Open thread weekend

Posting will be light this weekend through Monday. Guest posters are welcome to submit stories. Enjoy your holiday (and don’t forget to honor those who gave the ultimate price on memorial day)! – Anthony

About these ads
This entry was posted in Open Thread. Bookmark the permalink.

96 Responses to Open thread weekend

  1. TrueNorthist says:

    Holiday? lol. I guess it’s memorial day down yonder. I hope y’all can find somewhere that isn’t under 17 foot snow drifts. Up here in the great white north we are still getting fresh snow above 4000 ft. just about every night — with this morning being one of the rare instances of temps above 5 degrees C. A local news station is claiming that this will likely end up being the coldest spring on record. None of the other stations is mentioning this fact, but why would the media be interested in facts? I mentioned that we might see a few minutes of sun to a clerk at the local liquor store and was assailed with a quick summary of the latest in global warming theology. Apparently this is proof of runaway climate change Armageddon. I just smiled and said that was one of the most insane things I had ever heard and walked away while she stood their with her mouth hanging open. Poor thing. It must be so very tiring to have to keep up such a silly front.

    Anyway, that is my contribution to this open thread. Not much for sure, but on topic. Have a fine day off my American friends.

    Cheers!

  2. Latitude says:

    May 26, 2011
    No Long-term Trend in Atlantic Hurricane Numbers

    Short-duration storms are presently identified much more readily than they were, say, prior to the satellite era

    If the Atlantic tropical cyclone history is divided up into “shorties” and, we guess, “longies,” something very interesting pops out. Over the entire record, there is a big upward trend in the number of “shorties” but there is no trend in the annual number of “longies”

    Obviously, lumping the two together would produce an apparent upward trend in the total annual number of tropical storms and hurricanes—and give fuel for the fire which burns for those trying to develop a link to anthropogenic global warming.

    This situation is akin to the observed record of tornadoes in the U.S.—the number of weak tornadoes has increased markedly in the last half century, while the number of strong tornadoes shows no such behavior
    The positive trend in total annual number of tornadoes is driven not by climate change (as some would have you believe), but instead by changing observational methods.

    “”Our results provide a context for interpreting studies exploring trend behavior in the North Atlantic tropical storm activity starting prior to the 1940s. In particular, the conclusions of certain studies reporting large secular increases in North Atlantic tropical storm activity in which shorties are included [e.g., Holland and Webster, 2007; Mann et al., 2007] could be affected by what we interpret as likely spurious nonphysical trends unless an alternative physical explanation can be uncovered for the pronounced increase in shorties starting from the middle of the 20th century. Further, statistical models of tropical storm activity built using century‐scale records that include shorties [e.g., Mann et al., 2007; Sabbatelli and Mann, 2007; Mann et al., 2009] likely include an element reflecting the spurious shorties in the record.””

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/05/26/no-long-term-trend-in-atlantic-hurricane-numbers/

  3. Jeff Wood says:

    Good work, TN. Sometimes all it needs is for a nonsense to be challenged, briefly and frankly, for the nonsense to be reconsidered.

    Is it just me, or are there fewer warming scare ads being thrown up by Google under the new posts?

  4. Mike Smith says:

    In my book, “Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather,” I tell the story of courageous scientists bucking the odds to create the tornado, hurricane, and aviation warning systems that save so many lives.

    Unfortunately, in many cases, local officials are watering down the effectiveness of tornado warnings by grossly overusing tornado sirens and that may be causing complacency when the “real thing” threatens. I have a three-part series on my blog with the first posting the night before the Joplin tornado.

    http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/05/sectorize-sirens-please.html

    http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-on-selective-tornado-siren.html

    http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/05/selective-siren-activation-part-3.html

  5. Latitude says:

    VLT (very large telescope) time lapse…….

  6. Smokey says:

    Latitude,

    That link was mesmerising. Ah, we are but a dot within a microscopic grain, in a smidgen of creation. And the gods laugh at our petty internecine conflicts.

  7. TerryS says:

    I’ve seen many different claims for the half-life of CO₂ in the atmosphere ranging from 24 to 100s of years. I thought that given this I would attempt to calculate it on a purely mathematical basis.

    If you know how much CO₂ is in the atmosphere when it reaches a steady state (that is the amount entering the atmosphere is the same as the amount leaving it) and you know how much enters the atmosphere in a given time period then you can calculate the half-life.

    h = half life of CO₂ (in years)
    y = CO₂ added to atmosphere annually
    r = CO₂ resident in atmosphere
    x = hy (Amount of CO₂ added to atmosphere every half life period)

    After n half-lifes of adding x CO₂ to the atmosphere we have this amount resident:

    r = x(2⁰ + 2⁻¹ + 2⁻² + 2⁻³ + .. + 2⁻ⁿ) which approaches 2x for large values of n

    But this assumes that the CO₂ is added as a lump sum every period h. If we
    add x/2 twice over the half life period instead we get:

    r = x/2 * (2⁰ + 2⁻⁰·⁵ + 2⁻¹ + 2⁻¹·⁵ + .. + 2⁻ⁿ) which approaches 1.71x for large values of n
    In fact as you increase the number of times you add CO₂ this approaches x(1/ln(2)) so we end up with:

    r = x/ln(2)

    Substitute hy for x:
    r = hy/ln(2)
    Rearrange
    h = r * ln(2) / y

    In words this means the the half life of CO₂ in the atmosphere is equal to the stable amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere times the natural log of 2 divided by the annual amount of CO₂ from natural sources.

    Various sources claim that CO₂ levels where at about 300ppm (or about 2500Gt) for several hundred years prior to industrialisation. According to the IPCC, natural sources add 771Gt of CO₂ to the atmosphere annually. If we put this into the equation we get:

    h = 2500*ln(2)/771 = 2.25 years

    What this means in practical terms is that if CO₂ levels reached 600ppm and we suddenly stopped producing any more then within 25 years CO₂ levels would be back to pre-industrial levels.

  8. John M says:

    Seein’s as this is an open thread, I would like to propose a new term.

    We’ve recently seen climate scientists and their friends rushing to embrace the term “Anthropocene” for the new human-induced climate epoch.

    Given the funding involved, most if not all of it at the public trough, I would like to propose instead that we call it the “Anthroporcine” climate epoch (man/pork climate).

    I also claim the alternative spelling, “Anthroporcene”.

  9. Ed Mertin says:

    East of the Mississippi River above Tennessee it looks like almost nothing got planted, as crops.

