|
hidetheelephants
5,705 posts
63 months
|
Andy Zarse said: prejudons Sounds like something you'd buy at the deli counter in Waitrose. 
|
|
|
Jinx
5,907 posts
130 months
|
kerplunk said: I thought I'd fixed it already  Probably not much known about the history of the jet stream - it was only discovered in the 40s by WWII bombers I believe. There's the weather record though of course. You do realise current GW theory predicts the jetstream moving northwards? If the Earth was warming the thermosphere would expand and the jetstream would move further from the equator. Given the thermosphere is shrinking, the jetstream is moving closer to the equator what would you say is occuring? This isn't fabrication in models these are observable effects.
|
|
|
Oakey
13,828 posts
86 months
|
Local Rag said: Now Mr Smolensky is believed to want to use the TVR name in conjunction with a new venture building portable wind turbines.
|
|
|
dickymint
11,430 posts
128 months
|
^^^ V8 and not Speed6 I hope.
|
|
|
Russ35
1,486 posts
109 months
|
From the Bishop Hill blog Bishop Hill said: I'm off to Edinburgh in a short while. I'm due to appear on the Jeremy Vine show (around 12:30). George Monbiot and I will be discussing the recent wet weather.
(I'm not sure how the invitation fits with the Jones report and its conclusions on sceptics appearing on the airwaves. No doubt outrage will ensue.)
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
dickymint
11,430 posts
128 months
|
 just tuned in. ETA: Crap music ETAA: Seat belt fastened!
|
|
|
Happy82
5,232 posts
39 months
|
Hope it's not too much of a setup like the mockumentaries we've seen on the BBC
|
|
|
kerplunk
2,942 posts
76 months
|
turbobloke said: Guam said: kerplunk said: No peers as in other people in the field. If you recall I've asked for notable names in the past - none came. Even luminaries like Lord Monkton disagree with turbobloke The only person I remember asking for notable names was he who we never mention from the "other place"  But it cant be that as this is the politics thread right? Right As it happens kerplunk got that reasoning by assertion wrong. I disagree with the junkscience of IPCC. You dispute the fundamental physical basis for AGW due to greenhouse gas emissions. Monckton doesn't dispute it. Monckton disagrees with you. Simplez.
|
|
|
kerplunk
2,942 posts
76 months
|
Jinx said: kerplunk said: I thought I'd fixed it already Probably not much known about the history of the jet stream - it was only discovered in the 40s by WWII bombers I believe. There's the weather record though of course. You do realise current GW theory predicts the jetstream moving northwards? If the Earth was warming the thermosphere would expand and the jetstream would move further from the equator. Given the thermosphere is shrinking, the jetstream is moving closer to the equator what would you say is occuring? This isn't fabrication in models these are observable effects. That's interesting - got a link for the GW = jetstream moving north prediction?
