand faces poised in the modern era to bring together the strands of mystery and imagination in a grand fulfillment of the mythic hero-quest and the invention of a new hero-quest for the ages to come.
‘All of which is far indeed from the contemporary view; for the democratic ideal of the self-determining individual, the inven-tion of the power-driven machine, and the development of the scientific method of research, have so transformed human life that the long-inherited, timeless universe of symbols has col-lapsed. In the fateful, epoch-announcing words of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: “Dead are all the gods.'” One knows the tale; it has been told a thousand ways. It is the hero-cycle of the modern age, the wonder-story of mankind’s coming to maturity. The spell of the past, the bondage of tradition, was shattered with sure and mighty strokes. The dream-web of myth fell away; the mind opened to full waking consciousness; and modern man emerged from ancient ignorance, like a butterfly from its cocoon, or like the sun at dawn from the womb of mother night.
It is not only that there is no hiding place for the gods from the searching telescope and microscope; there is no such society any more as the gods once supported. The social unit is not a carrier of religious content, but an economic-political organiza-tion. Its ideals are not those of the hieratic pantomime, making visible on earth the forms of heaven, but of the secular state, in hard and unremitting competition for material supremacy and resources. Isolated societies, dream-bounded within a mytholog-ically charged horizon, no longer exist except as areas to be exploited. And within the progressive societies themselves, every last vestige of the ancient human heritage of ritual, morality, and art is in full decay.’ Campbell, 1953, The hero with a thousand faces – p333
The City of Man usurped the City of God – leaving light where there was darkness and darkness where there was light. The shining City of Man is the great triumph of the Enlightenment – and the City of God is reduced to a dim reflection of it’s former glory. Leaving the soul hungering and the mind echoing to the rattles of hollow men. We are the hollow men. Redemption for the new hero is not to be found in dismantling brick by buttress the long fought over and hard won bastions of freedoms of the City of Man – but by inventing a new path through the labyrinth – drawing on the old symbols and uniting them in new mythic dimensions to capture the spirits and aspirations of a new world – billions of mythic-heroes creating of a new myth, a new poetry, a new art and a new morality. Shedding a new light on a City of God always just beyond reach.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/solar-city-maree-faulkner.jpg
Cheers
Chief,
Thx fer yr reply covering a lot of ground. I too have
Joseph Campbell on my shelves, a spiritual writer, but
also Hayek, Popper,’The Open Society and its Enemies,’
Taleb, ‘Anti Fragile,’ and Ernst Gombrich on Perception in
Art, and his ‘Meditations on a Hobby Horse.’I mention these
because they have in common a recognition of the human
predisposition for myth, confirmation bias, what Gombrich
In ‘Meditations on a Hobby Horse,’ calls the fetishism of
the single cause.’I’ll quote him referring to Alois Reigle ‘s
‘das Kunstwollen’ or ‘The Will to Form.’
‘He too fell victim [fetish of the single cause,] and ultimately
failed to see that what he produced was not an alternative
explanation but a form of words which soon assumed the
character of a mythology. For where there is a will, there is
also a willer , and this he found in those Hegelian collectives,
the spirit of the age and the spirit of the race. I have explained
before why I believe that it is in these unswept corners of our
intellectual universe that the germs of epidemics are often
bred. But you now see, I hope, that this type of explanation is
not only hostile to reason, it is also hostile to scholarship
because it produces that simulacrum of an explanation which
puts an end to further research.’
We all know that race myth that Gombrich mentions
somewhere else that bedevilled the 20th Century and I can’t
say myth is now dead, there’s a green dogma prevalent now
that’s a call to fervent action fer its followers. Re a new morality,
Rob, I’m happy ter stay with an old one handed down the ages
by the divine Socrates. Like ter respond further but have an appointment. Beth the serf.
‘We were both very depressed and felt wretched in every way. In addition, I had a
sensation in my mouth as though at least a dozen cossacks, with their horses and harness,
had spent the night there.
While we were still lying in this condition, each of
us thinking his own thoughts in silence, the door was suddenly pushed open and three English
sailors burst into the room. Only one of them had been with us the day before; the other two we saw for the first time. Interrupting each other constantly, they tried to tell us something. By asking questions and racking our brains, we
finally understood that they wanted us to get up,
dress quickly and go with them to their ship, as they had received permission from the authorities to take us with them as extra ship’s
hands.’ G. GURDJIEFF – Meetings with Remarkable Men
Mediation on a hobby horse is an intriguing title and I shall have to read it. Is it anything like the portrait of the artist as a young dog?
I quote Gurdjieff as an example of a robust spirituality – everyday life as hero-quest. I have a green religion. Sylvan fundamentalism. We used to drink too much and dance naked in forest clearings. It was a good way to get hippie chicks naked. But water was my true love. I have done some spear fishing – but it involved snorkeling through a coral cathedral and killings things. Not really why I was there. It is rather a mediation on God’s universe. Heaven in a grain of sand.
The greens perhaps do not frame it to themselves as a religion – but in as far as nature answers to some deeper symbolic archetype it most assuredly is. Nor is there a problem here – except as the power of symbols and the longing for meaning long denied in western rationalism is unconsciously subverted to destructive impulses. It is all subterranean flows through the labyrinth of our dark hearts.
The way back to the City of God – our true spiritual home – is not through reason and
logic. It is through poetry in the divination of a song of tomorrow.
Say, Chief,the ancient Greeks understood dichotomies,
Apollo and Dionysius. Liked yr 4th paragraph ).
Meditations on a Hobby Horse is a series of essays on
Theory of Art like ‘visual Metaphors of Value in Art’ and
‘The Cartoonists Vrmoury.’ Gombrich’s up there.
Armoury with an ‘A’
Regime changes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWBzvI8nquc
What’s worse then stalling the wing? Stalling only the left wing. The left wings loses its fight with the high angle turbulence. During the short dive, laminar flow is restored. Stable, unstable, stable. Repeat. A good template.
Ragnaar
Is the landslide into Vajont Dam, Italy, a relevant example of what you are talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam
The landslide was known and was moving. The designers believed they could control the rate that it would move into the lake. When they lowered the water level in the lake, the rate reduced and stopped. When they raised the water level, the slide started to move again. They did this many times. They thought they understood and could control its rate of movement into the lake.
More (including photos and charts of relevant parameters versus time here): http://www.landslideblog.org/2008/12/vaiont-vajont-landslide-of-1963.html
Seems like it crossed a tipping point.
Peter Lang:
I’ll take a stab at the Vajont Dam avalanche. The control variable is assumed to be the reservoir water level. Low is slow rubble field advance and high is fast rubble field advance. They attempted to slow down the advance prior to to large avalanche as it was increasing. I think it was too late at that point. The rubble earlier had slowed by locking more rubble. Locally piling it higher. Had the system slowed consistent with Veraart et al? The rubble had built in effect rubble dams. An approach with some risk was to keep the water level high to avoid rubble locking, to trade one big slide for many small slides. Attempts to maintain stability only made the avalanche bigger, I’d say. If their control variable had some effect, that effect was non-existent shortly before and during the transition. In hindsight, they tried to maintain things at the Dam and slow the rubble advances. Stability leads to instability. Applying this to global warming, a stability seeking approach if successful can cause bigger collapses.
Ragnaar,
It’s not actually a rubble field. It’s a solid rockmass. The rockmass is layers of old, hard sedimentary rock with the layers dipping towards the reservoir.. Some of the layers are weak and some are strong. Some are porous and some pervious some impervious. Water flows down through the pervious rock from rain and water on the high mountains. It is confined by the impervious layers. So the water pressure is relatively high below the landslide. This tends to lift the whole rockmass off and make it float down slope.
The raising of the water level in the dam has tended to reduce the frictional resistance in the submerged part of the slide and to tend to float that part of the rockmass, further resisting the resiting forces.
The weak layers have been weakend further over time because movement has been concentrated in them. So their cohesive strength is weakened somewhat.
The raising of the water level in the dam caused greater shear stress on the weak layer. Bit by bit micro cracks in the layer extended and joined up. Eventually all the strong bridges that were holding it back were sheared through (like metal fatigue and crack propagation in metals, e.g. aircraft frames and engine turbines).
Lastly, it is postulated that once the rate of movement reached a certain rate, the friction induced heat in the failure surface caused a phase change in the water in the pores in the rock – i.e. it turned to steam. The pressure further reduced the weight acting down on the slide surface so the frictional resistance was reduced.
At that point the slide took off.
Engineers and geologists didn’t understand all this back then. They’ve learnt about it since, and partly by the investigations into the failures. But the engineering geologists and some engineers knew very well about the land slide and were really concerned about. The warned before the decision was made to build and were warning throughout the design and construction. But just like the NASA Challenger disaster, other pressures on management and group think can find ways to dismiss the unwelcome, conflicting information.