  10. Josh says:

    Latitude.

    Simply awesome.

    VLT (Very Large Thanks)

  11. bob says:

    I’ve been listening to an Audible book named, “Particle Physics: A Short Introduction”.

    For the most part, I really don’t understand what is going on. But, I have picked up a little that might interest you. In brief there is a whole new world in particle physics.

    Most people take it for granted that the smallest identifiable unit of an element is an atom. An atom is made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Simple, huh? Even I can remember that.

    How things have changed. Now, we know that there are smaller particles called quarks. Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, and that is about as small as you can get. I think.

    What this means is that when the universe was created in the Big Bang, all sorts of matter and anti-matter was created. Whatever particle you want to discuss has it’s negative equivalent.

    Negative equivalents? What’s that all about?

    Think of it this way.

    In the beginning there was nothing. Then the Big Bang happened, and for every little particle of matter or quanta of energy created, an evil twin exists. What is so cool is that if you could add up everything in the universe, it would all cancel out. Simple math, there.

    The universe is expanding. When it reaches its limit, it will start to shrink and accelerate in the other direction. It will shrink until everything meets in the center. When that happens, all that matter will collide with all that anti-matter, and everything will cancel out.

    Get that? We will be cancelled! Erased! Snuffed! Disappeared like we never existed!

    So, POOF! There we go, and there will be nothing left to clean up.

    Enjoy your holiday weekend.

  12. Kevin Kilty says:

    Mike Smith says:
    May 28, 2011 at 7:19 am

    Unfortunately, in many cases, local officials are watering down the effectiveness of tornado warnings by grossly overusing tornado sirens and that may be causing complacency when the “real thing” threatens. I have a three-part series on my blog with the first posting the night before the Joplin tornado.

    Here in Cheyenne, where we had an F2-F3 in July 1979, we have tornado sirens in every neighborhood. Unfortunately they are used for more than tornadoes. For example they are also sounded for flash floods. If they go off in the middle of the night, we have to tune to the local civil defense station to learn what the warning actually is, and I have often waited in vain for any explanation on the CD channel. You can imagine that the basement of a home in a low-lying area is a good place in a tornado but a bad place in a flash flood. Nice system–poor execution. It is far faster to go to the internet and look at the NexRad to see what’s up.

  13. Kevin Kilty says:

    Latitude says:
    May 28, 2011 at 7:21 am

    My two year-old daughter and I watched this, and for eight minute she was captivated. Each time the Milky Way would pass by she wold exclaim “Mwiwky Way!”

    Thanks.

  14. Kevin Kilty says:

    Oh the typos…”minutes” and “would” in my last post. Why can we not have an editing capacity like they do on the WSJ?

  15. tonyb says:

    TerryS (and everyone else)

    I have been running a thread over at Judith Curry’s blog entitled
    ‘The futility of carbon reduction?
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#comment-71141

    I ask the question;
    ” Temperatures are expected to rise by 3 degree Centigrade because of actions we have already taken. If the world collectively closed down their carbon economies what temperature reduction could be achieved?

    a) By 2100 b) By 2200

    People will need to read the article to see the full context, but basically if anyone here could supply an answer- whether through their own calculations or copied from elsewhere- it would be good to narrow the current band of betwen one tenth amd 1 degree Centigrade reduction.

    As only 20% of the world is ever likely to reduce their carbon by 20% (and that mostly by exporting their jobs to someone other country who will emit on their behalf)the end result is likely to be vanishingly small for a huge outlay.

    Comments welcome . Thanks

    tonyb

  16. vukcevic says:

    Existence of a climate control hydro-magnetic loop in the North Atlantic?
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm

  17. NikFromNYC says:

    A whole slew of recollections of AGW enthusiast machinations came back to me a couple days ago so I recorded them on a single poster to sort of get them all out of my head into a single container.

    Authority: http://oi56.tinypic.com/25ja614.jpg

    I wonder what I’m leaving out that can be summarized in a soundbite?

  18. DirkH says:

    Anyone knowing more about this project? Riding a MagLev train to space:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram

  19. batheswithwhales says:

    A couple of videos from the green movement. The new wave of “Climate communication” i guess. Visually appealing, but in essence nonsensical, of course.

    Especially interesting in a creepy way is the first one, advocating some sort of online airy-faerie community, asking people to “swarm”. It is a hopeless idea, but these projects still seem to generate funds for the “creative” class so they can play around.

    Enjoy.

    http://vimeo.com/12772935

    http://vimeo.com/4360666

  20. Orson says:

    In a recent post at Bishop-hill, we find a link to an Australian radio interview program with Naomi Oreskes, and Australian Broadcasting’s presenter “Dr. Karl.”

    Time and time again, we see that global warming fears and alarm are sustained by hypostatized theories (ie, conjectural models taken as fact), lacking sound supporting evidence – but too often plenty of the cherry picked sort of “evidence.” This is followed by loud assertions filled with confirmation bias (the post hoc fallacy). At its base lies the Enhanced Greenhouse Hypothesis (EGH), which is assumed to be a soundly established fact. (See The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect” But in reality, it needs sustained scientific confirmation, which is lacking, as critics point out. Circular reasoning – assuming what isn’t in evidence – thereby substitutes for testing through falsification and surviving serious criticism. This is what we see in this hour interview in spades.

    Professor Oreskes and Dr. Karl agree that the measured and increasing CO2 should accelerate the hydrodrological cycle. Thus, producing more floods as well as droughts currently seen in Pakistan, the US, and Australia, respectively.

    But do we? One nice, precise, fact to emerge from Fall and Watts (et al)’s new JGR paper from the surfacesations.org project undermines a key AGW finding even skeptical climatologists like Robert Balling and Pat Michaels. Namely, the best US stations data do not confirm one foundational “fact” consistent with the EGH.

    The study’s results, say Watts, “suggest that the DTR [Diurnal or daily Temperature Range] in the United States has not decreased due to global warming, and that analyses to the contrary were at least partly contaminated by station siting problems.”
    (See Fall and Watts, et al, ”According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend”. Watts claim is softened, calling this a “tentative” finding needing further confirmation. Still, if it holds up, this is perhaps the most startling and consequential finding of the entire surfacestations.org volunteer project. In a comment, Watts states: “The IPCC made significant use of DTR as a metric for AGW, and [study co-author] John N-G talked about the history of that in context.” Watts also links to three other climatologists discussion about its importance to the IPPCs reigning “orthodoxy.”)

