Off to chase the eclipse with my children, and then travel tomorrow to Heartland conference. Airplane has WiFi so may be able to keep up with posting en-route.
Expect moderation delays today and tomorrow.
Hopefully will post an eclipse image tonight.
DirkH;
I’ll still lay odds that the $40bn fossil fuel investments end up producing 10X the power output that the $260bn in renewables does.
All renewables are subsidy farming. Businesses are in the business of making a profit, and they especially like subsidies that are added into the price of some product we all buy like electricity. Essentially, governments mandate a higher price for their product, and even better, higher and higher prices in the future, which explains why businesses rush into these markets.
And renewables aren’t replacing fossil fuels. World coal consumption rises year after year and that won’t change in the foreseeable future, bar some major economic collapse.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/energy/coal.html
mildaykerr says:
May 20, 2012 at 6:33 pm
“I’m glad to see that renewables are displacing fossil fuel for power generation.
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the International Energy Agency, investment in renewables for power production rose from $50bn in 2004 to $260b in 2011. Over the same time investment in fossil fuel power production fell from $250b to $40b. ”
______________________________________
HMMmmmm
Sounds like sheep to the slaughter to me. Hype the stock, fan the buying frenzy and get the heck out while the stocks are selling high.
This is what Al Gore and Maurice Strong did with Molten Metals Inc. In looking up a link to the Molten Metals Inc scam I find I am not the only one who has made that connection.
I think boys and girls we are about to see the massive shearing of the sheep just before the collapse of the “Green Energy Bubble” Expect to see these highly promoted companies dead in the water in a year or so as their “guaranteed subsidies” bite the dust.
Bishop Hill saved a copy of the article “Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose”. here.
Many thanks to Anthony Scalzi and John West who took the time to give a most helpful answer to my question as well as provide a valuable resource for the future. My knowledge of ocean dynamics is currently centered around thermohaline, deep sound channel and deep layer issues.
My question was always: How could the earth, which started as a molten sphere and warmed by the sun develop into its current state with a vast very cold heat sink. Now I have the beginnings of an answer. And a bit of reading to do. That’s always a good thing! 🙂
Again, many heartfelt thanks!
pat says: May 20, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Very interesting Pat. A few years ago, using ocean area and UN numbers on water pumped from ground for irrigation, it was easy to calculate that if all irrigation water ended up in the oceans, it would raise the level 2.2mm/year. Of course not all will end up in the ocean, but it certainly puts the catastrophic rise of 3.3mm/year in perspective.
That copy disappeared faster than the original. What is going on behind the curtain? I smell a scandal. WUWT – GK
G. Karst@ur momisugly 6.41 am:
Copy gone…I tried to look at it too but it’s gone.
Suzanne Goldberg did not write an article claiming Peter Gleick was cleared.
Peter Gleick did, pretending to be Suzanne Goldberg.
More seriously, I found this extract of an article from the 1970’s, that seems to be one of those that the consensus declared ‘never happened, it was only alarmist newspapers’.
It refers to the warmer ‘Global climactic optimum’, and speculates on the end of our current interglacial. Here’s the extract. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/178/4057/190.extract
Unfortunately for me, it’s paywalled.
Could someone with access let me see a copy? It’s also possible that Anthony will get an article from this, so if you could act before this too is 404’d, that would be great.
I’ll give my e-mail address in a form that I hope will defeat spambots- it’s jleomorgan at google’s gmail.com.
Hi Leo,
I’ll send you a copy of the Science article.
Cheers!
@vukcevic (May 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm)
Digging through my files today I realized I had isolated the dBz curve you’ve illustrated here [ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm ] on April 29, 2010. If you put this [ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.gif ] alongside the other, you’ve got an even more interesting story. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-R.htm also looks interesting. Keep going.
One thing about politicians though, learning how to make money off them makes them slightly more bearable. Smith & Wesson reported sales are a blowout. Ruger reported a blowout quarter also.
Long ago should have let gays and lesbians marry. Let abortion go.
Because in three generations there will be no democrats.
G. Karst and Annie — the copy of “Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose” I linked to above and which you cannot get still opens at that URL I posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:13 am.
Here is the URL: http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/Gleick%20cleared%20of%20forging%20documents.pdf
I have also saved a copy which I will email to anyone who asks me: RogerCarr AT datacodsl.com
John West says: May 20, 2012 at 1:24 pm: summarising CAGW assumptions…
5) The climate warms about 1 degree to accomplish the initial radiative “balancing” (Transient Sensitivity(TS)).
6) The 1 degree C warming causes changes in the system which amplifies the warming to 3 degrees C (Equilibrium Sensitivity(ES))…
7) 3 degrees C of warming above pre-industrial average would be catastrophic.