Back analysis is really valuable – as it has been in aircraft crash investigations. Pity the climate modellers don’t try it eh? :)
Peter Lang:
I did go to the link and few others on the Dam. I didn’t spending enough time reading and missed on that one. Looks like the rock was going to slide with the question being how fast? Looks like with hydrological pressure they were going to control that. Say they tested it by filling and lowering the reservoir a number of times. They were perturbing it, and watching its reaction. If lowering it had less effect than before that would indicate the control was becoming irrelevant. I can’t see that the system slowed. I think it sped up.
It certainly spread up – up to 100 km/h. the rates did change each time they raised and lowered the water level.
Much of what i wrote is not on the wen sites. I worked on the Revelstoke hydro project in BC Canada. A major part of the project was the stabilisation of a landslide up stream from the dam. The land slide is 2 km x 2 km in plan area and 300 m thick. It’s one great rock mass. It’s moved very slowly about 300 m down-slope towards the Columbia river since the retreat of the ice sheets. It’s moving slowly. The dam would flood the toe of the slide by about 100 m. It’s similar to Vajont in may ways. Much instrumentation was installed into it, tunnels dug into it and and modelling don on it. I was responsible for the on site geotechnical investigation work and then continued during construction of the stabilisation program. The stabilisation involved draining it by digging tunnels right through to the slide plain and drilling many kilometers of drain holes from the tunnels.
I posted this short video of the spillway in flood a while ago.
““We found that natural fluctuations in the circulation (AMOC) were getting longer-lived as the collapse was approached, a phenomenon known as critical slowing down,” said lead author Chris Boulton.” – Study finds early warning signals of abrupt climate change, over at WUWT. Seems just like the black orb diagram above.
One more regime change:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/images/nature12071-f1.2.jpg
Yeast populations upper left. As we move left over time the system starts to shudder, which is related to sensitivity now being high as in Ghil’s plot here: http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/30/the-astonishing-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/ The yeast graph supports what Ghil suggested.
Correction: As we move right over time…
Correlation between solar activity and global mean surface temperature :
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalTemperatureSunCorrelation.png
Source: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/compress:12/scale:0.001
Correlation between global mean surface temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere:
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalMeanTempAndCO2correlation.png
Source: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/compress:12/derivative/detrend:-0.3/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/from:1980/normalise
Conclusion
The cause of both global warming and increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is solar, not anthropogenic.
Thanks
That reinforces Murry Salby’s findings
and the extension by Gösta Pettersson.
Sunspots and cosmic rays and clouds. Uncertainties abound.
Too many to allow anthropological consensus certainties.
http://spaceweather.com/
Girma,
There is a new paper out that shows a strong coorelation between solar and temperatures for the past 11,000 years and a weak coorelation between CO2 and temperature over the same time period:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html
Is EPA’s CO2 rule Constitutional?
Can the Government arbitrarily confiscate without compensation?
Harvard Law Professor: EPA Climate Rule is Unconstitutional
Tribe’s legal comments to EPA
Can the Fifth Amendment, which once was used to protected the rights of slave owners, now be used to protect the rights of polluters? I sure hope not.
Rule of Law? Or Anarchy?
We either have a rule of law – or are subject to an arbitrary rule of man.
Are you advocating any government officer for any reason can bulldoze your home and confiscate your wealth for whatever cause demanded by some dictator or advocacy group?
Study the foundations of the rule of law including the Magna Carta, and the Mosaic Law. They protect far more than slave owners.
See: Rule of Law: The Great Foundation of Our Constitution
Don’t all regulations have a disparate impact on some groups over others?
Joseph
5th Amendment requires:
:
The EPA’s rule is in effect requiring coal fired plants be “taken” or shut down for the public good without compensation.
That’s what Tribe says is unconstitutional
Girma, I’m all for transparency in science, but some of your lines become so transparent they can’t be seen. Remember, science is about revealing.
Oopsie! $1 Billion in UN Funds to Fight Climate Change Built Coal Power Plants Instead
http://www.newsweek.com/oopsie-1-billion-un-funds-fight-climate-change-built-coal-power-plants-instead-288497
Edim, perhaps you read the article before it was corrected. It was not specifically U.N, funds. If you return to the article, you will see the following paragraph at the end:
“This article was corrected to clarify that the nearly $1 billion were not specifically U.N. funds, but rather Japanese funds that Japan claimed at the U.N. were part of its contribution to a U.N. initiative on climate finance.”
Now it makes the Japanese seem sneaky. I suspect a language problem.
Antarctic sea ice is disappearing quickly. November 2014 Antarctic sea ice extent was below even the November 2010 extent. Does declining Antarctic sea ice for the last 4 years change your views on AGW Dr. Curry?
I don’t think so, Eric. Come back next week, next month, next year, decade or century, and you will find Antarctic sea ice is still there, “strong an’ streaming”
Like it matters much.
I don’t see it disappearing.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
If it were certainly those scientists saying it was increasing due to warming would have to claim cooling? Life gets so complicted at times doesn’t it?
The NSIDC shows Antarctic sea ice extent to be above the 1981-2010 average and at 2 standard deviation above. It has been above average for a long time. Perhaps you have another Antarctic in mind. If you wait awhile, you won’t even be able to say that about the arctic. You might want to try the increase in major hurricanes hitting the continental US angle. No, not a good idea. Well over 3000 days since the last Category 3 hit US. Oh well, I tried to help.
November 2014 Antarctic sea ice extent is below November 2010. A 4 year decline.
Eric
All you have to do is link to the data or graph or whatever source that is misleading you so badly. Produce . Idle speculation and wishful thinking don’t cut it.
Looks to me like it’s above 2010, but below 2013.
Eric, it’s hard to say to say this without condescension, but I’ll try. Antarctic sea ice, as stated by others, is well above the running average (post 1980). It has been like that for some time, as nottawa points out. Moreover, global sea ice is presently a bit above the running average, not that it means much. Were you thinking of the Arctic, where recent years have had low September minima? (Not that it means much.)
If the present Antarctic ice extent is alarming then the world must have been close to disaster in 1980, when the extent was much less. The only reason I can find for your odd belief is that you may have missed the fact that it is now summer in the southern hemisphere.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Really, I don’t know what to make of your comment. There has been a focus on melty bits of Western Antarctica (volcanic, but sssh) and there have been dogma-friendly reasons given by alarmists for the increasing SH sea ice, but this is the first time I’ve seen the increase denied. Weird.
Regarding Antarctica, the better proxy of net energy gain by the climate system is continental glacial ice mass loss. Continued and accelerating declines in the net glacial ice are consistent with the net energy gain to the system. Even if we magically could halt the growrh of GH gases right where they are, this glacial ice mass loss will continue for many decades owing to the very high thermal inertia of the ice sheets.
Very dogma-friendly…I like it!
Oh yes, it must be all those terajoules hidden away in the depths of the ice sheets.
You keep telling yourself that.
Looking away from the Thwaites geothermal flux and that Pine Island ash sheet (size of Wales they say)…it’s all getting to be a strain on certain necks. Still, when dogma is at stake, a little pain must be endured.
moso, time to take that little dogma for a walk and not bring him back.
My little dogma’s frightened of the PIG. He mostly stays inside playing with his models.
Dogma, jumping up and down in the back of a pickma up truck: “We’re goin’ to the Vet’s and I’m goin’ ta get tutored, Ma!”
============
Plus three ter the comedy trio. Can’t stop l-o-l-ing.
“Antarctic sea ice is disappearing quickly.”
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/antarctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2014_day_330_1981-2010.png
Well, the Antarctic sea ice is 1 standard deviation above the 1981-2010 average.
Your claim is about as accurate as any other global warming claim I’ve tried to verify. If global warmers were more accustomed to making honest presentations of fact, they would be taken more seriously.
Facts are irrelevant to progressives. And it is becoming too obvious to ignore. From Jonathan Gruber and selling lies to further socialized medicine, to The Rolling Stone and a faked charge of organized gang rape to support the Democrats’ fake “war on women” claims, to Ferguson and “hands up, don’t shoot reporting” that the Democrats and their PR firms have used to stoke the race hatred that is their favorite get out the vote tactic – the facts are false, but the “story” is true. Shades of Dan Rather.
Steven Schneider is chuckling in his grave.
Gary
+1. It’s a trait of progressives and they’ve been at it for a long time; the use of the term “Social Security Fund” was an intentional hoax, meant to deceive.
As the graph you posted shows PA, what I posted is accurate. A 4 year decline.
Right right Gary, everyone knows that Progressives are evil sociopaths and conservatives are angels that would never lie and only want what is best for everyone.
Well, Gary two months ago Oct 9, 2014 the sea ice was at an all time high and more than two standard deviations above normal.
The sea ice now is lower than a couple of recent years but still way above average. It appears to be disappearing at an average rate (it has followed the 1 deviation line for a while).
Average doesn’t usually get confused with quickly
As far as the reason for the earlier decrease:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“Large reductions in the Bellingshausen Sea and the southern Indian Ocean were the main causes of the Antarctic-wide decrease, driven in large part by persistent northerly winds.”
