It has been awhile since we have had one. Feel free to comment on any topic within our normal guidelines.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It has been awhile since we have had one. Feel free to comment on any topic within our normal guidelines.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I had to laugh at fishermen comments at the boat launch today for the start of the Salmonarama tournament on Lake Michigan … “I’ve never seen the water at the ramp so high.” Three years ago water levels were very low, global warming were clapping their hands in glee at the evidence of global warming, and that launched millions upon millions of dollars worth of harbor dredging to combat the “global-warming caused” low lake levels. Of course by the time dredging actually occurred, a year or two later, the lake levels were already rebounding back to normal but the money was already allocated and had to be spent. Now lake levels are very high and houses a few miles from the harbor are falling into the lake because high water erosion is eating into the bluffs.
There seems to be some sort of lesson to be learned here but no one seems to be asking why did we spend so much on something that wasn’t really necessary (harbor dredging) when we could have spent it on something that was necessary (bluff erosion prevention).
Maybe they thought to find some of this:
http://www.lakesuperior.com/downloads/359/download/241copperlift.jpg?cb=e85bf5d1fafb6592f52fe08392c96350
That is native copper found on the lake bottom of Superior.
http://www.lakesuperior.com/downloads/359/download/241copperlift.jpg
Native copper
Yes indeed, government planning at it’s finest.
Governments, politicians really, have to be seen to be doing something. They are just idiots with ambition, so they don’t know good spending (hey! It’s possible!) from bad spending! Many are lawyers and professionally amoral, so….they have that…quality. Also, we pay them excessively to do this, so they have to. Otherwise, they can’t earn their ridiculous pensions. It’s a great system!
“It’s a great system!”, for those who lack moral standards, and do not care about the downstream effects on other people.
If anyone was wondering where all the weather is on this planet, have a look at windyty.com.
This is a beautiful way to look at weather, the first thing I noticed is that all the nasty energetic weather occurs over the oceans. This should be called planet water. Man is so self absorbed at being the centre of the universe that all the climate studies seem to focus on the land. Oceans are where its at.
so true.
“It requires an astronomical amount of ignorance and arrogance to claim humans are the only reason the temperature and climate began to change.”
—quote from CHANGING Climate Change
We live in a water world and the Southern Hemisphere is predominantly water vs. land. We are in our summer up in the N. hemisphere, but down under it is winter. The declining solar cycle is hitting mostly water now and this is a harbinger of the cold to come. The ocean is the storage mechanism for solar isolation, and it is not getting “charged”.
Peruse “iceagenow” to see the record setting cold in the S. Hemisphere. Add the growing Antarctic ice, and the tipping point for cold may just be down under.
Thanks for the link, Bill.
Here is the weathermap I look at everyday:
http://content.wdtinc.com/clients/koln/map2.php?MAPID=14116
Unfortunately, it doesn’t cover the entire world, but it covers what I’m interested in as to local weather.
Don’t know if you have this link already, but I’ll post it anyway, as it is a good one:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/orthographic=-102.41,23.19,431
Thank You, very good links. 🙂
Great link, thanks for sharing!
Fantastic!
Great forum — thanks for having the open thread.
For me, the most concerning part is what is behind Al Gore’s theory of anthropogenic global warming.
I just finished writing a book explaining how and why Gore’s theory of anthropogenic global warming is wrong. Pretty much any post on this thread disproves Gore’s theory.
Hey Kevin! That’s terrific! I have been saying for some time that we need a counter presentation or anti- An Inconvenient Truth video. I blame the moron Gore for popularizing this lame brain AGW idea. Sounds like your book would be a worthwhile read. What is the title and is it published?
Thanks John! I appreciate your interest. The title is “CHANGING Climate Change” and is currently only available on the publisher’s website: http://www.bigumbrellapub.co
Until July 31, you can enter coupon code: CHANGING CC for a 15% discount.
I agree, there has to be a counter-movement to Al Gore’s theory of AGW. It’s time to liberate climate change from the green propaganda machine!
This echos my comment a coupla(?) days ago. Why shd the Devil always play the best tunes?
A big concern is the brain-washing our kids are getting in educational institutions. the “Received Wisdom” needs to be challenged whenever & wherever.
