I have other projects to do this weekend, so I’m taking off.
Moderation may be minimal or non-existent at times, so if your comment takes a long time to appear, don’t take it personally. In the meantime, please consider this poll.
I can’t fit the entire question into the poll header, so here it is in full:
If one existed, would you join a professional organization dedicated to offering an alternate to organizations like the American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, etc if this organization offered a peer reviewed journal, reasonable dues, and a healthy dose of climate skepticism rooted in science?
This stems from a conversation I had about three weeks ago, and this weekend seemed like a good time to ask the question.
I’m just an armchair weather and climate gal. I don’t want to join the club but I would hope the journal won’t be behind a paywall.
I’m not a professional, so I don’t think I should cast a vote… but it sounds like a great concept.
What Pamela Said. Or, if it is, it’s because it’s NOT PUBLICLY FUNDED.
The Peer Review would have to be open and transparent.
All “Climate” related factors should be open to discussion. That being said, a much better dividing line between climatology and weather must be defined.
Pamela:
Paywalls are for hiding things that you are afraid to show the world. They are also a form of elitism.
Warren Buffet runs some coal trains now. Bill McKibben summons his activists during connect-the-dots-day. Wonder what James Hansen does over the weekend.
http://grist.org/climate-change/you-shall-not-pass-activists-to-block-warren-buffets-coal-trains/
The American Chemical Society has also bought the AGW package, offering scientistic certainties, grave warnings, eco-solutions, and an ironic encouragement to climate literacy.
I resigned from the ACS years ago because there seemed to be no good reason for membership. But their position on AGW would be cause to leave, were I still a member.
No, I would not. A scientific journal should favor seeking scientific trurth and not promoting a favored position on a political issue implied by the science. We need to support those organizations that care about the truth revealed by use of scientific principles and their correct application and that do not promote one side of the climatology.
Have a bit of a disagreement with our Dr. S about more than obvious strong correlation between the solar magnetic output as represented by TSI and the variability of the Earth’s magnetic field in the Antarctica.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
This ‘minor discovery’ may have something to say about the sun-Earth-climate link. Also there may be serious consequences for interpretation of the 10Be data from the Dome Fuji ice cores.
Have anybody noticed the new poll of “climate scientists” (actually open to anybody, but…). Interesting comparison with the “97% of Climate Scientists say” line: c 12% of them think the climate will only be <1C hotter by 2050, c25% think it will be between 1-2C hotter…
It seems to me that there appears to be a softening of the alarmism.
http://visionprize.com/results#findings
Is there any organization that cannot be corrupted by political machinations? The question is somewhat related to the principle of minority rights under majority rule, again reminding us why the forefathers of the Constitution made this a Republic instead of a democracy. Does a majority of ACS member really believe in AGW?
I did not participate in your poll for a variety of reasons:
1. I had never considered joining one of the named societies.
2. My experience has been more in the electrical and mechanical engineering fields than the climate science fields.
3. I consider myself a student in the climate sciences. While my knowledge of math and physics seems to have been adequate for electrical and mechanical engineering, I have only become interested in the subject of climate since government in general and the UN in particular have started using it as clubs to beat the population into submission. I had never before encountered problems such as heat transfer by either:
a. IR radiation through an atmosphere that is much thicker than the usual dimensions found in a furnace or boiler
b. heat transfer through an atmosphere by convection where the changes in properties due to height become significant. In an oven less that a twenty foot cube and fans moving air at twenty thousand cubic feet per minute, gravity seldom needs to be considered.
4. Data is data. Original data must always be preserved. If it is omitted, the work is suspect. If it is modified, there must be a thorough explanation of the modification. When I see terms such as homogenization and detrending without explicit definitions without explicit reasons for them, I become very suspicious of the motives. I have encountered fraud more than once and lack of definitions is one of the markers. Of course, since I am relatively new to this study I may not be familiar with terms that have an accepted meaning, but a requirement for either society wide definitions that are well documented or good documentation in each paper would go a long way towards lending respectability to a new society.
5. I will be sixty nine years old this year. I doubt that I will learn enough to contribute significantly to a new society. Of course, if a new society shows significant promise of actually promoting the study of climate and the factors which affect it, I would consider supporting it.
Donald Mitchell
jon shively says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm
So I assume you wouldn’t join the APS, AMS etc either? Of course you would because you really don’t understand what scepticism is. You’d join them in a shot because they conform to your blinkered ideas.
DaveE.
I already cancelled my subscriptions to Scientific American and National Geographic because of their knee-jerk liberal pap. I dropped my memberships in the American Society of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers because of their global warming idiocy, and the National Society of Professional engineers because of their lack of ethics.
I am starved for a scholarly journal to read where science is science, science you can observe and graph, not computer models of questionable provenance.
An open Science society that would provide peer review as well as web/e-review would be the ideal, but so many vested interests, money, influence would be the barrier.
Donald Mitchell says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:26 pm
You know what your problem is? You’re actually competent!
All the best!
Donald Mitchell:
I will be sixty nine years old this year. I doubt that I will learn enough to contribute significantly to a new society.
Listen here, sonny, you’re smarter than that.
: > )
Oh goody, somewhere to post this:
I watched a documentary a couple of days ago on the reason the Maya civilisation collapsed – Dick Gill spent 20 years exploring it and shows it was drought. The Mayan area has no natural lakes, rivers or underground water, relies completely on water collected during the summer rainy season, around 800 AD this failed. During the telling of it he said that normally the rains come because of a particular high pressure system which more or less stays put, somewhere in the Atlantic I think, but that this moved considerably further south than it normally does which altered the climate by making it colder in the north, which in turn didn’t bring the rains up into the area. All this to ask, is this the mechanism which triggers the El Nins? If so, what moves the high pressure system?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/ancient-apocalypse-maya-collapse/
The graphic and that explantion are towards the end of the docu, sorry can’t say exactly but around forty minutes in.
DirkH says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm
—
Maybe mckibben should use hansen for a speed bump.
NO, hansen, that is Not a threat.
…if this organization offered a peer reviewed journal, reasonable dues, and a healthy dose of climate skepticism rooted in science?
No. Science does not work that way. Peer review has gotten us some miserable results vice CAGW has it not? Reasonable dues? This speaks to funding as criteria for validity. No thanks. And finally, “healthy dose.” Depends on whether it is a vitamin or radiation exposure. I’d rather not take that chance.
Otter says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:05 pm
“Maybe mckibben should use hansen for a speed bump.
NO, hansen, that is Not a threat.”
Hope somebody told the kids the breaking distance of a coal train.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
Notice anything wrong about the numbers?
A PS. WordPress changed the settings to automatically notify of comments.
My email is clogged enough already!
DaveE.
[REPLY: Obviously a highly demanded “feature”. Most e-mail clients allow you to create a rule for dealing with certain kinds of spam. Right click on a message and see if it doesn’t give you the option to “create a rule”. -REP]
Might join to read the journal articles but like everyone above I am an amateur in this field so could not contribute. I bet there are plenty of people who would. But there are already so many scientific journals…the only reason to start a new one would be if the peer review system had been kidnapped by a bunch of zealots who suppressed dissenting articles despite their being based on thoughtful analyses of real data…and that couldn’t happen among real and honorable scientists could it? Certainly not. So, would this new society/journal be able to take a balanced view, with articles from both sides? That would give it more credence than if it were just the cool climatologist’s platform. And a journal would provide a better forum for serious scientific analysis among experts than these blogs I suppose, though I hope the blogs would continue to disseminate useful and accessible information to the rest of us. Alternatively you could just wait a while… if nature keeps on being as helpful an ally in this debate as she seems so far, the warmists’ credibility will shrivel, scientific opinion will swing around, and journals open up, without your having to go to the hassle of starting a new society. Equally, if it gets really hot in the next few years your goose will be cooked, along with the planet, society or not. Suspense.
Remove the bit about a healthy dose of climate skepticism rooted in science to a healthy dose of real science and you’ll have a winner.
I already have its online at WUWT . This is why I donate to you as I can.Every magazine I used to subscribe to or purchase retail, to bring me insights to the beauty and charm of scientific equiry, has decayed to preachy gospel rags pushing certainty .Please keep up this quality work as long as you are able.
If I were qualified as a meteorologist and if you changed the question to read that the publication would include peer reviewed papers which meet editorial standards and pass said review with no restrictions in either direction (warmist vs sceptical) I would consider joining.
There would still remain the problem of how to select the reviewers.
Perhaps it would be better to allow publication of all papers online and subject them to e-review prior to print, and after review problems are corrected and the papers pass whatever e-review criteria are required for all papers prior to publication.
Scepticism has grown such that any publication or professional organization may be suspected of having bias
This is disgusting, what idiot would vote for candidates that don’t support Private Property Rights; most of them don’t?
2012 PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS VOTER GUIDE RELEASED!
http://www.calpropertyrights.com/?page_id=1195
Where do California Candidates Stand on Private Property Rights?
The Alliance sent the 2012 Property Rights Protection Questionnaire to all California candidates running for Congress and the State Legislature to determine who shares a strong commitment to protecting private property rights.
I didn’t take the poll. I’m not a professional in the field so my joining would be like Kenji (sp?), Anthony’s dog, joining that “scientist” group. But if I was a pro in the field, I’d join in a heartbeat.
I voted “Mayby” because the question said ” ….and a healthy dose of climate skepticism rooted in science”.