|
|
|
Jinx
5,907 posts
130 months
|
kerplunk said: That's interesting - got a link for the GW = jetstream moving north prediction? quick googleAlso used within GCMs.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,682 posts
130 months
|
kerplunk said: turbobloke said: Guam said: kerplunk said: No peers as in other people in the field. If you recall I've asked for notable names in the past - none came. Even luminaries like Lord Monkton disagree with turbobloke The only person I remember asking for notable names was he who we never mention from the "other place" But it cant be that as this is the politics thread right? Right As it happens kerplunk got that reasoning by assertion wrong. I disagree with the junkscience of IPCC. You dispute the fundamental physical basis for AGW due to greenhouse gas emissions. Monckton doesn't dispute it. Monckton disagrees with you. Simplez. Not so as it happens because as you acknowledge, your approach is deliberately too 'simples' in order to fake the point. In no post have I disputed any established physical laws including radiative absorption, where I disagree is with the junkscience approach of treating the Beer Law and similar expressions as temperature devices, which they are not. To claim otherwise is to misrepresent my position, but you're good at that it would seem. Viscount Monckton is a climate realist, me too. He has acknowledged that there is a greenhouse effect and perhaps this is where you strain to insert a fag paper between his views and mine, there may be room for it depending on what Monckton views as the 'Greenhouse Effect'. If he supports a description that flouts the Second Law then we will disagree and I am more than happy to stand opposite anybody who is foolish enough to go against one of the laws of thermodynamics. Monckton has also said that CO2 contributes to a Greenhouse Effect. Again, the question is how and how much, if Viscount Monckton supports a permanent dangerous temperature increase forced by emissions of carbon dioxide then we disagree and I am again happy to be in that position with data and sound science on my side, I have always said that the impact of adding marginal carbon dioxide is a decreasing (Beer Law) transient and immeasurably small delay in cooling, so there is an effect but it's not one which fits the junkscience view. Monckton has also commented that there is a total absence of correlation between the CO2 concentration trend and the temperature trend, necessarily implying that at least in the short term there is little or no causative link between the two, and I would agree with that. The Viscount has also said that on longer timescales there is a better correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature but temperature changed first so carbon dioxide could not be the cause of the temperature changes. This is as per the Monnin et al result that confounds Al Gore's charts, and here I also agree with Monckton. As you can see, agreeing with an individual isn't the point, unless it's in the view of somebody hidebound by appeal to authority and consensus which are logical fallacies. Who believes what is unimportant. Where I disagree with anything, it will be with junkscience and whoever peddles it I will disagree with them. Now this is clear you may wish to desist from your pointless tactic of citing any particular individual while armwaving about vague points in your simples manner, if not then do carry on and I'll bat the next futile attempt into the long grass where it can sit with this one
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,682 posts
130 months
|
Germany Green Energy Panic as Government Fears Voter Anger About Electricity Prices Explosion
Germany's revolutionary switch to renewable energies is stalling and the country's new environment minister has now admitted as much by casting doubt on the ambitious goals set last year.
Spiegel Online, 17 July 2012
Is the green energy transition crumbling? The German government fears the price explosion - and punishment by voters. Concern about rising electricity prices is politically understandable. Because with all due sympathy for nuclear phase-out and green energy - if their own money is involved, many citizens do not care much about their green principles anymore. And since the green energy transformation is one of the key projects of Chancellor Angela Merkel, the voters’ anger about price increases could also be expressed by withdrawing of support for those responsible in the general election in 2013. This is at least what many in the coalition government fear.
Philipp Wittrock and Florian Gathmann, Spiegel Online, 17 July 2012
|
|
|
kerplunk
2,942 posts
76 months
|
Jinx said: kerplunk said: That's interesting - got a link for the GW = jetstream moving north prediction? quick googleAlso used within GCMs. Thanks, interesting obs of a trend there. The current heatwave in the U.S. is being attributed to a northward movement of the jetstream while our bit of it has gone south for the summer (so far) - no easy answers.
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
4,002 posts
28 months
|
kerplunk said: ...no easy answers. There is, it's called weather, it's quite variable. That'll be £5 please, very cheap!
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,682 posts
130 months
|
kerplunk said: Jinx said: kerplunk said: That's interesting - got a link for the GW = jetstream moving north prediction? quick googleAlso used within GCMs. Thanks, interesting obs of a trend there. The current heatwave in the U.S. is being attributed to a northward movement of the jetstream while our bit of it has gone south for the summer (so far) - no easy answers. The peer-reviewed answers backed by data and sound science aren't "easy" but they have been posted in several threads as Václav Bucha, Václav Bucha Jr, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (1998) and a similarly themed paper by Bucha Sr in Space Research (1986). These explain how solar eruptivity forcing in terms of the auroral oval mechanism has an impact on the jet stream. CME events impacting near the magnetic poles lead to downward winds following the geomagnetic storm onset. These are generated in the polar cap of the thermosphere and penetrate to the stratosphere and troposphere, where the atmospheric response can be observed as a sudden increase of pressure and temperature. There is an impact on e.g. the NH jet stream and in the zonalization of flow in mid-latitudes. This is of course a totally different phenomenon to solar eruptivity forcing in terms of the Svensmark CRF LLC albedo mechanism. At this point the thread we're in requires a return to politics. So: Non-existent carbon dioxide influence is simply armwaving opportunism after the fact.
