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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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…
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?
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.
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.]
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?
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.