Today is a three day weekend for most Americans, including me. Feel free to discuss any topic within the purvue and scope of this website. Guest authors are welcome to post submissions as regular postings will be light.

Have a great holiday weekend everyone!

-Anthony

## 184 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

• Outstanding paper.
The old line in economics has been:
When an economists changes his forecast for GDP growth from 3% to 3 1/4 % he does it to show that he has a sense of humour.
The irony is that when made, the forecasts are taken seriously. Particularly when made by staffers at the Federal Reserve System.
Bob Hoye

• Severian says:

Reminds me of the old quote about Economics. Put two economists in a room and you’ll get two different opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you’ll get three.

• Severian says:

Also, too many people, even in the sciences, don’t understand the difference between precision and accuracy.

• Gunga Din says:

Method Detection Limit.
In a lab, your scale might be able to measure down to nano-grams/liter but the results might only be trusted (consistently repeatable) down to milligrams/liter.

• Crispin in Waterloo says:

I am doubting such a a ‘measurement’ is being made. Rather, it is a reported number. Any measurement is qualified in various ways. For a scale, there is usually some software that reports the average of a number of readings, or it waits until the reading has been stable (as defined) for three seconds, for example.

• Loren Wilson says:

I use high quality lab scales on a daily basis. They do an internal average that is updated to the screen every x measurements, which sometimes can be adjusted by the user. The key to testing a balance is repeatability. I bought a set of standard weights, and can set one on the balance and weigh it multiple times. My favorite balance weighs up to 1200 grams with a precision of 0.001 grams and an accuracy of 0.003 grams. The 500 and 1000 gram weights do show that level of accuracy if the balance is placed inside its own draft shield. Amazing what $7000 can buy. • KAT says: Grammatically correct? • bit chilly says: when i worked in the industrial ceramics industry i used scales of that precision and accuracy daily. we once hired a set of scales that were kept in the lab for measuring to 4 decimal places. i was convinced that due to the particle size of the material being used the scales were not needed. compaction ratio of material was known though actual die fill depth would indicate it to be greater due to fill characteristics of such a small aperture (try modeling that one, you will get it wrong every time a material batch changes 🙂 ) • Gunga Din says: Method Detection Limit. I should have added that the scales precision is only part of the “Method” when weighing a sample. The steps in preparing the sample for weighing are also part of the method. That’s where the limit on accuracy usually enters. Kind of like siting issues with temperature measurements. No matter how precise the instrument if you place near a runway or an AC unit, the value can’t be trusted as an indication of a large area’s temperature. • R. Shearer says: Within limits, very true. • JMS says: I have just started reading Simon Winchester’s book ‘Precision – How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World” in which that differnce is explained in the prologue • RicDre says: Here’s my favorite quote about Economists: “If you took all of the Economists in the world and laid them down end-to-end they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion” • Latitude says: …and they would still all be wrong • Stepen Brown says: I don’t know who said it, but it’s a goodie. “I want an advisor who has only one hand.” • Geoff Sherrington says: We used to say, “If you took the entire population of India and laid the people down head-to-toe, head-to-toe along the Equator, about 87% of them would drown.” • Randall Grubb says: There are two statements attributed to Harry Truman that I memorized decades ago: “If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they would still point in all directions.” “If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they still couldn’t reach a conclusion.” • Russ Wood says: I also read that FDR wished for a one-armed economist, who wouldn’t be forever saying “On the other hand…” • Mjw says: If all the economists in the world were laid end to end they wouldn’t reach a conclusion. • Global Cooling says: Sheeple follows the most certain leader. They follow people, not the facts, because they do not have time or background looking at science. They select the most convincing person and believe what (s)he says. You became an expert by certifications granted by others.You are believed because you are a doctor or a professor without looking at your data and reasoning. Sheeple will get confused if science is not settled and you do not know whom to follow. • Stephen Stent says: Student to economics lecturer, “This is the same exam that you gave my brother last year”. Lecturer “Aah, but we’ve changed the answers”. • steve case says: “Aah, but we’ve changed the answers”. First chuckle of the day. • In the Social sciences, the answers are the same every year – but the questions are different. I am told. uto • Roger Knights says: On that thread, a huffy hothead objected to my use of “warmist,” so I came up with an amusing alternative to taunt him with: Atomsk’s Sanakan: “The term “warmists” is on par with flat-Earthers saying “round-Earthists” or creationists saying “evolutionists”; congratulations on coming up with a name for people who accept the evidence-based scientific consensus, and aren’t denialists.” OK, so I hereby dub your side “Certs.” And you, for balance, may call us “Perts’” Which should be acceptable to both sides because: Pert: saucy, forward, sprightly, lively; Pertinacious: obstinate, stubborn, persistent. I humbly suggest that our side henceforth adopt this duo as a form of defiant lèse-majesté 1. RayG says: An interesting anecdote from the comments in a Wall Street Journal article on California’s climate change virtue signalling: “I kept my house in the Los Angeles area to rent out, when I moved to Reno, Nevada eight years ago. Today’s LA electric bill: 21 cents per kWHr. Reno: 9 cents. And now looks like CA wants to double that again!” http://www.wsj.com/articles/if-california-was-serious-about-climate-1535747309 • Wharfplank says: Very relevant post. Utilities are making their bills as difficult to understand as possible. I think a Republican congressman would have a winner of a bill that required electricity prices to be displayed on billing as prominently as gas prices at a gas station. • kent beuchert says: I believe that San Diego’s elecric prices are even greater – the number I heard was for peak prices of 35 cents. For a Tesla Model S that’s about 12 cents per mile. That makes an electric car’s fuel more expensive than a gas powered vehicle. And that’s residential price – public fast chargers will cost more. • Richard Patton says: Here in Oregon public fast chargers are free to the user (not to the taxpayer). • Joel O'Bryan says: In live in Tucson, Arizona. I drove by a local large U-Haul Concession on Friday. On their big sign out front, they had advertised special low rates for renting trucks and auto-trailers to California. They had$169 for a truck and a trailer to Cali. That is probably below their cost, but they obviously have a huge demand in California for them that they intend to make up the loss just to get the moving trucks to California.

• Sam C Cogar says:

Joelobryan, me thinks that U-Haul’s problem is the fact that they desperately need to replenish their inventory of trucks and auto-trailers in California. Far, far, far more people are moving out of California than are moving to California.

• Kalifornia Kook says:

I worked my way through college (mid-70s) moving household furniture. Easy to get a load to California back then, but usually had to deadhead out (no load, no pay).
Times sure have changed.

• DJ Meredith says:

Questions #3 & #6 in the upcoming election are interesting, especially in light of the references to California… California’s rates continue to rise, and there are efforts in Nevada to push for a parallel mindset with wind and solar…. vs. the evil dirty coal….
Meanwhile I’m looking at the effect of Tesla’s move to Reno and the skyrocketing rents.
Embracing the Electric Battery Gods have some very expensive consequences.

2. Peat? Yesterday I heard a woke panel of gardeners on UK BBC R4 competing with each other on how much they have stopped putting peat on their gardens, presumably because of that awful “carbon”. The Irish are complaining about that otherwise wonderful EU stopping them from even touching their extensive peat bogs, apparently wind turbines are much better for the environment.

The USA seems (from Google) to be unaffected by peat mania, but maybe it lurks on the next page of search results. Can anyone from the US shed some light (LED lights only please) on this conundrum?

• RicDre says:

Here in Northern Ohio, I haven’t heard about there being a problem with using Peat but I did find this article from (surprise, surprise) California that talks about not using Peat for gardening:

• Edwin says:

RicDre, Maybe I missed it but the article seems to be stressing the need to protect peat bogs more than peat decomposition causes greenhouse gas problems.

We do know that disturbing peat or other old organic soils does release heavy metals, most especially mercury into the environment. Florida “discovered,” what was apparently long documented in Scandinavia, that just disturbance, not even direct mining caused such releases.