Apropos which, I offered to buy for our local High School’s Library 12 copies of Lomborg’s book, and I was refused, on account of the fact that it was not on the “Approved Reading List” (or somesuch) of the B.C. Min.Education. Meantime, Gore’s egregious movie was played over-and-over to the kids. If this isn’t brain-washing, I don’t know what is.
It’s incumbent on all us steady-thinkers to challenge back-room bias, bigotry, hypocrisy and the reimposition of feudalism by the glitterati at *every* opportunity. It’s a long uphill task but “Every long march starts with the first steps!” (Mao, I think?)
“We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength …. we shall defend [the Ultimate Truth], We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,” (With apologies to Winston S. Churchill)
Just wanted to share a link from Retraction Watch:
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/07/08/authors-retract-study-that-found-pollution-near-fracking-sites/
That talks about the retraction of a analysis of pollution and other health info associated with fracking, it got a bunch of headlines; Causes Cancer etc…..
Now the article has been retracted because they got it all wrong. The risks they had looked at now are non-existent and well below any EPA worries let alone any real human concern. Spreadsheet error caused by wrong units apparently.
Will the media cover this? I kinda doubt it.
Lastly, anyone know what happened to Lucia’s Rankexploits?
Anti-fracking is part of the shut down fossil fuels movement. Hoped for results will be to force the use of renewables such as wind and solar.
Shut down ones set of lies and another pops up!
I wonder if activist scientists would consider putting out a paper they know to be bogus, let it circulate for a bit then retract it knowing that it achieved a goal to influence media and public opinion?
Just finished Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession” and I highly recommend it. Masterful job of citing actual quotes from prominent scientists to overcome fear of being a ‘denier’.
Every once in a while I’ve made a comment about LENR (aka cold fusion) without getting a sensible response. It seems really odd to me there is no interest in that subject here as it shows every sign of significantly reducing the use of fossil fuels over the next couple of decades. I think it likely it will end the debate on AGW.
There are two main varieties of LENR. The one started by Fleischmann and Pons using Palladium and deuterium in 1989, that researchers failed to replicate at first and so got cold fusion a bad name. In fact it has been replicated several times since and it is now understood why the early attempts failed. They didn’t know what they were doing, were in a rush to publish and failed to load the Palladium sufficiently for the process to work.
The other newer system involves nickel, lithium and hydrogen. The foremost experimenter with this is Andrea Rossi, whose 1 mega Watt plant completed a one year trial in Feb 2016. According to the ERV (independent consultant paid to monitor the results) it operated with a COP of >50
Industrial Heat Ltd had agreed to pay Rossi $89 million if the plant worked with a COP >6 as the final payment for the intellectual property and rights to sell the technology in America and some other countries. They failed to pay. As a result Rossi had taken them to court (trial Sept 2017) and declared their license is now invalid. In fact it doesn’t really matter. It looks like Rossi has developed a much superior system that also produces light and electricity directly. Very little is known of this new development until patents are granted, except it is tiny – 1mm x 40mm and produces 100 Watts of heat.
Should anyone be interested I would be happy to elaborate.
Adrian Ashfield commented: “….it is tiny – 1mm x 40mm and produces 100 Watts of heat. Should anyone be interested I would be happy to elaborate…”
Yes, I’m interested
markl,
I can’t tell you more about the tiny reactor, except it is called the QuarkX as a temporary name. Rossi says that although this is still in R&D it looks like the future to him. He proposes to join.many of them together to get the required output. He also says that up to 50% of the output can be as electricity but any power taken that way reduces the heat output accordingly. I speculate that he has gone to a smaller size because it is easier to control. The larger sizes operate best at high temperature but are prone to run away and melt.
A whole lot more is known about the the earlier, large, low temperature versions. The basics are provided in his patent. The patent is worded a bit strangely to get past the Patent Office’s automatic rejection of cold fusion.. http://ecat.com/ecat-technology/ecat-patents
Well, I know nothing about the guy in question, but your description of the events rings many alarm bells, as it is the exact same story we’ve heard time and time again from people seeking to dupe investors with the next great miracle device. Change his name and the name of the device, and the story is exactly the same as a million scams that came before it. Right down to the “I can’t explain how it works because I haven’t got a patent yet”, and “I’m being attacked by big business seeking to rip me off or suppress my invention” parts.
