Open thread weekend

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

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

Latitude

May 26, 2011
No Long-term Trend in Atlantic Hurricane Numbers
Short-duration storms are presently identified much more readily than they were, say, prior to the satellite era
If the Atlantic tropical cyclone history is divided up into “shorties” and, we guess, “longies,” something very interesting pops out. Over the entire record, there is a big upward trend in the number of “shorties” but there is no trend in the annual number of “longies”
Obviously, lumping the two together would produce an apparent upward trend in the total annual number of tropical storms and hurricanes—and give fuel for the fire which burns for those trying to develop a link to anthropogenic global warming.
This situation is akin to the observed record of tornadoes in the U.S.—the number of weak tornadoes has increased markedly in the last half century, while the number of strong tornadoes shows no such behavior
The positive trend in total annual number of tornadoes is driven not by climate change (as some would have you believe), but instead by changing observational methods.
“”Our results provide a context for interpreting studies exploring trend behavior in the North Atlantic tropical storm activity starting prior to the 1940s. In particular, the conclusions of certain studies reporting large secular increases in North Atlantic tropical storm activity in which shorties are included [e.g., Holland and Webster, 2007; Mann et al., 2007] could be affected by what we interpret as likely spurious nonphysical trends unless an alternative physical explanation can be uncovered for the pronounced increase in shorties starting from the middle of the 20th century. Further, statistical models of tropical storm activity built using century‐scale records that include shorties [e.g., Mann et al., 2007; Sabbatelli and Mann, 2007; Mann et al., 2009] likely include an element reflecting the spurious shorties in the record.””
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/05/26/no-long-term-trend-in-atlantic-hurricane-numbers/

Jeff Wood

Good work, TN. Sometimes all it needs is for a nonsense to be challenged, briefly and frankly, for the nonsense to be reconsidered.
Is it just me, or are there fewer warming scare ads being thrown up by Google under the new posts?

In my book, “Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather,” I tell the story of courageous scientists bucking the odds to create the tornado, hurricane, and aviation warning systems that save so many lives.
Unfortunately, in many cases, local officials are watering down the effectiveness of tornado warnings by grossly overusing tornado sirens and that may be causing complacency when the “real thing” threatens. I have a three-part series on my blog with the first posting the night before the Joplin tornado.
http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/05/sectorize-sirens-please.html
http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-on-selective-tornado-siren.html
http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/05/selective-siren-activation-part-3.html

Latitude

VLT (very large telescope) time lapse…….

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

TerryS

I’ve seen many different claims for the half-life of CO₂ in the atmosphere ranging from 24 to 100s of years. I thought that given this I would attempt to calculate it on a purely mathematical basis.
If you know how much CO₂ is in the atmosphere when it reaches a steady state (that is the amount entering the atmosphere is the same as the amount leaving it) and you know how much enters the atmosphere in a given time period then you can calculate the half-life.
h = half life of CO₂ (in years)
y = CO₂ added to atmosphere annually
r = CO₂ resident in atmosphere
x = hy (Amount of CO₂ added to atmosphere every half life period)
After n half-lifes of adding x CO₂ to the atmosphere we have this amount resident:
r = x(2⁰ + 2⁻¹ + 2⁻² + 2⁻³ + .. + 2⁻ⁿ) which approaches 2x for large values of n
But this assumes that the CO₂ is added as a lump sum every period h. If we
add x/2 twice over the half life period instead we get:
r = x/2 * (2⁰ + 2⁻⁰·⁵ + 2⁻¹ + 2⁻¹·⁵ + .. + 2⁻ⁿ) which approaches 1.71x for large values of n
In fact as you increase the number of times you add CO₂ this approaches x(1/ln(2)) so we end up with:
r = x/ln(2)
Substitute hy for x:
r = hy/ln(2)
Rearrange
h = r * ln(2) / y
In words this means the the half life of CO₂ in the atmosphere is equal to the stable amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere times the natural log of 2 divided by the annual amount of CO₂ from natural sources.
Various sources claim that CO₂ levels where at about 300ppm (or about 2500Gt) for several hundred years prior to industrialisation. According to the IPCC, natural sources add 771Gt of CO₂ to the atmosphere annually. If we put this into the equation we get:
h = 2500*ln(2)/771 = 2.25 years
What this means in practical terms is that if CO₂ levels reached 600ppm and we suddenly stopped producing any more then within 25 years CO₂ levels would be back to pre-industrial levels.