• RicDre says:

Edwin: “Maybe I missed it but the article seems to be stressing the need to protect peat bogs more than peat decomposition causes greenhouse gas problems.”

I agree with your interpretation of the article. It was the only article I could find from the US that implied that Peat use was causing an environmental impact, but I may well have missed one or more US articles related to “decomposition causes greenhouse gas problems.”

• Gunga Din says:

California.
With all the things “Known to the State of California to cause ….” I’m surprised that anybody there is still alive.

• simple-touriste says:

The State of California, known to the State of California to cause invasion, destruction and poverty.

• Kalifornia Kook says:

I’m still wondering why no one is suing the California for intentionally neglecting their forests, resulting in uncontrolled fires that pollute the skies of neighboring states. Here in Reno we have suffered from poor visibility/ air quality for most of the summer – mostly blowing in from California. I hate it when the wind predictions are from the West (Southwest, West, Northwest). Means the mountains will disappear until the wind changes direction again – hopefully to blow it all back over the Sierras and into Sacramento.
Collusion with the halfwits at the Sierra Club has really reduced the quality of life here. Of course, if they are Malthusian, that might be intentional.

• gringojay says:

Peat moss added to soil food is grown on is not adding heavy metals to that food grown. In fact peat moss (in various ratios) has reduced arsenic, nickle, chromium, cadmium & lead (as well as zinc) in experimental tests of both peas & chilis. See Table 3 (peas) & Table 4 (chilis) in the free full text available on-line of Khan, et al’s (2018) ” Minimizing the risk to human health due to the ingestion of arsenic and toxic metals invegetables by the application of biochar, farmyard manure and peatmoss”.

• Peta of Newark says:

Peatmoss as found ‘in the wild’ is VERY acidic and adding it to your soil will reduce the soil’s pH and increase the solubility of the heavy metals.

What is missing from your comment is the fact that all peat moss you or anyone can buy has been treated with lime, so as to increase its pH to somewhere close to pH 7

And THAT is why the heavy metals seemingly reduced – the increase in pH brought on by adding (lime treated) peat moss, (re) locked up the heavy metals.
Increased pH would have also increased the availability of phosphorus – a vital nutrient that effectively disappears at soil pH of 6 or less.
Adding just ground limestone to the soil in the test plots would have had the same effect – reduction in heavy metals and increased yield thro higher phosphorus availability.

Tangent:
This is where the quest for ever more cheap food will potentially get us all into a lot of trouble. Nitrogen fertiliser as used by farmers is a very potent agent for acidifying the soil. Farmers did used to use a lot of lime to counteract that and or could buy Calcium Nitrate fertiliser as opposed to Ammonium Nitrate.
The practice of liming is fading fast as has the calcium Nitrate fertiliser – farmers find it cheaper to simply throw more Ammonium Nitrate onto their fields instead.
The pH of farmland soils is falling fast and as it does, the levels of toxic heavy metals rises.
Not so bad for when you/me/we eat only the seeds/grains – as anything soluble such as the metals are ‘sucked out’ when the grain ripens.
But for folks who like to eat the whole and green parts of the plants or parts with high water content – they will be getting mouthfuls of toxic metal.
As per consumers and users of herbal medicines.
Not Good.
End tangent

Be careful with farmyard manure. It needs to be ‘well rotted’
This means that the midden it was in had been turned or stirred regularly to let and mix oxygen in.
If not, the pile of manure would become like the peat bog – stinking, anaerobic and desperately acidic.

Biochar is a puzzle.
My present thoughts are that it acts as an anchor, reservoir or safe haven for ‘good’ soil bacteria – similar to how the appendix works inside our own bodies.
Good in this case meaning the oxygen loving bacteria as opposed to the ones that thrive in an oxygen free environment

• gringojay says:

The cited study used prepared peatmoss with 6.4 pH (see Table 1). This also takes out of the equation the known variable that in the “wild” there are pH variations among different sourced peatmoss of the same kind.

pH modification of peatmoss is not as simple as adding a formula derived amount of limestone to a known amount of peatmoss. Some blended products will hold their adjusted pH in a month & others can swing up or down in pH for over 4 months. Part of the way to get more stable pH is to use limestone of a fine particle size, instead of relatively coarser limestone particles.

• Peta of Newark says:

The thing about peat (anagram of my name – no coincidence but also to do with petagrams from when I was a bit overweight) bogs in the UK is as some people have said – they are desperately acidic places.
Also permanently waterlogged.
This means that a *very* select group of plants and animals can survive there.

For the ‘Nation of Animal Lovers’ that is the UK, they thus become untouchable. Developments of motorways, railways, airports, housing estates have all had their ideas squashed because some exotic and rare critter was found (planted) in the path of the development and would become extinct if whatever was built as planned.
And with peat bog, you are *always* guaranteed to find exactly that if you look hard enough.
I think Charles Darwin had it worked out originally.

That *was* the nub of it until of course Global warming Change reared its ugly head and gave the Animal/Plant/Critter/Bog lovers even *more* ammunition.
Someone realised that burning peat released the dreaded carbonoxide.
So, as seen/heard on Radio 4, it has become an angry debate about who ‘cares’ more than the other person.
Even more futile than arguing Phlogiston or Dancing Angels on pinheads

Exactly as arguments about who cares more about children/grandchildren/poor people/undeveloped countries etc rage within the Climate Debate.
Its simply a really poor attempt to demonstrate their feminine side to try and attract women while simultaneously claiming to have bigger willies than their opponent.
The Girls Are Patently Not Impressed.
School playground childishness all down the line.

• HotScot says:

climanrecon

A friend of mine nearly drowned in a peat bog. We were about 12 years old and he was up to his armpits before I managed to drag him out.

Nasty stuff peat.

• You shouldn’t listen to the BBC. It is dangerous to your mental health. Except Test Match Special, which is always a hoot, and seldom about cricket.

• Good advice, which I normally follow, but thought that “Gardeners Question Time” would be a safe space, should have known that Planet Saving has spread to all parts, including the cricket commentary.

3. Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

All right – a free-for-all.

My basic refutation of RGHE theory is that the 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR power flux is only a theoretical calculation, 289 K, 16 C, inserted in the S-B equation with an ideal BB emissivity of 1.0. (TFK_bams09)

This 396 W/m^2 power flux has no physical reality because: 1) it requires thermodynamic violations, i.e. 333 W/m^2 created out of thin air, a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop, cold to hot energy flow w/o added work and 2) the non-radiative heat transfer processes, e.g. conduction, convection, advection, latent evaporation & condensation, of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, limit the surface’s LWIR emissivity to 0.16, 63/396.

In the spirit of R. W. Wood’s 1909 experiment that disputed CO2’s atmospheric role, I have actually demonstrated point 2 in a lab situation.

No 396 W/m^2 upwelling means no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop invalidating RGHE theory, CO2 warming and man caused climate changing.

Seems to me that over RGHE’s decades of decades my refutation would have been addressed long ago and a defense, an explanation of how & why I’m wrong, lying close at hand.

Guess not.

That’s a shame.

Regards,
Nick S.

• that is one way to approach the problem.
Mine was another. More empirical.
click on my name to find out.

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
. . . 1) it requires thermodynamic violations, i.e. 333 W/m^2 created out of thin air, a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop, cold to hot energy flow w/o added work . . . .
<<

It sounds like you’re trying to invoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The problem there is the Second Law only applies to “isolated systems.” Clearly the atmosphere is one of the least isolated systems on the planet. Closed and open systems need not obey the Second Law.

If you really want to complain about bad Thermodynamics, then complain about the averaging of intensive properties like temperature. Mathematically, you can average any set of numbers, but averaging intensive properties is physical nonsense.

Jim

• Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

So if there are two objects one at 400 F and one at 200 F when they come to equilibrium it won’t necessarily be each at 200 F – especially if they are on the back porch of the ISS.

And what are intensive properties without molecules?

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
So if there are two objects . . . .
<<

I have a favorite Thermodynamic problem that demonstrates two objects equalizing to a common temperature. It also calculates their entropy changes, which illustrate my point also.