Hi John. Transient sensitivity (TS) does not refer to anticipated top-of-atmosphere temperature change. TS refers to the change in average global surface temperature across a short time period (say 20 years). TS is currently running at ~0.16C/decade (for comparison, the mean of climate models is ~0.2C/decade). TS by itself does not indicate what the equilibrium sensitivity might be nor when it might be reached.
For possible effects of a 3C warming above the pre-industrial average (the median of a host of equilibrium sensitivity estimates) please refer to Mark Lynas book Six Degrees. Amongst other challenges, +3C has the potential to adversely affect agriculture in significant portions of the globe. Lack of adequate, affordable food implies rapid destabilization in affected areas.
Paul Vaughan says: May 21, 2012 at 7:37 pm
……….
Thanks Paul, I got ‘big picture’ worked out some time ago too
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
but it takes time to put it all together.
The North and South run on two different clocks
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NvS.htm
it would make sense to keep in mind these fundamental differences.
@Ammonite
Thanks for the input, however, I have to disagree with your point about TS not indicating ES. I do agree that TS says nothing about the timing of ES, but the magnitude of ES is a function of TS. ES is essentially TS and the net feedbacks from the temperature change due to TS.
Also, I guess my wording wasn’t so great, when I said climate warms about 1 degree I was referring to average global temperature not TOA. Good edit! Thanks again.
vukcevic, Can you at least cryptically describe in a sentence or two how you get the blue curve here [ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-R.gif ] now (including data sources)?
After some rewording:
1) Doubling CO2 increases GHE heat flux by 3.7 W/m2, per Q=5.35Ln(pCO2f/pCO2i)
2) The 3.7 W/m2 heat flux (Radiative Forcing(RF)) warms the surface.
3) The warmer surface warms the atmosphere and emits more IR.
4) The earth-atmosphere system as a whole must warm enough for the effective radiative TOA (~20km) to emit the additional IR to space, basically obtain radiative balance.
5) The climate warms about 1 degree to accomplish the initial radiative “balancing” (Transient Sensitivity(TS)).
6) The 1 degree C warming causes changes in the system which amplifies the warming to 3 degrees C (Equilibrium Sensitivity(ES)) via an approximate feedback factor (ff) of about 0.8, (note: feedback factor is less than 1, so there’s no claim of runaway GW) per dT=[ES][dRF] and [ES]=[TS] + (ff)[TS] + (ff)^2[TS] + (ff)^3[TS] + (ff)^4[TS] ……… to practical convergence.
(dT = change in temperature and dRF = change in radiative forcing)
7) 3 degrees C of warming above pre-industrial average would be catastrophic.
Are any other changes needed in order to accurately reflect the core assertions of advocates of “climate change action”?
further to Paul Vaughan (May 22, 2012 at 7:37 am) …
OK: vukcevic, I think I know how you’re getting your AMO driver, but I don’t have access to the data …but you do. Can you please send me your Hudson’s Bay & Siberia Bz data? I believe the coordinates you are using are (60N,95W) & (64N,107E), respectively. Also: What geophysical variables do they use as inputs to the GMF reconstructions? Specifically: Do they use climate, solar, &/or earth orientation parameter variables?
John West says: May 22, 2012 at 7:40 am
5) The climate warms about 1 degree to accomplish the initial radiative “balancing” (Transient Sensitivity(TS)).
Hi John. I hope my previous reply on TS didn’t muddy the waters for you. From the literature for climate models, “a measure requiring shorter integrations is the transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year.”
Using your definition in 5) above, I understand the point you made in your 7:12am post.
@ur momisugly vigilantfish
Thanks for that.
Received and read.
Lots of thinking yet to be done.
I was going to ask if anyone here could tell me the temperature of past ‘Global Climactic Optimum(s)*’, then realized I should at least TRY to find it for myself. But clearly I’ve made errors:
As I read it, this paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018203003675 says the Miocene Climactic Optimum for Central Europe was 17.4 to 22 degrees Centigrade Mean Annual Temperature.
This article says Central European Annual Temperatures are around 8-12 degrees C Annual temperature.
The Optimum was vastly warmer than the prophesised thermogeddon?
Sure I’d like to be the guy who blew away the Catastrophe of CAGW, but I assume I’m just a nebbish who misread his data. Still, can someone give me a reality check?
I forgot to give the URL for the second paper- it’s http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/europe.htm
Arrgh, I don’t wish WordPress would give me an ‘edit comment’ button, since I’ve seen them abused, but I wish I didn’t make the sort of error and omission I’ve made in my last two posts. Or at least that I could fix them without putting my folly on display.
I asterisked the expression Climactic Optimum(s) above. I am aware that conventional use and authoritarian dictates alike prescribe that it should be ‘Optima’.
Nevertheless I advocate the regularization of English. That the Romans used different declensions in Latin 2000 years ago, does not to my mind warrant that 21st Century English-speakers should follow suit.
‘Optimums’ may be poor Latin, but it’s better English than ‘Optima’.