We all know how the warmists like to avoid debating at all costs. In this case, the easily agitated to effervescence – blow your top Romm was aptly represented at a “Drinks and Debate” in Washington, DC by the perfect debate proxy stand in.
Myron Ebell of globalwarming.org explains in his post: Continue reading
UPDATE: Josh adds a cartoon and writes:
An extraordinary quote from a Scottish Wind Farm Landowner.
But with recent news that wind farms have been paid a secret £13 million compensation to shut down over the last few months it is no wonder all those in the industry are hearing the clink of cash above the roar of the turbines.
If you are wondering what a wind turbine sounds like and what a blight it can be watch this short video.
If, like me, you love birds then you might find this video a bit too sad.But this will cheer you up a bit … and this one.
=============================
FROM EPAW:
Tricks are used to allow wind farms too close to habitations
In an email replying to the European Platform against Windfarms (EPAW), world-leading specialist in low-frequency sound Professor Henrik Moller of Aalborg University denounces the improper acoustic measurements carried out by Danish authorities. As a result, he says, the new regulations for wind farm noise are not in line with industrial noise standards.
According to EPAW, this effectively constitutes discrimination against wind farm neighbors, which now have less protection than other citizens – in Denmark, but also in those countries that may take their cues from the small kingdom.
Henrik Moller and his team of acousticians have been consulted by DEPA, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. But their recommendations have been ignored: “We had many objections to the proposal, but none of these were accommodated in the final version” (1). Answering a question from EPAW, the Professor explains how the new regulations will not effectively enforce the 20 dB(A) limit of low-frequency noise levels regarding wind farms, but that this limit is indeed being applied to other industries (2). Notes Mark Duchamp, of EPAW: “In reality, this is a case of double standards.”
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Like Jason, I proceed into the unknown with my look at the Argo data, and will post random notes as I voyage.
Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die.
I have no great insights at this point, just some interesting results. Thanks to a commenter who pointed me to where to get the Argo data in one block. It’s at the Asia-Pacific Data-Research Center.
I downloaded it, and I’ve looked first at the file containing the surface data. It’s where I swim, so it’s the most interesting data to me. Figure 1 shows all Argo measurements of the ocean surface temperature taken to date.
Figure 1. All Argo ocean surface temperature data. There have been 696,872 Argo measurements to date of the ocean surface temperature.
So far, so good. The results look real, which is always good to see, it means I’ve graphed them up properly. You can see the warm ocean along the coast of Europe, for example. But there is one curiosity about the Argo data.
Guest post by Dr. Pat Michaels – reposted (with permission) from World Climate Report
A new paper just published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roger Davies and Mathew Molloy of the University of Auckland finds that over the past decade the global average effective cloud height has declined and that “If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming.”
Davies and Molloy are quick to point out that part of the decline from 2000 to 2010 in cloud height is due to the timing and variability of El Niño/La Niña events over the same period, however, there still seems to be evidence that at least part of the decline may remain even when El Niño/La Niña variability is accounted for.
Figure 1 (below) shows the history of the effective cloud height, as determined by Davies and Molloy from satellite observations, from March 2000 through February 2010.
Figure 1. Deseasonalized anomalies of global effective cloud-top height from the 10-year mean. Solid line: 12-month running mean of 10-day anomalies. Dotted line: linear regression. Gray error bars indicate the sampling error (±8 m) in the annual average (source: Davies and Molloy, 2012). Continue reading
Josh is moved by the revelations of the lack of Himalayan glacier melt in the last 10 years to do some voodoo cartooning. Continue reading
“More than 500 volcanic vents have been identified in the State of California. At least 76 of these vents have erupted, some repeatedly, during the last 10,000 years. … Sooner or later, volcanoes in California will erupt again, and they could have serious impacts on the health and safety of the State’s citizens as well as on its economy.” Miller, C. Dan, 1989, Potential Hazards from Future Volcanic Eruptions in California: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1847, 17p.
MENLO PARK, Calif. — The U.S. Geological Survey announces the establishment of the USGS California Volcano Observatory, or CalVO, headquartered within existing USGS facilities in Menlo Park, Calif. Establishing CalVO will increase awareness of and resiliency to the volcano threats in California, many of which pose significant threats to the economy and well being of the state and its inhabitants.
“By uniting the research, monitoring, and hazard assessment for all of the volcanoes that pose a threat to the residents of California, CalVO will provide improved hazard information products to the public and decision makers alike,” explained USGS director Marcia McNutt. “This realignment is part of the USGS’s efforts to build the National Volcano Early Warning System, a prioritized modernization of USGS volcano monitoring enabled through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.”
This is a note to point out that Nikolov and Zeller have written a rebuttal to Willis Eschenbach’s Mystery of Equation 8. They submitted the manuscript to me two days ago, there were some very angry passages in it, and one in particular that had a semantic wordplay that we don’t publish here by site policy.
I asked them to tone it down, and they refused and were adamant (yesterday evening) that I was wrong to even suggest such a thing. So I offered it to Tallbloke’s Talkshop since I didn’t want to publish it “as is”. I also still have big problems with (my viewpoint) the theory apparently violating the law of conservation of energy.
Oddly, N&Z’s essay has been toned down somewhat there and the reference I objected to replaced, so I guess they heeded my concerns. So in fairness, I’m pointing it out. Discuss it there at this link.
to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.