The decrease is weather not climate. If you persist in associating the decrease with AGW – when the Antarctic sea ice is back above 2 deviations I will be hailing the failure of AGW and heralding the incoming ice age.
Joseph,
“…Progressives are evil sociopaths and conservatives are angels that would never lie and only want what is best for everyone.”
Well, at least conservatives believe that lying is wrong. It would be funny that the movement progressives lie their a$$es off with regularity, and the default progressives like you just lap it up, if it weren’t so sad.
You do know that Jonathan Gruber was talking about people like you, don’t you? He knew conservatives would never believe him, that we knew what Obamacare was all about. I don’t think you’re stupid, but he and most of the other leaders of your movement sure do.
Steven Goddard correctly identified the global climate problem in “Spectacular Malfeasance from the World’s Greatest Climate Scientist,”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/spectacular-malfeasance-from-the-worlds-greatest-climate-scientist/
The first comment posted there explains why modern consensus science has worked for 69 years inside a MATRIX OF DECEIT that obscures reality.
> a MATRIX OF DECEIT that obscures reality.
Here’s another one:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com
needs more work. Consult Agrippa
Well, it seems like a pretty clumsy effort at malfeasance and I would only rate it as average.
The tidal gauge data is still available and anyone smart wasn’t fooled.
Reports are coming in at last from the last Epoch of epic climate forcing
Here is are my predictions for the next three El Ninos up to 2025
The specific predictions are: 2015-16 –> 2024-25 with 2019-20 as a possible half cycle.
and here are my supporting arguments:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/evidence-that-strong-el-nino-events-are_13.html
Conclusion There’s *FAR* more to human existence — both moral and economic — than considerations of “hard-nosed market efficiency”, eh Climate Etc readers?
St Augustine contrasted the City of Man and the City of God. A shining City of Man – peace and prosperity through law, economics and trade – is the great triumph of the scientific enlightenment.
Markets are the core of the economic future of humanity. They provide the resources for feeding, clothing and housing a burgeoning global population. Market efficiency provides the basis for the greatest economic good for the greatest number. The rule of law governs both markets and civil society – and law ideally evolves in a social contract in the give and take of democracy in accordance with the principles of a free peoples.
A shining City of Man grows from the capacities of the technological monkey. Something that has dangers as well as promise – in the eternal balancing act. The triumph of science has for one thing come at the cost of magic, symbols, ritual and morality. We have lost the way to the City of God – leaving a hunger that cannot be satisfied. An unquenchable spiritual hunger creates an appetite for destruction that threatens to tear down the shining city brick by bastion. Barbarians within the gates with a crazed aspiration to God like powers of annihilation.
The new path to the City of God is a hero-quest in which the runes and the symbols of the past are deciphered by each of us and reinterpreted for the new world. The hero with a thousand faces poised in the modern era to bring together the strands of mystery and imagination in a grand fulfillment of the mythic hero-quest – and the invention of a powerful new hero-quest for the ages to come. The future is ours to imagine.
Question (with hint by FOMD) Which came first: Joseph Campbell’s Hero With a Thousand Faces (1949) or Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (1957)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydUrgh15vnM&index=3&list=PLxybg5ru6HkQ-JFCUQd0oCRZKfbMDItaR
Common-sense answer Who cares? Nowadays both Campbell and Rand are dinosaurs, whose philosophies are out-of-date by six decades and more!
It perhaps owes more to St Augustine – and to Hayek as a far more influential economic theorist – than Ayn rand. The latter being a third rate writer at best and a mediocre social theorist. Much like FOMBS come to think of it – although with a dissimilar bent.
Question (with hint by FOMD) Who is the elder: Ayn Rand (b. 1905) or Friedrich Hayek (b. 1899)?
Answer Who cares? These two ancients are both dinosaurs, eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQsV860ylMY
Climate Etc’s conservatives and liberals alike need to unfreeze their philosophies!
Climate Etc’s conservatives and liberals alike need to unfreeze their philosophies!
Room for common ground? Come on! Really?
You’ll find me in this arena. I call it being an independent. Can make folks on both sides mad at me this way!
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
I think St Augustine wins hand down at the dinosaur stakes – born 354AD. FOMBS lauds Rousseau, Paine and the radical enlightenment that devoured itself in the reign of terror. He is a true heir of Rousseau whose ideas of the the regent forcing people to be enlightened has echoes in socialist movements and their mass horror in the 20th century.
Hayek’s enlightened – classically liberal – inherited from David Hume, Adam Smith and Isaac Newton is a moderate framework incorporating many modern notions of social progress. At the core of classic liberalism is the fundamental and unyielding commitment to democracy – and the evolving social contract negotiated in the cut and thrust of politics. Amongst these is the control of markets through transparent and equitable laws. At the core of government economic responsibility is the setting of interest rates to regulate growth and counter the development of asset bubbles. The latter provides the surest path to economic stability – as seen in nations where this is practiced consistently. Mainstream modern economic practice thanks to Hayek.
On the other hand it is impossible to come to grips with what FOMBS actually stands for in. Democratic socialism? Punitive taxes on capitalists? Wholesale destruction of American wealth? Do we care?
FOMD asserts that Matthew R Marler is economically delusional: “America’s current oil surplus” does not exist, in that the USA remains (even today) a net petroleum importer.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/11/files/2013/09/0912_putin-syria.jpg
“Your persistent economic illusions
are welcome to us, Matthew R Marler!”
Matthew R Marler, how may FOMD further assist you to grasp the insane reality of the world’s carbon energy economy?
The world wonders!
a fan of *more* discourse: Matthew R Marler, how may FOMD further assist you to grasp the insane reality of the world’s carbon energy economy?
You could define “insane reality”.
Was the surge in US productivity directed by the men in the photo? Are they benefiting? Is the reduction in international oil prices due to their large increases in output?
The US is a major importer of oil from Canada — is that oil not produced by free market entrepreneurs, or was it heavily promoted by govt bureaucracies with subsidies (or perhaps by the men in the photo)?
These two gentlemen control more dollar-capital than all the entrepreneurs in America put together …
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/attachement/jpg/site181/20120606/001aa018f81f1138fae60b.jpg
… don’t they, Matthew R Marler?
Whose goals does that capital serve?
The world wonders!
a fan of *MORE* discourse: Whose goals does that capital serve?
You are shifting your ground again.
It was not they who created America’s oil production resurgence, it was free market entrepreneurs. Next up: photos of Khamenei and Kim Jong UN? The Pope again? Oil bureaucrats in Venezuela?
That’s cuz the choices that faux-conservatism’s outdated dialectic tries to force upon us are *ALL* bad!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYOOwNRFTcY
That common-sense reality is evident to everyone, eh Climate Etc readers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ8d4V8iis
King Arthur meets FOMD
A fan of *MORE* discourse, here is more free market entrepreneurial success in defiance of the Obama administration.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e3caedb0280d48b297159bfaf485ccde/fuel-fire-fuel-exports-soar-under-obama
Possibly your computer and internet connection also have been built by free market entrepreneurs. Or your automobile, house, kitchen appliances, and bread and breakfast eggs.
Pseudoscientists can ignore this, as it won’t support their “no warming” meme:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6214/1227
Gates, off hand I can’t recall any arguments made by skeptics about why W Antarctica was warming that didn’t involve warming the water first. Would you mind listing a couple so I can identify the pseudoscientists also?
R. Gates,
Pseudoscientist here. When I read this article leading me to the link you posted, I noted there is no attribution of the warming only discussion of how warming modified winds leading to melting of the ice shelves.
So from where is the warming originating? GHG’s leading to warmer oceans, or tectonics/underwater volcano? From what I understand there are a number of hot spots on the peninsula. Should there not be that determination?
Danny Thomas,
Back radiation from the excess anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere warms the waters of the Southern Ocean by a degree or two.
This warm water then dives deep into the ocean where it forms a current which travels hundreds of miles directly under, but without melting, the expanding Antarctic sea ice.
Eventually, this warm current reaches the Antarctic Continental Shelf where it searches for glaciers that are susceptible to basal melt and attacks them from below.
These melting glaciers then decrease the salinity of the ocean surface water which explains the increase in Antarctic sea ice.
Note that the increased sea ice around Antarctica does NOT increase the albedo of the southern ocean, as this would constitute a negative feedback – in contrast to the Arctic Ocean where open water causes a decrease in albedo and runaway regional warming which is currently wiping out the polar bears. The expanding Antarctic sea ice does endanger the penguins however, who have to walk farther to find food.
Obviously ;-))
Net heat content of the global ocean has been increasing for many decades. It is advected to the Antarctic region via currents. While tectonic heat is not inconsequential in the region, especially in terms of lubrcation of the underside of the ice on the continent, the energy being stored in the ocean and advected to the edge of the ice resting in the ocean is the reason for the glacial ice melting.
R. Gates,
Thank you. That gets me part way there. So if heat is indeed finding it’s way in to the oceans, from where is THAT heat originating?
