I’m on travel today, and will be away from email for quite some time (unless the flight has WiFi).
I’ll be attending both the Cook and the Mann lecture at University of Bristol, along with a couple of other meetings. Thanks sincerely to the WUWT readers that made this trip possible. I look forward to seeing all my UK friends very soon.
If anyone needs to contact me while I’m in the U.K. please use the WUWT contact form int he “About” menu above, which goes to web based mail.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I’ll be attending both the Cook and the Mann lecture at University of Bristol . . .”
Wow, I hope you’re taking some medication with you in case of an upset stomach. That has got to be pretty difficult to sit through.
‘Shipshape and Bristol Fashion’ is better than ‘Gangnam Style’.
John
The faux news, whether it’s climate change or some ‘scandal’, is easily identified when the self-righteous pontificating news reader talks about the social media being abuzz with … blah, blah, blah …
Here’s the social media from the last century …
http://blog.newint.org/editors/2008/10/31/bayingmob500.jpg
I think rgbatduke has a good point with
rgbatduke on September 3,
2014 at 10:23 am
I have a couple of problems
with this. Forced harmonic
oscillators have several
essential components: A
restoring force
(approximately linear, at
least for small
perturbations). A driving/
forcing force — usually
harmonic, if only because
we have to do nasty
convolutions if it is not. A
damping force to represent
dissipation, (usually
approximately linear in the
velocity). And a mass.
I realize that you are
expressing a metaphor, not
asserting a model, but I’m
not sure that a metaphor
justifies extended
conclusions as if it were a
model. In particular, I can
see nothing in a climate
system that performs the
same role as a mass (or
inductance, if you prefer
electric circuit oscillators).
Yes, there is an internal
storage or buffering of
energy in e.g. the deep
oceans, but that energy has
no momentum equivalent
and cannot carry the
system through even a
single undamped, unforced
oscillation if it is perturbed.
I should qualify this
statement, of course. The
weather involves secular
motion of actual mass on
the Earth’s surface —
atmospheric flow,
thermohaline circulation —
that have actual
momentum and which are
forced by a complex mix of
Coriolis pseudoforces and
real variable buoyancy
forces as it is differentially
heated and cooled, and
some of those motions
have natural rotational
periods and a very few —
e.g. the evolution of the
diurnal tidal bulge — could
have something like an
actual restoring force
coupled to a periodic
forcing. However, the
frequency spectrum of the
mass/momentum
oscillations of this sort is
highly compact compared
to even the smallest
frequencies relevant to
climate evolution on
geological time scales —
they are simply irrelevant,
or at least, it is very difficult
to see how they could be
relevant.
On the longer timescales, I
think you have to think of
everything changing very,
very slowly — slowly
enough that the system for
the most part merely tracks
a local “quasi-equilbrium”
dictated by things like the
orbital dynamics, which at
least have a very definite
and computable effect on
insolation as eccentricity
changes. It is much more
difficult — for me, at least
— to understand the
effects of changes in
obliquity and precession,
as they involve the
projection of varying
insolation onto the also
slowly varying
geographical arrangement
of continents and oceans.
This is further complicated
by a secondary but
extremely significant
variation in planetary
albedo with the distributed
fraction of planetary
surface covered with snow
and ice, which is also
effectively projected onto
the slowly varying
geographical arrangement
of continents, sea bottoms,
mountain location and
height, and coupled to
things like thermohaline
circulation in nontrivial
ways, and the fact that the
dynamics themselves are
highly non-Markovian with
a time kernel or “memory”
of previous climate with
timescales that can be very
long indeed — hundreds
of thousands of years in
the case of Antarctic and
Greenland ice pack and
(perhaps) the deep ocean.
The closing of Panama and
subsequent rearrangement
of thermohaline circulation,
if indeed this was the
proximate cause of the
Pleistocene’s gradually
deepening descent into
glaciation, is then very
“odd”. If this “flipped a
(million year long) switch”
as of maybe 1.9-2 mya,
with a gradually increasing
effect up to that point, one
would expect to see some
sort of disjunction in the
global temperature, but in
fact it smoothly continues
the 41 ky cycle that was
already established. Again,
the interesting thing isn’t
the 41 ky cycle — that is
understandable — it is the
continuing gradual
deepening of the cold. The
cycles, on average, keep
getting colder and colder.
___
the kernel / core of our 4.3 bln y old planet is loosing energie – underfloor heating’s diminishing, cold cycles getting longer and longer.
brg hans
Are there any experimental facts confirming that the gravitational time dilution is linear?
Gravitational time dilation?
What is an experimental “fact?” There is of course experimental data. There are interpretations of data. There are more experiments, observations, validations, and replications of experiments and more data. Alternative explanations can be tested for, and the data from those examined. Null hypotheses can be tested for rejection with proper use of statistical methods. Conclusions can be drawn that best explain observation and data. But then it takes only on observation to discount a previously obtained conclusion.
The only “experimental facts” would be that an experiment was performed on a certain day/time, with a certain set of equipment, by named investigators. That would be experimental fact. But not data.