I would have voted “Yes” if that section had said something like “…and a passionate dedication for the truth and a firm commitment to the notion that a single observation contrary to reality is sufficient cause to discard an idea.”
David A. Evans says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:18 pm
”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
Notice anything wrong about the numbers?”
Looks right to me. But beware; they counted big hydro as renewable as opposed to what California does. Maybe Californians are even crazier than Germans. So, why is that important? Because the potential of hydropower is exhausted in Germany. The “Energiewende” or final energy solution (only kidding, it would have to be translated as “Energy U Turn”) is based on the growth of the renewables sector and there will only be miniscule growth in big hydro.
Even in medicine you get people jumping on the alarmist bandwagon.
The Lancet (an otherwise respectable medical journal) produced an issue a little over a year ago devoted to the dire effects on health which could be expected from global warming.
It has been known for centuries that severe cold causes a sharp rise in the death rate in temperate countries,while mild winters are associated with a low mortality rate.
Nephron
I agree with Joh Shivley above.
“No, I would not. A scientific journal should favor seeking scientific trurth and not promoting a favored position on a political issue implied by the science. We need to support those organizations that care about the truth revealed by use of scientific principles and their correct application and that do not promote one side of the climatology.”
If the new journal takes a position, then it is just as bad as the existing journals. The journal should promote rigor in the science, openness of data, methods and code. The practice of the Royal Scociety, for the first 300 years, is a good example. ISO standards for scientific research is another place to start.
What you propose has been done to death, it all starts with good intentions, then the dogma sets in, then peer review becomes the setup to begin internal censering. and it turns into yet another overblown boys/girls club of only the “right” views are accepted.
You can try it if you really want to, but it like all the other peer reviewed, professional, open, transparent, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah, will all eventualy go the way of all the others. People will corrupt it for their own purposes, eventualy.
Sadly, because it will involve people, its garanteed to be screwed up, if someone can find some sort of “power” and “control” and “ego rubbing” and “money” to be gained from its control.
I was musing on the sources of all the self flagellation going on with these Occupy types and with “The Team”; the politicians voting through climate change acts without the foggiest notion of whether they are achievable; of the MSM parroting a theme of self destruction; of building windmills, a technology already superceded; of solar panel arrays with an output similar to a cigarette lighter, etc etc etc. It seems to be largely confined to the West Europeans and Americas,with a few ex-pats calling themselves Aussies and New Zealanders. Are we simply witnessing the “New Fall Of The Roman Empire”, except that now it is the Western Empire. Does there come a time in every society when the wars are over, the boundaries are set, our adventure into space is over. the great discoveries within the available technology have been completed and there is nothing left but the inevitable decay of that society. As the romans turned in on themselves and by much beating of chests and self mutilation they presided over their own decline, are we now at that point in Western society where there is too little to look forward to, hence our decline is now inevitable. Are we indeed doomed to pass the baton to the Chinese? Is this the natural state of evolution and resistance is futile? Could it be that this rise and fall of “empires” is as for-ordained as the advance and retreat of the ice ages?
Will we have:
– T-shirts
– Ballcaps
– Coffee mugs
– and Instruments (thermometer, sling psychrometer et al)
with the official insignia?
If so, I’m in …
/just a little humor …
I had been a member and journal subscriber for >25 years with Geological Society of America . I contributed online to discussion of a GSA Position Statement on Anthro Global Warming back in the early 2000s. I figured it was a natural for the premier American geology organization to emphasize the tremendous range of climatic variation in the long geological record, and thus to remind the run-amok climate “scientists” that the Earth has been through far greater extremes many times over. Thus, tipping points are flat-out fakes.
But GSA fell right in line with the alarmist, “it’s all Man’s fault” camp.
So I dropped my membership and my subscription. I dumped National Geographic for similar reasons. Sad when long-established science organizations get seduced by politics and popular trends. Once intellectual trust is violated, it’s nearly impossible to recover.
Sensing this same need, a professional organization was formed over a year ago with free peer review, on-line publishing and at present free membership. PrincipiaScientificInternational.org has assisted in writting, review and posting of numerous research articles using approved scientific methods. Concerned about the A/C and Refrigeration eningeers position, I wrote “Airmen of ASHRAE Enter the Fray” in Aug 2010. I confronted a science-named pressure group with few actual scientists in “Concerned About Concerned Scientists in Oct 2010. I mentioned out of control behavior at their Dec 2010 annual meeting in “Warmist Monk Immolates at the AGU Temple”.
The presumed leaders of our government, universites and professional societies do not walk on water. Most have less education and less skill that the average college student and all have sacrificed objectivity for their current positions. Engineers in particular have the required technical ability, coupled with REAL world experience to be meaningful in this debate. When I began science writting over three years ago, some mentioned that I was not a scientist.
MY REPLY: “Engineers have as much Physics as a Physics major, as much Chemistry as a Chemistry major and as much Math as a Math major. Therefore, a ‘scientist’ is an engineer that did not want to go to school an extra year.”
The PC that you have before you is the greatest library in the world, and the greatest ‘search engine’ librarian is there to assist you in finding the TRUTH. It is shocking easy to develope the on-line mentors improve your skills. Form your OWN science CC newsletter. Anthony has provided a great forum for thought that you could model. The ‘poll question’….would I join an independent science organization….YES, I already have !
I’m not a professional scientist (my siblings are, but I got waylaid by a Univac 1108 in my freshman year in college). So I used the maybe button. While my aper reading of things line Science News has been declining, largely due to everyone here, once the alarmists give up then it may indeed be worthwhile joining such an organization.
I’d have to agree with those expressing reservations about declarations of a healthy dose of scepticism, tempting as it seems, and must declare myself as only another interested amateur who would be unlikely to contribute much.
On the other hand, might I suggest that if a declaration is needed, declare that this is a forum for discussing only science based on demonstrable observational evidence, with full details of processing ‘twixt observation and claim. That should sort the sheep from the goats.
“If one existed, would you join a professional organization “…
………and a healthy dose of climate skepticism rooted in science?
=================
Ummm, I thought I was participating.
We are it.
Chris Mooney on MSNBC, peddling his thesis that Republicans have inferior brains.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/05/05/MSNBC-Panel-Determines-Republican-Brains-Inferior-To-Liberal
You mean one that didn’t make public policy statements without consulting the membership?
The alternative to the current peer reviewed journals is not another journal, although a respectable journal without biased gatekeepers would be nice. Something that would make it worthwhile would be a focus on comments and rebuttals to papers published in other journals.
Like several above, I would have no business joining such a society. I would be happy to provide the little bit of financial assistance I am able to contribute, perhaps as an “associate member” or some such, provided that the organization rejected the concept of “peer review” outright.
Peer review originated as a stopgap. The limited bandwidth of print publications, combined with the expense of typesetting equations, presenting adequate illustrations, and the like made it necessary to restrict publication to those papers that “made sense”, because there simply wasn’t room to accommodate crackpots and monomaniacs in the limited space.
The Internet removes those restrictions. There are plenty of people, “peers” and otherwise, available to screen whatever might appear. A voting/karma system, perhaps adapted from Slashdot or some other established Web forum, might be useful as guidance for people just getting into the system, but the only restrictions on publication, as such, should be “SHOW ALL THE DATA” and “SHOW YOUR WORK” — the latter to include adjustments, “normalization”, and all the other manipulations.
There is no way a system based on gatekeepers can remain honest over time, because the gatekeepers become themselves invested in particular notions, and there is no better example of that principle than peer review as it is currently implemented. Let’s get back to the precepts of the Royal Society, where anybody with anything potentially interesting gets a moment at the podium — and has to withstand the resulting rotten tomatoes and brickbats if their presentation doesn’t hold water.
Anyone knows how to get GHCN v1 temperature data?
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v1
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3
As I see it, the average V1 temperature data are no longer public?
Or which dir would hold avg temp data?
And for the V2 I see a Max temp dir?
Originally GHCN V1 was lanched in 1992, is there any chance that a GHCN V1 today looks like it did in 1992?
K.R. Frank
My cure for all things wrong in the ocean and how to prevent the next Great Dying.
Some where on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico we build a pipeline that goes to the Gulf Stream and down to the depth of 5,000’+.
Then put millions of pin holes in several miles of pipe and place it across the stream.
Then pump in 50+ barrels of air per minute. The water pressure will keep the air in the water like carbonated soda.
The current will carry the aerated water around the world. The oxygen will help the fish and other critters and aerobic biodegrading. The nitrogen will help the teeny tiny plant life. This will increase the bottom of the food chain and cleanup pollution. We should also do this with lakes and rivers.
Wow! I am so smart.
Or am I trolling?
I’m never sure.
I’m not American, so I have no place in this poll. However, if it were about Canadian or UK institutions, I’d certainly say YES.
I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.
Groucho Marx
Anyhow me not real professional caveman, only obsessive hobbyist.. Not membership material.
Administrative harassment via excessive red tape (e.g. peer review by non-hybrid unqualified parties) compounds the already severely-crippling protraction of cutting edge delays that HARD-limit organizational potential:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
The only balanced, sensible approach where there’s no one-size-fits-all:
Hedge bets. Diversity’s KEY to survival prep.
Solar-Terrestrial-Climate Weave
http://i49.tinypic.com/219q848.png
Disko Troop says:
May 5, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Are we simply witnessing . . . the inevitable decay of that society.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes.
