Traveling today, as I have been all week, but this seemed like a good time for an open thread. Discuss anything within bounds of WUWT commenting policy.
Traveling today, as I have been all week, but this seemed like a good time for an open thread. Discuss anything within bounds of WUWT commenting policy.
george e. conant says:
August 16, 2014 at 1:44 pm
Woodstock, NY? beng (August 16, 2014 at 6:53 am) has it being cooler yet in Maryland.
Ed martin @209. Bill’s lovechild?
No, not a love child of Bubba, knew her well and she stole my heart in elementary school. Let’s see, another hint, might involve Hillary’s brothers, but I’ve never found any proof of that.
@ur momisugly john Robertson
my pleasure. I thank you for your input/comments and taking the time, most people would have given up after the first comment.
@ur momisuglymarkstoval
Just checked out your blog and so far I like what I see. Just read Ferguson Police vs. Rothbard’s idea of peace keepers. Your views are spot on.
“What to do? Murray Rothbard believed that ultimately the answer was no state and no state enforcers. The society would govern itself via mutual, voluntary cooperation. But what about protection you ask? I could point out that you are getting precious little “protection” now. You are just lucky that one of the brutal goons has not noticed you yet”
Anyone who truly believes in such ideals, is thinking clearly. That’s a fact. I know one when I see one.
I’m on vacation and my phone doesnt detect the reply option. Anyway,…. Ther is absolutely no way this contraption is going to put an accurate number on the energy influx from the magnetic reconnection phenomenon. http://mms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ it may give a more accurate estimate … But until the Sun is active as it has been before, there is no way to give an accurate estimate of the amount of energy that was given to our planet from the Sun from this instrument. The Sun may not return to such a state during its lifetime. And even if the sun returns to such an active state in 11 years… The dynamic nature of the sun makes any estimates of the past complete guesses. The sun continues on its orbit as well. The space it travels in is dynamic.
nyhow, common sense tells you as the sun and its tsi become less, energy from reconnection becomes less. You need a larger than earth size probe to accurately estimate its forcing and it needs to be in place at the right time…. When the sun is most active.
It is so ironic….. This US president gets elected using the sun as a prop….and then it sputters out. HAHAHAH
A. Smith says:
August 16, 2014 at 8:56 pm
There is absolutely no way this contraption is going to put an accurate number on the energy influx from the magnetic reconnection phenomenon.
Oh yes, there is. It is actually quite easy to estimate that energy. I do in the Appendix [page 31ff] of http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf [written in 1973…]
jonesingforozone says:
August 16, 2014 at 9:29 pm
However, using your 21 year centered mean, Usoskin may still have considered the twentieth century a grand maximum of solar activity given that ~80 years of smoothed group numbers were 50 or more.
I don’t think you are paying attention. Compare my curve with Usoskin’s [top panel of slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf ]. There is a difference between a local maximum and a Grand Maximum
Your revised group numbers are based upon a downward revision in the late twentieth century sunspot group numbers as provided by Hoyt, D.V.; K.H. Schatten (1998) whose unrevised series Usoskin also uses for the portion of his reconstruction that follows the year 1610.
Actually not. The revision is an upward revision of the values before ~1882, see http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
The revision was necessary because Hout & Schatten used an incorrect calibration based on the [as we now know] invalid assumption about the Greenwich Group count having a stable calibration. It does not, see e.g. slide 14 of the above link. My old friend and colleague Ken Schatten agrees with me that the revision was needed, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Schatten.pdf [slides 4 and 6].
There is no doubt about the new revision. There is also no doubt that people with agendas will fight any revision that upsets their worldview. Are you one of those?
jonesingforozone says:
August 16, 2014 at 9:29 pm
However, using your 21 year centered mean, Usoskin may still have considered the twentieth century a grand maximum of solar activity given that ~80 years of smoothed group numbers were 50 or more.
I don’t think you are paying attention. Compare Usoskin’s [top panel of slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf ] based on 14C with Steinhilber’s based on 10Be [middle panel]. The bottom panel shows that 14C and 10Be generally agree, and you should be able to see that the Usoskin curve [top panel] agrees well with Steinhilber’s curve [middle panel] except for the past 400 years where Usoskin simply pastes in the ]faulty] group sunspot number, producing a false Grand Maximum, pretty much as Mann did when producing his infamous hockey stick by pasting on the [dubious?] ‘instrumental record’.
Again, I realize that here are people who WILL NOT see this [for their own reasons] and that no amount of evidence can convince them otherwise, so at some point further discussion becomes rather fruitless.
jonesingforozone says:
August 16, 2014 at 9:29 pm
Your revised group numbers are based upon a downward revision in the late twentieth century sunspot group numbers as provided by Hoyt, D.V.; K.H. Schatten (1998)
Ken Schatten is a coauthor of our presentation about the revision here http://www.leif.org/research/History%20and%20Calibration%20of%20Sunspot%20Numbers.pdf and note the conclusion and graph on slide 45.
I could not believe my eyes when reading, as an aside in one of the above replies, that the sun cycles were NOT included in ANY of the models which have been hotly debated in the political arena over the last 10 years. When I did Physics at Uni Syd in early 60s most of the different components of the sun radiation variability had be elucidated and matched fossil records for as far back as had been studied at that time.
It’s not a hiatus, it’s a failed prediction!!
http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2014/08/there-is-no-hiatus-its-failed-prediction.html
@tony b
This is the tidal info I use: http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
You are correct, Usoskin’s graph of grand maxima does resemble a hockey stick.