My general thought is that, if gravitational time dilation changes non-linearly with the increase of a mass, even infinitesimally in “normal conditions” (though, possibly, significantly on a galactic and intergalactic scale), then much simpler explanations could be proposed of the observed galactic rotation, red shift, and many other things that nowadays require introduction of mystical matter, mystical force, creation of the Universe out of nothing, exceeding the velocity of light in vacuum, etc.
there has been some suggestions by one group that the fine structure constant is not or has not been “constant.”
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/constant.cfm
If somehow (big big IF) alpha has varied over cosmologic time, then the implications are literally revolutionary for how physicists think of charge, space, and the speed of light. I’m not holding my breath on it though. Could take centuries to resolve if the changes have been tiny.
Joel, thanks for the link. Interesting — though, unfortunately, article says nothing about possible consequences of this change of a constant.
My thinking is more along the lines of the gravitational constant not being strictly constant on an astronomically large scales of mass, distances, and time.
Solar influence on Earth’s temperatures becomes a mainstream scientific fact.
QED: Leif Svalgaard keeps his clapper shut.
Potsdam Conference on eradicating Jews in gas chambers was also a 97% consensus.
That doesn’t make any sense. Did you mean Wannsee Conference? The decision was made much earlier at a much higher level; no consensus of the gauleiters was sought at Wannsee. Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich and a handful of others made the “decision,” though there is substantial evidence that Hitler had extermination in mind much earlier, no later than August of 1933.
Strange that you presume that I don’t know the basics.
However, my statement makes perfect sense, because decisions in today’s climatology are also made on the higher level, the level that distributes money, before any “global warming” or “climate change” conferences and meetings are held.
Also, during the aforementioned conference at Wannsee (which is in Potsdam), a decision was made as to the method of extermination of the Jews, and only one person present (a lawyer) refused to approve gas chambers.
Wonder if Anth*ny will stay long enough for Ryder Cup tickets? (9-26,27,28) I assume our chump-in-chief will be there since golf seems his main interest….
If, over the next 15 years, the atmospheric CO2 level were to decrease, what would be the explanation? Yeah. I’m talking “pause” in CO2. What if?
Would it be a Montreal-esque proclamation of successful public policy? Or maybe you can think of a more scientific excuse.
They could explain it if a series of concatenated LARGE volcanic eruptions took place 15 years in a row, this in turn would cool the planet, kill the world economy, lead to a huge famine, and a series of wars. The resulting cooler ocean water would absorb the CO2. Or something like that. Let me go run my model. I’ll get back to you in 15 years.
The Antarctic Sea Ice sure is interesting,
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
(Click on the Antarctic button at the top)
This is so high, I wonder if something’s wrong with the measurement.
However, if it’s real the albedo effects are significant. Remember, the Antarctic sea ice is at a lower latitude than the Arctic ice (and don’t get cute and reply, “yeah over 130 degrees lower.”) Anyone who’s squawking about the reduced albedo from less Arctic sea ice should be silenced by this.
What I find really interesting is the lack of explanations. I realize some blogs and scientific publications try to claim they got it all figured out. I have serious doubts they really understand what’s happening.
Agreed. The “it’s getting dangerously warmer side” is rife with : the warmy warming west Antarctic is causing fresh meltwater to flow into the sea where it freezes and then the windier winds warm the more moisty moist air causing more precipitation to fall creating more sea ice. Sounds fantabulously contrived. I’m wondering why the same warmy warmth in the Arctic isn’t responding in-kind even though we hear that Greenland and glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates and Arctic rivers are discharging more freshwater now than previously. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/land-river.shtml
Tom, the problem I see is the use of a single answer to what could be a very complex set of factors. The ice loss is more pronounced in West Antarctica, but the ice cover grows more on the other side of the peninsula and elsewhere. There are large differences in the climate from one end of the continent to the other, and this clearly means the winds, currents, water circulation, clouds, and other factors must change from region to region. Given the lack of data and the clumsy nature of climate models I don´t see how they can really understand what´s going on.
General Thought / Question
Better Batteries?????
As we all know solar and wind will never be able to replace fossil fuels on a grand scale. The reason is physics; more specifically the Law of Conservation of Energy which states energy can not be created or destroyed. Therefore because there just isn’t the energy density available, there will never be any technological advance to ever make solar or wind more viable over fossil fuels.
Now what about Batteries? We always hear the greens (and others) say as battery technology gets better, electric cars and other things will become more & more viable. But is this wishful thinking also?
Batteries also have a law of physics working against them which in their case it’s the fact that electrons repel each other. This means as you charge a battery, the more you charge it the less efficient the charging gets because you have to overcome more & more repulsive forces between more & more electrons. Also, put too many electrons together and **boom**.
So I am wondering if the battery technology of today is pretty much it and because of the laws of physics batteries may become a little better, but there will never be that big quantum leap in battery technology which we would need to make electric cars as good or better than gasoline ones.
I don’t know the exact numbers but for example say the average batteries in electric cars today can hold 100KWh of power. Sure in the future they may invent a battery that can hold 120KWh or even 150KWh, but can there ever be a 1000KWh or even 10000KWh battery?
Thoughts from some of the experts here??
