Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DrTskoul

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
I do not think it is coincidental that the Little Ice Age followed the largest period of human death in our species' history. This period followed three main events; the Mongol conquest and killing of much of Asia, the Black Death, and the discovery of the Americas with the consequent genocide of ~100 million people in that episode alone.

Combined, I think we can clearly see that depopulation was a major driver (or was likely a major driver) of the Little Ice Age. This was probably not just due to a reduction in GHG emissions; the changes to continental albedo must also have been fairly dramatic, and an ensuing uptick in forested areas (although relatively short term) would have also provided a massive carbon sink. Think of all the fields/etc that went fallow & sprouted trees after the people who had tended them for several centuries died of plague, Mongols, or smallpox. That is probably at least several percentage points of Earth's total land mass!
Look up the Ruddiman hypothesis. He argues that forest regrowth lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide concentrations and thus cooling.

My understanding is that, in albedo terms, forests are darker than farmland, and so would cause warming, rather than cooling, were it not for the carbon dioxide effect.

That sound about right. Also forests affect the local hydrological cy le and and cloud formation with an additional cooling effect.

I guess only the Americans are duped while the citizens of the rest of the world bask in the light of Truth? Must be the water or the air...

applying the stereotype of the ignorant yank to all of us here. Cool...Thanks for the lesson...

How about we find a way to do the same with similar politicians in Europe and Canada and Europe too. Or are they innocent and perfect there?

Antarctica / Re: What's new in Antarctica ?
« on: Today at 12:21:04 AM »
Scientists highlight Antarctic ice upheaval in response to prehistoric climate change

The research, led by palaeoclimatologist Dr Diederik Liebrand as part of an International Ocean Discovery Program collaboration, suggests that 20 to 30 million years ago the Antarctic periodically gained and lost huge ice caps – equivalent to the entire modern-day East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Dr Liebrand said: "Our research shows that even slow, naturally forced climate change is capable of driving rapid large-scale changes in ice volume in Antarctica – and therefore global sea levels.

"This is of particular interest to scientists because humans are now the main agents of climate change, and the rates of change today are much faster than those that occurred millions of years ago during the interval that we studied.

"Increasingly we are understanding that the Antarctic ice cap is not some enduring monolithic block but a much more slippery ephemeral beast – and the implications of that realisation for the future of Antarctic ice sheets in a very rapidly warming world have not escaped us."

The scientists examined oxygen isotopes in fossilised micro-organisms – found in a drill core of marine sediments taken from a water depth of 2.5km in the South Atlantic – to reach their findings, published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).

Evolution of the early Antarctic ice ages, PNAS,

Provided by: University of Southampton

Study finds 11 percent of disappearing groundwater used to grow internationally traded food

A new study by researchers at the University College London and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York City shows that 11 percent of the global non-renewable groundwater drawn up for irrigation goes to produce crops that are then traded on the international market. Additionally, two-thirds of the exported crops that depend on non-renewable groundwater are produced in Pakistan (29 percent), the United States (27 percent), and India (12 percent).

Carole Dalin et al, Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade, Nature (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nature21403

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 29, 2017, 11:53:18 PM »
When it comes to these temperature anomalies... which I've been watching since at least November... I really have to wonder how much they matter this time of year (over ice, in particular).

If there's a patch of the arctic where normally it is -40 C/F, but instead due to huge anomalies it is -10 C, so what? It doesn't melt, melt ponds don't happen... I feel like the thermodynamics don't change...  until it gets above freezing.

Do we expect anything to come of these high anomalies, where temperatures still stay below freezing?

Heat flux out of the ice ( if we assume linear force formulation -  flux proportional to ΔT) is a quarter roughly compare to normal... it takes four times as long to thicken at the same level..

... presuming enthalpy remains constant.  The problem is, we have heat flow from depth, such that below a given temperature threshold, the ice won't thicken at all, because heat is replenished at the water/ice interface faster than it can be transferred out of the ice to atmosphere.  At -10C, ice more than 1M thick will actually start melting from the bottom, given enough time.

The implicit assumption was the bottom was at equilibrium... if not then absolutely it can melt. The same way that ice does not initially form until air temperature is below -10...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 29, 2017, 07:47:54 PM »
When it comes to these temperature anomalies... which I've been watching since at least November... I really have to wonder how much they matter this time of year (over ice, in particular).