>>
And what are intensive properties without molecules?
<<

The Ideal Gas Law uses two intensive variables, and an ideal gas is defined as point-like masses with no inter-particle forces–definitely not molecules.

Jim

• If you really want to complain about bad Thermodynamics, then complain about the averaging of intensive properties like temperature.

Yea, like where’s the energy measure in a temperature measure? — the temperature does not fully account for the energy that produced it. I thought thermodynamics accounted for energy. (^_^)

Wha … what’s that sound? — Oh, Stefan rolling in his grave.

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
Yea, like where’s the energy measure in a temperature measure?
<<

It’s there.

>>
Oh, Stefan rolling in his grave.
<<

Why would Stefan be rolling in his grave?

Jim

• Within Earth’s atmosphere, let’s say we measure two locations:
(1) 70 degrees at 20% humidity
(2) 70 degrees at 50% humidity

Tell me where the energy measure is in each. The temperature alone cannot account for the measure of energy or the dynamics of energy transformations that produced the temperature in each case.

Stephan, thus, is rolling in his grave, because some people try to compare a global average of near-surface air temperatures that, independently, are NOT blackbody-calculated temperatures … to a planetary emission temperature, where the whole planet barely counts as a black body. Stephan is rolling, because a mathematically, theoretically-derived “temperature” is compared to an instrumentally-measured-and-statistically-refined ensemble of “temperatures” that are NOT black-body “temperatures”.

• Jim Masterson says:

There are two definitions of temperature used in physics, One comes from Thermodynamics. That definition (via the Zeroth Law) requires placing a thermometer in equilibrium with the system being measured. Obviously you can’t place a single thermometer in equilibrium with the entire atmosphere, so technically the entire atmosphere doesn’t have a single temperature.

The other definition comes from the kinetic theory of gases:

$\displaystyle k\cdot T=\tfrac{1}{3}\cdot m\cdot \overline{{{C}^{2}}}$,

where k is Boltzmann’s constant, T is the absolute temperature of the gas, m is the mass of a gas particle, and C is the random velocity of a gas particle. The bar means we’re averaging the velocities of all the particles in the gas.

It’s interesting, but you can also derive this expression from the ideal gas law. The reference I’m using states that this expression is valid whether or not the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium. That’s interesting because the ideal gas law is basically a generalization of Charles’ law and Boyle’s law. There’s a reference to another section that says at equilibrium:

$\displaystyle {{T}_{Thermo}}={{T}_{Kinetic}}$.

This can be demonstrated by considering Carnot’s cycle for a perfect gas, but they don’t show the derivation.

If we multiply the expression by $\displaystyle \tfrac{3}{2}$, we get the following:

$\displaystyle \tfrac{3}{2}\cdot k\cdot T=\tfrac{1}{2}\cdot m\cdot \overline{{{C}^{2}}}$.

Physicists will recognize the term on the right as the expression for kinetic energy:

$\displaystyle \tfrac{1}{2}\cdot m\cdot {{v}^{2}}$.

The term on the left is the energy of a monatomic gas with exactly three degrees of freedom. The equipartition theorem allows us to assign $\displaystyle \tfrac{1}{2}\cdot k\cdot T$ equally to each degree of freedom. Because an ideal gas is essentially an idealized monatomic gas, it has three degrees of freedom.

This expression is the source of the phrase: “Temperature is equal to the average kinetic energy of a gas.” As we can see, this phrase is not exactly correct. A more correct statement would be: “Temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy of a gas.” But this isn’t exactly correct either. An even more correct statement would be: “Temperature is proportional to the kinetic energy of the average velocity of a gas particle.”

I see no reason why Stefan would be rolling in his grave.

Jim

AND:
1)You cannot add radiative fluxes from different sources arithmetically (with a sign for direction) and use the resultant arithmetic sum to derive temperature (Via SB) of the sink.
2)Radiative fluxes from multiple colder sources cannot add energy to something warmer and make it hotter. You can do the experiment to show this in your own kitchen.
3)All rocky planets with an atmosphere have a surface that is hotter than it would be without said atmosphere and..
4)They also have a hot core to the solid rocky ball.
5)Loschmidt’s postulation of a gravito thermal effect needs proper experimental testing. We only have the work of R.Graeff so far. This is pathetic considering how long the issue has been unresloved experimetally (it ‘s no good just talking now!)
6)In the interests of openess and sensible scientific discussion of all possibilities i think we should politely ask doug cotton to come back here. I thinka lot of people would be interested in the details of what he has to say and we can debate it politely (FOR A CHANGE) and see if we can alllearn something.

• Cassio says:

Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE September 1, 2018 9:16 am:

“My basic refutation of RGHE theory is that the 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR power flux is only a theoretical calculation, 289 K, 16 C, inserted in the S-B equation with an ideal BB emissivity of 1.0. (TFK_bams09)”

One cannot refute a theory with specific numbers unless the numbers are crucial to the theory, which in this case they are not. Sorry, but I think your numerical approach is a blind alley.

“This 396 W/m^2 power flux has no physical reality because: 1) it requires thermodynamic violations, i.e. 333 W/m^2 created out of thin air,…”

No, it doesn’t. It requires only the recycling of some of the power radiating from the planetary surface, not the creation of any new power at all.

“…a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop,…”

Not so. Only a fraction of the outgoing longwave radiation is recycled, according to the theory. And it is not a perpetual motion machine either, if that is what you are thinking, since the whole process is driven by insolation and would cease if the insolation was shut off.

“…cold to hot energy flow w/o added work…”

That is correct, but it is perfectly possible under the established laws of radiative physics. Radiation is not bound by the same laws as those which apply to material energy-flows, you see. Also, the net energy-flow IS from (relatively) hot to (relatively) cold (i.e. surface to atmosphere), so no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is entailed.

“and 2) the non-radiative heat transfer processes, e.g. conduction, convection, advection, latent evaporation & condensation, of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, limit the surface’s LWIR emissivity to 0.16, 63/396.”

I don’t know where you’ve got that idea from. It is not stated or implied by any of the conventional laws of physics, so far as I am aware. That sounds like a bit of made-up new physics to me.

“In the spirit of R. W. Wood’s 1909 experiment that disputed CO2’s atmospheric role, I have actually demonstrated point 2 in a lab situation.

Your report of that experiment at your link does not describe how your experiment demonstrated that the LWIR emissivity of the Earth’s surface is limited to any specific magnitude by any processes whatsoever. Sorry, but I have to say that I find it utterly unconvincing.

“No 396 W/m^2 upwelling means no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop invalidating RGHE theory, CO2 warming and man caused climate changing.”

“Seems to me that over RGHE’s decades of decades my refutation would have been addressed long ago and a defense, an explanation of how & why I’m wrong, lying close at hand.

Guess not.

That’s a shame.”

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I assure you that I have only just seen your “refutation” and have responded to it as quickly as circumstances have allowed.

4. Looks like the general downward trend in global mean surface temperature anomaly since the early 2016 El Nino and warm Arctic related peak is continuing:
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2018-08-31.gif

Longer view since 2014:
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2018-08-31.gif

Should be interesting to see what happens over the next year or two. It is possible GMSTA might return to levels last seen during “the pause”, but it’s not quite there yet.

5. Roy says:

There was a story the other day on the front page about Climategate 4.0. I just wondered if there has been a release of information yet and where it is? Unfortunately I have been around since Climategate 1.0 and the warmists have always managed to spin and obfuscate their way out of things. What are people thinking about this new development?

6. Willis Eschenbach says:

Well, it being an open thread, I’d like to use it for a curious purpose—to celebrate Watts Up With That.

For me, the best thing about WUWT is that here in the glare of the public marketplace of scientific ideas, my mistakes have a shorter lifespan than a mayfly. If I put up a claim that is demonstrably untrue, you can bet it will be demonstrated post-haste.