The story is always the same.
I mean, the guy has already been convicted of tax fraud and environmental crime, with a business that claimed to be able to turn toxic waste into oil…. But hey, if you claim a big enough miracle, and tug on the right heart strings with stories of how “the man” is keeping you down, you can get investors for just about anything. That this scam is so common as to be easily recognizable speaks to its effectiveness.
Philip,
Not only did he turn toxic waste into fuel, but the process has been resurrected in America. So what was your point again?
Lol, good luck then. My point was to warn you. Hope you haven’t given this guy any of your money.
Philip,
It looks like Rossi was run out of business in Italy by the Mafia. They considered he was threatening their waste disposal business. They persuaded the government to retroactively class the waste he had collected as hazardous.
Your warning not to give him money is without merit too. Only large companies “that understand the risk” can. I wish I could and I understand the risk..
I have been following Rossi’s ecat and now quark-x story for over 5 years. Its a very tangled story that still has me a little confused but there are several others in the works. Brillioun Power, some Russian guys, Chinese- too many to remember. I have no doubt anymore that LENR or “cold fusion” is real. It’s a shame what was done to Pons and Fleischman. It may take some time to get practical devices out of this idea but catalyzed fusion reactions will be the story of the 21st century.
If all this AGW nonsense gets you down, I suggest reading ” The Singularity is Near”. The future will be more amazing than we can imagine. If we get there, lol!
John,
Like you I have been following Rossi since his first public demo in 2011. LENR is the opposite of AGW in that the consensus doesn’t believe it but the facts back it up. Brilliant Light Power (nee Blacklight Power) have had some impressive demos lately, but have a long record of failing to produce a commercial product.
A long time ago Rossi forecast that no demo would ever satisfy the skeptics but only the sale of working commercial units. Rossi is optimistic he will have a commercial 1 MW plant working before the end of 2016.
Technical reporter Mats Lewan has written an excellent book called “An Impossible Invention” that covers Rossi’s story. See also his long “webinar” about LENR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ3S3YMH96s&feature=youtu.be
Something tells me the inventor of cold a working cold fusion reactor wont live ling enough to see it work. Trillions of dollars would be a stake.
ps. Here are some photos of the I MW plant being built. http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/
The reactors shown in the center photo were of an earlier design and are just there as “stand-by” in case the main reactors failed. The heat was produced by four 250 kW units shown in the bottom center image, with Rossi listening to the water boiling with a stethoscope.
An unverified analysis of the ash after the one year’s operation is discussed here. If these figures are correct it would be proof that the 1 MW plant operated as claimed. Read the comments too.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/08/document-isotopic-composition-of-rossi-fuel-sample-unverified/
pps.
E-cat World have a link to Brilliant Light Power’s latest two hour demo video to generate power @ur momisugly 0.1 cents/kW.
Seems to me there are a lot of difficult engineering problems, so their forecast of commercial units next year looks optimistic to me. Mills argues that the device is sufficiently cheap that they would just swap them out, but I would like to see several units run for up to a year in order to get a better handle on the problems before they are out in the field.
Amongst other things Mills claims quantum mechanics is wrong. He does have a point.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/10/brillliant-light-power-posts-demo-video/
Rossi is currently sueing a forms partner for non completion on his one year demo. The jointly agreed test referee signed off as meeting the test criteria and the payment was to be 89 million. The IP is likewise somewhat in the wind. I believe he is way ahead of the others as control of the reaction seems to be difficult and critical. Rossi appears to have that aspect figured out.
I usually just post my inane comments on the nearest thread.
Suddenly I’m speechless.
I just watched a tv program about NASA’s Juno mission to Jupiter. It’s pretty exciting. We should learn a lot about a lot of things, if the spacecraft can manage to stay functional in the high radiation environment it has to deal with.
So far, so good.
I’d like to see two new rules here:
1: If you write an article for this site, and produce figures or graphs, you should provide all the data and methods necessary to replicate your work. There is no excuse for not doing this. If you’re not confident enough in your results to supply the necessary information to allow them to be checked, you shouldn’t be publishing them in the first place.