|
|
|
deeps
4,216 posts
111 months
|
turbobloke said: kerplunk said: turbobloke said: Guam said: kerplunk said: No peers as in other people in the field. If you recall I've asked for notable names in the past - none came. Even luminaries like Lord Monkton disagree with turbobloke The only person I remember asking for notable names was he who we never mention from the "other place" But it cant be that as this is the politics thread right? Right As it happens kerplunk got that reasoning by assertion wrong. I disagree with the junkscience of IPCC. You dispute the fundamental physical basis for AGW due to greenhouse gas emissions. Monckton doesn't dispute it. Monckton disagrees with you. Simplez. Not so as it happens because as you acknowledge, your approach is deliberately too 'simples' in order to fake the point. In no post have I disputed any established physical laws including radiative absorption, where I disagree is with the junkscience approach of treating the Beer Law and similar expressions as temperature devices, which they are not. To claim otherwise is to misrepresent my position, but you're good at that it would seem. Viscount Monckton is a climate realist, me too. He has acknowledged that there is a greenhouse effect and perhaps this is where you strain to insert a fag paper between his views and mine, there may be room for it depending on what Monckton views as the 'Greenhouse Effect'. If he supports a description that flouts the Second Law then we will disagree and I am more than happy to stand opposite anybody who is foolish enough to go against one of the laws of thermodynamics. Monckton has also said that CO2 contributes to a Greenhouse Effect. Again, the question is how and how much, if Viscount Monckton supports a permanent dangerous temperature increase forced by emissions of carbon dioxide then we disagree and I am again happy to be in that position with data and sound science on my side, I have always said that the impact of adding marginal carbon dioxide is a decreasing (Beer Law) transient and immeasurably small delay in cooling, so there is an effect but it's not one which fits the junkscience view. Monckton has also commented that there is a total absence of correlation between the CO2 concentration trend and the temperature trend, necessarily implying that at least in the short term there is little or no causative link between the two, and I would agree with that. The Viscount has also said that on longer timescales there is a better correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature but temperature changed first so carbon dioxide could not be the cause of the temperature changes. This is as per the Monnin et al result that confounds Al Gore's charts, and here I also agree with Monckton. As you can see, agreeing with an individual isn't the point, unless it's in the view of somebody hidebound by appeal to authority and consensus which are logical fallacies. Who believes what is unimportant. Where I disagree with anything, it will be with junkscience and whoever peddles it I will disagree with them. Now this is clear you may wish to desist from your pointless tactic of citing any particular individual while armwaving about vague points in your simples manner, if not then do carry on and I'll bat the next futile attempt into the long grass where it can sit with this one Informative reply TB, any more fag papers Kerplunk?
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,682 posts
130 months
|
One thing Viscount Monckton and I definitely agree on is the uitility in distributing information about the Bucha auroral oval mechanism (research papers) within the climate science community as a reminder. Not that I have much time for such things but did so to a limited extent on Monckton's suggestion and as such I suspect there is more than a coincidence to the increasing mentions - but still very few - of the Bucha auroral oval mechanism outside PH.