I cannot even begin to estimate the time that this has saved me. Many, many times comments from the readers have kept me from haring down a blind alley or pointed me to an easier or better solution. This is an incredible resource to have.

In fact, WUWT is a most curious and unique thing. It provides the world’s largest active peer-review system for climate science. Some people get their work peer-reviewed by three people in secret and receive the answers a month later.

I get my work peer-reviewed, in some measure by people who hate my ideas and disbelieve my theories, by dozens and dozens of experts and get the answers the next day.

So I’d like to thank some people for my having this amazing opportunity.

First, of course, is Anthony Watts. The site represents a huge effort, as I know from running my own much, much, much smaller personal web site. He has done this while having a day job and spending as much time as possible with his kids. Well done, bro’, you da man! (Or in these PC times “You da person of indeterminate gender!”

Next, the moderators. Keeping this site from descending into the common web bunfight is the job of the moderators. Because of the worldwide reach of the site, it needs to be kept on track 24/7. So my thanks to the moderators around the world. Being the trash-collector is not glamorous, but it is absolutely critical. You maintain the quality of the site, firmly but with a light hand. Well done.

Next, the commenters. The ongoing climate discussion and debate depends on the commenters, my thanks to all of them. Great fun.

Next, the lurkers, those who read but never post. This site gets many more page views than comments. My thanks to all of the lurkers for their interest in all that goes on here. I am well aware that if anyone wants to claim that they stay up with climate science, they need to read WUWT. As a result, it is read by those on both sides of the climate aisle, and I thank people on both sides of the climate aisle.

And finally, my thanks to those who rabidly oppose me, for the reasons I gave above. Their fanatical attempts to find errors in my work are the best thing that could happen, both for me and for science. Science depends on falsification. As a general rule, nothing can be proven in science, but anything might be disproven. It’s what makes science progress, a slow parade of people showing that old scientific ideas are wrong or need adjustment.

And if my worst enemies can’t find holes in my work, if they can’t find any way to falsify it, then I can rest [provisionally] easy. I say provisionally because tomorrow, someone could show me wrong.

And if they do show me wrong tomorrow, I’ll thank them just as today I am thanking those who oppose anything I say and have found my mistakes in the past.

Beautiful morning here, best to all regardless of your views on climate,

w.

• Willis, I enjoy the site for the same reasons, although I’m not as bold as you in tossing out new ideas and hypotheses. It’s a great site for learning and I’ve learned a lot over the years.

And as far as I know Anthony Watts is a man, so “you da man” is appropriate. 🙂

• Edwin says:

Dang Willis, you sound like you are talking about Scientific Method. It is a shame that the global warmists seemed to have abandoned its use or more probably, in today’s educational institution, they never learned to begin with.

• Clyde Spencer says:

Willis,
You said, “You da person of indeterminate gender!”
No, Anthony definitely has cojones! 🙂

• For all the super-duper fantastic pal review you get here on WUWT Willis, I’m surprised you still haven’t published any original work in a reputable (high impact) journal.

• Gunga Din says:

Willis seems to consider his most valued “pals” here those who show he is wrong.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Donald, Dr. Roy Spencer is one of my scientific heroes. However, in this one case his views are demonstrably wrong. You can read my response to his ill-considered claims here … short version, none of his accusations are true.

Regards,

w.

• “none of his accusations are true”…..That is your opinion, and mine is the exact opposite.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Donald L. Klipstein

“none of his accusations are true”…..That is your opinion, and mine is the exact opposite.

Nope. Read my response again. Those are the facts. However, yours is indeed the exact opposite of the facts.

w.

• Gunga Din says:

The problem with “science” is that there are people involved. (Natural processes go on whether people notice them or not.)
People have egos. Sometimes that hinders understanding what is really happening.
“Climate Science” is ruled by ego and “green” spoon fed by those with political goals.

Your “PAL” review comment in reference to WUWT was way too broad.
As I recall, Dr. Spencer has not been “censored” here at WUWT.
Their disagreement and that it was aired here at all, says more about the integrity of WUWT than it does about Willis and Dr. Roy.

PS Sorry about the “reading comprehension” crack. I went over the top on that one.

• Gunga, you are spot on about “egos.” If you hang around here long enough, you’ll discover that Willis has one of the biggest ones I’ve ever experienced.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Donald L. Klipstein

Gunga, you are spot on about “egos.” If you hang around here long enough, you’ll discover that Willis has one of the biggest ones I’ve ever experienced.

Dang betcha, I have a big ego … and for very good reasons.

You, on the other hand, bring to mind a comment by Churchill, viz:

“He’s a very humble man … and he has much to be humble about …”

w.

• Gunga Din says:

I’ve “hung around” WUWT for around 6 years. I know what you mean.
But you seemed to be taking aim at WUWT in general via that one disagreement between Dr. Spencer and Willis.
(I remember it though I don’t remember the details. And PLEASE don’t anybody give me a refresher.)

• HotScot says:

Donald L. Klipstein

I’m more surprised that no one has produced a reliable, credible, empirical study that demonstrates CO2 causes the planet to warm, far less man made CO2.

40 years of this clap trap, eye watering amounts of money spent on research and renewable energy, and yet no one has demonstrated the underlying concept of the entire theory actually works in the real world.

It is utter madness to predicate man’s future on a hypothesis that has not been robustly illustrated by numerous studies, yet we have none, and the world is now revolving around the ridiculous idea that man’s contribution of ~0.0012% of the atmosphere is driving man to extinction.

Until I see rafts of studies irrefutably demonstrating the concept, AGW alarmists can go and shove their mitigation and precautionary concepts where the sun don’t shine.

• Rainer Bensch says:

Subjects

Atmospheric chemistry
Climate and Earth system modelling

\$8.99 ? No!

• HotScot says:

Rainer Bensch

Thank you. My thoughts as well.

• gringojay says:

Free full pdf link of D.L.K.’S above referenced abstract “Observational … forcing by CO2 from 2000 ….”; try asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

• Gary Pearse says:

Well Willis has published in, I believe, E&E, but Donald you likely don’t count that. Your reverence for “high impact” (HI) journals is an important ‘tell’ about you you probably don’t get up at your altitude. High impact these days in climate science is indeed the pal review of the hyperbole of the chosen – those who have erased the LIA and MWP get into the quick publication queue. Raging acid seas! Wildfires (many set by folks also looking for HI space in the MSM and contributing to the research into Armageddon climate). Mike’s Nature trick was in an HI journal.

Donald, Willis not being a diplomaed scientist, he will be barred by the gatekeepers from publication. What does it tell you that Spencer and Christy take endless months to get their work published. Shame on you.

• Gunga Din says:

Good post with real (not “PC”) tolerance and humor. Add in honesty and integrity.
Thank you, Anthony.

• London247 says:

Willis, your contributions, scientific or anecdotal are always a pleasure to read. Keep up the good work.

• HotScot says:

Willis Eschenbach

Turn your attention to the distributed ledger and blockchain for the next evolution of peer review.

Conventional science will resist it like hell, as will the journals, but be aware, the reliability of a ‘trustless’ peer review method is invaluable and worth looking into.

Etherium https://www.ethereum.org is a site established to do just that, remove the authority and bias of an individual, or groups from the process of factual record keeping by using the distributed ledger and blockchain principles.

It has nothing to do with Bitcoin which merely exploits the distributed ledger concept in the most obvious way, like email was the first meaningful purpose of the internet.

If you don’t understand it have a look at this short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k53LUZxUF50

Even if you think you do understand it, it’s worth a look.

• Tweak says:

@Willis Eschenbach

I’ve actually learned quite a bit reading your meanderings. One that I can’t track down is the summation of error over a data series.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Couldn’t say which one of my posts that might have been. You might be referring to my post Decimals Of Precision.

Best regards,

w.

• Tweak says:

Thank you for the responce, but that’s not it. However, It is compelling on its own merits’. Just like every Willis post. 😀

• Josie says:

Thank you best to you too. I’m much of what you call a lurker because I’m really scientifically inept for understanding this climate stuff. Yet I really dig hanging around, does feel more like home than some of my very own friends and family, sweet as they can be. Grtz from the Netherlands.