John M

Seein’s as this is an open thread, I would like to propose a new term.
We’ve recently seen climate scientists and their friends rushing to embrace the term “Anthropocene” for the new human-induced climate epoch.
Given the funding involved, most if not all of it at the public trough, I would like to propose instead that we call it the “Anthroporcine” climate epoch (man/pork climate).
I also claim the alternative spelling, “Anthroporcene”.

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

Latitude.
Simply awesome.
VLT (Very Large Thanks)

I’ve been listening to an Audible book named, “Particle Physics: A Short Introduction”.
For the most part, I really don’t understand what is going on. But, I have picked up a little that might interest you. In brief there is a whole new world in particle physics.
Most people take it for granted that the smallest identifiable unit of an element is an atom. An atom is made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Simple, huh? Even I can remember that.
How things have changed. Now, we know that there are smaller particles called quarks. Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, and that is about as small as you can get. I think.
What this means is that when the universe was created in the Big Bang, all sorts of matter and anti-matter was created. Whatever particle you want to discuss has it’s negative equivalent.
Negative equivalents? What’s that all about?
Think of it this way.
In the beginning there was nothing. Then the Big Bang happened, and for every little particle of matter or quanta of energy created, an evil twin exists. What is so cool is that if you could add up everything in the universe, it would all cancel out. Simple math, there.
The universe is expanding. When it reaches its limit, it will start to shrink and accelerate in the other direction. It will shrink until everything meets in the center. When that happens, all that matter will collide with all that anti-matter, and everything will cancel out.
Get that? We will be cancelled! Erased! Snuffed! Disappeared like we never existed!
So, POOF! There we go, and there will be nothing left to clean up.
Enjoy your holiday weekend.

Kevin Kilty

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

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

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

Kevin Kilty

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

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

Kevin Kilty

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

TerryS (and everyone else)
I have been running a thread over at Judith Curry’s blog entitled
‘The futility of carbon reduction?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#comment-71141
I ask the question;
” Temperatures are expected to rise by 3 degree Centigrade because of actions we have already taken. If the world collectively closed down their carbon economies what temperature reduction could be achieved?
a) By 2100 b) By 2200
People will need to read the article to see the full context, but basically if anyone here could supply an answer- whether through their own calculations or copied from elsewhere- it would be good to narrow the current band of betwen one tenth amd 1 degree Centigrade reduction.
As only 20% of the world is ever likely to reduce their carbon by 20% (and that mostly by exporting their jobs to someone other country who will emit on their behalf)the end result is likely to be vanishingly small for a huge outlay.
Comments welcome . Thanks
tonyb

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

NikFromNYC

A whole slew of recollections of AGW enthusiast machinations came back to me a couple days ago so I recorded them on a single poster to sort of get them all out of my head into a single container.
Authority: http://oi56.tinypic.com/25ja614.jpg
I wonder what I’m leaving out that can be summarized in a soundbite?

DirkH

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

batheswithwhales

A couple of videos from the green movement. The new wave of “Climate communication” i guess. Visually appealing, but in essence nonsensical, of course.
Especially interesting in a creepy way is the first one, advocating some sort of online airy-faerie community, asking people to “swarm”. It is a hopeless idea, but these projects still seem to generate funds for the “creative” class so they can play around.
Enjoy.