Interestingly, several 'names' didn't reply, fair enough as the message and file was unsolicited. Others did and one suggested I send the extracts to a well-known believer scientist, not sure if that was tongue in cheek or serious. Another said that it was outside their specific area of study (true but I'm sure they 'got it'). Nobody said 'ffs that really is carp science'.
|
|
|
kerplunk
2,942 posts
76 months
|
turbobloke said: Not so as it happens because as you acknowledge, your approach is deliberately too 'simples' in order to fake the point. In no post have I disputed any established physical laws including radiative absorption, where I disagree is with the junkscience approach of treating the Beer Law and similar expressions as temperature devices, which they are not. To claim otherwise is to misrepresent my position, but you're good at that it would seem. Viscount Monckton is a climate realist, me too. He has acknowledged that there is a greenhouse effect and perhaps this is where you strain to insert a fag paper between his views and mine, there may be room for it depending on what Monckton views as the 'Greenhouse Effect'. If he supports a description that flouts the Second Law then we will disagree and I am more than happy to stand opposite anybody who is foolish enough to go against one of the laws of thermodynamics. Monckton has also said that CO2 contributes to a Greenhouse Effect. Again, the question is how and how much, if Viscount Monckton supports a permanent dangerous temperature increase forced by emissions of carbon dioxide then we disagree and I am again happy to be in that position with data and sound science on my side, I have always said that the impact of adding marginal carbon dioxide is a decreasing (Beer Law) transient and immeasurably small delay in cooling, so there is an effect but it's not one which fits the junkscience view. Monckton has also commented that there is a total absence of correlation between the CO2 concentration trend and the temperature trend, necessarily implying that at least in the short term there is little or no causative link between the two, and I would agree with that. The Viscount has also said that on longer timescales there is a better correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature but temperature changed first so carbon dioxide could not be the cause of the temperature changes. This is as per the Monnin et al result that confounds Al Gore's charts, and here I also agree with Monckton. As you can see, agreeing with an individual isn't the point, unless it's in the view of somebody hidebound by appeal to authority and consensus which are logical fallacies. Who believes what is unimportant. Where I disagree with anything, it will be with junkscience and whoever peddles it I will disagree with them. Now this is clear you may wish to desist from your pointless tactic of citing any particular individual while armwaving about vague points in your simples manner, if not then do carry on and I'll bat the next futile attempt into the long grass where it can sit with this one Sorry but from where I'm sitting your saturation (even at high altitudes) argument puts you in direct dispute with the fundamental physical basis for AGW and standing in a lonely place - I've checked. Monckton works WITH the fundamental basis (that you reject) to arrive at his low-sensitivity conclusions which is where the contrast between you and he (and just about everyone else) lies. btw does this refer to me: turbobloke said: As believerville appears to be touting the next natural El Nino (ENSO = El Nino southern oscillation) in advance as something related to tax gas, not that there is any credible reasoning as to how, remember this other piece of peer-reviewed Bucha science in the literature. If so, you've misrepresented me - I never said that.
|
|
|
London424
2,785 posts
45 months
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,682 posts
130 months
|
kerplunk said: Sorry but from where I'm sitting your saturation (even at high altitudes) argument puts you in direct dispute with the fundamental physical basis for AGW and standing in a lonely place - I've checked. Monckton works WITH the fundamental basis (that you reject) to arrive at his low-sensitivity conclusions which is where the contrast between you and he (and just about everyone else) lies. From what you've said before, as a non-scientist unable to grasp the detailed science (nothing wrong in that) how do you know what the details of 'my argument' are? It's not my argument btw just the application of sound science. Or are you not as you once claimed to be? What you call the fundamental physical basis for agw wasn't defined in your post, it could be junkscience or it may not be. If it's purely the concept of radiative absorption, no problem as explained n times previously. If it's using the Beer Law expression as a temperature device then it's pure junk. As I've said many times, the genuinely fundamental science isn't in dispute at least not by me. However those whom you claim to be adherents of 'the fundamental basis' may well be running counter to fundamental principles, for example the Second Law. This discussion is pointless as you fail, and it must be deliberate at this stage, to acknowledge that I have no dispute with fundamental science as described, but I do have a major dispute with the junkscience of manmadeup warming.
|
|