• Josie sez:
“I’m much of what you call a lurker
because I’m really scientifically inept
for understanding this climate stuff.”

My comment:
The government bureaucrats with science degrees
don’t understand the climate either, but think they
do, and to show everyone, they predict the future
average temperature every year (same prediction
30 years in a row) and the prediction turns out to be
wrong.

It’s what you know, that isn’t so, that causes
the most trouble.

Modern climate “science” suffers from that disease.

You, on the other hand, admit to
‘I don’t know”, which is the correct answer
— no one knows what the future climate will be,
and no one knows exactly what causes climate change.

Based on the wrong predictions
for the past 30 years,
we can rule out the current theory
that CO2 controls the average temperature
and a doubling of the CO2 level
will cause +3 degrees C. of warming.

But, unfortunately,
facts and data do not change the weak minds
in modern climate “science”.

They have stuck with the same +3 degrees C.
theory since 1979, like a child
with a security blanket”.

Actual warming since 1979 suggests no more than
+1 degree C. from a CO2 level doubling,
if CO2 is the ONLY cause of warming,
which even the UN’s IPCC does not claim
( they claim, without proof, “over 50%” ) !

My climate change blog will
improve you knowledge of
basic climate science:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

7. Severian says:

Apropos of nothing really, but it seems folks in Chico will have something to take their minds off of the impending doom of AGW soon:

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/08/30/bikini-barista-coffee-chain-in-california-drawing-criticism-from-residents-near-next-location.html

So, going to support the local coffee shop Anthony? I mean, we wouldn’t want the poor ladies to be too cold in their skimpy attire! AGW is good for them! I find it amusing the things the Progressives in the People’s Republik Of Kalifornia choose to get bent out of shape about. They aren’t showing anything more than you can see on a beach, or at such places as the Tilted Kilt restaurant.

• gnomish says:

or at halftime on superbowl sunday.

• HotScot says:

Severian

My wife would kill me. Mind you, it might be worth it!

8. Political Junkie says:

The Canadian government’s attempt to impose a nationwide carbon tax is unraveling because of strong opposition from key provinces. Lost in this discussion is the actual impact the tax would have had on global warming.

According to peer-reviewed science, each tonne of CO₂ emissions increases global temperature by 0.0000000000017⁰C per year.

https://phys.org/news/2016-01-temperature-co2-emissions.html#jCp

The Canadian government has estimated that emissions could be reduced by 90 million tonnes by 2022 as a result of the tax. Going by past experience this is likely an optimistic estimate, but let’s do the math.

90,000,000 tonnes x 0.0000000000017⁰C / tonne = 0.00015⁰C

The spread between Toronto’s average annual high (27⁰C) and low (-7⁰C) is 2.3 million times this figure.

Global warming would be averted by 0.00015⁰C per year, or one degree per 6500 years.

Knowing this, how many Canadians would support the carbon tax as a high societal priority?

• Gary Pearse says:

Quite a few Canadians would support it! I’ve been thinking about leaving myself, but Bob Ford winning the Ontario election cutting energy prices and appearing the fed carbon tx scheme has toned me down a bit.

• clipe says:

Doug Ford. Bob’s Rob’s big brother.

• Rich Davis says:

What better illustration of the reality that the carbon tax is nothing more than an excuse to TAX something that nobody can avoid buying.

If Canada never emitted another CO2 molecule, it would not likely have any effect on gloal temperature other than in the third or fourth decimal place. (If that, since China and India will continue to increase emissions regardless of what happens in the Great (allegedly-soon-no-longer-) White North. )

Since it is demonstrably not going to do anything to moderate temperatures, why are they doing this? HINT – Stop burning fossil fuels, we need more socialism.

9. I suggest a very clear way to explain why CO2 and other AGW as claimed by the IPCC is immaterial within the scale of the planetary control system that water vapour from the oceans delivers. It’s easy to show by examining the ice age interglacial warmings and the current energy balance. Also how CO2 has no noticeable effect on the ending of interglacial rises. .

We are still around the warmest temperature, hence humidity and cloud coverage, of the current 100Ka ice age cycle , and the scale of stabilising feedback , to both warming and cooling, by cloud formation at this point in the ice age cycle, massively dwarfs any perturbations within that cycle. CO2 has no obvious effect in the record.

Here is my quantified tweet on this. AGW is c.2W/m^2. Interglacial warmings are stopped dead by clouds, while CO2 is still rising, every 100Ka. At our current interglacial temperature variable cloud control from the oceans by Water vapour creates a variable surface cooling, of 90W/m^2 in evaporation and formation & 50W/m^2 insolation reduction in albedo.

140W/m^2 is plenty of control, will rise with temperature in response to warming, and vice versa, and needs only a small variation to suppress any small nW/m^2 changes., so it a clear controlworking over a small range well within its limits, highly predictable.

Note the main 7Ka interglacial rise is terminated by clouds while increasing CO2 from the oceans continues to rise, but without any obvious affect, so runaway by CO2/AGW is clearly not how the system works, also for the obvious reason that water vapour dominates as cloud control at interglacial temperatures, and perhaps keeps us above ice planet temperatures by GHE at the stable ice age low limit the planet prefers.

The atmosphere is a smart lagging cotrol system that responds intelligently, using water vapour as the control, at different temperatures and humidities to maintain a very small range of an average 8 dergees in 288K. Not bad. Smaller events and perturbations are dealt with by the main control to keep us within the habitable range. Simple. No runaway is possible from W/m^2 effects. Discuss.

Well I might have a go , Brian, but you would have to start by explaining clearly why you even think there is such a thing as a Greenhouse Gas Effect anyway and explain in proper scientific terms how it works with CO2, etc. and if you tell us which scientific experiments led you to believe in this “idea” that might be entertaining too.

10. taxed says:

lts looking like the Atlantic’s first real hurricane of the season is starting to brew nicely in the eastern Atlantic. This will be one to watch as the jet stream suggests its got a fairly clear path to the western Atlantic. Which once this storm moves into those warm waters, l can see it turning real ugly and posing a real threat to the area.

• clipe says:
11. Coeur de Lion says:

I see UAH satellite reading is down to oh point one nine for August. Is the pause back? Sorry it never went away

• Tom Abbott says:

NASA will probably claim it is the hottest August evah!

• John Tillman says:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Yup, 0.19 degree C anomaly, vs. 0.41 last August, 0.43 in 2016 and 0.24 in 2015.

Effect of the super El Nino continues wearing off, as Earth keeps cooling from its February 2016 high.

Summer minimum Arctic sea ice extent is shaping up as the fourth highest of the past 12 years.

12. .
❶①❶①❶①❶①
①❶①❶①❶①❶
.

On our menu this week, we have something to offend everyone.

.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
①❶①❶①❶①❶
.

Entree
======

Global warming – how long do we have left?

Main
====

Solving Global Warming is easy. _ (a do it yourself guide)

Dessert
=======

If the earth was an apple pie… _ (a delicious global warming dessert)

13. Q: Was the hot summer of 2018 caused by global warming ?
A: ABSOLUTELY NOT

A lot was made of the UK’s above average summer temperatures implying that shows ‘global warming’ in action. Now that the meteorological summer is over the graph in the link
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CET1976-2018.htm
shows the 2018 CET summer average was 0.5C lower than the summer of 1976.
Just to remind you that the present Northern Hemisphere’s average annual temperature (Crewtem4) is more than 1C higher than its annual average in 1976 when ‘global cooling’ was order of the day.

14. Scotty P says:

While walking through the dewey grass the other day, I was thinking if the planet is becoming more green, then doesn’t that there is much more surface area on plants for dew to collect? This dew either rains down in drops, or plants absorb it. Does dew affect atmospheric water or albedo (frost) or is it just too small to consider?