If batteries can be made to last long enough and to be manufactured cheaply then unpredictable renewable energy sources become viable.
But that has been true for centuries.
So far the most efficient batteries are cellulose materials generated by chlorophyll solar power plants.
But this does prove that batteries can make renewable energy viable.
I am a supercap expert with good working knowledge of batteries. The problem is multidimensional. Even leaving out cost, and focusing only on the automotive application, there are three critical dimensions. 1. Energy density (how many kwh stored per unit weight or volume). That is the number you cite in your question, and relates to how far the car will go. 2. Power density (Kw per unit). That is, how fast can you put electricity in and take it out. That relates to things like acceleration and regenerative braking pulses. 3. Cycle life. How long will it last. Relates to system cost.
Now, we already know how to design lithium ion with about 400kwh/kg. and we can also design it for high power density about equal to supercaps. But not both. You can Google Ragonne plot to get charts with the energy/power density trade offs for all favors of commercial and developmental battery chemistries.
Beware the cycle life stuff that is not on a Ragonne. You put in/out power surges on the energy dense version, it has a very short cycle life. Will heat up,rapidly. Only solution is to make the vehicle mass determined power surge ‘look’ small by making the battery bigger than the car. Use the power dense version, and the car won’t go far. No solutions reconciling all three things are on the horizon.
It may be possible to about double (not more) energy density in some of the lithium chemistries by using nanotechnology to increase effective surface at unknown hit to cycle life. That was behind the failed Envia scandal.
Doubt very much there will ever be a 1000kwh battery in the sense of your question. There are already megawatt hour ‘batteries’ on the grid. They are the size of small houses, weight many tons, are usually sodium/ sulfur molten salt operating continuously at 350C with 15 year lifetimes and about 75% round trip efficient (Chevy Volts RTE is about 90%). They cost about $780/kwh and are made by Japan’s NGK and Italy’s Fiamm. Never going to get scaled down to vehicular use.
Hope this abstract helped answer your question.
Nevada just gave away the farm to win Tesla’s new battery factory. I don’t believe anybody told the governor the facts about batteries and the laws of physics and chemistry.
What is even more relevant is nobody seems to have told the Nevada governor the facts about electric car sales. Nobody seems to want them except a few who want to make a statement and have enough money to make an impractical purchase.
Rud, what about an energy storage device to store wind energy? What if you don’t gave to worry about the weight? Can we find a way to pour electrons into a large bottle?
Thanks – I have an EE degree but am winding down a career as a software engineer. I used to scrounge stray EDNs when I worked in embedded systems, but now I work in file systems, far, far away from hot solder.
I was kinda pleased when my Davis weather station’s supercaps wore out, I ordered several from Digikey and was surprise in the difference in internal resistance, (if you can describe it as that!)
Do you see any hope for supercaps with a higher breakdown voltage? From what I can tell, that would come with a much lower capacity and it may be difficult to evenly increase the dielectric layer.
Good answer. I think we’ll have hydrogen fusion before we have significantly higher energy density batteries.
The report on the multi-month E-Cat run may be out this month! E-Cat World readers are getting antsy.
Thank you for your reply, it answered a lot.
But it’s sad, because that means a lot of futuristic technologies we have been waiting for (like Phasers, Jet packs, iRobot/terminator/Data like robots) are impossible unless somebody comes up with a better way to store energy than the “electrons in a bottle” batteries of today
Batteries in EVs are actually battery packs, and regardless of the cell technology, you can always increase the number of cells. There are no 100kwhr battery packs out there. The Tesla Model S has a battery pack consisting of roughly 6800 3.7V laptop batteries : capacity 75kWhr – requires 100 kWhrs to fully charge (loss due to heating of battery) – a 15% loss. Weighs about 900 pounds, not counting the water coolant, pump, radiator,etc. Model S – starts at $77,000 and goes well beyond $100,000. Most of the lesser, cheaper ($30 to $45k) electrics have a range of 100 miles or less and have battery packs with roughly 25 to 35 kWhr. Two main problems with batteries are slow recharge times and cost, and to a lesser extent, weight and volume. Li ion also are finicky and for a long life (19 years or so, deterioration somewhere around 1 to 1 1/2 percent per year) the battery temperature must be maintained within a fairly narrow range. Fully discharge a lithium battery and it’s a goner : new battery please. Elon Musk claims he can reduce battery costs by a third in his gigafactory, which I am guessing means from roughly $300 per kWhr to roughly $200 per kWhr. In the around-town scenario, the Tesla driving range is more than adequate, but
at interstate speeds the range drops dramatically as speed increases. At 80MPH getting more than 200 miles is impossible, regardless of conditions. That’s the irony – at speeds required for extended travel, where you need a good driving range, you get the worst driving range, and where you don’t need the range, around town, you get the best range. I believe that , due to the nature of the battery situation, the first practical electric cars will probably be an electric version of the three-wheeled Elio. They require far less energy per mile than the Tesla, about one quarter as much, which translates into almost 10 miles of range per kWhr. A 30kWhr battery pack would be good for around 250 miles (can’t use all the battery’s capacity in li ion technology) and cost around $6000 if Musk is right, making the vehicle cost somewhere between $11,000 and $13,000. Fuel costs (electricity) would be close to a penny per mile. A 150 mile range version between $9,000 and $11,000. I predict such a car would sell very, very well, since it would be a very desirable second car or commuter car, and would not be required for extended travel.