I can see two big problems with the idea:
(1) If the organization is explicitly about truth, not fashion, it will NEVER gain any status, and the media will NEVER listen to it. Fashion talks. Money talks. Truth walks.
(2) O’Sullivan’s Law. Every national-level organization quickly turns into just another Soviet front, even if all of its rank and file members are non-Communist. I don’t see how this organization would protect itself. Its executives would get tired of being called Crazy and Fascist and Holocaust-Lovers and so on, and would give in to Gramscian fashion.
Better to keep things decentralized, pretty much as they are now.
http://www.leaderpost.com/Discovery+sheds+light+Cabot+travels/6571068/story.html
http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/northwest-passage/maps.htm
polistra says:
May 5, 2012 at 4:33 pm
“(2) O’Sullivan’s Law.”
Hey, thanks. I didn’t know that but inferred it myself. “Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time. ”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/osullivans-first-law-in-action.php
I currently track its progression at the German Pirate Party.
vukcevic says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I noticed you have some traction with your ideas at RC. I urge you to be careful on that side of the fence. Certainly do not give up on us over here.
Empirical Vs IPCC model projections => http://bit.ly/IBTfhI
clipe says:
May 5, 2012 at 4:37 pm
“Remarkably, the answer to both questions may be yes, says University of Bristol historian Evan Jones, one of the British scholars working with Guidi-Bruscoli and founder of the Cabot Project research initiative, funded in large part by Canadian philanthropist Gretchen Bauta of the Weston family retail dynasty.”
Is this Evan Jones of WUWT? fame?
Marlow Metcalf says:
May 5, 2012 at 3:34 pm
My cure for all things wrong in the ocean and how to prevent the next Great Dying.
Some where on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico we build a pipeline that goes to the Gulf Stream and down to the depth of 5,000′+.
Then put millions of pin holes in several miles of pipe and place it across the stream.
Then pump in 50+ barrels of air per minute. The water pressure will keep the air in the water like carbonated soda.
The current will carry the aerated water around the world. The oxygen will help the fish and other critters and aerobic biodegrading. The nitrogen will help the teeny tiny plant life. This will increase the bottom of the food chain and cleanup pollution. We should also do this with lakes and rivers.
Wow! I am so smart.
Or am I trolling?
I’m never sure.
_______________________
Martin! All that can be said is “Well, how nice!”
The aeration pipes would need to be perforated only along the top surface, otherwise, they would slowly eat their way to China and give them all of the economic advantages to be derived from such a bold scheme, all the while giving the planet a bad case of gastritis, or something.
The pumped air would also have to be free from any of the many weird chemical compounds made by man and or any pollen from GM crops which had been created in part with fish- brain DNA.
We don’t want to turn “Cloverfield” into yet another sci- fi movie from which fantasy futures morph into reality.
I’m Sorry, MARLOW… didn’t mean to call you Martin.
We are told we are on the verge of a new el Nino. However, a tentative visual impression from the animation of the last 30 days equatorial Pacific temperatures suggests the proto-el Nino east Pacific warming is just about to be cut off by new Peruvian coast cold upwelling:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/glb8_3b/html/anims/eqp/sst30d.gif
Just an impression – a new cold tongue beginning – however time will tell.
A new peer review format is desperately needed to put science back on track towards truth, invention and discovery and away from grant-grubbing politics.
The usual suspects have banded together with oudles of UK government funding and formed
UK Climate Projections (UKCPO9):
“The maps, graphs and key findings for UKCP09 are a quick way to see projected changes in the UK climate at a national and regional level. All use the three UKCP09 emissions scenarios, three 30-year time periods (2020s, 2050s & 2080s) and a range of probability levels (10, 33, 50, 67 & 90%) to show the spread of possible outcomes.
Use the maps, graphs and key findings to:
communicate the main results of UKCP09;
raise awareness about climate change;
consider climate changes at a national or regional level; and
introduce the concept of probabilistic climate projections.”
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/21708
NOAA is hiring magicians now
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-noaa-sought-magician.html
Skeptikal says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:52 am
I’m not a professional, so I don’t think I should cast a vote… but it sounds like a great concept.
——————————–
I don’t think you need to be a pro to join some scientific organizations.
I once heard of a dog joining the Union of Concerned Scientists or some such organization.
I don’t know if the science is good but…
The debate on the cause and the amount of global warming and its effect on global climates and economics continues. As world population continues its exponential growth, the potential for catastrophic effects from climate change increases. One previously neglected key to understanding global climate change may be found in examining events of world history and their connection to climate fluctuations.
Juxtaposed in the same paper.
Throughout history, global warming has brought prosperity whereas global cooling has brought adversity.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.full
Although, the dog never told me what they were concerned about.
No, No and No.
1. I’m not interested in a journal with a “healthy dose of skepticism”. I’m interested in a journal with a healthy dose of quality analysis and commentary.
2. Peer review doesn’t work. How can any system predicated on peers reviewing each other’s science possibly work over the long haul? I diss your paper because it is wrong, but risk you dissing mine because you want to get even. So maybe I go light on the criticism, or decline to review at all…. and so it goes.
3. Peer review breaks down like any other peer group, into cliques. A determined clique with a common agenda can hijack the process and exclude contrary opinion. Want examples? Look at all the complaints upthread from people who have cancelled subscriptions and memberships in disgust.
I don’t know what alternative might be better, but this one doesn’t work.
A PS. WordPress changed the settings to automatically notify of comments.
My email is clogged enough already!
DaveE.
[REPLY: Obviously a highly demanded “feature”. Most e-mail clients allow you to create a rule for dealing with certain kinds of spam. Right click on a message and see if it doesn’t give you the option to “create a rule”. -REP]
>>>>>>>
DaveE – if you scroll down to the bottom you can “uncheck” notify me.
REP – yes you can make a rule. Shouldn’t have to. Sometime legit email gets stuck in the wrong place and the more garbage you have, the harder it is to sort through it to find the legit one. And sometimes you build a rule and it affects emails you actually wanted. WordPress ticked me off by forcing me to “login” in order to post a comment (so I switched email accounts) now they send me email notifications I never asked for and it is upon me to uncheck the option? That’s negative option billing and despite no money being involved, it p*sses me off just as much.
[REPLY: Yeah, me too. I think Anthony is working on it, but we’re stuck with this “feature” for the moment. It’s not anything WUWT wanted or did. Please be patient. -REP]
jon shively says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm
No, I would not. A scientific journal should favor seeking scientific trurth and not promoting a favored position on a political issue implied by the science. We need to support those organizations that care about the truth revealed by use of scientific principles and their correct application and that do not promote one side of the climatology.
—————–
jon
I noticed you didn’t offer any names or suggestions as to which journals we should be looking to for some “revealed truth” and “scientific principles.”
Most likely not a good idea at WUWT………..we pay attention.
Forgot to mention.
Published online before print October 24, 2000, doi: 10.1073/pnas.230423297 PNAS November 7, 2000 vol. 97 no. 23 12433-12438
I must admit I was shocked by the Heartland ad campaign but Miranda Devine writes an excellent summary of it here.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/mirandadevine/index.php/heraldsun/comments/heartland_faces_the_heat/
I’ll take the opportunity of this open thread to ask you to:
Please add your computer’s unused power to the efforts to find cures for Alzheimer’s and many other diseases which result when the proteins in our bodies are malformed, or are said to mis- fold.
The volunteer participants in Stanford’s “Folding@Home” project add their computer’s unused processing power to what is by far the world’s most powerful distributed supercomputer.
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/HomePage
We already have it: Fox News and votes are counted by the ratings. The Medium is the Message: the Fearmonger in Chief apparently refuses to appear on Fox.
I’m still trying to understand why the Atlantic PDO, and ENSO have anything to do with the heat content of the earth+atmosphere.
I could imagine warmer poles could shed more heat, but how do these shed heat? Or are they merely moving heat around?
– eco-fascist quotes –
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” -H. L. Mencken
“It’s time for climate change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies. Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest…” — Leftist Journalist Richard Glover, Sydney Morning Herald, June 6 2011
“Isn’t the only hope for this planet the total collapse of industrial civilisation? Is it not our responsibility to ensure that this collapse happens?” – Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director
“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” — John Davis, Earth First editor
“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” — Richard Benedik, UN functionary
“However it is achieved, a thorough reorganisation of production, consumption and distribution will be the end result of humanity’s response to the climate emergency and the broader environmental crisis.” — Walden Bello, Director of the leftist Focus on the Global South
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.” — Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office
“Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.” — David Frame, Oxford U climate modeler
Re: “If one existed, would you join a professional organization dedicated to offering an alternate . . . if this organization offered a peer reviewed journal, reasonable dues, and a healthy dose of climate skepticism rooted in science?”
Yes
For those disagreeing above, I read “a healthy dose of climate skepticism rooted in science” as the essence of the scientific method as applied to climate science – rather than having an society executive making political statements. Science is inherently skeptical – one needs to show evidence that a hypothesis is statistically different from the null hypothesis – e.g., of natural variations.
Lucia Liljegren at the Blackboard shows that the median of the IPCCmodels of 0.2C/decade is now outside the two sigma bounds of the 30 year temperature trend.
That tells me that the IPCC modls are missing major physics and/or have model parameters severely off.
mfo says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:04 pm
A new peer review format is desperately needed to put science back on track towards truth, invention and discovery and away from grant-grubbing politics.