If there's a patch of the arctic where normally it is -40 C/F, but instead due to huge anomalies it is -10 C, so what? It doesn't melt, melt ponds don't happen... I feel like the thermodynamics don't change...  until it gets above freezing.

Do we expect anything to come of these high anomalies, where temperatures still stay below freezing?

Heat flux out of the ice ( if we assume linear force formulation -  flux proportional to ΔT) is a quarter roughly compare to normal... it takes four times as long to thicken at the same level..

Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: March 29, 2017, 01:45:45 PM »
The crack in the ESS is getting real wide. The Laptev fast ice is torched.

I guess it starts with a bang... that is quite the drift

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 28, 2017, 05:19:26 PM »
Yikes.  Somebody close the doors, the draft is killing us...

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 28, 2017, 02:08:11 PM »
Your dear Vozhd will be the one to start the Arctic drilling, comrade, along with the other oligarchs.

Your childish name calling is funny and predictable. Do you have any other argument in your quiver? Regarding respect for the environment look and criticize inwards too...

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: March 28, 2017, 12:39:04 PM »
Can't we stick with standard units? It is 70 times the size of Wales.

rydw i'n cytuno

OK. Here an update on the reply from the authors of Ding et al 2017.
Qinghua has indicated that he is not interested in an "ongoing blog-based discussion, which can quickly turn into a huge time sink".

The latest development is that, Qinghua Ding seems to have changed his position somewhat, because he posted the following in the Stoat blog (link below):
Qinghua Ding

I received the third email from Rob and then test his idea tonight. Actually, we did all these calculations before we implemented Exp. 6. The test shows we still have 35% of trend retained after that Z200-GL influence is removed. I have sent a figure to Rob. The original trend of LW ( the purple curve in Fig. 4 of the paper) from 1979 to 2014 is 2w/m2/decade. The modified one still owns a 0.7W/m2/decade trend.


Unfortunately, at this point this creates a mess, because:
  • It's not at all clear whether Qinghua Ding concedes to a mistake in the methodology of the Ding et al paper.
  • We don't have access to the contents of Rob's three emails to Ding nor to the two lengthy technical replies from Ding to Rob.

Eric's latest and probably last comment on the Stoat blog also confuses matters further, because first he dismisses Rob's critical analysis as "nonsense", but then he takes his time to repeat that "we assume, in effect, that most of the trend in Z200 is "natural variability"."

Which is exactly the assumption that many here have expressed serious doubts about.

which brings us to the realisation that nobody is fully free of confirmation bias.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: March 28, 2017, 12:25:59 PM »
All our lady friends might prefer that we make diamonds from the carbon. ;)
Pile upon pile of them. Millions, no billions of them.

If they became cheap because of excess supply, would they still want them?  ;)
Graphite is much easier.
Carbonates are easier still.

Here is a marble ring for you dear straight out of captured arctic CO2.... resulting to a smack on the head....

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: March 28, 2017, 12:24:06 PM »
Per the attached plot issued today by the BoM, the 30-day moving average SOI has soared up to +5.6:

 :o that is about 3 months ahead of schedule!


Or else...noise

There is no such thing as noise, only limits of the models.

I think we are talking past each other... The notion of randomness and noise is perfectly compatible with deterministic dynamical systems.  You can follow every motion of every molecule or describe an average behavior using the notions of random walk and noise.  Brownian motion is fully deterministic yet can be perfectly described as thermal noise. Turbulence is another example. White noise is a Gaussian distribution....  all these are convenient analytical tools.  Volcanoes which are a source of climate variability are perfectly deterministic but can also be described by a random or stochastic process.

Or else...noise

Thanks for that post ktonine.

For example, no, PV = nRT does not tell you how geopotential height responds to surface temperature!

I'm sorry but, what? This makes no sense to me, probably due to my ignorance in the topic. Let me review, can someone please point where I'm wrong?

From Wikipedia:

 PV = nRT

P is the pressure of the gas,
V is the volume of the gas,
n is the amount of substance of gas (also known as number of moles),
R is the ideal, or universal, gas constant
T is the absolute temperature of the gas.

If n and R remain constant T increases near the surface, then P or V (or both) must increase near the surface. If V increases near the surface wouldn't that result in changes in V higher up in the atmosphere? I imagine it would happen with a decreasing gradient but 200hPa seems low enough to be eventually affected.

It may be that the ideal gas law is a simplification that the models used in this experiment do not  use for practical reasons, but the physics seem clear to me. You change the temperature, you change the geopotential heights. The changes should have at least some influence all the way out to the stratosphere, but as it increases the impact of the changes decrease approaching 0.