Orson

In a recent post at Bishop-hill, we find a link to an Australian radio interview program with Naomi Oreskes, and Australian Broadcasting’s presenter “Dr. Karl.”
Time and time again, we see that global warming fears and alarm are sustained by hypostatized theories (ie, conjectural models taken as fact), lacking sound supporting evidence – but too often plenty of the cherry picked sort of “evidence.” This is followed by loud assertions filled with confirmation bias (the post hoc fallacy). At its base lies the Enhanced Greenhouse Hypothesis (EGH), which is assumed to be a soundly established fact. (See The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect” But in reality, it needs sustained scientific confirmation, which is lacking, as critics point out. Circular reasoning – assuming what isn’t in evidence – thereby substitutes for testing through falsification and surviving serious criticism. This is what we see in this hour interview in spades.
Professor Oreskes and Dr. Karl agree that the measured and increasing CO2 should accelerate the hydrodrological cycle. Thus, producing more floods as well as droughts currently seen in Pakistan, the US, and Australia, respectively.
But do we? One nice, precise, fact to emerge from Fall and Watts (et al)’s new JGR paper from the surfacesations.org project undermines a key AGW finding even skeptical climatologists like Robert Balling and Pat Michaels. Namely, the best US stations data do not confirm one foundational “fact” consistent with the EGH.
The study’s results, say Watts, “suggest that the DTR [Diurnal or daily Temperature Range] in the United States has not decreased due to global warming, and that analyses to the contrary were at least partly contaminated by station siting problems.”
(See Fall and Watts, et al, ”According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend”. Watts claim is softened, calling this a “tentative” finding needing further confirmation. Still, if it holds up, this is perhaps the most startling and consequential finding of the entire surfacestations.org volunteer project. In a comment, Watts states: “The IPCC made significant use of DTR as a metric for AGW, and [study co-author] John N-G talked about the history of that in context.” Watts also links to three other climatologists discussion about its importance to the IPPCs reigning “orthodoxy.”)
Many previous studies have shown that over the decades late in the last century, diurnal (ie, daily) temperature spreads between the measured high and low temps, have narrowed. In the EGH, the increased heating has to go somewhere, and thus it goes into accelerating the hydrological cycle: more and stronger rains, and more droughts in between – in order to dissipate increased heat produced by rising man-made CO2 gases. Or at least so says the theory.
But this new and much more data quality-driven look at US temperatures by Fall and Watts undermines this well-established fact: the best maintained temperature stations do not show a decreasing diurnal temperature range. Instead, the measured narrowing is at least somewhat an effect of land use change or urban heat island effects. In other words, according to the best data, this key fact supporting the EGH resulting in global warming is wrong.
If EGH cannot be detected at a closely and carefully measured level, how much confidence should go into believing that a more dynamic weather is caused by AGW, like Oreskes and Dr. Karl claim? Probably little: AGW effects like the EGH should be much more measurable now than it is, if the climate is sensitive to increasing CO2 levels.
Oreskes and Dr. Karl thus join in the orgy of fad-filled hysteria over a snowy winter, a high flood spring melt, and a half-century record-setting tornado season, all this year. Yet all three events contradict the projections of global warming models touted by warmists, and none of which finds empirical support in long-term records. Perhaps the EGH is crumbing, even as the Sirens sing.

Political Junkie

Let me second the motion. TonyB’s piece on Curry’s blog is a very good read.
I hope Anthony picks up this topic also.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#comment-71141

MattB

Well from the weather is not climate department:
The Bridger-Teton National Forest Avalanche Center is fully staffed to warn outdoors enthusiasts.
“May snow depths are deeper than anything we have seen in the last 45 years,” said avalanche center spokesman Bob Comey.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20110527/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_memorial_day_snow

Jim D

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

An editorial from the Idso brothers, backs up Anthony’s recent post on warmer temperatures and increasing CO2 in trees.
…Clearly, once the photosynthesis-promoting and transpiration-reducing impacts of atmospheric CO2 enrichment kick-in, so to speak, and shrubs begin to grow in arid and semi-arid lands — even without being planted there by man — a whole host of additional beneficial phenomena begin to operate, hastening the ongoing greening of the earth that is currently in process of transforming the terrestrial surface of the planet. http://pindanpost.com/2011/05/28/greening-of-th…increasing-co2/
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
UPDATE: A recent greening of the Sahel—trends patterns and potential …
UPDATE2 Desert Heat, a Pindan Post article on the vegetation of the
Great Sandy Desert after 2 hot years and higher CO2.

J

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

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

batheswithwhales

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

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

Cheers
Bathes.

rbateman

tonyb says:
May 28, 2011 at 8:36 am
Temperature are predicted to rise 3C.
They have not done so yet.
I believe we are currently at 0C, having fallen 1C from the last El Nino despite the 395ppm CO2 trace in the atmosphere.
How do you extrapolate a zero-sum game?