I just received this email:
[start quote]
As you know, only the 8% of the Scientific Research Society’s members agreed that ‘peer review works well as it is'(Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192). Consequently, we invite you to participate in identifying means to improve Peer Review effectiveness.
***********************
Call for Participations through any of the following three ways to contribute in the improvement of Peer Review processes:
• Research Blogging, and/or
• Submitting an abstract and CV to a Conference Special Track (submission deadline: May 18, 2012), and/or
• Submitting an article to the Journal on systemic, Cybernetics and Informatics (JSCI)
***********************
Details at http://www.peer-reviewing.org/pr12 (Where authors and articles referenced in this are included among a larger list of references)
***********************
An exponentially increasing number of studies and experience-based editors’ opinions are clear and explicit about peer review weaknesses and failures. The following affirmations are a very small sample (Many more can be found at the references included in the above mentioned URL)
***********************
“A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.” (Horrobin,2001) Horrobin concludes that peer review “is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance.”
“If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market” affirmed Drummond Rennie (Smith, 2010, p.1), deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association and who intellectually provided support for the international congresses of peer review that have been held, since 1989, every four years. If peer review was a drug, he added, it “would not get onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws.” (Ibid)
Few days ago, Carl Zimmer (2012) reported in the New York Time that, according to a study made by PubMed data base, the number of articles retracted from scientific journals increased from 3 in 2000 to 180 in 2009. 6000% of increment in 10 years! This “Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform.” (Ibid)
But, “Peer Review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice” (Goodstein, 2000), it is completely necessary as quality assurance for Scientific/Engineering publications, and “Peer Review is central to the organization of modern science… why not apply scientific [and engineering] methods to the peer review process” (Horrobin, 2001).
This is the purpose of this call for participation via 1) blogging, 2) submitting an article to the Special Track on Peer Reviewing: PR 2012, and/or 3) submitting an article to the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics. More details for each of these three ways of participating can be found at http://www.peer-reviewing.org/pr12.
Sincerely,
PR 2012 Organizing Committee
[end quote]
P.E. murph
yes, and like others above say, you don’t need to include a healthy dose of climate skeptic outcomes. whatever, it must be scientific with a healthy dose of empirical evidence (raw data), total transparency, such as modeling derivations and assumptions, computer program listings and results.
A thought crosses my mind (OK, OK, quit laughing!) An organization to promote discussion, Great. Legitimate peer review, OK. A journal, cool. For those of you in the biz, a great way to bounce ideas off one another.
For the rest of us who used to take “Nature” or other mags who are not “”in the biz”” how’s about another classification – associate member or some such. Maybe get the journal for dues, see all discussion threads but maybe not able to comment directly on them etc.
At least this way trolls would have to pay something to play rather than just crashing a thread.
The pay to play concept isn’t a bad one, and could enable us all to participate in “real” science, wherever it leads.
Mike
Harriet Harridan says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:12 pm
“Have anybody noticed the new poll of “climate scientists” (actually open to anybody, but…). Interesting comparison with the “97% of Climate Scientists say” line: c 12% of them think the climate will only be <1C hotter by 2050, c25% think it will be between 1-2C hotter…
It seems to me that there appears to be a softening of the alarmism.
http://visionprize.com/results#findings"
Not at all. The IPCC projections for temperature increase range from about 0.7 to 2.2C.
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm#ipcc
The variation is due to models and the variations in the level of action taken against GHG emissions, as well as uncertainty in the aerosal output.
As I’m not a professional I didn’t vote, but my general observation on “serious” organizations is that once they achieve a good reputation they then become targets for takeover by committed and cohesive “splinter groups”. That must be a lot easier now, with the internet being such a convenient tool.
From the comments on this thread, it appears to me we should first start a journal dedicated to articles discussing what peer review should be – how it should be carried out – a set of ethical guidelines – openess – openess – openess – …
I have two questions — and I thought this would be a good time to ask.
Proponents of the “dark matter” hypothesis point at the rotation of galaxies, asserting that galaxies would have to contain much more mass than observed, for their rotation to obey the laws of physics as we understand them today. Hence the need for the “dark matter.” Their models do not really correspond well to the observed phenomena but that doesn’t seem to bother those who proclaim the existence of the “dark matter.”
My questions are these:
1) How do they measure the rotation of galaxies? Rotation of the spiral arms (if any) is not an indication of the galaxy’s rotational speed, since these arms are a diffraction pattern that ripples through the galactic swarm of stars, not a structural element that would rotate with the mass. Tracking individual stars’ angular velocity doesn’t help, either, because individual stars rotate around the center of the galaxy with different speeds. So, how exactly the “rotational speed of the galaxy” is measured, before it is used to conclude that galaxies “must be much heavier” than they appear?
2) How do they know that galaxies don’t contain much more “conventional” matter that simply doesn’t radiate in a detectable manner? Every year they discover that they haven’t seen some pretty massive features before — huge dark clouds of interstellar gas invisible unless there is a back-lighting, “brown dwarfs” that outnumber luminous stars, etc. How about black holes? Did we find and count all of them, and their mass, in every galaxy under observation? Is there any way to be sure that we’ve found at least most of existing black holes? How do we estimate the mass of the galactic central black hole? How do we know that it cannot be much more massive than estimated? To be sure that the “dark matter” hypothesis is necessary to explain the observed galactic behavior, one has to be sure that any and all possible objects making up the galactic mass are accounted for. What is the basis for such an assurance?
Speaking of magazines, remember Omni.
There was an article in it about eternal life and it was estimated at about a cost of three billion at the time aging could be beat. Well if the mega rich like Gates would put money into this research maybe we could all be around to see how the long range climate models work out.
Just imagine an eternity with Hansen and company.
You may or may not enjoy my article, I’m still having trouble convincing the indoctrinated, but trying my best. I’m finding they are suffering from deep psychological issues related to “postmodernism”, cognitive dissonance and such. They will not believe A or B, they cannot come to any conclusions at all, they won’t believe me nor even 100% of what the warmists say. Sad really.
10 Theses of Contention on the Power and Efficacy of “Anthropogenic Global Warming” Theory
http://dissidentthinker.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/10-theses-of-contention-on-the-power-and-efficacy-of-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory/
I use such a “rule”; all emails with “new comment” or “new Post” in the subject line are directed to a folder called “Comments”. When I’m ready, I access it, sort by “Subject”, and read those I’m interested in and delete the rest and any I’ve read (the whole point is to give a link to active threads I’m reading, after all). Works OK, and keeps my Inbox from being flooded.
David A. Evans says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:18 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
Notice anything wrong about the numbers?
Amazing that in your link nothing is mentioned about the collapse of major wind turbine producers in Germany. Can wikipedia be trying to hide something? Surely not!
http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/two-more-german-solar-power-companies.html
Disko Troop says:
May 5, 2012 at 2:12 pm
“Are we simply witnessing the “New Fall Of The Roman Empire”, except that now it is the Western Empire.”
Yes, it’s the western empire falling, but the new one is just as ignorant. History ryhmes again.
“Alexander Feht says:
May 5, 2012 at 10:30 pm
I have two questions — and I thought this would be a good time to ask.”
For quite a while I’ve wondered about the basis for unifying General Relativity and Quantum Theory. A big assumption that General Relativity (GR) is based upon is that spacetime is a differentiable manifold so Riemannian curvature is the basis equating geometry with gravity.
If that assumption is not valid, and one could argue that failure to find a unified theory is evidence for such a hypothesis, then other hypotheses like dark matter may also not be valid.
An area I’m dabbling in at present is Fractal Relativity/Cosmology which starts from original studies into the behaviour of continuous, non-differentable functions. It seems to be gaining some traction.
All I can suggest is start from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology and dive in.
vukcevic says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/05/open-thread-weekend-plus-poll/#comment-977221
Henry@vukcevic
I definitely note some turning point around 1994
when looking at the development of maxima, see here:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
Bceause it seems led by a drop in maxima I am inclined to think that it must have something to do with a drop in TSI.
I hope by “climate scepticism” you don’t mean “is there a climate?”
I would not subscribe to a journal promoting any side, neither “climate scepticism” nor “[anthropogenic] climate change” over the other, but I would consider subscribing to one about “climate-as it really is” rooted in solid, reputable and replicable (all data freely available to anyone who wants to check it) science. Genuine scientific debate is great —like the encounters between Arrhenius and Angstrom—but the fallacies, such as “there’s a consensus,” curl my lip.
=======================================================================
nc says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Speaking of magazines, remember Omni.
[ …snipt … ]
Just imagine an eternity with Hansen and company.
===============================================
Ugh — I am *really* trying to avoid that place! Honest!
Luther Wu says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm
I’ll take the opportunity of this open thread to ask you to:
Please add your computer’s unused power to the efforts to find cures for Alzheimer’s and many other diseases which result when the proteins in our bodies are malformed, or are said to mis- fold.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You would be interested in Dr Mary Newport’s experience with coconut oil (non hydrogenated) with her husband who has Alzheimers. His mental capacity improved markedly within hours on the standard tests, and last I heard was doing fine. Based on research that was abandoned because it was not patentable. A search with her name and Alz. and coconut oil will bring up the news stories.
Not a preventative, but restores connections that are lost.