I thought most of the highway speeds in North America topped out around 60 MPH.
Electric cars applicable to southern states only. Winter heating reduces range dramatically.
[But southern, midwest, eastern, and western driving ranges are limited by A/C requirements 9-11 months of the year. Mountain and far west driving ranges are too far for electrics any season. .mod]
The official limit on Interstates is 65, which means 70 in practice. In the West the official limit can be 75.
Depends upon the state. In Virginia, it is 70, except in urban areas. When the Feds eliminated the 55, states then determined the “official” max speed.
New Hampshire has some roads with 70 mph limits. Mileage on my Elantra declines pretty severely above 60-70 mph.
Oklahoma has interstates with speed limits up to 75mph (on certain toll roads) and 70 mph on many other roads. But, the cars with the Texas plates always seem to exceed that limit, until the highway patrol catch them!
Never bet against human ingenuity.
And never, ever bet against the established laws of physics and chemistry.
You’re thinking mainly of capacitors. You can think of them as an air tank, the more air you push in the greater it pushes back (but you’re storing a lot more energy). Once it reaches the tensile strength limits it explodes and creates some mayhem.
As you charge a battery, the voltage (pressure) stays pretty much constant, but the anode and cathode undergo chemical changes to a form that stores more energy. Once all that gets converted, the “gas tank” is full and problems happen if you keep charging. Hydrogen and oxygen gas is often formed, and those should get burned in a “reformer” but at the price of the battery overheating. That causes its own set of problems. Overcharging batteries isn’t a good thing to do and chargers try to sense that happening before anything bad happens.
You are correct, but your bad analogy holds for other reasons.
Google much, and study more electrochemistry.
This stuff has been (sort of) understood since Alessandro Volta and Ben Franklin.
Anthony: Here’s a weekly publication from Heartland that should be added to the Skeptical sidebar:
http://news.heartland.org/climate-change-weekly
Holy crap, Batman!
The Antarctic Ice extent just broke 20,000,000 KM^2, and there are still a few days left of Antarctic Ice expansion remaining… WOW– read ’em and weep, Gore baby:
http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/antarctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2014_day_260_1981-2010.png
I can’t believe the MSM isn’t reporting this… Well…. I CAN believe it actially, especially with the NY Climate Summit just a few days away….
Ye ol’ Gore Effect in action… Ya gotta love it so…. The timing is impeccable!
It’s just because the ozone hole has made it easier for the missing heat to skedaddle before anybody can find it.
Well now the Greenstream Media are spinning this. They admit this result but proclaim “but the Arctic continues to melt.” I assume they are referring to the more recent multidecadal trend, not this year’s NH result, which is higher than recent years.
Some consider the expression ‘skeptical scientist’ or ‘skeptical science’ as being an oxymoron**. Others, instead, consider either of those expressions as having redundant words.
Looking at the climate science dialog concerning the area focused on the AGW theory and hypotheses we see that if one is an activist pushing research showing alarming AGW then either expression is not infrequently intended as an oxymoron used in a pejorative way against crtics of alarming AGW. To them it is an oxymoron that insults because the implication is that being skeptical of alarming AGW is unscientific therefore any scientist who is skeptical of alarming AGW is an ‘unscientific scientist’ or is advocating ‘unscientific science’; either is an oxymoron.
Now, on the other hand, we see that if one is fundamentally and significantly critical of research showing alarming AGW then the terms ‘skeptical scientist’ or ‘skeptical science’ are viewed as expressions with redundant words. They are viewed as having redundant words because in science there is supposed to be a fundamental skeptical view of our theories and hypotheses. So, the expression reduces then to ‘scientific scientist’ or ‘scientific science’; those are redundancy containing expressions.
I recommend neutralizing the useless rhetoric involved with the ‘skeptical’ terminology by simply changing the focus in the climate science dialog toward having either critical or agreeing views. So, consider using expressions like ‘scientist with criticism on _ _ _ _’ or ‘scientist in agreement with _ _ _ _’. It gets rid of the above mentioned oxymorons and of expressions with redundant words.
NOTE: another different reason to be mindful of use of the skeptical term in climate science discussion is that it is widely associated in the general public with pseudo-sciency paranormal investigations and such; à la ‘The ‘ ‘X’ Files ‘.
** oxymoron {noun} meaning a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction
*** redundant {adjective} meaning (of words or data) able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.
John
John, I’m not a scientist, I’m an engineer. However, I consider scientists to be man’s best friend. With very few exceptions they do very well when they are fed data and kept in an air conditioned environment.
Fernando Leanme on September 18, 2014 at 2:48 pm
– – – – – – – –
Fernando Leanme,
Scientists with dirt under their fingernails and smelling of stale sweat is a pleasant thought.