1: If you use an article published here to make personal attacks, then you should be prepared to be judged by the same standards you judge others by. If you are going to make someones character part of the topic, then you should accept criticism of your own character as on topic too.
If however, you just want to talk about the science, then that’s fine, your character has nothing to do with it… But when you make it an issue….
I’m looking for a web site or similar which provides a good, clear explanation of the logarithmic nature of the “greenhouse warming” effect. If a doubling of GHG gives a certain temperature rise, why does it take another doubling to get that same rise again? How does the greenhouse effect become saturated? Thanks for any leads.
And if the present rise gives zero warming, what does two times zero get us?
I think that comes out to zero, also. 🙂 We are still working on that first input of CO2 and its effects. Theoretically it has an effect, but does it practically? Is there a feedback that cancels the effect out? Noone knows?
I was hoping for some basic physics as opposed to comments. Perhaps something that extends upon this factual scientific sort of treatment of the greenhouse effect:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
There must be some kinetic energy deposited in the atmosphere by meteorites, solar mass ejections, cosmic rays, and collapsing or moving magnetic fields and maybe electrostatic fields in the galaxy. And there is a tiny bit coming in as light from the moon. Also, coming from below as geothermal sources, boiling vents in the ocean floor, undersea volcanos, kinetic energy and friction from tides and heat from landslides and falling icebergs.
Also, photosynthesis takes energy from the atmosphere as photons subtracted from heating other things such as water, oxygen and nitrogen; and respiration and fermentation adds heat to the atmosphere as it burns carbohydrates into water and CO2 and/or alcohol.
I wonder if these sources of energy have any significance on the energy budget of the earth? or are they essentially minuscule? compared to the 239W/m^2 coming in from the sun?
New York Times 23 Jan 2016 had an article entitled- A Lake in Bolivia Evaporates, and With It a Way of Life
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/americas/a-lake-in-bolivia-evaporates-and-with-it-a-way-of-life.html?_r=0
This article was updated and on 8 July 2016 the New York Times published another article- “Climate Change Claims a Lake,
and a Way of Life” http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/07/world/americas/bolivia-climate-change-lake-poopo.html?_r=0
“The water receded and the fish died. The stench drifted in the air for weeks. Then “the people of the lake” started to leave.
By NICHOLAS CASEY
Photographs and video by JOSH HANER”
This story was also published in the Guardian- Bolivia’s second-largest lake dries up and may be gone forever, lost to climate change – Friday 22 January 2016 13.10 AEDT
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/22/bolivias-second-largest-lake-dries-up-and-may-be-gone-forever-lost-to-climate-change
The Guardian has many comments attached to the article which picked up that the lake had dried up many times before and that a lot of water had been diverted for mining and agriculture.
There is a scientific study on the lake- http://www.lakescientist.com/lake-poopo-dries-up/
which confirms this and notes that there is a dam upstream which restricts water supply to the wet season. The collapse of the Tiwanaku civilization (c. AD 1100) has been attributed to an extended dry period (Binford et al.,
1997). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.51.1.98
Would anybody have the interest, skills and time to pull all this together?
I was wondering why no one has written a paper that looks at the pause from a multi variable perspectve?
What I mean is that if you look at temperature alone it is easy to dismiss the pause whether by data manipulation or reference periods etc.
However, there appears to be signs of the pause elsewhere. I live in Singapore and I downloaded data from the NEA singapore. The temperatures here rose during the 90s then levelled off just like many other obs stations around the world. This same signal can also be seen in the observed precipitation, increasing during the 90s then levelled off.
Stratospheric temps lowered in the 80s until mid 90s then flatlined.
There could be cases argued for similar trends in storms, droughts etc.
It seems to me that a new climate equilibrium was found and perhaps the globe after an initial jolt upwards has settled into this new equilibrium.
@ur momisugly Eric Worral, seeing it’s an open thread, can you update us on the election in Oz and what it means for the debate on CC? Thanks.