An honest assessment of the literature (see IPCC for example) would say that the jury remains out on that.

I Imagine he refers to this :

To claim it is not natural variability you would have to show that the way that the spatial pattern of convection tropics has evolved in the last 30+ years is not natural variability.

Define natural variability. If he means free of human influence then he is the one who must prove that humans did not have a significant effect on the climate. Over the last 10,000 year we stopped the natural variability of the planet the slow cool down to the next ice age. Until the 1800's we prevented the planet from cooling as much as it would have without humans. After the 1800, we started actually warming the planet, contrary to what Milankovitch cycles indicate.

We didn't just warmed the planet, we changed a significant fraction of the surface of the planet making some places colder other warmer with their respective atmospheric changes. By razing forest we changed precipitation patterns and cloud formations that changed atmospheric patterns. We create aerosols that change the local temperatures to such magnitude that it has a visible effect on global temperatures.These and many more low altitude changes have small but real impacts in higher altitude currents. They must. How can they possibly not? Sure they are almost impossible to measure as they get lost in the noise but the changes must be there due to the most basic laws of physics.

To the extent that the decadal tropical changes ARE a forced response, then our estimate for the natural variability is an upper bound,

I would love to see the lower bound. My bet it is on 0% bound for natural variability, but it could very well be 30-40% lower bound due to random variability extrinsic to the arctic. Random variability !=Natural variability.

Sorry but dynamic variability = random variability = natural variability. The variability of the dynamic earth system. There is no unnatural random variability.

Policy and solutions / Re: LENR as a new energy source?
« on: March 26, 2017, 06:54:35 PM »
Energy Catalyser run its course, made $11.5m for Rossi from dumb investment company. Time to do it again with something else? ugggg

That is their goal.  If you see someone going from failed startup to another you know there is a scam brewing...


I think what has been possibly grossly underestimated ( a large proportion of scientists are not at all familiar with industrial mega projects) :

1) timeline from project concept to lights on ( see graphic below )
2) availability of skilled labor - in most developed nations this is a problem right now
3) timeline required to ramp up production (i.e. build new plants) of raw materials for the massive increase of energy projects

The rest / Re: Arctic Café
« on: March 26, 2017, 01:31:58 PM »
Mind you, these are of fresh ice melting in-place. If the river wasn't controlled that would have left for sea alredy. The lake instead is rather natural wrt ice. Tried to record sound of ice cracking but something went wrong. Nice to hear spring is progresaing, though. I haven't visited Baltic shore since the latest imges so don't know what's up in there.

I would love to hear those sounds. Will be much more noticeable at night..

Arctic Background / Re: Importance of waves in the Arctic
« on: March 26, 2017, 12:49:39 PM »
A couple of papers from Pierre Rampal et al.:

neXtSIM: a new Lagrangian sea ice model

and currently under discussion:

Wave-ice interactions in the neXtSIM sea-ice model

The amount of attenuation that waves in ice experience is the main factor in determining the amount of momentum transferred to the ice. However, definitive confirmation of any particular physical models for this is still lacking.

Neat. Thanks Jim.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 26, 2017, 12:35:06 PM »
Bizzaro world. Obama is a Nazi, white supremacist loving Trump not a fascist and Putin is a benevolent state sovereignist ( aka another nationalist like all recent European nationalist movements like Lepen. Btw fascism at its core was nationalist, born from the liberalism capitalism and industrial expansion of the 1800s and early 1900s)

Btw fascism is also of course corporatism merged with state power, at least that's how Mussolini saw it, and a perfect descriptor for the current US lone super power.

And yes mine would be a bizarro world if seen through the inversion of your US corporatist bubble and its delusional topsy turvy domestic politics. There is a world out here, beyond your US domestic propaganda bubble, and it's full of people like me who have their own opinions and points of view. 

Now if you lot could get your military to stop rampaging around the world like a drunken psychopath with a knife killing people, then maybe we could all come together to settle things down a bit and get to work on some real problems, such as climate change yes? Respect state sovereignty rather than enforce pseudo-democratic bloody chaos at the point of a gun ... Is this an outrageously bizarro prospect for you as well? And where has your anti-war coalition gone?

Worst case scenario you morons trigger a global thermonuclear war after unleashing a hydrocarbon free for all to feed an insane global war economy. Next stop the final solution to anthropogenic climate change via our species extinction. Bizarro indeed!