John
That’s a couple of the reasons I’ve been advocating the use of “contrarian” instead. (The thrid reason being that the alarmists won’t accept applying the term “skeptical” to our side (because its connotations are too positive)–and we need a more neutral term.
rogerknights on September 18, 2014 at 4:15 pm
– – – – – – – – –
rogerknights,
Yeah. The ideas and concepts associated with ‘skeptic’ has a tangled past in the history of ideas.
John
Anthony, I’d like to personally thank you for taking this bullet.
h/t to Anthony. 3 Cheers.
I think I have found the earliest use of the phrase “deny the science”. Details to follow soon.
The novel “Notre-Dame de Paris”, written by Victor Hugo in 1831, set in 1482.
The words are spoken by Claude Frollo, a learned man for that time, still in the Dark Ages.
snippets:
Je nie le médecin (doctor). Je ne crois pas à la médecine (medicine).
Je ne crois pas à l’astrologie
non, je ne nie pas la science
quelle chose tenez-vous vraie et certaine? — L’alchemie
Néant, votre science de l’homme! néant, votre science du ciel!
(book 5, chapter 1)
I’m having a great time reading all the tweets to Michael Mann and exploits of his manic blocking. It inspired me to write some parody lyrics to a song I call Schadenfreude, sung to the tune of the famous Wayne Newton standard, Danke Shoen.
Schadenfreude, oh doctor, schadenfreude
Thank you for predictions so devoid
of reality, go ahead block me,
it’s total bunk, a pile of junk
we know you now, can’t see how, to stop
Schadenfreude, Oh mister, Schadenfreude
Skeptics all make you so annoyed
I recall the hockey stick et. al.
oh but now the pause sticks in your craw
there’s no more heat, where’s the meat
Schadenfreude, oh Mann, Schadenfreude
tweeting like a teenaged anthropoid
no dissent, for this petty tyrant
ignore us all, make a Bore Hole
slicker than snot, you’ve earned a spot of
Schadenfreude, oh Michael, Schadenfreude
SEE OH Two hypothesis destroyed
science learns from failure
but you burn to tailor
tragic blame into fame,
Nobel Prize, oh how wise but
Schadenfreude, oh Mikey, Schadenfreude
I hope you’ll soon be unemployed
I can see a better world for thee
stop this drek, get your paycheck
from washing cars or shoveling tar
Schadenfreude
Mann’s the boy
Deserving of schadenfreude
Mickey Reno:
Very good!
Here is more Mann stuff:
http://twitchy.com/2014/09/17/hashtag-backfire-mock-a-lanche-triggered-after-global-warming-alarmist-suing-mark-steyn-solicits-questions
#AskDrMann
Here is a study that addresses a question I have been asking:
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1575–1589, 2014
http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/1575/2014/
doi:10.5194/hess-18-1575-2014
© Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
Hydrology and
Earth System
Sciences
Open Access
A general framework for understanding the response of the water
cycle to global warming over land and ocean
M. L. Roderick1,2,3,**, F. Sun2,3, W. H. Lim2,3,*, and G. D. Farquhar2,3
1Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
2Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
3Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Canberra, Australia
*Currently at: Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, 152-8552, Japan
**Invited contribution by M. L. Roderick, recipient of the EGU John Dalton Medal 2013.
Correspondence to: M. L. Roderick (michael.roderick@anu.edu.au)
Received: 22 November 2013 – Published in Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.: 13 December 2013
Revised: 24 March 2014 – Accepted: 24 March 2014 – Published: 6 May 2014
Abstract. Climate models project increases in globally averaged
atmospheric specific humidity that are close to the
Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) value of around 7%K−1 whilst
projections for mean annual global precipitation (P) and
evaporation (E) are somewhat muted at around 2%K−1.
Such global projections are useful summaries but do not provide
guidance at local (grid box) scales where impacts occur.
To bridge that gap in spatial scale, previous research has
shown that the “wet get wetter and dry get drier” relation,
1(P −E)/P −E, follows CC scaling when the projected
changes are averaged over latitudinal zones. Much of the research
on projected climate impacts has been based on an
implicit assumption that this CC relation also holds at local
(grid box) scales but this has not previously been examined.
In this paper we find that the simple latitudinal average CC
scaling relation does not hold at local (grid box) scales over
either ocean or land. This means that in terms of P −E, the
climate models do not project that the “wet get wetter and dry
get drier” at the local scales that are relevant for agricultural,
ecological and hydrologic impacts. In an attempt to develop a
simple framework for local-scale analysis we found that the
climate model output shows a remarkably close relation to
the long-standing Budyko framework of catchment hydrology.
We subsequently use the Budyko curve and find that the
local-scale changes in P −E projected by climate models
are dominated by changes in P while the changes in net irradiance
at the surface due to greenhouse forcing are small and
only play a minor role in changing the mean annual P −E
in the climate model projections. To further understand the
apparently small changes in net irradiance we also examine
projections of key surface energy balance terms. In terms of
global averages, we find that the climate model projections
are dominated by changes in only three terms of the surface
energy balance: (1) an increase in the incoming long-wave
irradiance, and the respective responses (2) in outgoing longwave
irradiance and (3) in the evaporative flux, with the latter
change being much smaller than the former two terms and
mostly restricted to the oceans. The small fraction of the realised
surface forcing that is partitioned into E explains why
the hydrologic sensitivity (2%K−1) is so much smaller than
CC scaling (7%K−1). Much public and scientific perception
about changes in the water cycle has been based on the notion
that temperature enhances E. That notion is partly true
but has proved an unfortunate starting point because it has
led to misleading conclusions about the impacts of climate
change on the water cycle. A better general understanding of
the potential impacts of climate change on water availability
that are projected by climate models will surely be gained by
starting with the notion that the greater the enhancement of
E, the less the surface temperature increase (and vice versa).