    Many previous studies have shown that over the decades late in the last century, diurnal (ie, daily) temperature spreads between the measured high and low temps, have narrowed. In the EGH, the increased heating has to go somewhere, and thus it goes into accelerating the hydrological cycle: more and stronger rains, and more droughts in between – in order to dissipate increased heat produced by rising man-made CO2 gases. Or at least so says the theory.

    But this new and much more data quality-driven look at US temperatures by Fall and Watts undermines this well-established fact: the best maintained temperature stations do not show a decreasing diurnal temperature range. Instead, the measured narrowing is at least somewhat an effect of land use change or urban heat island effects. In other words, according to the best data, this key fact supporting the EGH resulting in global warming is wrong.

    If EGH cannot be detected at a closely and carefully measured level, how much confidence should go into believing that a more dynamic weather is caused by AGW, like Oreskes and Dr. Karl claim? Probably little: AGW effects like the EGH should be much more measurable now than it is, if the climate is sensitive to increasing CO2 levels.

    Oreskes and Dr. Karl thus join in the orgy of fad-filled hysteria over a snowy winter, a high flood spring melt, and a half-century record-setting tornado season, all this year. Yet all three events contradict the projections of global warming models touted by warmists, and none of which finds empirical support in long-term records. Perhaps the EGH is crumbing, even as the Sirens sing.

  21. Political Junkie says:

    Let me second the motion. TonyB’s piece on Curry’s blog is a very good read.

    I hope Anthony picks up this topic also.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#comment-71141

  22. MattB says:

    Well from the weather is not climate department:

    The Bridger-Teton National Forest Avalanche Center is fully staffed to warn outdoors enthusiasts.

    “May snow depths are deeper than anything we have seen in the last 45 years,” said avalanche center spokesman Bob Comey.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20110527/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_memorial_day_snow

  23. Jim D says:

    I would like to see some discussion on this. It is a Republican platform issue to downplay global warming, and potential candidates are back-tracking on their previous stances to fit in.
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2012_GLOBAL_WARMING?SITE=ORAST&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

  24. Tom Harley says:

    An editorial from the Idso brothers, backs up Anthony’s recent post on warmer temperatures and increasing CO2 in trees.
    …Clearly, once the photosynthesis-promoting and transpiration-reducing impacts of atmospheric CO2 enrichment kick-in, so to speak, and shrubs begin to grow in arid and semi-arid lands — even without being planted there by man — a whole host of additional beneficial phenomena begin to operate, hastening the ongoing greening of the earth that is currently in process of transforming the terrestrial surface of the planet. http://pindanpost.com/2011/05/28/greening-of-th…increasing-co2/

    Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

    UPDATE: A recent greening of the Sahel—trends patterns and potential …

    UPDATE2 Desert Heat, a Pindan Post article on the vegetation of the

    Great Sandy Desert after 2 hot years and higher CO2.

  25. J says:

    hey bob,
    It was a matter of debate whether the universe would fall back into itself, but I think it is generally understood now that there will not be a big crunch.
    But it does seem to be balanced on something quite a bit finer than a knife’s edge. If the expansion rate differed by one part in ten to the 66th, we’d either have already collapse back, or else we’d have quarks and such distributed at some odd number of light years from each other. To me that is breathtaking.
    J

  26. Tom Harley says:

    And for all the poor sods where it is still snowing, here in tropical Broome, last night was down to 11.1C, 7C colder than the May average minimum, colder than the average for June and July too. During the day it reached a fabulous 29C.

  27. batheswithwhales says:

    I found some gold on Svensmark and the CLOUD programme at CERN.

    On the CLOUD experiment:

    http://vimeo.com/24241007

    And a warmist lecture: “The Instrumental Temperature Record and what it tells us about Climate Change”:

    http://vimeo.com/23934891

    Cheers
    Bathes.

  28. rbateman says:

    tonyb says:
    May 28, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Temperature are predicted to rise 3C.
    They have not done so yet.
    I believe we are currently at 0C, having fallen 1C from the last El Nino despite the 395ppm CO2 trace in the atmosphere.
    How do you extrapolate a zero-sum game?

  29. Andrew30 says:

    This is the American memorial; day weekend, a time of barbeques, football and leisure. Take a moment during your activities to recall why it is a pause from work.

    On May 5th of 2011, just a few days ago the last known combatant from World War One died.
    His name was Claude Stanley Choules, he was 110 years old.

    When Claude Stanley Choules died the fighting of World War One passed forever from human memory in to human history.

    I have just a few words that I would like to say to all the people like Claude who posses the courage and conviction to stand in place and not yield to oppression.

    I appreciate everything that all of you did even though I do not know your names. I live in your legacy.
    You now join with the long fallen members your squad, your troop, your unit, your army and your war. They have waited for you for a long time.
    May you all now, together, Rest in Peace.
    I have not forgotten and I will not forget.

    I thank you for my freedom.

  30. R. Gates says:

    TonyB’s piece is indeed excellent and raises some interesting questions. In terms of any valid calculation as to what the global temperature impact would be from a closing down of the world’s carbon economies…I think a meaningful estimate is impossible as there are too many other unknowns both in term of our knowledge of climate and the fact that we’re dealing with a chaotic system. One thing is certain however…millions of people would starve as the current food supply is based on the assumption and use of the carbon based economies. Does this mean we shouldn’t commit to a green energy future? Not at all, but it also doesn’t mean that you put a small fire out in a crowded
    theatre by sucking all of the oxygen out.

  31. bob says:

    j said: “hey bob,
    It was a matter of debate whether the universe would fall back into itself, but I think it is generally understood now that there will not be a big crunch.”

    Darned, j, I thought I had stumbled on the biggest thing about life, that it doesn’t matter. Oh, well. I will have to listen to the book, again, to see if I can pick up on additional misunderstandings.

  32. F. Ross says:

    Open thread conjecture.

    Much of recent news is about the devastating tornadoes in our nation and the often tragic aftermath.

    So far as I am aware no one else has considered this idea.

    I wonder if any entity in the megajoule laser research establishment has considered using this type weapon against tornadoes? It seems to me that one or more pulses of high energy directed at several different levels of a tornado in a short time period might disrupt its self sustaining vortex.

    Naturally, if workable it would require a largish fleet of ground-/air-based platforms.

    Sci-Fi? Sure. Possible? Maybe.