Coalition Govt has scraped over the line as Labor concedes-
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/election-2016malcolm-turnbull-claims-victory-after-bill-shorten-concedes-defeat/ar-BBu8vnm?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartanntp
Whether they reach a majority in their own right (76 seats in a 150 seat House of Representatives) is still a moot point but the PM already has the support of 3 independents and one of them could serve as Speaker of the House. Nevertheless they don’t have a majority in the Senate (House of Review) so unpopular legislation will be difficult to pass without some deals being struck with minor parties/independents.
Thanks, reading the news in North America leaves a lot to be desired.
‘Close to 10,000 hectares of mangroves have died across a stretch of coastline reaching from Queensland to the Northern Territory.
International mangroves expert Dr Norm Duke said he had no doubt the “dieback” was related to climate change.’
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/shocking-images-reveal-death-of-10000-hectares-of-mangroves-across-northern-australia/ar-BBu8Px9?li=AA4Znz&ocid=spartanntp
So I was interested in how unprecedented this mangrove dieback is and came up with a Florida example-
http://floridabay.org/pub/bw_report/mangroves.shtml
Interesting how the Florida dieback is on islands and the Gulf of Carpentaria one seems to be a similar strip of mangroves surrounded by seawater and it would appear drought and the lack of fresh water is problematic for the mangroves. In that case it will be interesting to see how they recover with a return to normal wet seasons.
Hugs
July 10, 2016 at 2:24 am
Off topic comment.
I think some GHE talk is much a red herring. But I’m interested in how much GHE consists of solely pressure only and how much on the atmospheric composition. Had we 90 bars of pure nitrogen, what would be the approximate temperature at surface?
What about 90 atm air or 90 atm CO2?
All the solar system atmospheres measured (quite a few), show that the gas laws rule. That is, gaseous mass, gravity, and solar distance govern temperatures. Gas species are irrelevant, though basal pressures under those of our tropopause eg Mars cannot hold a normal lapse rate, because of wider molecular gaps allowing radiative domination. Whatever gas gas they hold.. In denser atmospheres, radiation is always subordinate below the 500hPa level..
None of the planets have a gasosphere containing only nitrogen. So the question is a bit theoretical.
I have wondered if there is a speed of gravity. If the Sun was to be removed in an instant the we could observe the lack of light some 7 1/2 minutes later. but how long would it take for the earth to start moving in s straight line without the gravitational influence of the Sun?
On a different aspect. At the time of the Big Bang there was a fixed amount of energy in the universe. Some of this energy was in the form of mass. As Suns use up their mass to convert matter to electromagnetic energy then the level of gravity in the Universe diminishes. There being less gravitational attraction then the Universe would expand at an accelerated rate which matches the observation of an increasing Universe. This is just an opinion.
Pretty sure physics says the gravitational effect can’t be faster than light speed. Question #2 is tougher but I think you have to fall back on mass/energy equivalence as opposed to conversion. So technically, when energy is absorbed by matter its mass increases.
London, the “speed of gravity” is the same as the speed of light. If the sun suddenly magically disappeared we’d feel the earth fly off into space the same moment as we saw the sun’s light go out.
Converting the mass of the sun into light doesn’t affect the overall “level of gravity” in the universe. Mass and energy are equivalent as far as gravity is concerned.
Gravity… it’s everywhere. Light doesn’t have a field. A gravity wave may not be subject to time aspect of motion. Light is affected by gravity, and has a time component. When 2 black holes merge, the furthest reaches of its gravity moves at the same time. Twisting the wand on venetian blinds move the slats at the same time.
– Rishrac
Can you expand a little on”a gravity wave may not be subject to the time aspect of motion”? My grasp of astrophysics is pretty meager I’m afraid.
I don’t know everything about gravity. Until asked questions or involved in conversations like this, I try not to think about it. Quantum and string physics is easier to understand. I never really thought about time like light. Perhaps time can be reflected. That would be interesting. Both seem to travel in one direction. In astrophysics they say the universe is expanding. Is there an inverse relationship between time and expansion? There is a book, it’s called Gravity. There is a lot of math in it.
Light is really strange. It’s not as simple as some think it is. There’s information in starlight.