15. London247 says:

At last an open thread. I do wish they would occur more regularly so I could remember those questions I have at 1 a.m. I. The morning. Insomnia is no joke. So two that I can remember are
1 Venus. Often described as a sister planet of Earth and the consequence of “runaway global warming”.It is some 30 Million miles close to the Sun. It’s day lasts more than it’s year. If you thought twelve hours of direct sunlight made it hot try 120 days. Also , if you looked down on the Solar System from above, using Earths North Pole as reference, the major planets orbit anti-clockwise and the planets rotate anti-clockwise. Apart from Venus and Uranus. Venus must have taken a massive hit to make it invert it’s axis of rotation 180 degrees. Likewise Uranus whose axis of rotation is 90 degrees out and consequently has its North and South poles facing the Sun.
2 It would seem reasonable for masses of matter in the Universe to be on a logarithmic scale, So , relatively speaking, lots of hydrogen atoms and few black holes. Recent discoveries of “Brown Suns “, bigger then Jupiter but less than critical solar mass for thermonuclear reactions to develop would support this idea. Has the calculation been made to allow for this mass distribution so we can avoid the need to imply “dark energy” or “dark matter” to fit current cosmological theory?

• Grumpy Bill says:

For an interesting/offbeat take on Venus and its oddness, read “Worlds In Collision” by Immanuel Velicovsky.

• Well off-beat, from what I remember from reading Velikovskiy [I think ? ?] in the 1970s and – perhaps – 1980s

Very well off-beat.

Auto

• HotScot says:

London247

Let me sleep on it. 🙂

• Tom in Florida says:

But we want to know right now.

16. ironargonaut says:

Anyone else notice the recent “study” about sexual identity and kids and it’s resemblance to the way Lewandowski does studies and the opposite reaction from media and scholars about the two?

17. Sylvia says:

Would appreciate some help with my reasoning, or any pertinent/disputed facts which I’m missing re the Ordovician. So…at the tail end of the Ordovician, CO2 was extremely high during a glacial period, so an inverse temp/CO2 correlation. This is explained by 4% lower solar radiation. I believe weathering is supposed to have reduced CO2 somewhat, but the high levels (12 times today) are not in dispute? Given that CO2 was so high, does that actually explain it, if CO2 is a ‘powerful’ GHG? The sun was still shining! If I stand in the sun and then move into the shade, and put a light coat on because I’m cold, I might warm up a bit but still be cold. If I keep putting on coats (ie. very high CO2) I will warm up considerably, or is the logarithmic relationship of CO2/temp supposed to explain why it was still cold? Do skeptics accept the explanation by warmists, or is it baloney?

• TonyL says:

My take:
The biggest issue, a few decades ago, on this subject was the Faint Sun/Early Earth paradox. Briefly put, the Sun had only 75% of it’s current intensity, yet the Earth was broadly similar in it’s temperature. Why so warm?
Several researchers tried to posit that it was elevated levels of CO2. Unfortunately, the amount of CO2 needed was so high that it was clearly impossible. As a result, the CO2 hypothesis had to be abandoned. As far as I know, today the “best guess” is that water vapor was the agent responsible.
Aftereffects:
From Day 0, the IPCC has relied on what they call the “Enhanced Greenhouse Effect”. This is the notion that CO2 will cause a slight warming. This warming will be responsible for the addition of lots of water vapor into the atmosphere. This water vapor in turn will do the heavy lifting in causing Global Warming. (Water Vapor is a much more potent GHG than CO2.)
At least that is the theory.
To some of us, this whole thing seemed like a convenient dodge. The IPCC knew right from the start that CO2 could not do what what they claimed, and what they needed for CAGW. Remember that the IPCC was commissioned to study only human caused warming. Natural causes were made explicitly outside of their commission, and therefor could not be considered.

18. sonofametman says:

Labor Day has a special place in my memories. In 1981 my climbing mate and I had hitched, separately, from Boulder Co. to Tuolumne in California. 48 hrs on the road, weird rides, guns, hippies, the lot. We arrived late on Labor Day within 2 hrs of each other (not bad for a 1200 mile trip), and just shoved the tent up and crashed out. I’ll (hopefully) never forget the sheer delight at what we saw the next morning. The beauty of high Sierra was astounding.
Climate relevance? Early September in Tuolumne is perfect rock climbing weather, not too hot, not too cold. Pure Goldilocks. And the crowds were gone after Labor Day weekend. Couldn’t have been better.
Climate change? Anything that extends the climbing season has to be good.

• TonyL says:

Rock climbing huh?
Let me tell you about that.
On day, I was on a 160 ft. sheer cliff, halfway up. I had a bit of a tough spot, I had to think out of as well as climb out of. All while holding on, of course.

I took a few seconds to look around.
I looked down. 80 ft. straight down to the base.
I looked up. 80 ft. straight up to the top.
I looked out. Open space. I was hanging out in the middle of nothing.

I thought, “What the hell am I doing here?”
I thought “What the hell an I *doing*”.

I made it to the top, and that was the end of my rock climbing days.

19. HotScot says:

If the world were flat, would bungee jumping be even more futile than it is now?

• Steve Reddish says:

If the world were flat could we hang off the edge?

SR

• London247 says:

No. You will scare the turtles causing earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes yo erupt

• Patrick MJD says:

No as there is a wall of ice which prevents anything from falling off the flat Earth.

• Tom in Florida says:

So that is the fear of the AGW crowd. The walls of ice will melt and we will all fall off.
Got it.

20. Sara says:

This may be a year old, but it is relevant. Remember when Al Gore jetted off to Davros, Switzerland, last winter to a climate change conference?

Well, here is an article from August 2017, in which he explains how he alleviates the “guilt” of owning a house that costs as much to run for one month as one family would pay over a period of 21 years. I give you the utter hypocrisy of Global Warming’s biggest mouthpiece.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/al-gores-climate-change-hypocrisy-is-as-big-as-his-energy-sucking-mansion/

I think he should try to be less visible, and also, less obvious about that fact that he just doesn’t care what happens to other people as long as he can engage in running this scam of his.

21. Kenji says:

Thank you AW for all the work you do to educate the entire world about Climate Change and related topics. You have helped this amateur learn a tremendous amount about this topic. I hope you have a peaceful and restful weekend with family and friends up there’s in Chico, or Paradise, wherever … in N.CA. Some beautiful places.

22. Dr. Strangelove says:

Trivia: Benjamin Franklin is the first American scientist. Who is the first American woman scientist?

She is a distant relative of Ben Franklin. She discovered a comet in 1847 known as “Miss Mitchell’s Comet” and received a gold medal prize from the King of Denmark for her discovery. The first woman elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1848) and of American Association for the Advancement of Science (1850). First woman Professor of Astronomy (Vassar College, 1865) and first director of the Vassar College Observatory.

23. Reed Coray says:

I recently came to the realization that since CO2 is a heat-trapping gas (at least that’s the AGW scientific consensus), CO2-based heat farms can be constructed to provide warmth to homes in cold climates. I’m looking for investors for my CO2 heat farm idea. For details, see “comment 11” on Joanne Nova’s blog.

• Tom in Florida says:

Domed cities with controlled climates have been a science fiction writers dream since the 1940’s.

• Lewis P Buckingham says:

Thanks for this.
Its good to see you Indian scientists are on the ball.

24. Little Oil says:

I have friends, ex friends and family who I believe are reasonably smart but they believe in global warming and the need to close down coal fired power stations.
As a retired engineer I think this is crazy. I have looked at the NOAA temperature data and each of the last 12 hottest years was just 3/100 degrees hotter than the previous record.
Why can’t they understand this? Why can’t they see the damage being done with high priced unreliable renewable power?