That latter notion is based on the conservation of energy and
is an underlying basis of climate model projections.
Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.
Matthew, so it looks like it’s going to get more humid and will probably rain more. This means umbrella makers will have more business?
Your ‘klimate kleptocrat’ dollars are being well spent America! Cascade Sierra Solutions company received more than $60 million in government grants to ‘upgrade emissions on pre-2007 diesel trucks’, as part of the ‘stimulus program’. This ‘green enterprise’, operating out of the anarchist enclave of Eugene Oregon, went bankrupt in March this year, leaving banks and creditor’s stuck with $19 million in debt!
Ninety Percent of EPA Stimulus Funding for Diesel Reduction Program Misspent
Excerpt:
The OIG said the entirety of a $9 million grant given to Cascade Sierra Solutions was wasted after the non-profit failed to accomplish any of the project’s goals. The grant was intended for upgrading diesel trucks made before 2007 with emission control technologies.
“Recipient did not install verified emission control technologies on pre-2007 model year trucks; therefore, trucks did not meet emission requirements,” the OIG said.
The company closed earlier this year, and was over $19 million in debt to banks and creditors. The company had received more than $60 million in grants from the federal government.
The EPA has only recovered $1.8 million from Cascade Sierra Solutions, according to the OIG report.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/ninety-percent-of-epa-stimulus-spending-for-diesel-reduction-program-misspent/
Here’s a video about their (ironically) named ScRAPS program… run in the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Nice marketing….
http://youtu.be/7NycZj7UkWs
This is my very first post, but I thought you all might enjoy a true story about Dr. Michael Mann. A former NOAA/NWS colleague of mine related to me that he made a humorous comment about termites in his Area Forecast Discussion several years ago as part of the midnight shift forecast package. Remember when a study said that termites were responsible for the generation of significant amounts of methane? Herr Dr. Professor Mann read this AFD (or became aware of it from his minions) and actually e-mailed the Meteorologist-In-Charge (who may rival Mann in the Narcissist Sweepstakes) to say that this was uncalled for, not good science, yadda yadda. It was clear that his contact was intended to pressure us forecasters to refrain from casting aspersions on the idea of human-caused global warming. As my former colleague was not exactly loved (none of the people with common sense in that office were), the supervisor took the opportunity for a free bash session on the hapless forecaster. Can’t mention anything that would appear to cast a sidelong glance at what passes for science these days, can we? Like with the former supervisor, one story or event in and of itself doesn’t have much significance with Dr. Mann, and it’s only in hindsight that one can meaningfully interpret a series of these negative actions. Checking the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry Version IV (DSM IV; now up to Version V, if memory serves), those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder believe they are not wrong – it’s everyone ELSE that is wrong. The former supervisor actually said that in an open meeting one day: “I’m right, and you’re all wrong.” And right after that: “If you want to know what’s wrong with this office, just look in the mirror.” I guess the supervisor didn’t like how his comments were laughed at, because the Un-Loved Ones amongst the assembled received disciplinary notices shortly thereafter, which had to be made to disappear from personnel folders by the NWSEO (union) Regional Chair. Another time, the supervisor said to me (and at least one other forecaster) that the supervisor was not responsible for my anger; but that I was responsible for my own anger, and I needed to seek anger management. This inability to accept blame or criticism is integral to the narcissist’s personality disorder, as is the need to strike back. In my opinion, it is this twisted mindset that needs to be investigated in the so-called “Climate Science”, and I daresay meteorology, of today. Perhaps it can be forthrightly said that the NWS has always had its share of “characters,” and even narcissists, but my experience was that academia did not share this affliction and did not operate in such a scurrilous way. My, my, how times have changed. And oh, the NWS stories that could be (and should be) told!
From the Mayo clinic:
Describes Obama exactly.
Applicable to almost every man and woman I know. Like most of the psychological generic diagnoses these days.
Are you describing Obama, Mann, Hansen, Cook, Connolly, Gore … or Nero?
Not that I have any sympathy for the likes of Obama or Mann, but being narcissistic is not necessarily bad. Many of the benefactors of humanity — scientists, inventors, poets, composers, painters — were narcissistic to the extreme.
The problem arises when a person has nothing to show for his or her self-admiration. Richard Wagner was not only narcissistic, he was an accomplished bigot, a swindler who never paid his debts, a Jew-hater (though he probably knew that he was an illegitimate child of a Jewish actor), and a fool of many spectacular dimensions.