I’m still seeking the source. I’m finding: It’s likely CO2 and/or Methane and/or solar radiation. It’s the solution to this equation I’m seeking before I can make good policy decisions (indirectly via my vote) based on sound science. I honestly cannot locate this information. Can you help? You all here have spent countless months/years in search and I see that question still out there. I’ve spend unknown hours looking and no luck (so far) for this pseudoscientist.
Danny Thomas:
This diagram:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/04/open-thread-22/#comment-652860
Where is the this ocean heat originating from? Best bet is the lower latitude oceans from shortwave solar. Those ocean latitudes capture everything that passes through their surfaces. So a short simplified flow chart is: Solar > Oceans > Atmosphere > TOA. What about land we ask? It doesn’t have the efficient absorption, capacity or storage the oceans have. My point with my most is it’s hard to see how changing the atmosphere by 2.5 ZG would cause the oceans to change by 250 ZG, but perhaps there’s something I’m overlooking.
Ragnaar,
As always, I thank you so much for your sharing!
It seems the swimming pool experiment would be relatively easily done. Easily understood analogy.
You mentioned that the oceans haven’t taken up more heat than since 1978. Other than implementation of the Clean Air Act, are you aware of why that date is significant? Was there an improvement in instrumentation? Satellites? And was there a significant observable temperature change leading to then?
“So if heat is indeed finding it’s way in to the oceans, from where is THAT heat originating?”
—–
All, or nearly all originates in the sun. The net flow is sun to to ocean to atmosphere to space. Increasing GH gases means less net out from the system, AND more net absorbed. But here’s the kicker regarding the ocean- we see a net lower latent and sensible heat flux from the ocean. The net flow of energy is from ocean to atmosphere, but that flux is reduced as GH gas levels increase. Inevitably, as net ocean heat content increases, it is ultimately advected to the polar regions.
‘One important development since the TAR is the apparent unexpectedly large changes in tropical mean radiation flux reported by ERBS (Wielicki et al., 2002a,b). It appears to be related in part to changes in the nature of tropical clouds (Wielicki et al., 2002a), based on the smaller changes in the clear-sky component of the radiative fluxes (Wong et al., 2000; Allan and Slingo, 2002), and appears to be statistically distinct from the spatial signals associated with ENSO (Allan and Slingo, 2002; Chen et al., 2002). A recent reanalysis of the ERBS active-cavity broadband data corrects for a 20 km change in satellite altitude between 1985 and 1999 and changes in the SW filter dome (Wong et al., 2006). Based upon the revised (Edition 3_Rev1) ERBS record (Figure 3.23), outgoing LW radiation over the tropics appears to have increased by about 0.7 W/m^2–2 while the reflected SW radiation decreased by roughly 2.1 W/m^2 from the 1980s to 1990s (Table 3.5)…
Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC – 4AR – 3.4.4.1
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/wong2006figure7.gif
We have yet another example of Randy the video’s guy’s typically data less pseudo narratives. What a surprise.
Danny Thomas:
“You mentioned that the oceans haven’t taken up more heat than since 1978.” According to that IPCC AR5 chart the uptake seems consistent, so many ZJ per year.
“…are you aware of why that date is significant?”
I always try to see if that date is. In about 1977 we entered a warming regime that lasted until about 1998. This old chart says the the oceans heat content actually was flat during that time:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/09-figure-1-levitus-2005.png?w=720
Prior and before this time period, they seemed to warm. So this chart would suggest when the Tsonis et al regimes change, the ocean heating changes. Admittedly, I cannot make a strong case for this as other plots differ from Levitus 2005. What makes Levitus look correct to me, is I can see a connection to the atmosphere.
Ellison:
This is hard enough without the additional problem of the OHC plots not being in agreement.
I’m saving them for more digestion later. Thanks.
Danny Thomas:
Tisdale uses the phrase, “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans” which I consider a nice lukewarmer thing to say. I’ll buy that CO2 can stick 2.5 ZJ into the atmosphere. At the same time it sticks 250 ZJ into the oceans? Doesn’t seem right to me. I think it’s albedo and/or a simple recovery from a colder time. It does it’s best at the TOA and retains 2.5 ZG. It does it’s best at the ocean surfaces and retains 250 ZG there? I am fine saying it makes the oceans warmer on average. Don’t know about so much?
Danny,
You should ask yourself why pseudoscientists like Rob like to use data that over 10 years old and Pre-ARGO, which is the best data we have. Oh yeah, the newer more accurate data does not support their pseudoscientific memes. Go here for the best most current data:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
The ocean is warming, quite robustly.
I’ve been comfortable with the warming part, it’s differentiating the “good old mother nature” part and the part where CO2 a miniscule part of our atmosphere and which is natural in existence if not abundance (so CO2 correlates for me) but the whole GHG/ albedo/ solar radiation math is above me. Still plugging, though.
“Hansen 2005 1993-2003 0.86 +/- 0.12
Lyman 2010 1993-2008 0.64 +/- 0.11
von Schuckmann 2011 2005-2010 0.54 +/- 0.1
Wunsch 2014 1992-2011 0.2 +/- 0.1”
From WUWT. Wunsch decided to use error bars 1/2 a large the change. von Schuckmann about 1/5 as large as the change. The errors bars relatively widened over time.
Well, we are in a warming cycle that, if we are lucky, will last about another 100 years (less if we aren’t lucky).
The MWP was provably warmer with a 6 inch higher sea level and an Arctic tree line that was many kilometers north of where trees are today (it makes more sense to look at where trees grow – than staring at their bark and guessing at the temperature).
There are signs the Antarctic is more seismic active (more volcanoes) than it used to be. It is warmer than the Little Ice Age. Gee – is there some melting? Yeah maybe. Caused by man? Hard to tell.
The East Antarctica Ice sheet is in a basin and is core locked. It can only lose ice by extrusion not ice flow. It is growing.and has over 90% mo
The real question is whether the East Antarctic sheet can gain mass faster than the West Antarctic ice sheet can lose it. In 100 years this will be a moot point because the whole ice sheet will be gaining mass.
Given the usual figures of 3.3 meters for a total melt of the WAIS and 53 meters for a total melt of the EAIS only about 6% of the ice is in the WAIS.
3.3 meters over 1000+ years (assuming the climate won’t change – which it will). Interesting but not a cataclysmic threat to humanity. Further – at some point the melting of the west sheet will increase precipitation on the East Antarctic ice sheet and it will be a wash anyway.
Pingback: xx | asoliduniverse
Looking at avalanches I came across this:
“Crucially, however, the paper emphasized that the complexity observed emerged in a robust manner that did not depend on finely tuned details of the system: variable parameters in the model could be changed widely without affecting the emergence of critical behaviour (hence, self-organized criticality). Thus, the key result of BTW’s paper was its discovery of a mechanism by which the emergence of complexity from simple local interactions could be spontaneous — and therefore plausible as a source of natural complexity— rather than something that was only possible in the lab (or lab computer) where it was possible to tune control parameters to precise values. The publication of this research sparked considerable interest from both theoreticians and experimentalists, and important papers on the subject are among the most cited papers in the scientific literature.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality So looking at GCMs, if the above applies to the climate, the climate would not need a control knob. The models may assume something is needed to control it all and it happens that that is something we can control. If the climate more falls under BTW’s ideas some people aren’t seeing the system clearly enough.
Ho Ragnaar,
I’d just like to correct one term before it misleads readers. The Vajont slide was a landslide not an avalanche.
http://es.ucsc.edu/~ward/papers/Vaiont.pdf
I understand the correct term is a landslide, not a slump, as per the title of this paper.
http://knowledgearian.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/trophic-cascade.jpg
So an abundance of Pacific Salmon and other apex predators is going to decrease Phytoplankton (plants) through a series of sign changing steps. Unless changes are driven up the food chain from its base. http://knowledgearian.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/is-it-safe-to-come-out/
To those who genuinely want to understand what explains all planetary temperatures in their tropospheres and any surface:
Firstly, you need to understand how and why gravity forms a density gradient. Why don’t molecules keep on falling? The answer lies in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve. When such equilibrium evolves it has maximum entropy, and that means there are no unbalanced energy potentials and so no further net movement of energy or matter across any internal boundary in, for example, a column of air.
This happens when molecules tend towards having the same kinetic energy when they collide. This is why temperatures even out in a horizontal plane where gravitational potential energy is the same for all. However, in a vertical plane molecules with downward components in their velocity gain kinetic energy between collisions. But when they next collide they must have the same kinetic energy as the one they collide with at a lower level.
So this state of thermodynamic equilibrium also has a temperature gradient because molecules at lower levels have greater kinetic energy in order to maintain the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
You should never confuse this state with an isothermal state which evolves only in a horizontal plane. Likewise, the corollary of the Second Law that heat transfer is always from hot to cold also applies only in a horizontal plane.
This is a critical point, because when new thermal energy is absorbed at the top of a planet’s troposphere it will disrupt a former state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Gravity then attempts to restore that equilibrium by, in effect, dragging more molecules downwards and actually causing heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions below, and eventually into the surface.