What you are saying suggests that the sceptic view would be the only purpose for such an organisation, If so then the answer is no. If it is to put both sides of the argument and debate it in a scientific and rational way and without trying to ridicule the warmists then yes. But surely WUWT does this very successfully already, even though I think we demeen ourselves when we start calling the AGW proponents by insulting names and publish silly pictures of those we cannot agree with. We should not respond to this peronalising of the argument coming from the other side, it just weakens our argument, and maybe injures our chances of being seen as having a serious point of view with the main media.
What I would like to see is a list created of the names of genuine sceptical scientists and other experts, academics, poilticians and recognised public figures from around the world who follow the sceptic viewpoint, and maybe a second list of ordinary unqualified people like myself who study the arguments and the scientific evidence and apply simple logic to establisn their viewpoint. This is surely what WUWT could organise so that each of us could put our names on the list automatically if it was set up.I believe the list would be massive, and thereby enable us to refute, with hard evidence, the argument that ’97per cent of scientists support the AGW viewpoint. And who knows, it might even influence the attitude of our silly, gullible governments across the world How about it Mr Watts, it could be a very powerful tool?
Perhaps it is a sad fact that a bright young college student, who has been sold on the ideals of what might be called ‘The Green Earth Movement’ may be more likely to choose an environmental science for his life’s work where he can do the most ‘good’ for the planet. This could result in an insidious idealistic corruption of science that would stifle critical thought by peer pressure and shared beliefs.
Alexander Feht says:
May 5, 2012 at 10:30 pm
I have two questions — and I thought this would be a good time to ask.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your questions are covered by the Electric Universe theory which is based on the lab experiments with plasma conducted by Birkland and developed by Perrat and others. It has correctly predicted a large number of findings especially by probes, that have left the mainstream ‘puzzled’ ‘amazed’ or just plain wrong.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/
I also see a new cold tongue beginning. If the multi-decadal global cooling really begins, ENSO should follow with the (further) decline of the long-term average.
I have no good reason to join such an organization so I voted “no” but that doesn’t mean I think it’s a bad idea for it to exist.
Harriet Harridan says: May 5, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Have anybody noticed the new poll of “climate scientists” (actually open to anybody, but…). Interesting comparison with the “97% of Climate Scientists say” line: c 12% of them think the climate will only be <1C hotter by 2050, c25% think it will be between 1-2C hotter…
It seems to me that there appears to be a softening of the alarmism.
http://visionprize.com/results#findings
Harriet, i would still call this a poll of global warming alarmists. Any warming over 1C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 assumes positive feedbacks in the climate system, which is a warmist propaganda position for which there is no supporting evidence.
P.S. In 2002 I predicted global cooling to commence by 2020-2030, but hope to be wrong.
The big issue for me is preventing the issue of a press statement, à la Muller-BEST, before the work is completed and reviewed and then how to reduce the delay caused by the review process.
I would dearly love to see science and scientist getting back to the rigours of real review.
David Jones says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:44 pm
“Amazing that in your link nothing is mentioned about the collapse of major wind turbine producers in Germany. Can wikipedia be trying to hide something? Surely not!”
David, we have solar cell makers folding but by now no wind turbine maker insolvency. – at least to my knowledge.
The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule.
H L Mencken 1880-1956
Hi Anthony hope you are having a good weekend “off”.
My initial reaction on reading your post was to say no, for the following reasons:
a) I am not a US citizen.
b) I would refuse to join any scientific organisation with pre-conceived ideas.
c) I do not have a qualification in Meteorolgy or Climate Science.
I then re-read your post and realised that:
a) The organisations you gave as examples, were just that, examples and members did not necessarily have to be US citizens
b) Scepticism, does not equate to pre-conceived especially if the adjective “healthy” is used to describe it.
c) As far as I an aware, Al Gore doesn’t have a Meteorology or Climate Science qualification either and Hansen and Mann should have theirs revoked.
So I have voted Yes
Robert of Ottawa says, May 5, 2012 at 3:45 pm: I’m not American, so I have no place in this poll. However, if it were about Canadian or UK institutions, I’d certainly say YES.
Didn’t stop me voting and I voted ‘yes’. And I am from the UK.
If such an organisation were to be created it would surely be both internet-based and have an international membership!
I am not technically capable of refuting this but I thought some of you here would enjoy reading what we are subject to once a month in our local paper.
http://pressrepublican.com/0205_columns/x1914777312/Climate-change-no-longer-a-puzzle
Alexander Feht,
That should be A.L Peratt, not Perrat. Must enter names in the spell checker, dyslexia is no flum
tedsunday says:
May 6, 2012 at 3:33 am
I am not technically capable of refuting this but I thought some of you here would enjoy reading what we are subject to once a month in our local paper.
http://pressrepublican.com/0205_columns/x1914777312/Climate-change-no-longer-a-puzzle
I see the author of the article is a chemist NOT a climatalogist. That speaks volumes, I am just as qualified to speak on this subject ( I have a degree in Dentistry).
I think common sense tells us that an increase in CO2 concenrtration of 0.00010% is not going to make a jot of difference to the climate. It was a lot higher in the past and there was no runaway greenhouse effect then, when it was much higher and there won’t be now or in the forseeable future.
Julian Braggins says:
May 6, 2012 at 12:57 am
Luther Wu says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm
I’ll take the opportunity of this open thread to ask you to:
Please add your computer’s unused power to the efforts to find cures for Alzheimer’s and many other diseases which result when the proteins in our bodies are malformed, or are said to mis- fold.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You would be interested in Dr Mary Newport’s experience with coconut oil (non hydrogenated) with her husband who has Alzheimers. His mental capacity improved markedly within hours on the standard tests, and last I heard was doing fine. Based on research that was abandoned because it was not patentable. A search with her name and Alz. and coconut oil will bring up the news stories.
Not a preventative, but restores connections that are lost.
===
Hadn’t heard about coconut oil. Tumeric is well-known as preventative:
http://www.wellnesstrader.com/evidence/Turmeric-Alzheimers
“Turmeric and Alzheimers
Diets rich in curcumin–a compound found in the curry spice turmeric–may help explain why rates of Alzheimer’s disease are much lower among the elderly in India compared with their Western peers.
Alzheimer’s disease is characterized by the buildup of amyloid protein “plaques” within the brain. In studies in rats, curcumin “not only reduces the amyloid, but also reduces the (brain’s) response to the amyloid,” according to researcher Dr. Sally Frautschy of the University of California, Los Angeles.
…
In view of its efficacy and apparent low toxicity, this Indian spice component shows promise for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.”
“Curcumin may not be the only compound in the kitchen spice rack able to ward off Alzheimer’s. In an interview with Reuters Health, Frautschy said that “chemicals from rosemary (rosmarinic acid) and ginger (vanillin and zingerone, also high in Indian diets) have similar structure and should be tested.””
&
http://www.heartspring.net/alzheimers_turmeric.html
————-
Other studies have found that tumeric’s efficacy is boosted some 15 times by the addition of black pepper. Tumeric also well-known as anti tumour cure, tested and used for prostrate cancer, further research ongoing, but tardy…, not patentable.
http://www.easyhealthoptions.com/alternative-medicine/turmeric-fights-tumors/
jon shively says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm
No, I would not. A scientific journal should favor seeking scientific trurth and not promoting a favored position on a political issue implied by the science. We need to support those organizations that care about the truth revealed by use of scientific principles and their correct application and that do not promote one side of the climatology.
========================================================
Gee jon, the fact that a very one sided no opposing views allowed and full on political bias, as well as etremely biased funding suppliers, makes what we have now Nothing like science, truth, or impartial truth seeking, but you would say no? to anyone trying to provide that.
wow.
guess your a believer then?
MODS HELP!!! I also have suddenly copped influx to mail and did NOT hit the notify on follow ups.
I notice its preticked just now.
needs to be UNticked and a chose to, as usual.
[REPLY: It’s some !@#$%^!!! new WordPress “feature” and we can’t fix it. If you’ve already posted on a thread, unchecking the box on your second comment won’t stop the e-mails. You need to create a “spam rule” in your e-mail client to catch the darn things and send them to trash. Right clicking on the offending e-mail should give you the option to “create a rule”. For your first comment on a thread, make sure the box is unchecked. Good Luck. -REP]
That the American Society of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers may have a position on CAGW perhaps is to be expected as the fear will cause an increase in purchase of air conditioning, wouldn’t it?
On the topic of odd weather stuff, I was trolling in Lake Superior off Marquette last Sunday and when we got about 3 miles offshore we started breaking through skim ice, which I found odd given it was almost May. It was enough ice that we couldn’t fish surface lines. The lake was very calm, water temperature was 37 and air about the same. The further from shore we went the thicker the ice got. The previous night was extremely clear and sort of cold, maybe 25. I attributed the ice to radiative cooling. If you think about it, the middle of large lakes far from shore and land effects are basically deserts with nothing to hold the daytime heat I suppose it can get pretty cold out there at night. By about 10am all the ice was gone. Anyways I found it interesting, ice being true evidence of radiative heat losses, and I wondered how much heat Lake Superior loses to the night sky each night and if the size of lakes plays a role in how cold they get.
I would not qualify for membership in such an organization, and if one were created it should not be chartered to promote any particular view on an empirical question, but I voted ‘Yes’ because I think scientists should be actively creating organizations that can challenge the politically corrupt ‘establishment’ science bodies and create choices for young scientists and scholars.
