Last Build Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:02:49 +0000
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:02:49 +0000P.S. -- worth a look, the site is sane on climate change, and appropriately skeptical about bogosity and netwit commenters generally: http://doubtfulnews.com/about-doubtful-news/ which includes a link to this thoughtful piece from a while back: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 19:49:55 +0000Meanwhile, Trump spokesman Mick Mulvaney sees: 'TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY FOR SAVINGS' IN TRAFFICKING IN PIECES OF DEAD SCIENCE https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/03/mulvaney-sees-tremendous-opportunity.html
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 19:46:28 +0000Hank Roberts:
Paste that string into Google and search to see where that theme is being promoted lately. It’s copypaster fodder.It's pretty insulting for a Google-Galileo to assume RC participants can't use the same research tool he does, isn't it?
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 18:27:32 +0000#296, T. Marvell-- "Don’t believe Chinese PR." One does well to take official Chinese pronouncements with a grain of salt. However, I think that the government isn't quite as "decentralized" as all that. Yes, the regional/provincial/municipal governments don't automatically toe the line instantaneously, which is one reason that, for example, it has been tough for the central committee to close inefficient SOEs ("state-owned enterprises.") However, the central government is not without ways of making its desires felt. One thing we do know for sure without reference to central pronunciamentos: the trend in Chinese coal imports is downwards. http://www.mining.com/growth-in-chinese-thermal-coal-imports-will-not-last-long/ I would also add that while it may be true that there have problems getting solar capacity connected to the grid, it would be pretty naive to think that it is allowed to sit useless indefinitely. There is some relevant discussion here: https://cleantechnica.com/2016/07/27/china-logs-22-gw-grid-connected-solar-pv-first-half-2016/
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 12:20:38 +0000sidd @ 302 "Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics, Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School" Let me guess, another engineer who didn't take any courses in biology and ecosystems. You'd hope that at the very least they would take chaos theory and non linear dynamics...
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 02:57:20 +0000Geoengineering with stratospheric injection of water, alumina, CaCO3 launches now http://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/ http://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14910.abstract mmm. anyone with a balloon and a bag of talc can play. what could go wrong ? idd
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:17:06 +0000Russell:
Mal protesteth undermuch.Doubtless that makes perfect sense to you, Russell, but I'm groping for your meaning. Perhaps you'll unpack a little?
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:04:54 +0000Gavin, to Thomas:
Your participation here is welcomed, but remember that this is not just a forum for you.Thank you, Gavin, for setting a reasonable standard. One sincerely hopes the signal-to-noise ratio on RC improves henceforth.
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:59:04 +0000I've been trying to understand Spencer and Christy (2017) did to produce their TMT v6, etc. For the MSU instruments, they took the on orbit measurements of individual foot print position from each scan and binned them into a 1x1 degree grid. The positioning in the grid depends on the "Earth Angle" of each view, thus the position for the nadir scan is different from those for the end scans. For example, at the equator crossing, a plot of the grid in a vertical direction would show these measurements binned into a V shaped displacement in the longitude direction with the nadir being at the tip of the V, thus there's no vertical alignment between the nadir grid location and the positions assigned to the other scans. A rough calculation along the Equator indicates that the orbits do not return to the same nadir grid location until 81 orbits later and after 81 orbits, there are still 200 other nadir grid locations with no data. Spencer and Christy fill in these empty locations by arbitrarily "smearing" the grid around each location to the 2 adjacent locations as well. They eventually process this gridded data into another 2.5 degree grid, etc., etc. moving toward a longitudinal average. As a consequence of this processing, it seems to me that their calculation using the gridded data with their second order polynomial fit procedure may not be so great. First off, it appears that in most cases, there's no alignment between the upper levels of the grid and nadir, thus they are always mixing different air masses when performing in the calculation. Whether this all works out OK on a monthly average is a question in my mind. Also, at the highest latitude where the MSU/AMSU are scanning in N-S direction, there are no nadir scans corresponding to the scans at the end of the swath, which extend further toward the poles. Does their "smearing" procedure shift from longitudinal along the equator to latitudinal near the poles? They don't say how they handle this situation. What ever they do, at polar latitudes, the scans are rather close together with considerable overlap, thus the grid positions receive several measurements during each day's operation, mixing several air masses in each day's grid binning process. For the AMSU data, they go straight to the 2.5 degree grid binning, missing out on a great opportunity to provide higher resolution data. As previously mentioned, they trick their polynomial fit by adjusting the selection of an "earth angle" to match the theoretical weighting of the MSU. All this processing results in moving the theoretical peak emission weighting to higher in the atmosphere, with the result being stronger impact from the stratosphere, while assuming that the same emission profile is appropriate at all latitudes and seasons. Nothing above gets into the other issues of calibration and merging of the data from each satellite. In sum, I'd say there several reasons to question the usefulness of their work in assessing AGW...
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:06:41 +0000Enough for me. Too many posters like Thomas dominating the site and too little actual science news/info. It's been informative 6 years but no more.