    In addition, if workable, it would give researchers a chance to apply some of their science to practical solutions as well as giving the taxpayer some directly tangible return on his money. The benefit to possible tornado victims …priceless.

  33. Deadman says:

    At http://www.wordle.net/, you can turn sentences, articles, songs, any old written garbage, into nifty word-clouds. See, for instance, this pic from Naomi Oreskes meretricious mumblings hence.

  34. Brian H says:

    Kevin Kilty says:
    May 28, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Oh the typos…”minutes” and “would” in my last post. Why can we not have an editing capacity like they do on the WSJ?

    A partial solution is the Greasemonkey script from Climate Audit. Install Greasemonkey FF add-on, run the CA script, and you get a Preview option. But you still have to opt to use it each time.

  35. Brian H says:

    bob says:
    May 28, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    j said: “hey bob,
    It was a matter of debate whether the universe would fall back into itself, but I think it is generally understood now that there will not be a big crunch.”

    Darned, j, I thought I had stumbled on the biggest thing about life, that it doesn’t matter. Oh, well. I will have to listen to the book, again, to see if I can pick up on additional misunderstandings.

    Mebbe. There’s an Alternate Theory or two, such as that the universe is Divine Popcorn, and when it’s fully exploded it will be Chomped — “Crunch!”

    >:)

  36. TonyB says:

    R Gates

    Thanks for your kind comments about the article.

    Not meaning to take your comments out of context you say;

    “I think a meaningful estimate is impossible as there are too many other unknowns both in term of our knowledge of climate and the fact that we’re dealing with a chaotic system.”

    We are being asked to make profound changes for a profound cost without- seemingly- the technical means to achieve it. Your comments are very similar to the blogger on the Climate etc thread called ‘Pekkala.’ His remark was greeted with some incredulity.

    I would like to believe that I am the first prerson ever to attempt a cost benefit analysis of the real costs and realities of our brave new carbon reduced world. However, I am coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that many in the climate change hierarchy have been this way before but as they didn’t like the answers they decided it was best to keep quiet.

    It would be nice if you, or Joel Shore, or indeed anyone, could reassure me that our sacrifices are worth while and provide some plausible figures that support this case.
    Here is the link again
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#comment-71141

    tonyb

  37. Jimbo says:

    F. Ross says:
    May 28, 2011 at 12:07 pm
    …………………….
    I wonder if any entity in the megajoule laser research establishment has considered using this type weapon against tornadoes?

    No thanks! What next, fire it up into thunderstorms?

  38. TonyB says:

    R Gates

    BrianH-who I see has posted some comments here- has just posted an excellent link on to my article.

    “Reaching waaayy back, there is a cost benefit analysis, by a warmer than lukewarmista, no less: Nordhaus.
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494

    Summary: even assuming AGW and its costs and mitigation’s benefits, mitigation is a major loser.”

    Well worth a read as it would seem there is no economic OR scientific justification to our aggressive carbon mitigation policy

    tonyb

  39. DirkH says:

    J says:
    May 28, 2011 at 10:57 am
    “hey bob,
    It was a matter of debate whether the universe would fall back into itself, but I think it is generally understood now that there will not be a big crunch.
    But it does seem to be balanced on something quite a bit finer than a knife’s edge. If the expansion rate differed by one part in ten to the 66th, we’d either have already collapse back, or else we’d have quarks and such distributed at some odd number of light years from each other. To me that is breathtaking.
    J”

    The usual explanation from cosmologists for such “finely tuned constants” is “marvel at it in awe”. I would suggest that the more likely explanation is that the “finely tuned constant” is the result of a dynamic process with feedbacks that hold it in the balance.

  40. pat says:

    Science Guy Bill Nye: Global warming causes tornadoes. USA only country that has tornadoes.
    http://weaselzippers.us/2011/05/28/bill-nye-the-science-guy-uh-not-many-countries-other-than-u-s-have-tornadoes/#comment-165589

    Gets points for doubling down on nonsense.

  41. Political Junkie says:

    TonyB,

    I’m curious as to whether your piece has received any comment on “warmist” sites, or whether it would be worth your while to try posting there.

    I agree that many must have gone down this path before but have elected not to make theior findings public.

    Have you done a search for peer reviwed papers on the topic? It seems incongruous that there wouldn’t be any!

  42. DirkH says:

    TonyB says:
    May 28, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    “We are being asked to make profound changes for a profound cost without- seemingly- the technical means to achieve it. Your comments are very similar to the blogger on the Climate etc thread called ‘Pekkala.’ His remark was greeted with some incredulity.

    I would like to believe that I am the first prerson ever to attempt a cost benefit analysis of the real costs and realities of our brave new carbon reduced world.
    However, I am coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that many in the climate change hierarchy have been this way before but as they didn’t like the answers they decided it was best to keep quiet.

    It would be nice if you, or Joel Shore, or indeed anyone, could reassure me that our sacrifices are worth while and provide some plausible figures that support this case.”

    Hi TonyB; while i think AGW is the biggest scientific scam since the Piltdown Man, i do track the viability of wind and solar and storage solutions for business reasons.

    What i did notice is that over the last two or three years the cost of wind turbines stopped going down; maybe it is kept as high as it is by the level of subsidies. But the cost of PV continues going down, halving about each 5 years. Ironically i found this in a scaremongering report by Edenhofer, “economist” of the dreaded PIK, Schellnhuber’s propaganda & psyops institute, sorry, can’t take them seriously as scientists.
    ( http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srren-spm-fd4 page 13 )

    So assuming 3 EUR per Watt of peak performance capacity ATM, the technology is unviable by a factor of about four ATM under German insolation conditions. Meaning, you spend 3 EUR but after 20 years, the lifetime, you produce lectricity worth only 0.80 EUR. I ignore inflation because it’s not that important, what’s important is “about factor 4 too inefficient”.

    With a continuation of the prize drop of solar, we will reach in 10 years a point where our 3 EUR installation might cost only 0.75 EUR and produce electricity worth 0.80 EUR in its lifetime, now that starts to sound better.

    In about 15 years it starts becoming a money-producing technology instead of a money-absorbing business.

    I was assuming German (or UK) insolation; when you go to Spain, the respective points on the time axis are reached 5 years earlier (as the insolation is twice as high); in North Africe, 7.5 years earlier (insolation up to thrice as high).