Nevertheless, Wagner wrote some exquisitely beautiful music that will be giving people pleasure for centuries to come. By the way, according to the memoirs of Zhabotinsky, one of the founders of Israel, Wagner’s overture to Tannhäuser inspired in him the idea of the independent Jewish state. Go figure.
One thing is incontrovertible: Barack Obama and professor Michael Mann have nothing to show that would justify their narcissism.
4caster, do you have anything besides hearsay evidence of this interaction?
OMG I wonder if it is going to be like slipping into an alternative universe like what used to happen to Captain Kirk. I guess it depends on what percentage of the audience are Mann/Cook sycophants.
Meanwhile in yet another alternate universe, Al Gore warns Climate Skepticism Will Haunt Republicans in 2016. Does this guy not even get the mid-east is blowing up with potential increasing blowback , jobs still have only partially returned from the last recession, and health care costs remain an issue for all but the very poor or the very rich.
So let me understand the Gore universe; War, Health, and being able to provide food, clothing, and a roof for your family are not the bread and butter issues, it is those gosh darn climate skeptics.
NOAA August stats in:
Record warm land/ocean August 2014
Record warm land/ocean June- August 2014
Both beating 1998.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
James Abbott
You write saying in total
If you want to know how how those “Record” values were fabricated then see this.
Note the graph is only for the time since July 2011. Other changes ‘cooled’ earlier times.
Richard
Vast swathes of missing data on the land only record :
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201408.gif
which “miraculously” reappears in the land-ocean record
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201408.gif
You can’t make this up. Oh, wait, it looks like they did.
James, it sure is getting hot isn’t it? I think you can donate all your winter clothing, you won’t be needing it. We also have to prepare for the super hurricanes and the additional 1 mm sea level rise we should expect by the end of the year.
I believe RSS has it around 13th place in just 35 years. The divergence would make any reasonable person curious.
Here is what a divergence between the two looks like now, third graph down. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/keep-extrapolating-until-you-get-the-answer-politicians-are-looking-for/ (That is the real new record, almost .7 degrees.)
UAH is much closer to RSS now.
Until and unless Anth*ny et al can ferret out a proper analysis of surface-station data, such presently-doctored data is worse than useless.
Satellite temps are the only reliable measurements — full coverage & no UHIE. If you don’t like that they only go back to 1979, that’s just the reality. Get real.
Great article: Greens vs. the Poor
http://nypost.com/2014/09/17/greens-v-the-poor-its-a-movement-of-the-haves/
From what I’ve seen, you speak the absolute truth.
You won’t like Bristol – the people there are open-minded, liberal, welcoming to minoriites, increasingly anti-religion, intelligent (and, therefore, anti-conspiracy theories and other forms of wishful-thinking leading to a denial of rational science), left-leaning, and rational.
Mann and Cook will likely get a warm reception too, which you won’t like either.
Oh well, at least you’ll be able to sit among normal people with normal interests – it should be an eye-opener for you!
“increasingly anti-religion, intelligent (and, therefore, anti-conspiracy theories and other forms of wishful-thinking leading to a denial of rational science), ”
An ode to rationality and rationality only;
For more than 200 years now Western atheism tries to create itself a sound epistemology that makes them sorta capable of existing together in a society; trying to find themselves reasons why it is not right to slaughter fellow people at will. As, in the eyes of the mechanistic atheist, humans are lumps of meat, and consciousness a meaningless illusion, why not slaughter excess people? From Kant on some kind of logical-positivist reasoning has to justify it; yet Goedel has proven the necessary incompleteness of any axiomatic system.
One could echo Dawkins and say, we should strive to minimize suffering; well but that is equivalent to arguing for a quick and painless execution. Do the lumps of meat suffer when annihilated by a lightning fast atomic blast? Can meat suffer when blown to atoms in a microsecond? That’s too fast for the nerve impulses of the meat, so nuclear annihilation should be A-OK for atheists.
Definitely a step up above the Guillotine.
For more than 200 years now Western atheism tries to create itself a sound epistemology that makes them sorta capable of existing together in a society; trying to find themselves reasons why it is not right to slaughter fellow people at will.
== == == == == == ==
The answer comes from the prisoner’s dilemma of game theory.
If you are not planning to wipe out everyone in a zero-sum game, then killing people on the basis of some psychopathic impulse, or just for profit or pleasure (assuming you have those kind of motives for killing in your constitution–most people don’t) is probably not in your interest.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html
Someone will probably return the favor. (That’s why barbarian history is full of family feuds.)
Atheists don’t run around killing people simply because they don’t fear and angry deity with questionable ethics. Atheist don’t need an imaginary parent with a stick looking over their shoulder to make them behave in a civilized fashion.
When a religious person loses faith and becomes an atheist, they typically turn into serial killers, do they?
And yet, the Crusaders butchered and raped their way to Palestine on the papal (papa) promise that they would be forgiven their sins, and rewarded for their efforts.
When the Crusades ground to halt, the Church sold indulgences instead – licenses for bad behavior.
It wasn’t an atheist who said, “Kill them all, and let God sort it out.” Nothing undermines the value of life and limb like religion does.