I mentioned the god of all clocks. As far as I can see most things are timed to that universal clock. But then why would a black hole need a Clock? Just part of the universe turned inside out. Nothing in it. Any matter falling on it gets torn apart and ejected. The line between existence and non existence. I’ve thought of doing that, calculating the mass of a star and seeing how much energy is expelled when a black hole eats it. There are some black holes that are slow munchiers. The thing I’d like to see is the death of a black hole. There are time frames, a black hole forms, a black hole lives, and a black hole dies. So either a black hole dies and keeps track of time, or a black hole never dies and has no need of time, it doesn’t keep it.
I’m self aware. Sometimes when conversations run like this, I sometimes ask myself, what the heck am I talking about. It’s good to be in a room that has walls with whiteboards. There are so many tangents you can loose sight of the original goal. So you have to write that down, you will forget, or it will come up again later, and wow that’s something I didn’t think of. Morgan LeFey trapped Merlin in his own reflection. I know how she did it.
I do think that there is a relationship between light, time, and gravity. In the real sense that they can interfere, react, and act on each other.
At points in talking about things like this, the conversation turns more philosophical. We have to think about what something is doing, then go about seeing if it is.
Best I can follow Einstein, lights time dilatation is really just light following the curvature of spacetime.
But this is what I keep picturing, time is a “real” dimension, just like x,y and z, and we are in free fall in that direction. And gravity changes the angle between our x,y and z, and time.
visualize this as a sort of a tetrahedron.
I was thinking something similar. Like one of the oddly shaped rooms where you can looker much taller or smaller depending on where you’re standing. I think there are angles between light,time, and gravity. If we left this solar system would time be different? It seems the stronger the gravity, the faster time passes. But that’s something different I envision in or near a black hole. Those giant nebulas I have thought might be from a black hole becoming unstable and exploding. We will have to see one to find out. On the one hand I can see where time would stop, and then it could pass very quickly. If a black hole doesn’t die, it means that there is nothing vibrating in it. No way to measure time. I think some of this is due to our lack of abilities to understand some kinds of concepts. For example, some monkeys have much better memory when it comes to number sequence than humans. What they seem to lack is cognitive thought. There might be a level of cognitive thought that would make this very simple.
London, Tom van Flandern had an article on Meta Research (site vanished but available in the archive)
https://web.archive.org/web/20160607035428/http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Economy/china-global-economy-g-20-fix/2016/07/09/id/737894/
China: G-20 Must Fix ‘Grim’ Global Economy
“The global economic situation is grim and major economies must lead the way in tackling problems including sluggish growth and weak trade, China’s trade minister Gao Hucheng said on Saturday.
Gao made the remarks at the start of a two-day meeting of trade ministers from G-20 economies in Shanghai, as uncertainty hangs over the outlook for a slow-growing global economy now beset by post-Brexit reverberations.
The global economic recovery remained “complicated and grim,” Gao said.
“Global trade is dithering, international investment has yet to recover to levels before the financial crisis, the global economy has yet to find the propulsion for strong and sustainable growth.”
Don’t blame BrExit. All those things existed before BrExit came along.
Yeah, the G20 needs to fix the world economy. I got a little chuckle out of that one.
One way to fix the economies is to quit bankrupting them by forcing them to install inferior, costly, deadly electrical generation facilities such as windmills.
The Chinese have more reason to worry than most.
CRISPR- http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/crispr-a-game-changing-genetic-engineering-technique/
A clear explanation(somewhat limited) about one of the most significant genetic discoveries since Memdel.
Modifying bits of DNA, down to single point mutations if needed.
Wonderful, if it’s done ethically and properly.
Here’s an interesting article with a few interesting things to say …
“Antarctic sea-ice expansion between 2000 and 2014 driven by Pacific decadal climate variability”
“Antarctic sea-ice extent has been slowly increasing in the satellite record that began in 1979.”
Increasing, Antarctic sea ice has been slowly increasing.
“Since the late 1990s, the increase has accelerated, but the average of all climate models shows a decline.”
The REAL WORLD shows an increase but the average of all the CLIMATE MODELS show a decline. Check.