    So, it’s a money drain now, but it will get better very slowly…

  43. DJ says:

    Sue the Scientists! (in Italy, for the moment…)

    Italian seismologists on trial for failure to predict earthquake…. !!!!

    http://www.science20.com/cool-links/2009_laquila_quake_italian_seismologists_go_trial-79437

    Imagine the precedents? Imagine if these scientists are held responsible for not warning the public, should not scientists be held equally liable for alarming the public with incorrect predictions?
    Like warning of a tipping point that results in billions of dollars in expense to the public, a warning that turns out to be totally false?

  44. DirkH says:

    pat says:
    May 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm
    “Science Guy Bill Nye: Global warming causes tornadoes. USA only country that has tornadoes.”

    In Germany, we used to call them “Wirbelsturm” or “Windhose” but “Tornado” slowly comes into fashion,
    http://nachrichten.lvz-online.de/nachrichten/mitteldeutschland/ein-jahr-nach-dem-tornado-durch-grossenhain-und-muehlberg–wunden-heilen/r-mitteldeutschland-a-89682.html

  45. Mike Smith says:

    “I wonder if any entity in the megajoule laser research establishment has considered using this type weapon against tornadoes? It seems to me that one or more pulses of high energy directed at several different levels of a tornado in a short time period might disrupt its self sustaining vortex.”

    In my book, “Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather,” I discuss that the type of thunderstorms that contain a Joplin-style tornado produce the approximate amount of energy as an atomic bomb every minute. It would be nearly impossible to generate and sustain that type of energy which would be needed to disrupt the tornado. There would also be a risk of other damage by using an anti-tornado weapon.

    If you would like to learn more about the warning system, please allow me to modestly recommend my book. It is a true story, written in the style of a mystery novel, that tells how scientists beat the odds to construct the warning system that saves so many lives today.

  46. DirkH says:

    Mods, an answer from me to TonyB lingers in the bin, i wasn’t polite enough when talking about some AGW circus economist. Thanks.

    [Rescued & posted. ~dbs, mod.]

  47. Billy Liar says:

    batheswithwhales says:
    May 28, 2011 at 9:37 am

    Bathes, thanks for the interesting links.

    I had to give up on the first one when their utopia suddenly became dependent on the internet and GPS. They don’t seem to have factored in the carbon footprint of maintaining a 24 satellite constellation, ground stations, replacement satellite design and manufacture, launch vehicle design and manufacture and launch facilities. Not to mention the server farms and network infrastructure that make up the internet.

    Perhaps these are all made and supported by no-carbon fairies?

  48. View from the Solent says:

    The Bishop spells it out http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/5/27/eco-dictatorship.html .

    A commentary here http://www.countingcats.com/?p=9895 . (contains language that might offend)

  49. Poptech says:

    Feel free to repost my Who is Deep Climate? post if you need an article.

  50. B.Stockwell says:

    What a pleasure to read so many intelligent posts.
    I’ve recently read a small book of 3 lectures which were given by the amazing genius/physicist/teacher Richard P. Feynman. (Book (released for publishing by his children): The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist). Some notable quotes: “This freedom to doubt is an important matter in the sciences and, I believe, in other fields.” “All scientific knowledge is uncertain. This experience with doubt and uncertainty is important. I believe that it is of very great value, and one that extends beyond the sciences. I believe that to solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar.” And so on……..

  51. jorgekafkazar says:

    DJ says: “…Imagine[,] if these [seismologists] are held responsible for not warning the public, should not scientists be held equally liable for alarming the public with incorrect predictions? Like warning of a tipping point that results in billions of dollars in expense to the public, a warning that turns out to be totally false?”

    Many alarmist scientists are hoping, of course, that, should that happen, the New World Order will have already been installed by a frightened populace. The NWO will, short of a too-obvious Ice Age, prevent the truth from becoming available in the already compliant media, thus keeping the scientists safe. On the other hand, New World Orders are famous for killing off the intellectuals that backed them in the first place. Climatologists might be most convenient scapegoats if an Ice Age results in mass starvation. I think they’d better get it right–the Precautionary Principle, and all that!

  52. Nick Yates says:

    Cate Blanchett to front carbon tax campaign in Australia. She may be a great actress, but I wont be going to see any more of Cate Blanchett’s films after this.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/business-wants-low-carbon-starting-price/story-fn59niix-1226064883425

  53. chemman says:

    Is Bill Nye smarter than a 5th grader? After that liquid to vapor statement you’ve got to wonder.

  54. F. Ross says:

    Jimbo says:
    May 28, 2011 at 1:14 pm
    “No thanks! What next, fire it up into thunderstorms?”

    Of course one is free to respond in whatever manner [subject to moderators] that one wishes to any given post, but I simply wonder …why the flippant remark? It seems to me that applying that much energy to a tornado funnel would possibly be capable of disrupting a tornado funnel vortex? A more seriously framed negative [or positive] response would have been welcomed.

  55. DJ says:

    6:45pm, eastern edge of the Sierra, 4900ft elevation, Reno, Nevada.

    It’s been snowing for an hour now. I thought snow was soon to be a thing of the past, and spring is coming earlier and earlier each year??

    jorgekafkazar:
    This should be interesting to watch as it unfolds! I think you’re right, they will bite the hand that feeds them.

  56. rc says:

    Holding the alarmists to account (from an Australian political perspective):

    From Andrew Bolt’s show on Channel 10 Australia this morning.

  57. News reports that Harrison Schmitt (former astronaut and Senator from New Mexico) is proposing that NASA be shut down, and its space exploration duties moved to a new agency to recover the “youthful vigor” of the old NASA, and cut it free from the bureaucracy of an old agency that has gotten off message and lost its focus in other areas.

    “After 50 years NASA has gotten old, it has become more bureaucratic,” said Schmitt. “It’s time I think to take the critical national security functions and geopolitical functions out of NASA and put them in a new agency.”

    Larry

  58. wayne says:

    B.Stockwell says:
    May 28, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    I’ve recently read a small book of 3 lectures which were given by the amazing genius/physicist/teacher Richard P. Feynman.

    Good for you! Not all complex physics the AGW/IPCC portrays needs to be so complex if viewed correctly while staying simple, that is if a few souls are willing to allow it to be stay simple. I’ve tried many times here but the other commentators let the agw/ipcc trolls guide the conversation away, every time. That is a sad note. Feynman was one of the rare souls who could take the deepest subject in physics and bring it to incedible simplicity as it should be viewed. Physics at the core level IS simplicity itself, it is the few dishonest people that force it to remain in complexity, that is their sole shield.