This then is the extra energy which James Hansen thought had to be explained by back radiation. It is very obvious on Venus that such extra energy is required to warm its surface (by about 5 degrees) during its sunlit hours, but it also happens some of the time on Earth, because solar radiation does not fully explain our mean surface temperatures either.
Dr Alex Hamilton, thank you for a demonstration that physically wrong conclusions demonstrated via frenetic hand-waving will not soon supplant correct conclusions demonstrated via Lagrange multipliers.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Lagrange_portrait.jpg
Good an `yah, Joseph-Louis Lagrange (18th century) … and James Hansen (21st century)!
Fan full of discourse:
It is impossible for an isothermal state in a vertical plane in a gravitational field to have no unbalanced energy potentials for the simple reason that molecules at the top have more gravitational potential energy and so more total energy than those at the bottom of a column of air, for example. Hence, by definition, such isothermal conditions are not the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Yet the Second Law tells us such a state will evolve autonomously. And so, regardless of your calls to authority, “if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” —Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
Dr Hamilton,
Consider a monatomic ideal gas at equilibrium. What happens at the level H where the atoms have as much gravitational potential energy m*g*H as they have kinetic energy, on average, at the bottom of the column. Do they hit an invisible wall and can’t rise anymore? And if some of them can rise above H, then the gas above level H has some “unbalanced potentials” on your view, right?
Pierre-Normand:
Firstly you need to understand that gravitational potential energy must relate to a reference altitude, and so cannot be equated to kinetic energy. At thermodynamic equilibrium the mean sum of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous at all altitudes. The difference in KE between two levels is thus equivalent to the negative of the difference in PE. So a molecule in flight between collisions at these two levels will end up with the same KE as other molecules in the level to which it moves. When molecules with the same KE collide there is no further heat transfer and we have thermodynamic equilibrium. It’s not hard to understand.
Convection is a heat transfer mechanism. It is not wind and there always has to be a new source of thermal energy which causes heat transfer away from that source until a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained. This sensible heat transfer can (and does) include a transfer up the temperature gradient towards and into a planet’s surface. It is very obvious that this must happen on Venus, for example.
But I have work to do now in my role as research physicist, so I suggest you read the Amazon book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” which I reviewed. It contains valid physics explaining all you need to know on this.
Dr Alex Hamilton,
You misread my argument. It does not depend on the arbitrary choice of a reference altitude for the calculation of potential energy. It is true that, whatever this choice is, the total energy TE = PE + KE is conserved for each molecule individually. That is not true, however, for the molecular populations at different heights in a gas column at equilibrium under gravity. The reason for that is because individual molecules that have converted all their kinetic energy into potential energy, such that PE = TE, just fall back down. This produces the barometric density gradient. The molecular populations at different heights aren’t the same. The populations are allowed to have the same average KE at any two levels because not all the molecules from the lower level can rise to the higher level. The molecules that have the least amount of total energy when they reach the first level can’t contribute to the population at the higher level, since they fall back down before reaching it, and calculation shows that this ‘drop off rate’ skews the speed distribution (and hence also KEavg) back up at the higher level to match the distribution at any other level.
If this is overlooked, and one assumes that the average mechanical energy (TEavg(z) = PEavg(z)+KEavg(z)) of the molecules is the same at every level, then that means that if we choose the bottom of the column as the reference level z = 0 for the potential energy, then the TEavg = KEavg at that level. This would entail that there can’t be any molecules above the level h where PE = m*g*h, since at that level, *every* molecules would have a larger total energy than TEavg, and this would contradict your requirement of “balanced energy potentials”. But this is absurd since very many molecules have a total energy larger than the average and, if they are travelling vertically, then they have no trouble climbing above h.
“This would entail that there can’t be any molecules above the level h where [TEavg =] PE = m*g*h”
Dr Alex Hamilton,
The Earth has cooled from its initial molten state, to its current situation.
If you accept that the Earth was created in a molten state, then merely looking in the general direction of your feet should indicate that the surface has cooled. No more than this can be stated with any certainty.
Neither you nor anybody else can state with any certainty the Earth’s initial heat content, its original composition, its present heat content or composition, the energy added to the Earth, or the energy lost from the Earth, in the last four and a half billion years or so.
Appeals to authority will not help you. Nor will proposing irrelevant or misleading analogies. You have no facts to support any contention more complicated than the assumption that the Earth was created hot, and has since cooled.
Fervent assertions need to supported by facts which at least fit history. You have none which are amenable to verification and calculation.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn wrote “You have no facts to support any contention more complicated than the assumption that the Earth was created hot, and has since cooled.”
Yes I do. Planets could easily have cooled right down if the Sun stopped radiating. We see planetary surfaces cooling by a few degrees even just during their night. But the Sun warms such surfaces back up again the next day by the same amount that they cooled. You need to ask yourself why our little Moon is still hundreds of degrees hotter in its core than its hottest surface region. When you consider the amount by which the Moon cools in a fortnight on its dark side it’s blatantly obvious that no initial hot state or internal energy generation is maintaining the core temperature. It’s the Sun stupid!
Dr Alex Hamilton,
Part of the exchange –
“Mike Flynn wrote “You have no facts to support any contention more complicated than the assumption that the Earth was created hot, and has since cooled.”
Yes I do. Planets could easily have cooled right down if the Sun stopped radiating. ”
Might I respectfully suggest that speculations are not facts. Could . . . have, if, are Warmist facts, I know, but count merely as conjectures or suppositions amongst non Warmists.
Produce a fact to support your assertion, and others might support you. I believe my original assumption that you have no supporting facts stands. It is obvious, that so far, I am right, and you are wrong.
I do not intend waiting for eternity for you to produce a fact.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Facts? Sure. “When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The “dark side of the moon” can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C).” source.
Now you, Mike Flynn, produce “facts” that prove the Moon would not continue cooling if the radiation from the Sun stopped. Now you, Mike Flynn, produce “facts” that prove the Moon’s core also would not cool if the surface cooled and remained cool – obviously below that minus 153 C.
Dr Alex Hamilton – or maybe he must not be named, for all I know or care.
I asked a fairly simple question –
“You have no facts to support any contention more complicated than the assumption that the Earth was created hot, and has since cooled.”
Your last response –
“Facts? Sure. “When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The “dark side of the moon” can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C).” ”
It is also a fact that water is wet, and about as relevant. I wish you well.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Valid physics let’s us deduce that the core of the Moon is kept hot with energy from the Sun, just as are the cores and surfaces of planets. It’s just your lack of understanding which makes you think consideration of what happens on the the Moon is irrelevant. Why should the Moon act differently from a planet like Mars without a significant atmosphere? Just because it’s smaller? The core of Mars is also kept hot by the Sun’s energy as can be deduced from valid physics. (See my comment just written about the Second Law.) And you missed a paragraph which I repeat:
Now you, Mike Flynn, produce “facts” that prove the Moon would not continue cooling if the radiation from the Sun stopped. Now you, Mike Flynn, produce “facts” that prove the Moon’s core also would not cool if the surface cooled and remained cool – obviously below that minus 153 C.
I await your “explanation” of whatever you think happens.
Mike Flynn
And you have no proof that, as you claim “The Earth has cooled from its initial molten state, to its current situation.”
Has the “cooling” you talk about now stopped Mike Flynn? If so, what’s happening? If not, then are we at just the right point in history when the temperature gradient in the troposphere just happens to be as we expect due to gravity and yet the system is also in radiative balance with the Sun? Oh, and the same applies to other planets. So what a strange coincidence that they are all at just the right temperature when mankind came along. How strange that the temperature gradient for the gaseous region of Uranus just happens to have the right calculated gradient such that it goes from the 5,000K core down to the radiating methane layer thousands of kilometres further out where it just happens to get down to 60K at just the right altitude which just happens to be where we find the radiating temperature.
I have explained all this with valid physics. You haven’t even got off the ground Mike Flynn, let alone onto the Moon or other planets.
AH
Researcher in physics
Dr Alex Hamilton,
I claimed no proof of anything. I wrote –
“You have no facts to support any contention more complicated than the assumption that the Earth was created hot, and has since cooled.”
An assumption is only claimed as fact by Warmists, yourself, and similar people who confuse fact with theory, speculation or fantastic imagination.
However, in the spirit of amicable cooperation, I will answer at least one of your questions. No, the Earth has not finished cooling. It’s still damned hot inside, resulting in a temperature gradient from maybe 6,000K at the core, to about 3K at the outer edges of the atmosphere – however defined.