• BoyfromTottenham says:

Simple, Little Oil, they are not engineers (even retired ones). Even worse, they do not know that 3/100 of a degree hotter or colder is not worth a hill of beans, they are scared by every alarmist comment in the msm, and probably cannot think for themselves beyond what to order for dinner. Smart doesn’t mean educated or logical. They have been steadily brainwashed by the msm for at least two decades, and if under 40 have been further brainwashed at school and/or university. I would guess that 90% of school and university teachers are fully indoctrinated into alarmism (and a version of Marxism to boot). Even my 5 year old grandchild is getting fed stuff like ‘xyz animal / plant is endangered and will become extinct if we don’t stop using fossil fuels (or whatever other boogie man). Have we lost the battle for these people’s minds? It doesn’t look good to me.

• Tom Abbott says:

“They have been steadily brainwashed by the msm for at least two decades, and if under 40 have been further brainwashed at school and/or university.”

And the anti-Western, violent trash that has been the staple of television, the movies, and “music” for decades should be included in the factors making people stupid. After watching and hearing all that degeneracy it’s amazing any of the younger generation can think straight.

Then add in the hateful political propaganda put out for eight years by Barack Obama and the other race-baiting Democrats, and we get the political climate we are living in today.

• Kalifornia Kook says:

Being an engineer is no guarantee that one can think for oneself – or see through the BS. At least at Boeing, many engineers believed in it. We seldom refuted them. Just marked them down in our mental books as stupid and gullible. Not good traits for an engineer. None that I knew were lead engineers, at least.

• simple-touriste says:

How many Boeing saw what the rest of the world saw, that battery was really a problem?

• simple-touriste says:

How many nuclear engineers even question the need for all that radiation safety?

• RACookPE1978 says:

simple-touriste

How many nuclear engineers even question the need for all that radiation safety?

? What are you talking about?

• simple-touriste says:

Why are allowed radiation levels (for workers and general population) set so low?

• HotScot says:

Little Oil

Because like everything else in life, they want to be spoon fed everything.

I’m not educated, all I did was ask some questions like, are there empirical studies that demonstrate CO2 causes the planet to warm. Turns out there’s none.

• HotScot says:

richardw

Nor does it include the 120,000,000 people the World Health Organisation predicts will die by 2050 from smoke inhalation related diseases. All because the are forced to burn animal faeces (dung) and wood to cook and heat with because they are not allowed cheap electricity from fossil fuel power stations.

• That’s tae fughny [I’m not very practiced at trying to type in an authentic Scot-Irish accent].

Would it be more effective like this:

They wur fair lookin farward tae Globull Warmin

• john says:

Hey! Al Gore, you have some splainin to do…

http://norml.org/component/zoo/item/tokin-politics

…Trapper: “So when did you and Gore smoke pot?”

Warneke: “We started in 1970, I think. At my house in Nashville. He likes pot. He told me he smoked it before. I smoked it with Al before he went to Vietnam. And he told me he smoked over there in Vietnam. But now that I know how Al talks about it as opposed with what he really does, I don’t know what to believe.”

Trapper: “But he was a senator’s son at the time. Wasn’t he worried about being caught?”

Warneke: “He was paranoid. When he smoked in my house he would run around in my house and he would close all the blinds. If it was night he’d turn all the lights out. He’s look out the windows and make sure that no one was watching. And then he would light up. Talk about paranoia. We played pool in the dark once. That’s how a senator’s son smoked pot.”

• john says:

Excerpt from Power Hungry Weed Farms..

“the facilities in the 23 states where marijuana is legal are responsible for greenhouse-gas emissions almost equal to those of every car, home and business in New Hampshire.”

…And that was 3 years ago.

• Tom in Florida says:

Yeah but does anyone there care anymore?

• Gunga Din says:

I always found it odd that many of the same people that want to ban cigarettes or limit where they can be smoked for health reasons (second hand smoke and all that) want to legalize marijuana.
They even want to restrict e-cigarettes even though it’s not the nicotine in cigarettes that is linked to cancer but the “smoke”.
Back in my youth there was no such thing as a “smokeless” joint. The closest was a water pipe.
(I once used my old chemistry set to make a 5 chambered “water pipe”. Not worth the effort. 8- )

• Tom in Florida says:

At least with pot you end up not caring if you get cancer from it. And if you do you can get more pot prescribed to lessen the pain. Win-win.

25. Tom in Florida says:

Open thread so, has anyone ever lived in Florida then moved to Las Vegas? If so, please tell me about the heat difference in the summer. I do like hot weather, just not sure if a drier 105F is better than a humid 95F. Thanks in advance.

• Macusn says:

Since the amount of CO2 is the same at both locations, it would only be the water vapor (lack of in the desert west) that makes the difference. More water vapor on the east coast of the states means, holding every thing else the same, temps climb less on the east coast because the sun has to heat the water vapor, same amount of energy. Just carry an umbrella to keep the sun off your body out west, the rain in the east.

Mac

• Kalifornia Kook says:

Not lived in either place, but had assignments in both for months that accumulated to years in both. I’d take Vegas in a heartbeat. Walk a hundred feet in the area of Cape Canaveral and you need a shower in any month except February. In Vegas the humidity is so low you rarely sweat – it evaporates almost immediately.
In short, I prefer 112F in Vegas over 95F in Florida. But I prefer cool weather. And snow. Neither offer that. I live in Reno. Decent snowfall, short summers. It’s already trending to Fall here. 40s in the early morning, highs in the high 80s. Life is good.

• Tom Abbott says:

I personally would rather work outside in drier 105F weather than in humid 95F weather.

• john says:

I’d rather be fly fishing in 55-60 degree wx in the spring and fall…

• Patrick MJD says:

In my experience in Australia when it is hot, say 35c and humid, ~90%+, it’s down right horrible, inside with air-con on all the time. When it’s hot, say 46c+ and dry, ~15%, it’s hot but comfortable to be outside.

• Tom in Florida says:

Thanks to everyone for the info

26. Hocus Locus says:

The braids of the Weekend Open Thread were touched by no frost, its admixture of correspondents clear and flawless and smooth, and the light of stars glinted in its ideas. Yet high and noble it was, as thought and knowledge were in its glance, sharing many things from those who have known what the years bring.

Above the Thread’s brow the familiar header of the website: a careening vista of Earth with a thin sheen of silver cloud lace illuminated by afternoon (or is it morning?) sunlight as from countless strata of gems, glittering and deep. Some arriving to declare its beauty, others to encircle its soft raiment of climate in a girdle of scientific reason and debate.

Exactly such a thing the world had never seen before, and those who participate are both surprised and delighted to discover they have a virtual seat at the table among all these folk so high and fair.

• J Mac says:

Nice bit of prose there…..

27. Roger Knights says:

“Read research papers trapped behind a paywall with this Chrome extensions”:

“Whenever you come across one of those papers that you need to pay for, the extension [Unpaywll] searches for the article to see if the author has posted a free version anywhere as well. … According the extension’s creator “The majority of scholarly journals permit authors to “self-archive” their papers on university and government web servers.””

• Roger Knights says:

Oops: the extension is spelled Unpaywall

28. Roger Knights says:

Here’s a way to undermine the “consensus” argument: by showing that entrants to climatology were biased in favor of alarmism from the get-go, and still are.

What would indicate that bias? A belief that man’s intervention in nature ranges from bad to very bad.

What would indicate that? Membership in various Green advocacy groups or subscriptions to their magazines, or extensive reading of green books, or having taken courses in ecology and the environment. (Their thesis: Four legs good, two legs bad.)

How to do that? By a survey that questions climatology professors about their memberships, subscriptions, reading habits, and courses taken.

What else might indicate a predisposition to alarmism? A belief that capitalism is a short-sighted system that puts selfish profits ahead of any harms it might do to others in the process.

Again, questions about memberships in advocacy groups, subscriptions, reading habits, and educational background would provide indications of a tendency to alarmism,

Finally, questions could be asked about participants’ motives for entering the field. Answer like “wanting to make a difference” or “wanting a healthy world” would point to a non-objective, non-scientific intent.