Btw I am Greek, born and raised there, so I have seen all sort of political movements. Even so, your beef has become rather tiresome.... we have not attacked you, yet your diatrebes have become increasingly insulting.  If you care about ff and cc, why don't tell your government to back off from the 10M/day production. And stop advancing exploration and exploitation of the arctic...

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 26, 2017, 05:55:44 AM »
Ahh the famous deep state.... 

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 26, 2017, 05:25:24 AM »
Tell us how you really feel. ;-)

Hi Jim,

my main concern is with the permanent war that the US has been waging since 2001 well outside the UN Charter and thus technically illegal. The Charter is defined by the Nuremberg laws proscribing state aggression and upholding state sovereignty as the cornerstone of international law and order, these are the same laws under which we hung what was left of the Nazi hierarchy after WW2. The proscription of Nazism is in this historical sense at the foundations of the UN Charter and international law, the same law the US has been flouting for the last decade and a half with regime change after regime change. Thus in this post WW2 sense, the GWOT is what Nazis do. Quite simple really, a technical point of law and history, and in this sense one might also say that Obama was a mass murdering warmongering Nazi for the entire 8 years of his 2 terms. Much like Bush, Blair and Howard before him in that they executed a Supreme Crime of Aggression against Iraq and destroyed any international consensus on state sovereignty while doing so. Technically they could be hung for the same crime we hung the Nazis.

Obviously this point of view is probably difficult to swallow for people fed the notion that the US is exceptional, free and an 'honest broker', and that, perversely, Putin etal are Hitler, I guess it would seem that history is turned upside down.

I take it nowadays though it's OK to call Trump a fascist, yes? Putin a murderous dictator akin to Hitler? Russia a violent backwards throwback to the Stalinist Soviets and Tsarist empire? My trouble with these memes is that Donald, unlike Hillary, is as yet to prove his fascist credentials re the US permanent war on the world, while Russia is actually arguing for the restoration of state sovereignty and a multipolar balance of power against the unfettered use of US military power across the globe. The pragmatic realists in the US elites are coming around to this against the neconservative hawks, and I see the current Trump imbroglio in that light. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, and I consider the current Russophobia a frighteningly amusing sideshow to this main one.

You are of course free to discount any of my views as "conspiracy theory" and interpret them, rather oddly, as support for Trump. Being an Australian libertarian socialist however I don't really care about your US presidents as I see them mainly as talking heads for whatever powers are aligned behind them. It's an empire thing, you might get it if you were schooled in the history of the British Empire like some of us other colonials.

Ultimately, for me, I am hoping the US super power which is currently devolving back into a multipolar world, can do so more or less without causing too much of a fuss, like say a thermonuclear WW3. Certainly the use of tactical nuclear weapons are on the table, the ABM shield in Eastern Europe is technically part of a first strike weapon system aligned against the Russian Federation, and the US elites are barking mad ala McCain's "it's an act of war!" re the evidence free allegation of Russian election hacking.

Whether you like him or not, your dodgy real estate salesman and reality TV star Commander in Chief is now nominally at the helm of the US military industrial behemoth, it remains to be seen what he will or can do to effect its current course, if anything, for the better or quite possibly the worse.

At the end of this historical process however, global multipolarity is inevitable, Eurasia is rising and they want to do business, and perhaps by around 2030 the world can put global warfare behind it to mitigate the worst of runaway global warming. I certainly wouldn't count on it though, how about you?

Bizzaro world. Obama is a Nazi, white supremacist loving Trump not a fascist and Putin is a benevolent state sovereignist ( aka another nationalist like all recent European nationalist movements like Lepen. Btw fascism at its core was nationalist, born from the liberalism capitalism and industrial expansion of the 1800s and early 1900s)

Permafrost / Re: Negative Feedback of Positive Snowfall Anomalies
« on: March 25, 2017, 09:52:44 PM »
In my understanding of the climate system I have not ruled out yet that rapid global warming may lead to rapid global cooling. I think it will take rapid Greenland/Antarctic melt followed by a sharp increase in volcanism. Under that scenario, the albedo and aerosol changes might be enough to cause   a global winter lasting anywhere from years to decades.