Thanks to commenters above for the warning about the ‘Notify me of follow-up comments via email’ box. Surely Anthony can contact the powers-that-be at WordPress and request that they change the default back to unchecked!
/Mr Lynn
Just a question that I hope someone could help me with. I read some time ago a lecture given by a professor on sources of energy and their relative energy densities (and usefulness). The lecture started with a simple mention of the amount of energy potentially available from a gallon of gasoline and how much of that was consumed (reduced to a non atomic state) in the process. He then when on to explain the physical plant sizes and consumption needed to generate a gigawatt of power, for nuclear, coal or gas, in comparison to solar and wind. I wish I had saved the link. Given the poor identifying features, does anyone recall reading something like this?
cheers
Like Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t join any club that would have me as a member. 😉
Pat Frank says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:02 pm
The American Chemical Society has also bought the AGW package, offering scientistic certainties, grave warnings, eco-solutions, and an ironic encouragement to climate literacy.
I resigned from the ACS years ago because there seemed to be no good reason for membership. But their position on AGW would be cause to leave, were I still a member.
_____________________________
I left ACS for that exact reason after over thirty years. I just could not stand the Sanctimonious Eco-speak any more.
I would certainly support an alternate to establishment Lysenkoism.
Harriet Harridan says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Have anybody noticed the new poll of “climate scientists” ….
http://visionprize.com/results#findings
_______________________________________
It would indicate the amount of brain washing (or adherence to political correctness) in the climate scientist ranks.
I wonder how many veterinarians hate animals or botanists hate plants….
You may find this useful. I’m having great fun pointing out technology the IPCC have conspicously ignored. Wood gas cars is one. In some contexts its the perfect solution and it could be improved with a little R&D but mention it to the global warmists and they don’t have a clue it even exists or powered tens of thousands of cars in WW2. To make it viable today should be so easy even us climate sceptics could do it. lol. Enjoy.
http://appliedimpossibilies.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/gas-cars.html
onlyme says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:40 pm
…. if you changed the question to read that the publication would include peer reviewed papers which meet editorial standards and pass said review with no restrictions…
Perhaps it would be better to allow publication of all papers online and subject them to e-review prior to print, and after review problems are corrected and the papers pass whatever e-review criteria are required for all papers prior to publication.
Scepticism has grown such that any publication or professional organization may be suspected of having bias….
_____________________________
That sounds like a good idea. A crowd based review could get rid of the problem of “Pal Review” we now see in journals.
I also agree with others that it should be open to any paper as long as it meets the criteria of good science. That is it uses the scientific method.
Just when the warmists are on their last legs this comes up. It should help with peak oil and load leveling.
http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html
http://lmbcorporation.com/
As I’ve always argued green energy is not scientifically impossible; watermelon energy is what’s impossible.
Myrrh says:
May 6, 2012 at 4:09 am
Thanks for the info about Turmeric and Alzheimer’s and Black Pepper. As Parkinson’s is another neurodegenerative disease with a pathology associated with malformed amyloids it could well be helpful with this disease also. There are quite a number of diseases associated with amyloids.
Having had a brief scout around the net, these are some of the effects turmeric is ‘thought’ to have:
Antihepatotoxic – it has a protective effect on the liver
Antihyperlipidemic – it inhibits the excessive buildup of lipids (fatty substances, such as cholesterol) in the blood
Anti-inflammatory – it reduces inflammation
Antioxidant – it scavenges free radicals and inhibits lipid peroxide formation, especially in the liver
Antitumoral – it inhibits the formation of tumors, including cancerous ones
Antimicrobial – it inhibits the action of microorganisms such as bacteria
Antifertile – it has a contraceptive effect
Anti-insect – that’s right, it acts as an insect repellent, a bonus
It’s a great shame that drug companies are reluctant to pursue research into anything which they may not be able to patent and obtain exclusive rights to, as is the case with the slow progress in the developement and use of bacteriophages for phage therapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy
Scott says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/05/open-thread-weekend-plus-poll/#comment-977725
Henry says
I don’t want to frighten you guys (yet)
but I am expecting some cooling coming up…
especially noted from the decline in maximum temps
which nobody on this entire earth seem to be plotting….
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
In the world of education research, there are all kinds of peer reviewed papers that aren’t worth bird cage material. Bias is everywhere and articles are behind paywalls. So, the following website was developed to help the consuming public (us teacher types), throw out the chaff and keep the wheat for immediate action in our schools. Unfortunately, I know of district after district who ignores this website and prefers to go their own way with their pet beliefs (belief trumps data in all things). But I think this website is worth its weight in gold and would be a pretty good blue print for what should and should not see the light of day in a professional journal, let alone inside a school house.
The link is the part of the website that describes their review process for submitted research articles.
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ReviewProcess.aspx
Patrick says:
May 6, 2012 at 5:52 am
“The lecture started with a simple mention of the amount of energy potentially available from a gallon of gasoline …….”
——————————–
Reminds me of the story of Tom Ogle and his “100 miles on a gallon of gas” invention in the 1970’s:
http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/morgue/2008/04/200-miles-on-tw.html
New from weather is not climate:
Snow and Arctic temperatures bring Bank Holiday misery to Britain
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9246070/Snow-and-Arctic-temperatures-bring-Bank-Holiday-misery-to-Britain.html
Let me add that most peer review groups do not set their standards in such a way to keep out bad research. We’ve seen that here plenty in the reviews tackled in this meat grinder. If all research papers were routinely submitted and reviewed based on the standardized process (or something similar) used at ies.ed, many clubs and societies would go bankrupt from lack of papers getting published. On the upside, if all journals used such stringent reviews, we wouldn’t be in the economically depressed, over the budget, out of control DEQ, and high-priced energy mess we are in right now.
If Pamela Gray is on
Henry@Pamela
We did not finish talking the other day, so seeing this is an open thread I wanted to tell you this …..
[SNIP: Henry, I like the story, but opening up to this topic never ends well here. -REP]
Warmists were eager to point out that the Norwegian terrorist, Anders Breivik, is a climate change sceptic. So it didn’t take long for some sceptics to point out that the Unabomber is an articulate global warming alarmist. In fact, it is a challenge to distinguish excerpts of his writings from those of Al Gore.
For some fun, you can take the test here: http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html.
This is not to say that Kaczynski is VP material, or that Gore is unbalanced, only that they are strange bedfellows on this topic. So you can’t dismiss anyone’s views based on crazies who may share some of them.
Let’s get back to the debate. The null hypothesis is that climate is nature at work. Those who believe otherwise must present proof of AGW above and beyond natural variability.
Just like to say how much I love how informative and thorough WUWT is.
If I need a reference or link, or I’m in a debate and can’t recall the study or article I want to qoute or display, I know I have to look no further then this great site.
Happened just this morning. Was talking with a gentlemen who insisted Germanys “Green” energy production is fine, and the country is financially sound. I went to WUWT to find the references, as I remember this has been discussed extensivley. As it turns out, fellow commenters David Evans and David Jones were having a similar conversation on it on this very thread! The diversity of information on this site is amazing.
A big thanks to Anthony, the mods, guest posters and commenters who make this site one of the best on the net!
J. Felton says:
May 6, 2012 at 8:55 am
There is a feature on the Smithsonian Magazine website that is called 6 word stories. One subcategory, basically a call for readers to coin 6 word propaganda stories for the EPA to use royalty free, is especially fun to read and to post counter stories in.
WUWT is a mine of information which is not just science based, but which has actual data and supporting documentation available, something which is missing from any of the alarmist and propagandist posts found on the site. This mine at WUWT is a great boon to me as I post my stories on that page in an attempt to interject some dose of reality into the steady stream of wishful thinking, thoughtless religious belief and blind following of authority.
Thanks Anthony, and all the posters whether lead story writers or those like me who occasionally (or often) post here, and who provide an antidote to the jingoistic propaganda promoted elsewhere.
The Warmists have just begun:
Did dinosaurs cause climate change? Huge creatures may be to blame because they produced so much flatulence, say scientists
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2140323/Its-fault-Scientists-think-dinosaur-flatulence-partly-blame-climate-change.html#ixzz1u6mCNIqq
heh,heh
Then there’s that Groucho Marx quote: “I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member”.
Jim
Has Cryosphere Today erased all the sea ice data from 2007 ?
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=05&fd=05&fy=2007&sm=05&sd=05&sy=2007
Maybe the data is just too old and they needed computer space….
Julian Braggins says:
May 6, 2012 at 12:57 am
May 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You would be interested in Dr Mary Newport’s experience with coconut oil (non hydrogenated) with her husband who has Alzheimers. His mental capacity improved markedly within hours on the standard tests, and last I heard was doing fine. Based on research that was abandoned because it was not patentable. A search with her name and Alz. and coconut oil will bring up the news stories.
Not a preventative, but restores connections that are lost.
___________________
Thank you for the information.
There was something I wanted to tell you about… what was it… let’s see…
I answered maybe to the poll. I answered such because I’d much rather join a society that didn’t have any agenda, warmist or skeptical. I would join any society that actually lived up to the RS’ motto nullius in verba, or even genuinely strived to meet that standard. Position statements from society leadership would be limited to membership drives and annual reports. And while I’m dreaming, publishing a press release by the journal or society would be grounds for dismissal.
Will I ever see the day?
It’s a little sad that so many see the term, sceptical, (skeptical) as being anything other than open minded.