I trust you accept this as fact, but if you don’t, it matters not to me.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Yes Mike Flynn. I am quite aware of the temperature gradient beneath the Earth’s surface. It is quite steep in the outer crust (around 25°/Km) and far less steep in the hot mantle (around 1°/Km) because the specific heat of the matter there is far higher at those temperatures. Do you ever wonder how the core “knows” how to send out heat at the right rate such that the temperature plot (as seen in nearly ever borehole) extrapolates fairly accurately to the surface temperature, and then continues with the right gradient and somehow “flukes” it all so that there is radiative balance with the Sun about half way up the troposphere? You don’t wonder do you, because you prefer not to put your mind to such matters. It’s easier just to call upon authority and typical climatology garbage science. Well, it may stun you, but that temperature gradient is just a state of thermodynamic equilibrium and the heat flows can be either way when that state is disturbed. There is no evidence what-so-ever that the core is cooling off. We don’t just happen to live at the right moment in the history of the universe where the temperature gradients just happen to be based on the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the mean specific heat of the matter involved. The Sun keeps every planet at its existing temperature right down to the core. Laugh all you like. That’s a proven fact based on valid physics. Good bye as I have work to do in other physics research.
It’s quite a simple calculation to get the temperature gradient dT/dH for homogeneous (PE+KE) …
For a non-radiating gas, consider mass, M moving vertically downwards so as to gain kinetic energy and lose equivalent potential energy. The gain in KE can be equated to the energy required to raise its temperature by dT and so, using Cp for specific heat we get
-M*g*dH = M*Cp*dT
dT/dH = -g/Cp
For Earth if the surface is 288°K then, by the time the temperature reached zero (dT=288) an imaginary troposphere of non-radiating gas with specific heat 1.0 would have a temperature gradient of 9.8°/Km and could thus be 288/9.8 = 29.4Km in height. The maximum height of the troposphere (at the Equator) is only about 18Km.
(continued)
So if there were no new thermal energy from a radiating Sun then indeed the atmosphere would only be 29.4Km high. Of course this is approximate because the specific heat varies with temperature (and thus the gradient also varies) and, more importantly, in the real world the Sun is supplying new thermal energy (especially in the stratosphere) which then spreads out, some of it into the upper troposphere. The new energy provides the molecules up there with more KE that would let them reach greater heights, as indeed they do until they reach the exosphere and some escape to space because centrifugal force outweighs gravitational force. That centrifugal force, by the way, reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient as it works against gravity. Intermolecular radiation in an atmosphere with radiating molecules also reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient, and thus increases the potential height of the atmosphere.
Pierre-Normand lives in an imaginary world where gas can apparently cool to 0°K (absolute zero) thus losing all its kinetic energy. Normal gas molecules in regions in the lower troposphere have quite sufficient kinetic energy to get to the stratosphere and beyond if they somehow avoided any collisions on the way. They travel at about 500 metres a second between collisions. Pierre is just repeating another of the fraudulent claims circulated in climatology circles, which of course I’ve heard several times before. He apparently doesn’t have an original thought on the matter, let alone an appropriate understanding of physics which might enable him to think about such issues. The gravity-induced gradient is apparent throughout the Solar System, even on planets without surfaces and without significant direct solar radiation reaching far down into their atmospheres.
Dr Alex Hamilton, it is not me but rather yourself who is committed to the absurd claim that there is such a level H where the temperature drops to zero. That’s because you hold that the average mechanical energy of the gas (the average kinetic + potential energy of the molecules) must be balanced at all heights. This has the immediate consequence that when you get at the altitude where the potential energy of the molecules of one mole of gas is the same as the kinetic energy of the same amount of gas at the bottom of the column, then the kinetic energy must be zero in order to satisfy your own balance requirement.
You don’t get to that point, Pierre, anywhere within the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere or thermosphere because in none of those regions is the temperature anywhere near absolute zero. So all molecules still have kinetic energy. For example, those where the temperature is 144°K still have half as much kinetic energy as those where it is 288°K. I have already explained that molecules near the surface have enough kinetic energy to get to the stratosphere and beyond. I suggest you think a bit more before trying to criticise my physics again.
AH
Research Physicist
And just to clarify Pierre, of course we know that the rate of absorption of solar radiation in the stratosphere over-rides the rate at which the gravity-induced gradient can form, so we do indeed get temperature inversion there. Hence the only region we are talking about is a planet’s troposphere wherein the gradient is observed and calculated the same way for all planets. Even molecules near the tropopause still have more than half the kinetic energy of those near the surface, so there’s no situation such as you incorrectly assume within the troposphere.
Dr Alex Hamilton,
I agree with everything you are saying in your last two replies to me. What you don’t see is that the fact that there indeed are vary many molecules that can reach those heights conflicts with your balance requirement. That’s because the total energy (grav+kinetic, discounting internal rotational and vibrational for the simple case of a monatomic gas) of a mole of molecules at some height H will be *larger* than the total energy TE(h=0) of one mole of gas close to the ground, whenever H is such that A*m*g*H > TE(h=0). (Where A is the Avogadro constant)
This means that there can’t be any gas above that height according to your own balance requirement. The kinetic energy of the particles can’t be negative. So if the potential energy alone is larger that TE(h=0), your balance requirement will be violates whatever the kinetic energy of the molecules is. At exactly height H = TE(h=0)/(A*m*g), it will be satisfied if and only if the temperature of the gas is 0°K.
Even more simply, according to your balance requirement, the kinetic energy of one mole of gas at equilibrium decreases *linearly* as a function of height. I merely calculated for you the height at which the line crosses the x axis and the total kinetic energy becomes negative. If the average is lower than zero, then you can’t salvage your requirement through pointing out that *some* molecules can get to that level. If any amount of molecules gets there (as I agree they should), their average kinetic energy isn’t going to be negative, as your own energy balance requirement dictates.
You also ignore the fact that we are talking about the mean kinetic energy of individual molecules. They travel at about 500m/sec which would propel an upward moving molecule to at least just into the tropopause region. But anywhere in the upper troposphere there is also new thermal (kinetic) energy being added from incident solar radiation being absorbed. So, as we know, the gases don’t get down to 0°K. Hence there is no region in the troposphere where the gravity-induced temperature gradient cannot form.
I am the first to acknowledge that most of what I am saying comes from the book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” which I reviewed on Amazon over 6 months ago. In that book there is discussion of the troposphere of the planet Uranus. The heat source for that nominal troposphere is not any surface but a layer of methane in the upper atmosphere which absorbs most of the weak Solar radiation and is in radiative balance at about 60°K. So the explanation I gave in my first comment explains why the temperature increases below that altitude, reaching 320°K at the base of the nominal troposphere (350Km down) and about 5,000°K at the small solid core. There is no evidence of long-term cooling, internal energy generation or significant radiative imbalance at TOA. If the gravity-induced gradient were not a reality then it would not be 5,000°K in the core.
“You also ignore the fact that we are talking about the mean kinetic energy of individual molecules.”
I am not ignoring this fact. On the contrary, I have been stressing it since my very first reply to you. I am pointing out that it yields an *inconsistency* with your own energy balance requirement, which you are have now completely ignored for the last four posts or so. According to your own requirement that, at any height, the potential energy of the molecular populations must balance their average kinetic energy, the latter must decrease linearly with height. Isn’t that correct? If a function decreases linearly with height, then there is a finite height where the value is zero. Above that height, your own balance requirement mandates that the *average* kinetic energy must be negative. That’s a logical consequence of your own theory about lapse rates at equilibrium.
No it doesn’t. Go back to this comment.
Dr Alex Hamilton,
Why are you using Cp rather than Cv? Cp give you the correct formula for the dry adiabatic lapse rate, though for the wrong reason, since it’s unrelated to the variation in gravitational potential energy of the air parcels (but rather to the internal energy variation of expanding or contracting air parcels owing to work on the surrounding). Furthermore, through using Cp — the heat capacity at constant pressure — the internal energy gained by the descending air parcels wouldn’t correspond to the *all* the potential gravitational energy variation — which you wrongly conceive as an energy input to the parcel — but rather subtract from it the work done on the surrounding while adiabatically expanding at constant pressure. But the descending parcel doesn’t expand. It contracts.
So, what you did calculate corresponds to the dry adiabatic lapse rate, for the wrong reasons, but it doesn’t correspond to your requirement that PE+KE is invariant with height. You would have to use Cv for this, since in that case *all* the alleged energy input (from the variation in gravitational potential energy) would be converted to internal energy, and there would be no loss to the surrounding through expansion work W = PdV, as the use of Cp entails. This is not what you want in order to satisfy your requirement.
Pierre Normand:
Firstly you should not use the term “heat capacity” (which refers to the whole mass) when you mean “specific heat capacity” or “specific heat” for short. International convention is to use the word “specific” when referring to unit mass.
Secondly, you need to understand that I am talking about the state of thermodynamic equilibrium and showing why it has a temperature gradient. There is no net transfer of thermal (kinetic) energy or mass across any internal boundary in such a state. There is no expansion or compression involved. There are no unbalanced energy potentials either, and that of course is why (PE+KE)=constant if we assume no phase change or chemical or nuclear reaction. I repeat: there is no expansion or contraction involved. You need to think in terms of Kinetic Theory and individual molecules in flight between collisions. If there is a downward component in their velocity they gain translational kinetic energy which is then distributed equally among any other degrees of freedom, maybe mostly during collisions. As a molecule moves from one level to another its kinetic energy adjusts (up or down) in such a way that its kinetic energy then matches the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with. That is why it is an equilibrium state. It’s not hard to understand. Of course I realise there is an energy distribution at each level, but you can imagine molecules whose KE equals the mean at that level.