  59. Smokey says:

    I agree with everything wayne says above, but that’s probably because wayne is one of my favorite commentators. The only difference of opinion might be wayne’s comment that ‘commentators let the agw/ipcc trolls guide the conversation away, every time.’

    Not every time. This commentator holds climate alarmists’ feet to the fire – and they don’t like it. But I don’t let their bullshit pass unchallenged. I’m not one to buy their pig in a poke.

  60. Dave says:

    Great open threads with tons of info.. I love it!
    Mean while here in Vancouver BC. Canada. Home to king of the warming melons live large David Suzuki and the rag blog De Smog blog.com and a full complement of whacked out alarmist ect… were off to the real Hockey (stick) finals with Boston next week. Go Canucks Go!!!.
    Its still bloody cold here with the local mountains chocked full of snow only 10 minutes from downtown. I skied my buns off today, tomorrow I’m snowboarding. The local travel industry is booming with 30+% travel increase to Hawaii or anywhere warm, thank you CO2.
    Keep up the great postings from all over the world and check out Andrew Bolt (rc says:) from Australia he really hammers these warmist with there own come back to haunt them statements its classic got you stuff.
    Over and out.

  61. wayne says:

    Oh Smokey… darn, I forgot to leave you out! No, really, I mean that. You are one of the shining lights every single time. I wish I had Willis’s smooth words and your pure logic and ability to see ‘em coming!

  62. Judy F. says:

    Tonight on the 5 O’Clock news on KCNC Channel 4 in Denver, the newscasters reported that the snowpack in Colorado was 232% of normal and A Basin ( a ski resort on I-70 east of the Continental Divide) received 53 inches of snow in May. Where I live on the Eastern Plains, today it was a cloudy 63 degrees F and normal is 76 degrees F. Then the newscasters reminded us that Xcel Energy’s two tier rate plan would go into effect on June 1, because of the increase in electrical demand in the summer. Shoot. Except for 3 days last week, my furnace has run everyday since last fall. I hope it warms up enough so I don’t have to pay summer rates to HEAT my house…

  63. R. Gates says:

    TonyB.,

    Though I happen to believe it is more likely than not than human activity, including the emission of GH gases, is affecting the earth’s climate, I am not one that has ever advocated for large government programs to try and “fix” things. I especially am opposed to any sort of geoengineering. This, I believe is both a huge waste of money but also quite dangerous. When you start mucking with a chaotic system that you don’t fully understand, you run the very likely risk of unintended consequences. Like it or not, the massive use of fossil fuels is what has allowed the human population to swell to 7+ billion. If we are altering the earth’s climate because of this very use of fossil fuels, and that alteration eventually leads to such changes that we can no longer support and feed all those 7+ billion, then the problem will take care of itself. Spending massive amounts of tax dollars on forced green programs only benefits those companies in that business, with the benefits, economic or environmental, hard to immediately see. I think small is beautiful, and each individual should be given the opportunity to go green on their own terms when the marketplace makes it reasonable to do so. I’ve saved thousands of dollars by investing in a greenhouse to grow food year round and by adding some energy efficiencies to my home and business. I took no government money to do these things, though I could have. I am excited about the next generation of solar cells and scour the marketplace and the physorg.com website looking for what is new or just over the horizon. Over time, I think the natural efficiencies of the market and rapid advances in technology will allow us to greatly reduce our use of fossil fuels for energy, but when it comes to massive forced government programs, I am not a fan and, especially in the case of geoengineering, I would actively oppose such efforts.

  64. AlanG says:

    Reality intrudes on the proceedings at last:

    Kyoto deal loses four big nations

    DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.

    The future of the Kyoto Protocol has become central to efforts to negotiate reductions of carbon emissions under the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.

    Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

    Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.

    But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said.

    They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world’s No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.

    At last Thursday’s G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.

    The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.

    From: Agence France-Presse at http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/kyoto-deal-loses-four-big-nations-20110528-1f9dk.html

  65. tonyb says:

    R Gates

    your 10.27

    Thanks for your intersting reply. I would positively welcome a forum on this site where we could debate the practicalties of using renewables and general domestic energy efficiency as well as the broader picture.

    Fortunately I saw the last three severe winters (i the UK) coming and substantially upgraded my house insulation. I have an electric bike which I recharge through a solar panel. My heating bills will have doubled within a few years through the extra taxes imposed to pay for renewables that mostly don’t work when needed and are hideously inefficient.

    Horses for courses, and different energy systems will work best according to an individuals countries geographic position and infrastructure. Alternative forms of energy for the householders use are expensive here, even though subsidised by the govt which of course then merely imposes that subsidy by way of taxes on those least able to affiord it.

    Being able to discuss solar panels, heat pumps, domestic windmills, electric vehicles etc etc would I believe be a useful service to those who aren’t automatically anti renewables.

    At present I get the impression that govts are blundering around wasting a great deal of our time and money without really knowing the cause and effect. Rallying behind cost effective renewables that bring energy security and cut costly imports shoudn’t be controversial but has become so because of the pseudo science and muddled thinking that surounds the co2 debate.

    best regards

    Tonyb

  66. tonyb says:

    Poliotical Junkie

    We haven’t specfically targetted warmist sites but intend to once we can ascertain some tighter boundaries on the estimates. The IPCC may be satisfied with endorsing an enormous spread of possible scenarios but I believe that if the science is so certain and maths is logical, that we should be able to home in on a tighter estimate than from one tenth to one degree centigrade.

    Both are extremely small when seen in context, but even so one is ten times smaller than the other, hence my attempts to get some greater certainty, not helped by those capable of making such calculations being unwilling to divulge them. Hence my growing suspicions that they don’t like their own answers.

    DirkH

    Thanks for your interesting comment and links.

    Tonyb

  67. M White says:

    “2011 Atlantic tropical storm season forecast”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2011-hurricane-forecast

    “26 May 2011 – Our forecast for this year’s North Atlantic tropical storm season states it is likely to be quieter than the very active season in 2010.”

    “Our forecast for the 2011 season is for 13 tropical storms between June and November”

  68. Spector says:

    RE: F. Ross (May 28, 2011 at 12:07 pm)
    “Open thread conjecture…
    I wonder if any entity in the megajoule laser research establishment has considered using this type weapon against tornadoes?”