“Meanwhile, the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, an internally generated mode of climate variability, transitioned from positive to negative, with an average cooling …”
“average cooling”
“… of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures, a slowdown of the global warming trend …”
“A SLOWDOWN OF THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND”
“… and a deepening of the Amudsen Sea Low near Antarctica.”
http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2751.epdf?shared_access_token=-4vAzZ6a2_pPasntoQe7rdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PiRwMr0KAnSTgYyD10-F94hS1A4ilc1GFMTaeoLSR6XK6ebOSFLzQeECI2MuPs3fEJDhLWcI0VoV6_-kKccWyT8k8oQPLD4F71JX5Nk8-MZjySxJWTOWouVG9zLO39zKM%3D
Two examples of left wing hypocrisy and censorship all rolled into one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWy3Yk95FYE
http://www.therebel.media/_controlled_feces_release_by_anti_pipeline_quebec_politicians_leads_to_massive_fish_kill_in_yamaska_river
http://www.therebel.media/rebel_s_new_billboard_banned_in_montreal_city_hall_fears_muslim_backlash_even_saudi_retribution
Tsk, tsk. We must not do anything to offend those who are offended by our very existence.
They might get offended.
Sir/Madam:
You strike a chord! The Offended vs. the Offensive.
The “Offended” are typified by the Glitterati hell-bent on re-establishing Feudal hegemony behind castle walls, and the “Offensive” — 99% of us, the great unwashed — whom they’d like to blame for all perceived environmental ills. The Offended include the uber-rich groups funding so-called “Environmental Causes”, many of them out of USA, and most of them anti-development, and ultra-Green.
All to the exclusion of the average Joe looking to earn a crust of bread to support his family.
The Brits, for example, spent centuries shaking-off the shackles of serfdom. We must fight the New-Feudals to the last, lest we revert to the Dark Ages: penury, lack of a social welfare-net & health-care, a lifespan of 40 if you’re lucky, pestilence & famine, living off what you can scrabble in the dirt-patch outside your hovel.
Society has advanced by harnessing energy. We live in an integrated society. We … the 99% … cannot turn the clock back, and we won’t.
Challenge the “Offended” at every turn.
June 2016 in Massachusetts seemed to be the coolest in memory. Naturally no stories to this effect appeared in the media. Perhaps I’m wrong. There must be records on this sort of thing, but I’m unable to find them using Google. Any ideas?
“Any ideas?”
The data I produce and make available would have a csv file of surface temps and various averages, and I go down to 1×1 degree grids. But I can only give you a round about way there today.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
On that link is a url to source forge, in the reports subfolder there’s a zip, should be labeled clear enough to figure out which is 1×1, there will likely be both daily averages and annual averages. You’ll need to find your coordinates and find the right cell, they are labeled based on the coordinates and there is a xxxx _ST.csv that has the station list and their coordinates. Depending on the part of the world the label can be at the lower boundary of the cell, or the upper boundary, but you can alway look at the station list.
Oh, this data does not have any 2016 data, but you will have actually measured history to look at.
Coolest in memory?
Don’t be surprised if some future list of official records will call it the “warmest evah!”
No California is also experiencing average to below average temps this summer. The daily and extended forecasts for the area have mainly been high for the most part over the last 2 months. Sometimes the forecast has been up to 15F below what is being experienced. That says something about the mindset of the forecasters, imo.
“No California is also experiencing average to below average temps this summer.”
NOAA put out a forecast last month claiming the central part of the U.S. would be cooler than both the west and east coasts of the U.S this summer. Usually, just the opposite happens, so I was a little skeptical about the forecast.
So here in Oklahoma, where it is supposed to be cooler this summer, the heat index today was 102, while both coasts are in the 70’s.
I would love for NOAA’s forcast to be right, but it’s looking a little shaky right now. We are getting a little more rain than usual this time of year. Getting rain in Oklahoma in July is a luxury. We’ll take all we can get. 🙂
We’re cool & wet out here in B.C. (Bloody G.W.!!!)
Our usual rule-of-thumb is whether we lie above (unsettled, cool weather) or below the JetStream (warm, settled, dry). So is La Nina pushing the JetStream southwards in general?
Sask. here , Ross. Fairly cool and wet so far. A Beautiful summer, really. But nothing in the 30’s yet.