Then you need to study what I said in the very first comment on this thread as to how and why thermal energy can then be transferred downwards by diffusion, convection and conduction into the surface. That is the critical issue, and that energy flow is a reality and a necessity, whereas assumed energy flow by radiation from a cooler troposphere supposedly helping the Sun to warm the surface cannot happen. All this is fully explained in the book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” which I read and reviewed on Amazon.
Dr Alex Hamilton,
Yes, thanks for the terminological reminder. I was had indeed been misusing the terms. But my point stands. You ought to be using Cv in your calculation since Cp involves an inbuilt correction for work done through adiabatic expansion. But there is no justification for your claim that there is conservation of mechanical energy at all levels at equilibrium if your arguments relies on the consideration of falling macroscopic air parcels rather than (as it should) speed distributions of molecular populations. At the molecular level, the molecular populations change at various levels and you must be more careful while tracking their speed distributions. Look up the reference to “Coombes and Laue” on the ‘Gravito-thermal’ thread. I would rather the topic be concentrated in just one thread (as would, probably, many other Climate Etc. posters who might be bored already with this topic).
Your point doesn’t stand because as I said (twice) there is no adiabatic expansion (or compression) involved when the state of thermodynamic equilibrium has been attained (as the Second Law says there will be a propensity to evolve) and that’s why you need to stop thinking on the macro scale and consider individual molecules – and why there is a temperature gradient (and a density gradient) when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained. The pressure gradient is just a corollary.
So my argument does not depend on “macroscopic air parcels” and I suggest that it is appropriate to consider two molecules having KE equal to the means at their respective altitudes.
There is a temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres and gravity has in effect trapped thermal energy accumulated over the life of the planet. The gradient evolves at the molecular level and has nothing to do with there being or not being rising or falling macroscopic air parcels. That’s why the current discussion on “The Hockey Schtick” blog is misinformed. What would keep such parcels contained within their imaginary boundaries anyway?
The issue of Cv or Cp can be resolved from empirical evidence from the 350Km high troposphere of Uranus. I say this because the temperature gradient there is only 5% to 10% less than the -g/Cp value, and that is to be expected because of the very limited temperature levelling effect due to the radiation properties of methane. If I had used Cv in such calculations, it would have been about 50% steeper which is quite implausible.
I know that the Cp value takes into account (at the macro level) the work done by expansion. But the expansion is due to the higher pressure which all comes down to there being increased kinetic energy in the molecules that are pounding against the boundary of the “parcel” of gas. At the molecular level we have already taken that increase in kinetic energy into account. When we are considering a well established state of thermodynamic equilibrium there is no further change of pressure involved. That is because the density levels at each height have already been established by gravity, as have the temperature levels – each in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All we are now considering is essentially why that temperature gradient remains as is, rather than flattening out as some might expect, and as would happen in a horizontal plane. If you agree that the gradient will remain intact indefinitely (in calm conditions and without measurable advection) then that’s good enough for me, whatever its quantitative value. Once we agree on that, then you should be able to understand what would happen when new thermal energy is added at the top of a column of air that was previously in such a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. The new energy spreads out over the sloping thermal “plane” in all accessible directions away from the source, and this includes downwards towards warmer regions. This happens because of the propensity to form a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium with a profile that has the same gradient but with a higher overall temperature due to the new energy. That’s how the surface of Venus rises in temperature (by about 5 degrees) during its sunlit period.
Dr Alex Hamilton,
Look up ‘Coombes and Laue’. The paper is one and a half page long. It is targeted at undergraduate students who are liable to labor under the same misconception that governs your thinking about the effect of gravity on speed distributions at the molecular level. If you still have issues after that, feel free to pursue them in the Gravito-thermal thread. What you are advocating precisely is the existence of a gravito-thermal gradient at equilibrium.
What I am advocating is correct physics, my friend. There is evidence of the gravito-thermal effect on all planets, and even beneath the surfaces of the Earth, the Moon and no doubt elsewhere in the Solar System. You cannot explain the hot temperatures in the core of the Moon if you assume the effect does not exist, now can you? Your problem is that you don’t address the factual temperature information we have about our Solar System and even exoplanets. You don’t have any explanation for such things as the energy flows into the Venus surface that cause its temperature to rise, now do you?
You have no hope in Hades of proving an isothermal state is one with no unbalanced energy potentials, because it is blatantly obvious that molecules at the higher levels have more total energy because of their extra gravitational potential energy. In contrast, if (PE+KE) is homogeneous we do have no unbalanced energy potentials. If all molecules had equal KE, then some of the higher ones would fall more than those at lower heights would rise. That is how the density gradient forms in accord with the process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Do you deny that the density gradient is stable because it is in fact the state of thermodynamic equilibrium? If you turn a long sealed insulated cylinder from a horizontal to a vertical position then gravity forms a density gradient and a temperature gradient simultaneously. There have been over 800 such experiments performed this century confirming the formation of such gradients.
I’m not usually one to call upon authority, but for what it’s worth …
Velasco, Roman and White wrote:
“In conclusion, in our opinion a full explanation about why answer (2) to the paradox formulated by Coombes and Laue is wrong must discern between the cases of a finite system and an infinite system. In the former case, statement (2) is wrong because the assumption in statement (2b) is wrong.”
Now, unless you wish to propose your own explanation of energy flows in planets and moons, and address the issue of unbalanced energy potentials, I rest my case and consider this discussion closed.
Dr Alex Hamilton,
You’ve misunderstood Velasco, Roman and White. The statement that they claim is wrong precisely is the claim that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient. They are thus agreeing with Coombes and Laue (who also say of the same statement that it is wrong), but merely are proposing a minor improvement to their argument, through using the microcanonical partition function and demonstrating that the resulting equilibrium state is the same as the state derived by Coombes and Laue (isothermal) at the thermodynamic limit.
Well Coombes and Laue are obviously wrong because empirical evidence of a density gradient proves that such a state is indeed a state of maximum entropy (as per the Second Law) and clearly, when that density gradient forms (such as when a cylinder is rotated about its center from horizontal to vertical) and as more molecules accumulate in the lower half, those molecules end up with more mean kinetic energy than those in the top half.
Similarly, imagine a vertical cylinder with removable partitions initially dividing it in three. Imagine the center section full of gas and the other two initially vacuums. Remove the partitions and a density gradient and a temperature gradient evolve as fewer move upwards and lose KE as they do.
As I have also said there is evidence everywhere from beneath the surface of the Moon to the planets of our Solar System and beyond. You tell me why the Moon’s core has not cooled right down, considering how cold the surface gets on the dark side. You have several other questions to answer.
You also need to appreciate that Loschmidt was a brilliant physicist, the first to estimate realistically the size of air molecules (quite an achievement in the 19th century) and he understood better than Maxwell how those molecules were affected by gravity in motion between collisions, in solids, liquids and gases. Even the temperature gradient in the outer 10Km of Earth’s crust (where measurements have been made in boreholes) closely matches the calculated g/Cp value.
Tell me how you cope with (and explain) why empirical evidence confirms that the most prolific “greenhouse gas” water vapor cools Earth’s surface by a few degrees and does not warm by nearly 30 degrees as the IPCC claims.
You can’t explain any of these things if the gravity-induced temperature gradient were not the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, as of course it must be in the troposphere of Uranus which you refuse to discuss. Go back over all my comments and count how many such examples and questions you have failed to address. Good-bye.
Footnote:
Coombes and Laue’s knowledge or understanding of thermodynamics is pathetic in that they discuss thermal equilibrium without a single mention of the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which is what the Second Law says will evolve. I trust you know the difference.
Velasco, Roman and White were wrong in claiming statement 2(b) is wrong. It is a basic assumption of Kinetic Theory that temperature is proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy. In that the Ideal Gas Law can be derived from Kinetic Theory they would be throwing out a lot of valid physics.
I have pointed out why there is no problem about the gradient implying negative temperatures because, in reality, (a) the Sun adds further thermal energy at high altitudes (b) the force of gravity is partly offset by centrifugal force, thus reducing the gradient. The effect of (a) becomes overwhelming in the thermosphere (above the mesosphere) where the molecular kinetic energy can be greater than at the base of the troposphere. Hence you displayed your own lack of understanding of thermodynamic equilibrium and of what happens in Earth’s atmosphere when you argued along the lines of Coombes and Laue.
In summary, we only need to consider the troposphere and there is no issue therein of molecules rising and then falling (without colliding) just because their velocity (normally about 500 meters/sec) was insufficient.
I repeat: an isothermal state would very obviously have unbalanced energy potentials, and so, by definition of entropy, it would not be the state of maximum entropy and thus not thermodynamic equilibrium.