I am sceptical of CAGW but am open to persuasion because of my scepticism.
DaveE.
Jan P. Perlwitz
If your goal here is to “save” as many as possible from the “fake skeptics” would you mind answering a few questions?
Reading Hansen et al (2007), a paper you were a coauthor on: (If it’s really you)
“Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study”
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
I find it positively skeptical in comparison to Hansen et al (1988) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
For example, from 1988 to 2007 the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 used for projections went from 4.2 degrees Celsius to 2.9 degrees Celsius.
Yet it seems both papers do agree that we’re “close” to irreversibly damaging the climate system. Seems to me we’re perpetually “close” to the tipping point.
Anyway, in light of the above information, here are my questions:
Its 2012 now, are we still close or have we got there yet?
Were those skeptical of 4.2 degrees C sensitivity in 1988 “fakes” in your opinion even though they were “right” to be skeptical based on the “mainstream” reduction of said sensitivity since 1988?
Why are those of us that are skeptical of 2.9 degrees C sensitivity necessarily “fake”; is it completely beyond the realm of possibility that we have good reasons for concluding lower climate sensitivity than “mainstream” climate scientists based on the evidence?
Would you be too terribly insulted if instead of “mainstream” climate scientists I just used popular climate science?
Patrick says:
May 6, 2012 at 5:52 am
“Just a question that I hope someone could help me with. I read some time ago a lecture given by a professor on sources of energy and their relative energy densities (and usefulness). ”
Maybe this helps:
David Mackay: Without The Hot Air. He’s a prof and UK climate advisor so pretty green but his facts look good.
http://www.withouthotair.com/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
MicIntyre’s Yamal FOIA is paying off http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/
http://www.straight.com/article-677916/vancouver/stop-coal-activists-arrested-white-rock-protest-against-rail-shipments-delta
Huge rally!
Eco totalitarism claiming they are the 99%… LOL
In Norway many proffesions have joined up with socialism with great succsess.
Then they put the word social- in front of their “science/profession”.
The Team is thus Socialmeteorology?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/legal-challenge-to-mandated-renewable-energy-in-the-eu/
[Also posted on another thred]Slightly off current thread:
PostShow – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/26/getting-your-mind-right-in-australia-round-2/ which many of you remember from 26th April; it runs until end-May, and I guess many who are concerned about Australia – her future, her sanity – have already voted.
Latest [2148 Z – 6th May ’12]
Dismissive 50%
Alarmed 23%
Concerned 13%
Doubtful 9%
Cautious 4%
Disengaged 1%
5003 votes counted
Don’t forget – Australian postcode needed;
one site – not alwys 100% reliable – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcodes_in_Australia
kbray in california says:
May 6, 2012 at 10:44 am
They told me that they have some disk server problems. I think they’re displaying stale data. There daily data ends with April 28.
I changed an image on the sea ice reference page to report the problem. I’m about to change the comparison image to be something from NSIDC. More later.
I haven’t time to read all the comments but would suggest that such a ‘new’ organization should attempt to recreate real scientific peer review, but with the added bonus of the reviews also being available for reading. In the context of climate skepticism, I feel this is of vital importance, as reviewers cannot hide behind annonymity or use a pal review system without due diligence and written justification of their comments. It would also be better if the review panel were ‘balanced’ and hence reviewers comments can be seen to be from different sides of the divide. Perhaps a ‘double’ review system could be employed – such as one for the nitty gritty science – and one for the interpretation of said science within the context of the ‘headlined’ theme?
apologies if others have said similar things..
regards to all
Kev
Faux Science Slayer says:
May 5, 2012 at 2:43 pm
……Engineers in particular have the required technical ability, coupled with REAL world experience to be meaningful in this debate. When I began science writting over three years ago, some mentioned that I was not a scientist.
MY REPLY: “Engineers have as much Physics as a Physics major, as much Chemistry as a Chemistry major and as much Math as a Math major. Therefore, a ‘scientist’ is an engineer that did not want to go to school an extra year.”….
___________________________________
AMEN, My college required an extra year and MORE math, physics and chemistry for Chem Eng than for Chemists and a BS in Chemistry had a lot more math, physics and chemistry than a teaching cert. in education with a chemistry major.
Nice to hear that PrincipiaScientificInternational.org exists. Thanks for the pointer.
I pulled the pin on my New Scientist subscription, which I’d maintained for 7 years. The ‘tipping point’ was an article on rising sea level inundating traditional gardens in the Pacific Islands of Vanuatu, reportedly caused by AGW of course. WRONG! I have visited many of the islands in Vanuatu on many occasions. All are volcanic in origin, many are very seismically active and are home to some very vocal volcanoes and regular tremors which get you out of bed like no alarm clock. One can be hundreds of metres above sea level and see the remains of coral reefs. So clearly massive uplift due to seismic activity is happening. Where there is uplift, there is usually corresponding subsidence in the near vicinity. Then of course there is isostasy, the sinking of all large volcanic islands formed on the thin oceanic crust, due to the massive weight of the cone. This is not a new concept – Charles Darwin recognised it during his voyage on the Beagle. Were any of the above seismic factors mentioned in the New Scientist article? No. Only the climate change angle (rising sea level) was touted as the cause. Absolutely pathetic! I picked up a New Scientist the other day. I was pleased to see I had made the right decision. The pro-AGW angle was even more overt.
I can understand a commercial product like New Scientist tailoring its output to suit a particular target demographic, and thus maximise sales. I would imagine many of their current readership are: single; 20+ somethings; no kids; still living at home with mum and dad in a centrally heated/air conditioned middle class home; are absolutely committed to changing the world; are appalled by the excesses of modern consumerist society and the huge environmental footprints of big corporations; constantly blog about their climate change concerns on their iPads and discuss green issues with their like-minded friends on their iPhones while watching edgy BBC documentaries on wind power and evil coal/oil companies on their big screen Sony TV. That’s fine, as long New Scientist does not expect to be treated like a serious scientific journal. The problem is, some of the serious scientific journals/societies seem to be doing the same thing. Fortunately, the professional societies to which I belong have so far resisted the temptation to join the AGW band-wagon. Rest assured, should they adopt a public pro-AGW ‘position’ without at least consulting the membership, then I shall take my quid elsewhere.
Gail Combs says:
May 6, 2012 at 3:21 pm (responding to)
Faux Science Slayer says:
May 5, 2012 at 2:43 pm
……Engineers in particular have the required technical ability, coupled with REAL world experience to be meaningful in this debate. When I began science writting over three years ago, some mentioned that I was not a scientist.
MY REPLY: “Engineers have as much Physics as a Physics major, as much Chemistry as a Chemistry major and as much Math as a Math major. Therefore, a ‘scientist’ is an engineer that did not want to go to school an extra year.”….
Nay, nay. 8<)
See, a "scientist" does not need to ever leave his/her laboratory. Does not ever need to be responsible for the results of his/her decisions and abilities, nor for any economic or real-world results of his/her publications and reactions, nor for ANYTHING except getting funding for his/her next project. (Given, that is, that a "scientist" is paid to be a "scientist" and nothing practical nor effective nor economic – as seen by the fact that ALL of the CAGW community actually ARE paid BY their government-paid bureacracies using government-paid computers at government-paid research centers and universities to get government-favored CAGW results based on research applications to their government funding agencies to CREATE research that will inevitably favor government-issued tax increases and economic controls.)
An engineer, in contrast, is paid – if and only if – he or she can produce a PRODUCT or SERVICE (NOT just an "idea" or a "research paper or a "class" or a "research project"!) that his/her supervisor can sell to another group for profit.
The ugly nature of those two features – the concept of an engineer building a real-world workable and designed "product" that can be economically-(real-world) built using (real-world) materials and (real-world) processes and tooling for a real-world "customer" has NO comparable feature in the CAGW communities. there, "I am a scientist with published papers" IS their truth and ultimate version of credibility. That their ideas and theories fail utterly and without exception is meaningless to the CAGW community. "THEY" have the force of their ideas and their righteous nature of "being correct" and "having many papers" written into their self-funding, self-propagating illusion of a reality based only of theory and "perfect" models of ever-increasing accuracy and realism.
In the real world, no CAGW "scientist" can "do" anything. Except his/her ideas ARE deadly, and are now killing millions and ham-stringing billions from a free life of better economics, better comfort and better health.
Robert of Ottawa says:
May 5, 2012 at 3:45 pm
I’m not American, so I have no place in this poll. However, if it were about Canadian or UK institutions, I’d certainly say YES.
____________________________________
Since when does a journal have to be about one nationality? I see no reason a scientific journal could not be international in scope.
David Ball says:
May 5, 2012 at 5:24 pm
vukcevic says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I noticed you have some traction with your ideas at RC. I urge you to be careful on that side of the fence. Certainly do not give up on us over here.
___________________________
I will second that. I always look forward to Vukcevic’s contributions and new graphs.
This is interesting and relevant …
An internal study by the U.S. EPA completed by Dr. Alan Carlin and John Davidson concluded the IPCC was wrong about global warming. One statement in the executive summary stated that a 2009 paper found that the crucial assumption in the Greenhouse Climate Models (GCM) used by the IPCC concerning a strong positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the feedback is actually negative. Water vapor in the atmosphere causes a cooling effect, not a warming one. Carbon dioxide also causes a slight cooling effect but it so small it could never be measured by man’s instrumentation.