    I believe the problem here is probably the huge amount of energy that would be required and the amount of energy in a major tornado.

    I have sometimes wondered if it might be possible to construct “tornado towers,” tall aerodynamic spires with special ground level airfoils, which would act like lightning rods to force and trap tornado activity in designated areas, but this idea is probably an unworkable fantasy.

    Perhaps the best option is a building code that requires underground shelters for every home.

  69. DirkH says:

    British scientists experiment with members of the public, rewarding them with fruits and vegtables for green behaviour, and find that this works.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13523552

    Oh the joys of being a scientist in the EU in the 21st century.

  70. Allanj says:

    Begging the indulgence of those who are not Americans; may all you Americans have a wonderful Memorial Day.

    It is good to remember those who have sacrificed for our nation. As a veteran, a retired Marine, I am pleased to have someone thank me for my service. I take it as a belated apology for the way we were treated in the 1960s and 70s. It is a nice gesture.

    But it would be a far greater tribute to do what you can to keep our nation one worth fighting for. Read again the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers. Reflect on the principles that made this nation great. Help renew the respect for each individual and the determination to make each individual secure in person and property.

    It would be a great tragedy to pay respect to those who have died in defense of our country at the same time we let the greatness of our country wither from within.

  71. Brian H says:

    Spector says:
    May 29, 2011 at 1:52 am

    Perhaps the best option is a building code that requires underground shelters for every home.

    Nah. Domehomes will do just fine, and are cheaper to build than frame or brick, etc.

  72. Brian H says:

    R. Gates;
    If you do indeed scour the internet for new developments, check out LPP.com , and then watch closely over the next 5 yrs. If they succeed, the world changes, and AGW and renewables are rendered moot and uninteresting.

  73. Ric Werme says:

    Brian H says:
    May 29, 2011 at 4:23 am

    > If you do indeed scour the internet for new developments, check out LPP.com ,

    Are you sure about that site? Lois Paul & Partners (LP&P) is a high tech PR agency headquartered in Boston that specializes in strategic and digital communications for technology, healthcare, and clean tech companies.

    Perhaps you meant http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

    Suggestion: cut and paste URLs. Don’t trust your fingers.

    Personally, I’ll be keeping an eye on Rossi’s ECat device, e.g. hey – a new blog I’ll have to watch – http://www.e-catworld.com/

  74. danj says:

    One of the major arguments of the warmists centers upon their claim that any uncertainty regarding the potential consequences of global warming argues conclusively for the need for action. If there is any chance of catastrophic warming, they argue, we must act in the strongest ways possible to mitigate it. One thing there is little if any uncertainty about is that there will be another extreme glacial epoch. If that is a given, shouldn’t we act in the strongest ways possible to mitigate it? Which leads to the question: what would have a more catastrophic effect on life, another epoch of exteme glaciation or high levels of global warming? The answer to that would suggest which path of mitigation to pursue…

  75. Bowen says:

    Typhoon (UPDATE) ‘Chedeng’ exits Philippines, leaves 3 dead
    http://www.philstar.com/nation/article.aspx?publicationSubCategoryId=200&articleId=690715

  76. Paul Vaughan says:

    @vukcevic May 28, 2011 at 8:39 am http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm ” / “There is a 40 year delay [...]“

    Embed 2nd & 3rd derivatives in the complex plane and see what happens to mysterious lags.

  77. Paul Vaughan says:

    From here [ http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/ice-ages-driven-by-earth-orientation-changes-not-co2/ ] tallbloke has linked to this interesting article:

    Roe, G. (2006). In defense of Milankovitch. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L24703. doi:10.1029/2006GL027817.
    http://courses.washington.edu/pcc589/2009/readings/Roe.pdf

    If anyone has links to these & related time series, please share.

  78. Rex says:

    I have a question: I realise that the “mean global annual temperature”
    is a statistical artifact of debatable utility, but does anyone know if there
    is any consensus as to what has happened to the MGAT in, say, the last
    ten years? Say since the beginning of 2001? I need to write a letter to
    a major daily here (NZ) and don’t want to put my foot in it. Thanks.

  79. Tim Folkerts says:

    wayne says:
    May 28, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    “…Not all complex physics the AGW/IPCC portrays needs to be so complex if viewed correctly while staying simple, that is if a few souls are willing to allow it to be stay simple. … Physics at the core level IS simplicity itself, it is the few dishonest people that force it to remain in complexity, that is their sole shield.”

    Another great physicist is credited the the rule “everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler”.

    In many ways, physics is simple. But in many ways it is not. You can’t reduce everything to the freshman level of Feynman’s popular texts and expect to bne able to solve all physics problems.

    Classical electricity and magnetism can be simplified to
    ∇×E = −∂B/∂t
    ∇×H = J + ∂D/∂t
    ∇·D = ρ
    ∇·B = 0
    F = qE + qv×B

    Much of quantum mechanics can be summed up in the simple equation of Schroedinger:
    iħ δ/δt ( Ψ(r,t) ) = [ -(ħ²/2m ∇²) + V(r,t) ] Ψ(r,t)

    The second law of thermodynamics (which comes up often in discussions here) and be summarized with the simple equation:
    S = -k Σ P(j) log (P(j))

    The point is that the “simplicity” of an appropriate equation depends on the sophistication of the person using it and the situation where it is being applied. Freshman physics is a GREAT starting point for understanding any number of interesting topics, but often the topic itself demands more involved equations.

    For example, Newton’s laws are great for figuring out how satellites move and behave. Unless you need to be really precise (like GPS satellites) where relativity is required to deal with the fact that time itself is different on the orbiting satellite than on the earth.

  80. Bowen says:

    @ Rex

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/us-climatic-history/

    You can also search his site for “mean global annual temperature” to get a whole lot more . . . http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=mean+global+annual+temperature

  81. Tim Folkerts says:

    TerryS

    I like your approach — using math & science to understand issues in climate science. I agree with the equation you derived

    h = r * ln(2) / y

    which is a standard equation in radioactive decay as well. But I would suggest two additional points

    1) when you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the half-life would double, since you doubled “y” but you didn’t double “r”. But you will still get most CO2 atoms cycled thru the system in 25 years, so this is only a minor point.

    2) There are two very different time-frames of interest here. One is the time a given molecule of CO2 stays in the atmosphere. This would indeed be just a few years as you derived. The more interesting question is how long would it take for the extra CO2 to be absorbed.