Still waiting to crack our all time high of 47C from 1937.
I’m torn philosophically between praying for the next Mini-Ice-Age/Cool Period (if only to stuff-it to the Alarmists!!!) and a status-quo (with Alarmists bitching about every tornado, flood, fruit-fly explosion in Timbuktoo, etc. to adduce their Agenda!)
Tks yr responses, fellow-readers. NEVER let the debate and the critiquing stop!
http://phys.org/news/2016-07-giant-impact-mystery-mars-moons.html
A giant impact: Solving the mystery of how Mars’ moons formed
“Where did the two natural satellites of Mars, Phobos and Deimos, come from? For a long time, their shape suggested that they were asteroids captured by Mars. However, the shape and course of their orbits contradict this hypothesis. Two independent and complementary studies provide an answer to this question. One of these studies, to be published in The Astrophysical Journal and predominantly conducted by researchers from the CNRS and Aix-Marseille Universite, rules out the capture of asteroids, and shows that the only scenario compatible with the surface properties of Phobos and Deimos is that of a giant collision.”
It’s an amazing time to be alive.
CO2 is a ‘well-mixed’ gas?
This has bothered me for a while. Things like the Keeling Curve portray CO2 concentration as a single number or trended average, but the instantaneous values around the globe ar quite varied.
Here, is the nullschool.earth values currently available, with north polar view.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=295.80,88.04,512/loc=-113.806,54.669
Unless I am reading the display incorrectly,mthere are values in the 350 ppm range over the NH.
Out over the Pacific, very even values in the 400 range.
From this, what can be determined about the meaning of ‘well-mixed’ ?
Reply to Steve Fraser July 10, 2016 at 3:50 pm
I agree, it doesn’t appear “well-mixed” in the context of satellite data mapping but as a mixture it is arguably true; I guess. More importantly though, did you see this note on the site! :
“About CO2 concentrations
While implementing the visualization of CO2 surface concentration, I noticed the NASA GEOS-5 model reports a global mean concentration that differs significantly from widely reported numbers. For example, from the run at 2015-11-23 00:00 UTC, the global mean is only 368 ppmv whereas CO2 observatories report concentrations closer to 400 ppmv. GEOS-5 was constructed in the 2000s, so perhaps the model does not account for accumulation of atmospheric CO2 over time? This is simply speculation. I am just not certain.
To bring the GEOS-5 results closer to contemporary numbers, I have added a uniform offset of +32 ppmv, increasing the global mean to 400 ppmv. This is not scientifically valid, but it does allow the visualization to become illustrative of the discussion occurring today around atmospheric CO2. Without question, I would welcome a more rigorous approach or an explanation why the GEOS-5 model produces the data that it does.”
Yes, I saw that, and think it’s a fudge. If thy want an answer from GEO-5, they should request it. Even with that, the NH numbers show a 50 ppm difference between NH and Mauna Loa, which is +14.5% difference.
It chaps me that someone thinks an adjustment needs to be made to rationalize the numbers, and that someone is not the source of the data.
I wrote to the GEOS-5 folks myself to get the skinny. Will post what I Find out.
I never noticed that function before on earthnull. That is interesting. Look down by Los Angeles. That is one of the few spots which show a substantial amount in the NH as compared to anywhere else. I see that the southern middle of Africa has a large signature as does the southern parts of South America.
Around the world, downwind of big cities you see that. It dissipates rapidly over water. Look at Tokyo, and NYC for comparison.
Looking at the Mauna Loa website,,I see references to averaging of Maritime station values. I’ll be looking further into that…
The low is 350ppm and the high is 400ppm. So there is some variation of what is really a trace gas. In terms of the overall atmosphere, the concentration of CO2 varies .005%. I guess well mixed is subjective but I have only heard the term used in reference to the entire atmosphere. No doubt water vapour is similar considering its affinity for air.
John Harmsworth: As mentioned, the site arbitrarily boosts the numbers globally to make the avg number 400 ppm. Yes, it’s a trace gas. In the scheme of things, the fudge is a small thing, however, would make the difference between winning and third time an Olympic 1500 M.
Steve Fraser
I get your point. Again they massage the facts.