So I urge some sociologist of science to conduct a poll, or hire a polling firm like Harris to do one. An informal, friendly pilot poll by a well-known warmist at a meeting of the AGU or APS might provide noteworthy findings and be sufficient to secure an investigatory grant from the NSF. (Just kidding.)

29. Gunga Din says:

I’ve been a fan of Star Trek and it’s offshoots and a fan of Stargate-SG1 and Stargate-Atlantis. (I gave it a chance but never cared for the last series.)
Between the first two Stargates, I’ve noticed an actor or actress (not always a main character) that was also in one of the Star Treks EXCEPT the original Star Trek.
Does anyone know of someone from the original Star Trek that also was in one of the Stargates?
(The research to provide an answer would be much more valuable than the research behind …. well … you know .8- )

• Gunga Din says:

Thanks, Keith.
I’d already noticed most, if not all, of those listed while watching the shows. But none of those listed were in the original Star Trek.
I’ve never noticed anyone from the original Star Trek series in a Stargate. Not even a red-shirt phaser-bait.
Just curious if anyone else had.

• Jim Masterson says:

>>
Just curious if anyone else had.
<<

I’ve not seen anyone in both shows either. For the same actors to appear in two different shows thirty years apart would be impressive. I noticed a couple of actors spanned that time gap, but they didn’t appear on both of those specific shows. Most of the actors on SG-1 were just a few years old when Star Trek was on.

Jim

30. clipe says:
31. Carl says:

Few terms going around like Climate Change Denier, Climate Sceptic, Climate Auditor…

If somebody wants to call me a denier, why nit find a better term?

Climate Crisis Denier
Climate Circus Denier
Climate Prediction Agnostic
Climate Projection Pragmatist

Any ideas?

• Gunga Din says:

Climate Progress Denier?
Progressive Political Climate Obstructer?
Natural Climate Change Denier?
(Oh…wait. That last applies to them.)

• Roger Knights says:

Climate Contrarian or Curmudgeon

32. simple-touriste says:

Where in the Constitution is it said that a political campaign cannot accept help from a foreign power, in money or nature?

• Tom in Florida says:

The Constitution does not address campaign operations. The last paragraph of Article I, section 9, know as the Emolument clause, does prohibit any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them” from accepting an present emolument, office or title of any kind from any King, Prince or foreign State. Notice the words “holding any Office..” . A candidate does not hold an office. Additionally, Congress has the power to consent to anything awarded or given to such an office holder and there would then be no violation.

Your question obviously pertains to Donald Trump. I would submit that Trump does not “own” most of his properties and companies, they are most likely all corporations. As corporations by definition are separate legal entities, he personally does not receive any emolument directly from any foreign state and therefore their is no violation of the Emolument clause pertaining to those corporations.

• simple-touriste says:

No, it’s a general question but first addressing specifically the Bernie Sanders campaign which violated code by getting help from foreign volunteers. (I don’t see the issue with Bernie getting help from abroad.)

Then there is the Hillary campaign receiving occult help from foreign governments in the form of tainting Donald Trump (directly or his campaigning team) which is another matter.

Then there is Donald Trump campaign potentially being helped by the Wikileaks publications potentially being sourced from Russia.

Then there are posts on social media from all around the world in many languages.

But the focus of my question is mostly the explanation and restrictions of the SCOTUS decision of allowing unlimited money to entities disjoint from the official campaign of the candidates, but with the explicit restriction that the law can still forbid help from foreign entities.

Obviously there may be a problem with international treaties and how the US, currently represented internationally by the Special Mueller ostensibly tries to police the exact thing done by foreigners on the US that the US does on foreigners. Still wondering whether the Mueller probe could be considered by Russia, following US national hero McCain, as a casus belli.

• Gunga Din says:

You left out Bill Clinton and the Lippo Group.

33. J Mac says:

“A study published in Science documents how scientists for the first time used gene editing to halt the progression of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in dogs. It is seen as a major step toward a clinical trial.”

“CRISPR gene editing technology restored muscle function in dogs to near-normal levels in the heart, diaphragm and other muscles. The work builds upon previous CRISPR research in which Dr. Eric Olson’s lab corrected DMD mutations in mice and human cells. The technique requires only a single cut at strategic points along the subject’s DNA and is less intrusive than traditional gene-editing methods.”

https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2018/dmd-dogs.html

• Walter Sobchak says:

“Early results for gene therapy for muscular dystrophy raises hope” by By Bill Rabinowitz in
The Columbus Dispatch on Jun 22, 2018 http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180622/early-results-for-gene-therapy-for-muscular-dystrophy-raises-hope

Dr. Jerry Mendell … Ohio State University and Nationwide Children’s Hospital neurologist … gave a research-and-development presentation in New York City revealing the preliminary results of his gene-therapy trial …

Mendell and research partner Louise Rodino-Klapac led a clinical trial at Nationwide Children’s initiated with funding by Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy involving four boys ages 4 to 6. At the start of the trial in January, the boys could climb steps only one leg at a time while holding onto a handrail.

“Now they are climbing stairs without using the handrail just as well as you or I can,” Mendell said. “One of the boys, who’s been able to be on the treatment trial the longest, is able to run with ease and can ride his scooter without any problems.”

Not even Mendell expected that before the trial started.
* * *
Duchenne, the most-common type of muscular dystrophy, is caused by the absence of a key structural protein in muscles called dystrophin. That causes muscles, including the heart, to wither. Most Duchenne patients, almost all of whom are males, live only into their 20s.

In the trials, Mendell and Rodino-Klapac used a reduced-size dystrophin gene, small enough to fit in a virus that was then injected into the patients. The results proved better than Mendell’s most-optimistic hope.

Mendell said he couldn’t believe that dystrophin was present in the majority of muscle fibers examined in post-treatment biopsies.

“We’d never seen anything like that before,” he said.

He added that the most-significant results were found in the heart.

Further, blood tests from the boys revealed a significant drop in levels of creatine kinase, an enzyme found at high levels in Duchenne patients, usually indicating that the muscle is more fragile.
* * *
She and Mendell cautioned that more trials are needed. Mendell’s gene therapy, licensed to Sarepta Therapeutics, was done on young boys whose muscles had little atrophy. Mendell said the damage to the muscles of older Duchenne patients may be too far along to reverse significantly.

34. eyesonu says:

Let’s all join hands and thank the weather and wind gods for sparing Miami the devastation of a puff of wind named Gordon that slammed into Miami with winds of 23 mph and gust to 35 mph at its peak hour and dumping 2 1/4 inches of rain over a 7 hour period of time.

Now take notice you nasty weather gods, ease up on those frequent pop-up 2 mile wide summer thunderstorms that blast 60 mph gusts and dump 2 inches of rain in 15-30 minutes that happen many times each year where I live, I’m gonna start giving them names and you will be damned!

35. Walter Sobchak says:

I am looking for a better internet weather page. I have been using Weather Underground for many years. It was light, quick, colorful. A couple of years ago weather.com bought it I think they are neglecting it or trying to kill it off. Features are disappearing.

What weather pages and weather apps do you use?

• Gunga Din says:

I go to my local NWS on my PC. They probably have an app. (I live in the US and I don’t have a cell phone.)
Your local stations probably have an app.
I pretty much only use The Storm Channel on my TV as a timer in the morning for when it’s time to leave for work. (I mute it.)

36. Keith R Jurena says:

How did hairless apes evolve through ice ages? Yes, brains and tools led to clothing and shelter but still the climate must have been warmer to require naked apes.

• Phil. says:

Well they could have evolved in the tropics. Actually back in the day (1967) there was a book called ‘The Naked Ape’ which went into a lot of detail about how it may have happened. 😉

37. simple-touriste says:

On French TV:
– Trump is unconcerned about GHG … unlike all other countries
– French gov might not do upstream taxation, unlike other countries in Europe that have no problem doing it
– nuclear reactor in French electric production is very very much above normal of other countries

The UNIVERSAL consensus on MSM is that politicians should do whatever all other politicians of other countries do.

Also:
“Kids, don’t do drugs. Even when all other kids do.”