    As long as the rate of CO2 into the atmosphere (~ 770 GT/yr) equals the rate out of the atmosphere (~770 GT/yr), then the amount in the atmosphere will not change (Whether there is 300 ppm or 600 ppm there). Presumably, for several centuries before the industrial revolution, everything was pretty much in balance.

    As people add CO2 to the atmosphere, the rate into the atmosphere increases. It we indeed stopped burning fossil fuels today (which would be a disastrous choice for many reasons) , nature would still be adding ~ 770 GT/yr. The only way to actually reduce the CO2 levels would be for nature to increase the rate it removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The two most obvious choices that I can think of would be:

    1) a net year-to-year gain in plant mass (ie sequestering C in the plant material). That will happen somewhat since more CO2 in the atmosphere will stimulate plants to grow a little better. OTOH, people tend to keep cutting down forests and replacing them with croplands that do not sequester as much carbon, releasing extra CO2 into the atmosphere.

    2) uptake by the oceans, leading to higher CO2 levels in the water. This will certainly happen as well, since the~ equilibrium exchange that had been occurring for centuries has gotten out of balance.

    These two processes cannot be modeled with the equation you derived. Understanding these processes requires knowledge of chemical equilibrium, ocean currents, how people will use land, and the response of plants to potential changes in CO2 & temperature, & precipitation.

    The point is that determining the time to cycle CO2 molecules thru the atmosphere is straight-forward; determining the time to permanently remove CO2 molecules is much more involved.

  82. Smokey says:

    Tim Folkerts,

    I am shocked and horrified! You didn’t really write “CO2 atoms”, did you?☺

  83. Tim Folkerts says:

    Smokey says:
    May 29, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    “Tim Folkerts, I am shocked and horrified! You didn’t really write “CO2 atoms”, did you?☺”

    I looks like I did!

    But if we are keeping score, it looks like:
    10 times I just said “CO2″
    2 times I said “CO2 molecules”
    1 time I said “CO2 atoms”

    So I was correct 12/13 of the time. And if that is the worst mistake you found, then I am doing pretty well. :-)

  84. Smokey says:

    Tim,

    I was just razzing you. I know you know the difference.

    [And 12/13ths is pretty close to 98%, which makes it a consensus!]

  85. DirkH says:

    Rex says:
    May 29, 2011 at 10:54 am
    “I have a question: I realise that the “mean global annual temperature”
    is a statistical artifact of debatable utility, but does anyone know if there
    is any consensus as to what has happened to the MGAT in, say, the last
    ten years? Say since the beginning of 2001? I need to write a letter to
    a major daily here (NZ) and don’t want to put my foot in it. Thanks.”

    Woodfortrees has several time series:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

  86. Tim Folkerts says:

    Yes, Smokey. I knew you knew. I was just razzing you back a little. I should have added the tag or the tags.

  87. Bowen says:

    Ran across this today . . . . and mention it because I am beginning to believe that the entire AGW issue was/is essentially anti-competition strategy . . .

    Why muzzle pro-fracking geologist?
    http://www.buffalonews.com/business/business-columns/david-robinson/article437280.ece

    And wanted to say that I don’t want to “muzzle” pro-fracking geologist . . . I just want geologists and other scientists to be more circumspect . . .

    Sidoarjo mud flow
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidoarjo_mud_flow#Hypotheses_on_the_possible_causes

    as was demonstrated with the BP disaster . . . . specifically, any/all mining can cause disasters unless due care is observed . . .

    I also think we should have a Memorial Day for miners that have died in the “line of duty” . . . too! They also take great risks for a worthy cause . . .

  88. Tim Folkerts says:

    dang — everything with angle brackets seems to get stripped by the software. Adding make-believe tags like “” doesn’t come through. I’ll have to skip the humor & razzing and stick to science.

    Live and Learn

  89. Smokey says:

    Open thread contribution:

    The Brits greatly impressed American soldiers with their .338 cal. sniper rifles in Afghanistan. A shot at a mile range is routine. So the Marines were raring to go when they had this shootout competition. The more competitions like this, the better for the good guys.

    Have a great Memorial Day weekend.

  90. Ric Werme says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    May 29, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    dang — everything with angle brackets seems to get stripped by the software. Adding make-believe tags like “” doesn’t come through. I’ll have to skip the humor & razzing and stick to science.

    Sure they do, <razz>you just have to know the magic<.

    And that’s to replace the < with &lt;.

    See http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html for more secrets.

  91. Ric Werme says:

    Oops – </razz>, of course.

  92. Spector says:

    RE: Rex: (May 29, 2011 at 10:54 am)
    “… does anyone know if there is any consensus as to what has happened to the MGAT [Mean Global Average Temperature] in, say, the last ten years?”

    From the horses ‘mouth’ at the Climate Research Center at the University of East Anglia, UK, perhaps the most official indication shows a flat line from about 1850 to 1920, a progressive rise of 0.8 degrees C from 1920 to 2000, and a flat line after Y2000. I do not know if anyone has established that this rise is out of the typical range of physiogenic (natural) variability or that due to data collection procedure changes.

    “Global Temperature Record”
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

  93. Ric Werme says:

    Spector says:
    May 30, 2011 at 2:51 am

    From the horses ‘mouth’ at the Climate Research Center at the University of East Anglia, UK, perhaps the most official indication shows a flat line from about 1850 to 1920, a progressive rise of 0.8 degrees C from 1920 to 2000, and a flat line after Y2000.

    Well, gee, no one else jumped at the chance, but isn’t someone supposed to refer to http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048 and Trenberth’s “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
    travesty that we can’t?”

    Of course, to preserve the context, I’ll note the rest of the paragraph is “The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

    And for you Aussies, http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html , John Cook’s analysis was that Trenberth meant to say “Global warming is still happening – our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren’t able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!”

    And for everyone, a quick check of UAH temps shows they’re cooler than last year. No surprise, of course, but it was worth checking. And keep those barbies away from the thermometers, please.

  94. Spector says:

    RE: Ric Werme: (May 30, 2011 at 4:50 pm)
    “Spector says: … ‘From the horses ‘mouth’ at …”

    A site least likely to understate the fragile evidence for climate change…

  95. DennisA says:

    In view of the rejection by the EPA of challenges to their endangerment finding, why would we be surprised to find that they have a long-term stake in the IPCC’s climate models and in the continuance of the IPCC itself.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/the_un_states_epa.html

Comments are closed.