Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

"Consumers braced for double whammy on their energy bills"

"Households face a double whammy on energy bills this week as regulators approve plans to overhaul the UK's power infrastructure and Whitehall prepares to unveil multi-billion pound wind farm subsidies – with costs falling on consumers."

"Energy bills could rise by up to £20 a year under plans to help fund infrastructure improvements by National Grid, which are set to be approved by Ofgem today."

£20? Why do I think it will end being nearer to £200?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9402102/Consumers-braced-for-double-whammy-on-their-energy-bills.html

Jul 16, 2012 at 1:02 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Skiphil or others,

How is it possible to link to a specific comment at Bishop Hill (cf. for example one link that I saw: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/8/gergis-paper-disappears.html?lastPage=true#comment18345580)? Do I have to register to do that?

Jul 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterSeptember 2011

Excuse me, Chris M, I overlooked that you knew that tallbloke-post already. Perhaps this further discussion helps a bit: spartacusisfree/mydog referred on another Bishop-Hill-thread to a comment by commenter turnedoutnice:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/some-progress-on-the-skeptic-vs-denier-ugliness/#comment-1030811

and follow-ups

Jul 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterSeptember 2011

Jul 16, 2012 at 8:21 AM geronimo

"If you can't explain your scientific theories to a barmaid, you don't fully understand them." Or words to that effect.

On the other hand Richard Feynman said "Listen buddy, if I could explain it in five minutes, it wouldn't be worth the Nobel prize".

But that's no reason not to explain things and understandably so that anyone with, say, A-level physics can understand what you are on about.

Jul 16, 2012 at 11:40 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Good post over at WUWT, Texas Tall Tales and Global Warming
Guest post submitted by Dr. Cliff Mass University of Washington


Now to examine this issue, the authors of this article compared temperatures and precipitation for March through August and June through August over Texas between observations (from the National Climatic Data Center) and simulations by the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Center Atmospheric General Circulation Model 3P (HadAM3P).

First, the climate model is MUCH warmer and drier than reality…and the observations included the dry/warm conditions of the 1930s. A serious bias. Furthermore, the relationship between temperature and precipitation in the model and observations are VERY different…very different slope, with the model warming up much more quickly as precipitation declines than the observations. Clearly, the model is not simulating Texas climate very well.

Well, that's a surprise!


The bottom line: the actual observations show the temperatures over Texas have warmed by a perhaps a few tenths of a degree C since the mid-1960s, while the GCM model used by Rupp/Mote et al had major warming (1.5-2 C). Clearly, one can not trust the model and the conclusions reached in this paper are unsupportable.

Jul 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM | Registered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

re: "plain English"

a running joke about the more abstruse papers (in English) for the discipline of Philosophy is to say that they "have been translated straight from the original German"

Jul 16, 2012 at 8:59 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

"Would it be too much to ask to find someone to assist you with putting your ideas in plain English?"

Somebody had to say it, I can't remember who it was (Max Planck or Einstein?) who said, "If you can't explain your scientific theories to a barmaid, you don't fully understand them." Or words to that effect.

Jul 16, 2012 at 8:21 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/13/the-other-scandal-in-unhappy-valley/

Jul 16, 2012 at 3:32 AM | Registered Commentershub

Chris M, w.r.t. spartacus see for instance

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/mdgnn-limits-on-the-co2-greenhouse-effect/

Jul 16, 2012 at 1:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterSeptember 2011

Anyone who has done analytical chemistry knows the spectroscopic phenomenon of 'self-absorption', absorption of internally-generated EM energy by unexcited molecules. CO2 in air is well into that mode at ~200 ppm.


Illuminate the lower atmosphere with IR energy in the 4 and 14 micron bands and it excites CO2 molecules that would normally absorb thermal radiation from above. That increases DOWN emissivity so more IR in those bands arrives at the Earth's surface. This switches off the states which, when activated by kinetic energy, would emit that radiation.

The same applies to all the other GHGs. Much IR emission from the Earth is shifted to the 'atmospheric window'. Total GHE settles at a constant level. There can be no CO2-AGW. No amount of computer modelling can get over this basic fact.

spartacusisfree/mydog,

Would it be too much to ask to find someone to assist you with putting your ideas in plain English? I am scientifically literate, albeit with limited knowledge of thermodynamics and radiation physics, like most people whose tertiary education is outside those fields. Are you saying that beyond ~200 ppm CO2 all of the IR in the atmosphere, whether shorter wave incoming or outgoing LWIR, is "occupied" doing things other than increasing the kinetic energy of GHGs, such as converting itself to atmospheric window frequencies, or what exactly??

Your explanations have been propounded for a long time now, and yet clarity, at least to me, remains elusive. Comprehensible science communication is often more important than the correctness of the science itself, if you want to debunk the current orthodoxy, which of course would (or logically should) restore a cheap energy economy.

Jul 15, 2012 at 11:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris M

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>