What was he thinking?
Thanks for your patience.
IF, as the Alarmist say, everything contributes to the model’s warming then what makes things cool down?
Tom says:
August 16, 2014 at 12:14 am
Tom, could you cite some sort of authority on temps in Pittsburgh versus moisture or precipitation? Has it been unusually dry in Pittsburgh? I was under the impression it has been unusually wet in the East. What is the primary driver of leaf turning? Light? Temp? Moisture? Some combination?
I guess I found the answer here: http://www.usna.usda.gov/PhotoGallery/FallFoliage/ScienceFallColor.html
mikeishere says:
August 16, 2014 at 4:08 am
I didn’t even notice the 132 F on the left hand scale until you pointed it out.
I would say there is something wrong with their plotting routines.
Good show.
dbstealey at all,
the singularity associated with light speed (α = 0) is avoided by physicists at all costs because, I think, when used as denominator somewhere it leads to nature behaving weird and such “spooky actions at a distance” (Einstein) appear. Next they find out that nature is indeed behaving “absurd from the point of view of common sense” (Feynman, QED), but I disagree. I couldn’t find something weird when considering the implications caused by the singularity. I also would not call something “spooky” that happens all the time. This lead to the idea of an experiment to show that the collapse of the ‘wave function’ really happens as “the thinking goes” (Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos). The idea that there would be also a useful application when found to be true came up mere by accident. Well, engineers…
In other words, I think I can explain the full procedure of an energy transfer by photon from an emitter electron to the receptor inclusive that weird looking behavior in between, and why there is only some probability of being able to catch the photon. My proposition is that the photon is neither wave nor particle. And interference isn’t possible. It only looks like that after the transfer. OK, would become too long…
Thanks for all the links.
After reading the very distressing story found in the WSJ on the front page, my wife asked a very simple question: “Why aren’t we sending rubber gloves to the nations in Africa fighting Ebola?”
http://online.wsj.com/articles/ebola-doctors-with-no-rubber-gloves-1408142137?KEYWORDS=ebola
Activists want billions (or is it trillions?) spent on programs to halt global warming (which is not happening at present) to save lives in the future. Staring us in the face right this minute is a medical fight against Ebola mankind is apparently losing. While losing, not only are we seeing lives being lost at the present, these lives could be saved with the very small expenditure of some rubber gloves.
What is really frightening about the Ebola epidemic is the loss of the front line doctors fighting the disease. It’s like losing your firefighters during a fire.
If empathy for others is not enough to motivate governments to send simple medical supplies, perhaps a sense of enlightened self interest might move them to do something? After all, if the epidemic is not stopped, it will spread. What happens if it reaches Lagos, or another large city in Africa? What will the chances be of keeping it from spreading to New York city?
If the saving of lives motivates CAGW proponents, why don’t they some time out to send medical supplies to West Africa?
Just wondering…
jarthuroriginal says: August 17, 2014 at 2:28 am “I would say there is something wrong with their plotting routines.”
Yeah and obvious stuff like that then has me wondering how many indiscernible mistakes might be lurking underneath the obvious ones. Amazon wouldn’t last very long if it miscalculated prices but federal government … they know that they won’t “go out of business” so why should they care?
I was checking out Kate’s (SDA) twitter feed which led me to this interesting oil tanker comparison.
https://twitter.com/CanadaAction/status/500463023803629568/photo/1
Canada – Natural Resources: The opposition to Macmillan Bloedel’s logging vanished into thin air the day that company was acquired by the American company, Weyerhauser. US interests don’t want us to export to other markets, aka, to get world prices for our resources. Just more of the Tides et al political money laundering.
Tom
Thanks
Tonyb
I hope this qualifies as open thread post. I notice some posts have italic and bold text. How do you do that?
Ralph, You may want to have a look at the Test page found in the header at the top.
richardscourtney says:
August 16, 2014 at 10:39 am
He seems to have subsequently apologised to you, saying that he mistook you for some ”iceman” guy.
Christopher Keating Mod > Richard S Courtney • 2 days ago
”My mistake. I thought you were the individual going by the name “Iceman”. All of my comments were directed towards him. And, they still stand in regards to him.
I apologize. I will have to go back and figure out which comments were yours. What was your submission?
The claim that you cannot prove a negative is a totally false argument and one used by contrarians to duck out. First, if it isn’t possible to prove a negative, why do contrarians go around claiming they can? Remember, the challenge was to people to step forward and do what they have been claiming they can do.
Second, you most certainly can prove a negative and all experiments do this. My standard response is to do the experiment where I tell you the door on the other side of the room is locked. Go over the open it. You have now proven the negative.
BTW, I did not renege on the promise. The fact of the matter is that there was not a single submission that came anywhere close to being scientifically valid. The best ones were bad. The rest were REALLY bad. I can show easily show all of the submissions were not valid, and I did. What I can’t do is to change the mentality of people that reject science.
The evidence is overwhelming – the only way someone can reject global warming is to reject science.
One final point – this comment was a maniacal rant, so don’t say you don’t make them.”
I read some of the other responses he attempts to justify as legitimate defences. I couldn’t decide if I should laugh or puke. I did neither.
He had a lot of unkind words to say about WUWT. Though, he was happy enough to use a graph with skepsci’s moniker under it. (The one for sea levels.)
Problem with dealing with a slippery eel like this is you are doing everything on his terms. He has his moral support there to make him look good. Ultimately, he has the last word. It needs an independent referee.
Regards, Eamon.