Andrew30

This is the American memorial; day weekend, a time of barbeques, football and leisure. Take a moment during your activities to recall why it is a pause from work.
On May 5th of 2011, just a few days ago the last known combatant from World War One died.
His name was Claude Stanley Choules, he was 110 years old.
When Claude Stanley Choules died the fighting of World War One passed forever from human memory in to human history.
I have just a few words that I would like to say to all the people like Claude who posses the courage and conviction to stand in place and not yield to oppression.
I appreciate everything that all of you did even though I do not know your names. I live in your legacy.
You now join with the long fallen members your squad, your troop, your unit, your army and your war. They have waited for you for a long time.
May you all now, together, Rest in Peace.
I have not forgotten and I will not forget.
I thank you for my freedom.

R. Gates

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

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

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

F. Ross

Open thread conjecture.
Much of recent news is about the devastating tornadoes in our nation and the often tragic aftermath.
So far as I am aware no one else has considered this idea.
I wonder if any entity in the megajoule laser research establishment has considered using this type weapon against tornadoes? It seems to me that one or more pulses of high energy directed at several different levels of a tornado in a short time period might disrupt its self sustaining vortex.
Naturally, if workable it would require a largish fleet of ground-/air-based platforms.
Sci-Fi? Sure. Possible? Maybe.
In addition, if workable, it would give researchers a chance to apply some of their science to practical solutions as well as giving the taxpayer some directly tangible return on his money. The benefit to possible tornado victims …priceless.

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

Oops: this pic.

Brian H

Kevin Kilty says:
May 28, 2011 at 8:36 am
Oh the typos…”minutes” and “would” in my last post. Why can we not have an editing capacity like they do on the WSJ?

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

Brian H

bob says:
May 28, 2011 at 12:03 pm
j said: “hey bob,
It was a matter of debate whether the universe would fall back into itself, but I think it is generally understood now that there will not be a big crunch.”
Darned, j, I thought I had stumbled on the biggest thing about life, that it doesn’t matter. Oh, well. I will have to listen to the book, again, to see if I can pick up on additional misunderstandings.

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

R Gates
Thanks for your kind comments about the article.
Not meaning to take your comments out of context you say;
“I think a meaningful estimate is impossible as there are too many other unknowns both in term of our knowledge of climate and the fact that we’re dealing with a chaotic system.”
We are being asked to make profound changes for a profound cost without- seemingly- the technical means to achieve it. Your comments are very similar to the blogger on the Climate etc thread called ‘Pekkala.’ His remark was greeted with some incredulity.
I would like to believe that I am the first prerson ever to attempt a cost benefit analysis of the real costs and realities of our brave new carbon reduced world. However, I am coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that many in the climate change hierarchy have been this way before but as they didn’t like the answers they decided it was best to keep quiet.
It would be nice if you, or Joel Shore, or indeed anyone, could reassure me that our sacrifices are worth while and provide some plausible figures that support this case.
Here is the link again
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#comment-71141
tonyb

Jimbo

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

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

R Gates
BrianH-who I see has posted some comments here- has just posted an excellent link on to my article.
“Reaching waaayy back, there is a cost benefit analysis, by a warmer than lukewarmista, no less: Nordhaus.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
Summary: even assuming AGW and its costs and mitigation’s benefits, mitigation is a major loser.”
Well worth a read as it would seem there is no economic OR scientific justification to our aggressive carbon mitigation policy
tonyb

DirkH

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

pat

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

Political Junkie

TonyB,
I’m curious as to whether your piece has received any comment on “warmist” sites, or whether it would be worth your while to try posting there.
I agree that many must have gone down this path before but have elected not to make theior findings public.
Have you done a search for peer reviwed papers on the topic? It seems incongruous that there wouldn’t be any!