EPA tried to bury the report. An email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Dr. Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbade him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues. In a March 17 email from McGartland to Carlin, stated that he will not forward Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator (Lisa Jackson) and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. …. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” A second email from McGartland stated “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”
McGartland’s emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Dr. Carlin’s study because its conclusions ran counter to the EPA’s current position. Yet this study had its basis in three prior reports by Carlin (two in 2007 and one in 2008) that were accepted. Another government cover-up, just what the United States does not need.
Eliminate this regulation immediately. This is a scientific tragedy.
mfo says: @ May 6, 2012 at 7:27 am
….Reminds me of the story of Tom Ogle and his “100 miles on a gallon of gas” invention in the 1970′s…..
________________________
I dated a metallurgist in the 1980’s whose company came up with a gadget that allowed a 8 cylinder gas guzzler to get well over 50 MPG. We went out to dinner to celebrate the first successful trial run. Needless to say it never saw the light of day. Ever notice how no matter what “improvements” are made real MPG never makes it much past 30 MPG? This despite my heavy 1976 olds cutlass V8 with a carburetor getting 26 MPG.
Since this is an open thread, I submit the following:
Take vension back strap and cut into medium sized “stew” chunks. Really knead in a good spicy steak or seafood rub then brown the meat pieces in a good quality fresh from the shelf oil till browned on both sides.
Place meat, some dried chopped onion, some roasted garlic, and a good quality beefy flavored beer and some red wine to cover and let simmer in a crock pot on high for at least 4 hours. If it gets a bit overwhelming flavor wise, add a bit of water. At some point in the cooking I like to add sun dried tomatoes. You could be drinking the rest of the six pack at this point in time with friends. Ask them to bring crusty bread to serve later when the stew is done.
Then about hour 3 saute your favorite mushrooms and add that. Take about a cup of the liquid from the pot and add some cold water to it to cool it down a bit and add some flour. Whisk this together and put it all back into the pot. Let it cook some more (for an hour, no more), stirring every once in a while. Depending on how much flour you used, it should thicken to the consistency of cream.
Meanwhile, choose your veggies of choice and cut into big bite sized pieces. Now this part is really important. At the end of hour 4 of the crock pot, spray a large shallow pan with oil. Add veggies. Spray them with oil. Sprinkle some more of that rub you used on the venison onto the veggies and then broil them all till lightly browned and crusty, stirring at least once during the broiling. Let them cool to luke warm and turn off the crock pot too. When the veggies are luke warm, add to the stew and serve immediately with crusty bread and some more beer.
Yum!
Taphonomic says:
May 6, 2012 at 7:35 am
New from weather is not climate:
Snow and Arctic temperatures bring Bank Holiday misery to Britain
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9246070/Snow-and-Arctic-temperatures-bring-Bank-Holiday-misery-to-Britain.html
_____________________________
Thanks for the link.
Mother Nature is certainly raining on the global warming parade. She seems to be our best ally.
Citrus growers sweating extended California freeze 01/17/2012
Pat (May 6 9:37): Thanks for linking the dino fart article. I wonder if some prankster has gotten into the middle of the warmist circles?
I bought a new Citroen Saxo 1.4litre Diesel. I drove 120,000 miles in it and kept a log of all the diesel I bought and the milage. The day I got rid of it the average MPG over its whole life was 63mpg. Trouble was it was really too small for me as I am 6ft 2. My present 1.5litre Diesel Renault Senic is averaging 52mpg, or that’s what the onboard computer tells me.
These guys never give up – latest BBC science news is that dinosaur farting (CH4) kept the triassic and Jurassic warm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792
Nothing to do with continent configuration, plants etc – just dinosaur farts.
Kelvin Vaughan says:
May 7, 2012 at 1:59 am
I bought a new Citroen Saxo 1.4litre Diesel. I drove 120,000 miles in it and kept a log of all the diesel I bought and the milage. The day I got rid of it the average MPG over its whole life was 63mpg. Trouble was it was really too small for me as I am 6ft 2. My present 1.5litre Diesel Renault Senic is averaging 52mpg, or that’s what the onboard computer tells me.
________________________
I had a 1982 VW pick-up diesel that got 51 MPG. I now have a small dodge dakota 4 cylinder (gas) pick-up about the same size and it gets at best 21 MPG.
1998 Dodge data: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Dodge1998.shtml
Here are the MPGs for US vehicles in 2011 – Sorted Highest to Lowest Combined MPG on page two is a list of 4 cylinder Compact Cars that get no better gas milage than my 1976 V8 dodge cutlass (27 MPG over life of vehicle) that was much larger and heavier.
Given vehicles have gone from being built of steel with carburetors and catalytic converters in 1976 to being built of much lighter weight composites with fuel injectors and on board computers, you would think the MPG would be a heck of a lot better especially with those small four cylinder engines.
David Ball
&
Gail Combs
Thanks for the note of confidence, I hope to be at WUWT as long as I don’t transgress. On RC they tolerate about one post a month, the rest ends ignominiously in the RC’s ‘bore hole’. Challenges by Dr.S here sharpen the mind (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/nasahathaways-updated-solar-cycle-prediction-smallest-in-100-years/#comment-976787 onwards), we disagree but get on fine.
No, I would not.
See jon shively May 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm.
Not sure where to post this, but I don’t think anyone has mentioned the Guardian article on Diageo no longer funding Heartland. I don’t really have a problem with them spending their money any way they choose. But I was outraged that they would say the reason was they are opposed to skeptical science. I really don’t get that. They only support subjective touchy feely science that is not subject to sceptical peer review? Very odd. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/06/diageo-end-funding-heartland-institute
Well, I have about four more Guinesses in my refrigerator. I think they may be the last I ever drink.
LexingtonGreen says:
May 7, 2012 at 2:08 pm
agreed, their ‘excuse’ is pitiful.
Gail Combs says:
May 7, 2012 at 5:24 am
In 1978, I had a Robin Reliant Supervan III – IIRC it was 600cc 4 cyl OHV engine and on a long steady run (60+mph) I could get almost 100mpg just by backing off on the throttle and ‘feeling’ the engine. Currently, I have a skoda fabia greenline 1.2TD 3 cyl diesel returns on average 65-70mpg. The phrase ‘one step forwards and 2 steps backwards’ springs readily to mind…..
ppfffttt. Got a gas Jeep Grand Cherokee that gets 16 mpg. Love every bit of this big bad boy.
Just saw this SheerWind, might be interesting. A different way to harvest the wind power?
Basically its a wind collector that grabs the gusts, routs it into a pipe, and then compresses the flow through a turbine.
http://www.sheerwinds.com
From the Website:
“SheerWind is changing the course of power generation and will transform the wind power industry with breakthrough performance and reduced cost of power generation.
SheerWind’s unique, patented technology, INVELOX captures, accelerates, concentrates, and generates electrical power while wind is at its optimum state of energy. INVELOX, named for INcreased VELocity of wind, captures wind as a fluid to provide hydroelectric economics from accelerated air flow to produce electricity cheaper than natural gas and a cut-in wind speed as low as 2 mph transforming wind energy into a reliable, baseload power source. This means the total market for INVELOX power plants will be as big as the total electric power market (traditional and renewable) that is about $250 billion in USA and exceeds $1 trillion globally.
SheerWind turns wind power on its head by taking the blades and turbines out of the sky and placing them at ground level creating positive economic, environmental and social benefits. INVELOX is a true game changer that reduces the cost of generated electrical power by 16% to 38% with 3x improved performance on 50% shorter towers placed on 90% less acreage, is operated and maintained at 40% to 45% lower costs, and uses 84% shorter turbine blades than traditional wind power generation systems. As a result, SheerWind won the Sustainability Award in the 2011 Cleantech Open – North Central Region.”
I stay sceptical, but its worth noting. Maybe at least fewer birds are harvested.
(I dunno if this comment was gobbled during the login)
Over at FarmShow Magazine, i caught a glimpse of a new kind of windmill
http://www.farmshow.com/a_article.php?aid=25459
“First Underground Windmill
Birds and bats have nothing to fear from a Minnesota startup company’s new underground windmill. Inventor Daryoush Allaei got the idea while working on a method of reducing vibration of conventional wind turbine blades. The new design he came up with works by funneling wind down into a tunnel in a way that increases …”
Here’s the followup info for this story:
Name: Daryoush Allaei
Website: http://www.sheerwinds.com
Looks like a Double vortex funnel tube in the air that grabs the wind, draws it down into a tunnel and then compresses through a turbine. See pictures and descriptions at SheerWinds website.
Seems interesting.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/02/12/potential-temperature/#comment-17122
Pamela Gray says:
May 7, 2012 at 7:26 pm
ppfffttt. Got a gas Jeep Grand Cherokee that gets 16 mpg. Love every bit of this big bad boy.
_________________________
Oh I also have two (1991 & 92) dodges with Cummins diesel engines a 3/4 ton (mine) and a dually (his) they get around 20-22 mpg when not hauling trailers. We are buying another Dodge 1/2 ton 1987 with a 318 with a holley carb. as a “spare” hauling vehicle sometime this week. For some reason we seem to be collecting dodge pick-ups since we gave up on cars.
On the other hand I lust after your jeep.
You will wait long and long for someone with a degree in climatology; it’s a pretend neologistic title the CRU Hokey Team applies (only) to itself. But you would wait forever for a “climatalogist” [sic].
>;-p