Khwarizmi
It seems you like to use the logical fallacy of ‘arguing the general from the particular’ and say
But I can also use that fallacy so I point out that it was an atheist who insisted tens of thousands of Soviet peasants be forced from their homes and starved to death. Clearly, nothing undermines the value of life and limb like atheism does.
WUWT is not a place to proselytise any religion and that includes atheism.
Richard
I don´t believe in supernatural beings. I strive to behave because that´s what my parents and those around me taught me. And I never considered anything “just a lump of meat”. On the other hand, I have been abused by religious people (mainly US protestants) who felt I was an inmoral character because I didn´t fear going to hell. I guess the conclusion is to each his own, and I sure hope we never have a theocratic government in charge…religious people do tend to enjoy burning heretics like me at the stake.
“Thou shalt not kill”, unless they’re Canaanites “infesting” the so-called “promised land”, then it’s ok to slaughter them by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. How quickly they broke so many of the commandments.
I’m an atheist, and I don’t see humans as lumps of meat to be culled. In fact, I help those less fortunate than myself every day, as part of my job (a job that barely pays the bills). But it is blatantly obvious that believing in magical beings doesn’t prevent one from slaughtering one’s fellow man, in the name of that magical being.
Open-minded? intelligent? Anti-conspiracy theories (Koch machine, “well-organized, well-funded d@nial machine))? anti-wishful thinking (renewables are practical or will be soon)?
Surely you jest.
The comment section of the Guardian has left us wide-eyed already.
richardscourtney
I wondered how long ti would take before I got a response along the lines “its all made up”.
So is the record Antarctic ice area “made up” ? No doubt you would say no – and that is cherry picking of data to suit a pre-determined position.
The fact is we are seeing record warm ocean surface temperatures and in August a record departure. That is a key driver. All the surface temperature data sets are showing the same trend, even if the details, as would be expected, show variation.
2014 is on course to be a top 5, possibly top 3 year and it shows how the focus on regional weather – cool periods in eastern USA this year for example – are wrongly extrapolated to produce “evidence” of global cooling.
Each of us can thank our respective deities it may not be a record hot year. The fact that surface temperature doesn’t seem to be rising is such a relief. This hiatus period or whatever you want to call it may give us time to find a new technology to use solar and wind power for real. Praise the deep ocean for hiding the heat!
And Fernando reveals his real agenda,….
to be fair cool periods in eastern USA are also used to ‘prove’ AGW , as are warm ones , as is more rain less rain , heat of any kind , snow , less snow , more snow , floods , draughts , wind , high wind , lack of wind and rain of frogs .
The days of weather is not climate are long gone now any extreme but not usual weather event is jumped on has ‘proof’ of ‘the cause ‘ because despite all the claims , the bluster and the BS the actual climate has failed to support ‘the cause ‘ in any way near the way the ‘settled science’ claimed it would . So now its time to resort to barn door style predictions with error bars so wide you could fly a 747 through them sideways.
Or just fiddle the figurers so the past becomes a ‘better match’ to the claims and never mind the actual reality . Its religion not science that makes of unquestionable perfection.
The “record” August is due to temperature fabrication by Gavin Schmidt. He simply invented temperatures for places where thereis no data , such as the Arctic. This is documented on this blog and others. Then comes a poor gullible fellow like you and repeats the lie. Or maybe you are not so gullible but have a mission to spread propaganda.
James Abbott:
Try something for me: go to the GISS mapping site… http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ and put 250km for the smoothing range (instead of the ridiculous 1200km Gavin likes to use) and set the normals period to 1981-2010 (like the WMO recommends) and tell me what temp anomaly shows. it will look something like this
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSST_250km_Anom08_2014_2014_1981_2010/nmaps.gif
half! half of the anomaly GISS puts in its press releases with their map parameter tweaking
James Abbot,
Apples … Datasets of temperature that have been shown to be questionably adjusted.
Oranges … Antarctic ice area that we can “see” “live” with our electronic eyes in the sky.
No, the Antarctic ice area is not “made up”. Please show me a picture or any proof for that matter that shows that the NOAA T datasets are not “made up”.
Mentioning one and not mentioning the other is not “cherry picking”. They are actually very different things and types of things, not comparable and don’t fit the “cherry picking” bumper sticker. Please re-read your talking points manual, “cherry picking” is an overused catchall, if you are going to overuse it overuse it properly. you can surely do better than that.
Dr. Roy Spencer says
He also says
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/09/are-record-ocean-surface-temperatures-due-to-record-low-wind-speeds/
James Abbott
You say to me
I did not say that but – as a matter of fact – the datum you cited IS “made up”; see this.
Please note that ‘Anything is possible’ posted this information (which I link) in support of my refuting your having posted the same falsehood as you have posted in this thread.
Also, see ice cover is a completely different matter which is direct observation so cannot be “made up”.
Richard
S has become an outliner. This is what a divergence between the two looks like now, third graph down. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/keep-extrapolating-until-you-get-the-answer-politicians-are-looking-for/ (That is the real new record, almost .7 degrees.)
UAH is much closer to RSS now as well. If you were to see RSS August 1998 vs. RSS August 2014, you would see 1998 was far warmer. GISS is manipulated.