DirkH

TonyB says:
May 28, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“We are being asked to make profound changes for a profound cost without- seemingly- the technical means to achieve it. Your comments are very similar to the blogger on the Climate etc thread called ‘Pekkala.’ His remark was greeted with some incredulity.
I would like to believe that I am the first prerson ever to attempt a cost benefit analysis of the real costs and realities of our brave new carbon reduced world.
However, I am coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that many in the climate change hierarchy have been this way before but as they didn’t like the answers they decided it was best to keep quiet.
It would be nice if you, or Joel Shore, or indeed anyone, could reassure me that our sacrifices are worth while and provide some plausible figures that support this case.”
Hi TonyB; while i think AGW is the biggest scientific scam since the Piltdown Man, i do track the viability of wind and solar and storage solutions for business reasons.
What i did notice is that over the last two or three years the cost of wind turbines stopped going down; maybe it is kept as high as it is by the level of subsidies. But the cost of PV continues going down, halving about each 5 years. Ironically i found this in a scaremongering report by Edenhofer, “economist” of the dreaded PIK, Schellnhuber’s propaganda & psyops institute, sorry, can’t take them seriously as scientists.
( http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srren-spm-fd4 page 13 )
So assuming 3 EUR per Watt of peak performance capacity ATM, the technology is unviable by a factor of about four ATM under German insolation conditions. Meaning, you spend 3 EUR but after 20 years, the lifetime, you produce lectricity worth only 0.80 EUR. I ignore inflation because it’s not that important, what’s important is “about factor 4 too inefficient”.
With a continuation of the prize drop of solar, we will reach in 10 years a point where our 3 EUR installation might cost only 0.75 EUR and produce electricity worth 0.80 EUR in its lifetime, now that starts to sound better.
In about 15 years it starts becoming a money-producing technology instead of a money-absorbing business.
I was assuming German (or UK) insolation; when you go to Spain, the respective points on the time axis are reached 5 years earlier (as the insolation is twice as high); in North Africe, 7.5 years earlier (insolation up to thrice as high).
So, it’s a money drain now, but it will get better very slowly…

DJ

Sue the Scientists! (in Italy, for the moment…)
Italian seismologists on trial for failure to predict earthquake…. !!!!
http://www.science20.com/cool-links/2009_laquila_quake_italian_seismologists_go_trial-79437
Imagine the precedents? Imagine if these scientists are held responsible for not warning the public, should not scientists be held equally liable for alarming the public with incorrect predictions?
Like warning of a tipping point that results in billions of dollars in expense to the public, a warning that turns out to be totally false?

DirkH

pat says:
May 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm
“Science Guy Bill Nye: Global warming causes tornadoes. USA only country that has tornadoes.”
In Germany, we used to call them “Wirbelsturm” or “Windhose” but “Tornado” slowly comes into fashion,
http://nachrichten.lvz-online.de/nachrichten/mitteldeutschland/ein-jahr-nach-dem-tornado-durch-grossenhain-und-muehlberg–wunden-heilen/r-mitteldeutschland-a-89682.html

“I wonder if any entity in the megajoule laser research establishment has considered using this type weapon against tornadoes? It seems to me that one or more pulses of high energy directed at several different levels of a tornado in a short time period might disrupt its self sustaining vortex.”
In my book, “Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather,” I discuss that the type of thunderstorms that contain a Joplin-style tornado produce the approximate amount of energy as an atomic bomb every minute. It would be nearly impossible to generate and sustain that type of energy which would be needed to disrupt the tornado. There would also be a risk of other damage by using an anti-tornado weapon.
If you would like to learn more about the warning system, please allow me to modestly recommend my book. It is a true story, written in the style of a mystery novel, that tells how scientists beat the odds to construct the warning system that saves so many lives today.

DirkH

Mods, an answer from me to TonyB lingers in the bin, i wasn’t polite enough when talking about some AGW circus economist. Thanks.
[Rescued & posted. ~dbs, mod.]

Billy Liar

batheswithwhales says:
May 28, 2011 at 9:37 am
Bathes, thanks for the interesting links.
I had to give up on the first one when their utopia suddenly became dependent on the internet and GPS. They don’t seem to have factored in the carbon footprint of maintaining a 24 satellite constellation, ground stations, replacement satellite design and manufacture, launch vehicle design and manufacture and launch facilities. Not to mention the server farms and network infrastructure that make up the internet.
Perhaps these are all made and supported by no-carbon fairies?

View from the Solent

The Bishop spells it out http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/5/27/eco-dictatorship.html .
A commentary here http://www.countingcats.com/?p=9895 . (contains language that might offend)

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