Dr Alex Hamilton,
Again, there were about 500 off-topic comments (mostly by myself!) regarding the gravito-thermal effect in the thread (“Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty”), and now more than 900 comments in the “Gravito-thermal discussion thread”. Since Judith took the trouble to create a thread devoted to this topic, why not make use of it rather than reproducing all the same arguments here? Feel free to re-post you recent objections over there and I will respond and/or provide pointers to earlier relevant responses.
Question: I’m looking for a reference that compares the amount of greenhouse gases (CO2, Methane, and NO3) into the atmosphere by flaring (vent methane and burning methane from oil wells, include SO2 to the CO2 emissions from coal fired power plants.
Ray S. Leonard, PE
UK’s Channel 4 program (apx 1hr in length)
The Great Global Warming Swindle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4
But perhaps you have all seen it
Not widely accepted yet, but this is likely to be a big deal in the long term:
http://m.phys.org/news/2014-12-warmer-pacific-ocean-millions-tons.html
Oh oh….and the pseudoscientists aren’t going to like this:
http://m.phys.org/news/2014-12-warmer-pacific-ocean-millions-tons.html
How many degrees of ocean warming can be attributed to back radiation from increased CO2 in the atmosphere since 1950?
More links with irrelevant fun facts.
There are over 4680 Teragrams CH4 in the atmosphere.
WG1 AR5 says that there are 556 Tg of sources and 542 Tg of sinks.
About 1/9 of the 4680 Tg of atmospheric methane is broken down chemically in the atmosphere (520 Tg of the sink).
The methane release from hydrates is supposed to be 104 Tg per year.
Well, gee, the methane level will increase about 20% then stabilize because the methane lifetime is only 9 years. A 20% increase is about 0.2 W/m2 (from AR5) of forcing. An increase in CH4 forcing of 0.2 W/m2 by 2100 will not be noticed but may be scientifically measurable.
Threatening the world with a methane catastrophe is a poor game plan. The annual methane release is so large that the hydrates will just be a drop in the bucket.
Impending disasters must both be impending and disasters.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm
Anyone heard of the revised statement yet? I’m curious if they strengthen, weaken, or stay the same. November was supposed to be the review time frame, but I see no indication of release date.
No word yet on this
Irony? http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/lima-climate-talks-set-record-carbon-footprint-27475558
Ferenc Miskolczi has a new paper out:
The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere
http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=21810
In Joe Postma’s recent article on the Principia Scientific International website he forgets that 20% of incident solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. He also seems to imply that the Sun’s radiation has similar heating effect morning, noon and afternoon. And it is supposed to have the same effect anywhere where it is not directly overhead – such as in the rest of the world outside the tropics. The mean solar radiation entering the Earth’s surface is 163W/m^2. He doesn’t dare to mention that. His 960W/m^2 cannot happen anywhere because of the 20% absorption he forgot. Only at noon along one line of latitude in the tropics is the Sun directly overhead once in 24 hours and then only delivering about 800W/m^2 to the surface. So what? That is nothing remotely like the mean. A mean temperature of 288K would require 390W/m^2 which is nearly half the 800W/m^2 mentioned above. Even at that latitude the mean over 24 hours would be far less than 390W/m^2, let alone over the whole globe. It is pitiful that PSI has no one to peer-review such Postma nonsense and toss it out.
“Energiewende” Takes A Massive Blow…Top Green Energy Proponent Concedes: “Blunder With Ugly Consequences”!
By P Gosselin on 9. Dezember 2014
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/12/09/energiewende-takes-a-massive-blow-top-green-energy-proponent-concedes-blunder-with-ugly-consequences-huge-blow-to/#sthash.dMpNe3I9.dpuf
Seems a Bombshell for Solar Variation? Just Published a Few Weeks Ago…
“A couple of peculiarities can be seen in Fig.3. First, the TSI averaged over the solar cycle has increased by 0.6 W/m2 from a minimum value in cycle 12 (1878-1890) to a maximum value in cycle 21 (1986-1995). The global temperature response to changing TSI is ∆T = λ.∆TSI with ∆TSI in W/m2, and different estimated put λ (climate sensitivity to TSI change) in the range 0.3-1.8 K/Wm-2
which means that TSI variations are responsible for between 0.2 and 1.1 K change in global temperature during the last century.”…
Solar magnetic fields and terrestrial climate (2014)
Katya Georgieva, Yury Nagovitsyn, Boian Kirov
(Submitted on 21 Nov 2014)
Solar irradiance is considered one of the main natural factors affecting terrestrial climate, and its variations are included in most numerical models estimating the effects of natural versus anthropogenic factors for climate change. Solar wind causing geomagnetic disturbances is another solar activity agent whose role in climate change is not yet fully estimated but is a subject of intense research. For the purposes of climate modeling, it is essential to evaluate both the past and the future variations of solar irradiance and geomagnetic activity which are ultimately due to the variations of solar magnetic fields. Direct measurements of solar magnetic fields are available for a limited period, but can be reconstructed from geomagnetic activity records. Here we present a reconstruction of total solar irradiance based on geomagnetic data, and a forecast of the future irradiance and geomagnetic activity relevant for the expected climate change.
Comments: Proceedings of the XVIII conference “Solar and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 2014”, Pulkovo, Russia, 20-25 October 2014
Subjects: Solar and Stellar Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR); Space Physics (physics.space-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1411.6030 [astro-ph.SR]
(or arXiv:1411.6030v1 [astro-ph.SR] for this version)
“Solar irradiance is considered one of the main natural factors affecting terrestrial climate, and its variations are included in most numerical models estimating the effects of natural versus anthropogenic factors for climate change. Solar wind causing geomagnetic disturbances is another solar activity agent whose role in climate change is not yet fully estimated but is a subject of intense research. For the purposes of climate modeling, it is essential to evaluate both the past and the future variations of solar irradiance and geomagnetic activity which are ultimately due to the variations of solar magnetic fields. Direct measurements of solar magnetic fields are available for a limited period, but can be reconstructed from geomagnetic activity records. Here we present a reconstruction of total solar irradiance based on geomagnetic data, and a forecast of the future irradiance and geomagnetic activity relevant for the expected climate change.”…
“Several wrong assumptions are made when reconstructing TSI from only the number of sunspots.”…
“Therefore, to be able to correctly reconstruct TSI, we need information about the magnitude and evolution of solar magnetic fields. There are no longterm records of solar magnetic fields, but we have found that geomagnetic records reflect the variations of the sunspot magnetic fields: the geomagnetic activity “floor” (the value below which geomagnetic activity cannot fall even in
the lack of any sunspots) in a sunspot cycle is proportional to the sunspot magnetic field in the sunspot cycle minimum, and the rate of increase of geomagnetic activity with increasing number of sunspots is proportional to the rate of increase of sunspot magnetic field from cycle minimum to cycle maximum [19]. These correlations can be used to reconstruct the solar magnetic fields and to account for their variations in reconstructions of long term (cycle to cycle) variations of total solar irradiance. Here we use the aa-index of
geomagnetic activity and the international sunspot number for the period since 1868, and the ESAI data base of Extended Solar Activity Indices [20] for earlier periods to estimate the solar magnetic fields as described in [19], and we regress them to the ACRIM [4] composite TSI series to derive the correlations between sunspot magnetic fields and TSI, and to estimate the long term (cycle to cycle) variations of TSI.”…
SEE FIGURE 4 “4. Reconstructions from geomagnetic data” on page 4!
“A couple of peculiarities can be seen in Fig.3. First, the TSI averaged over the solar cycle has increased by 0.6 W/m2 from a minimum value in cycle 12 (1878-1890) to a maximum value in cycle 21 (1986-1995). The global temperature response to changing TSI is ∆T = λ.∆TSI with ∆TSI in W/m2, and different estimated put λ (climate sensitivity to TSI change) in the range 0.3-1.8 K/Wm-2
which means that TSI variations are responsible for between 0.2 and 1.1 K change in global temperature during the last century.”…
“5. Conclusion
Total solar irradiance reconstructions, calculated taking into account the evolution of sunspot magnetic fields derived from geomagnetic data, support the TSI composites and reconstructions showing much higher long-term TSI variability, and consequently much bigger solar influences on climate variability than accounted for in popular models. Even for a very conservative value of climate
sensitivity to TSI variations of 0.5 adopted by IPCC AR4, the estimated TSI increase since the early 18th century (the end of the Maunder minimum), and moreover since the deepest part of the Maunder minimum, demonstrate that TSI increase alone was responsible for ∆T of at least 1.5 and 3.5 K, respectively.
It should be noted that solar electromagnetic radiation is only one of the solar agents affecting climate. Another one is the solar wind – the ever expanding solar corona filling the whole heliosphere with solar plasma and embedded magnetic fields. Its role in climate change is a subject of extensive research, but is not yet fully understood, and its contribution is included in only a few atmospheric
models. But it has been found that Earth’s surface temperature is correlated with both decadal averages and solar cycle minimum values of the geo-magnetic activity [22] which are determined by the solar wind parameters [23].”
http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.6030
Full Text Here:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.6030.pdf