But I'm talking about ridiculous amounts of melt and an equally ridiculous increase in volcanism.
That's looking a long way out, I'm thinking not of global cooling or an ice age, although the eventual distibution of ice masses may bare some resemblance, but more of a mechanism that emerges to halt a runaway greenhouse effect. That means increased evaporation from a warmer Arctic, precipitating out somewhere high enough and remote enough from any ocean to survive summer melt, and with minimal change of elevation between there and the sea, so the Altai mountains/Mongolia fit the bill in Eurasia, and southwest of Hudson going towards Montana in the Americas. I know too little about atmospherics to think properly about this, but it seems to me if you add the latent heat of evaporation to that of freezing/melting thats a way of lifting vast amounts of energy from the Arctic and dumping it far to the south high up in the[now dry] atmosphere, plus if this kicks off as a random but powerful weather event the transformation of the vapour to solid, and consequent loss of volume, could be self reinforcing. Once established, and it may take a number of false starts, it's possible that it would create it's own weather systems.

There is no homeostasis.... there is no mechanism that emerges...

Policy and solutions / Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« on: March 25, 2017, 05:37:58 PM »
By 2040, we will be employing all manner of geoengineering techniques in a desperate to attempt to halt warming with disastrous results.

Can't wait for the New Little Ice Age of the 2070's that led to worldwide famine, brought to being by the geoengineering trials of the stratospheric aerosol injections. Followed by the rapid warmup of the 2080's when the aerosols washed out.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 25, 2017, 03:53:38 PM »
The sock-puppets have arrived....

At the risk of drifting off topic, may I take this opportunity to point out that whilst we debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...
And I always thought that here on ASIF we were debating how many angels can dance on the remaining Arctic sea ice in September?  ;)

Pinhead size guaranteed...

At the risk of drifting off topic, may I take this opportunity to point out that whilst we debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin the cryodenialospheric porky pie production line is cranking up to full speed once again?

Lamar Smith’s Show Trial for Climate Models

All in all there’s several “alternative facts” in just the headline and opening paragraph of the GWPF’s press release, which doesn’t augur well for the contents of the report itself.

We feel sure that Lamar Smith and the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology will nonetheless be pleased to see this report become public shortly before their planned hearing on March 29th entitled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method“:

We also feel sure they were pleased to view the contents of another recent “white paper” published under the GWPF banner. The author was ex Professor Judith Curry, and the title was “Climate Models for the Layman“

It would be an excellent topic if he had real experts instead of three bozos and an expert....

* expertise is earned. Because your name goes on a journal paper you are not automatically expert
* experts have blind spots and biases and make mistakes too
* because you just write in a forum of mostly amateurs you are not automatically an ignoramus
* if you want to criticise experts have your ducks in a row  ( thanks Rob)
* chill...

Glaciers / Re: Barnes Ice Cap / Penney Ice Cap
« on: March 24, 2017, 02:19:54 PM »
From the Scribbler: Arctic Entering Its Hottest Period in 2.5 Million Years as Last Remnants of Laurentide Melt Away

There are many ways to tell the Earth’s temperature. One is by measuring how warm the atmosphere is near the surface. Another is to track the heat content of the world’s oceans. Still another is by taking account of melting glaciers and comparing thaw lines with times in the geological past.

And according to new research, the present state of the Barnes Ice Cap — which is the last tiny remnant of the once vast Laurentide Ice Sheet — tells a tale of heat not seen in 2.5 million years.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 24, 2017, 01:13:27 PM »
If Hycom is right, there is a very big section of ice that looks like it is leaving Baffin Bay.

And Fram...

Permafrost / Re: Negative Feedback of Positive Snowfall Anomalies
« on: March 24, 2017, 10:22:46 AM »
If more of the Earth's surface is reflecting more sunlight back into space (and dissipating heat more readily at nighttime as well), I would think that actually has a *larger* impact than changes in GHGs, which alter the distribution of heat retained by the Earth, not the overall amount of heat it actually takes in. The only things that can alter the latter are A) changes in the sun's output or B) changes in the Earth's reflectance/albedo.

Given this, I suspect that we have vastly underestimated albedo's impact on overall global climate. Even if the amount of land that is snowcovered in a given year only increases by 10%, that is an absolutely *huge* amount of solar energy (~3% of planetary total!) that is now being deflected back into space.

If someone can provide more concrete numbers or throw my ideas into the garbage can either would be appreciated.
Climate denial garbage can, imho.

Btw, way underestimated effect of albedo means way underestimated effect of CO2. Climate sensitivity does not discriminate between forcings....

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: March 23, 2017, 11:27:26 AM »
What a lovely start.... :o :o

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 23, 2017, 01:11:09 AM »
How Robert Mercer exploited America’s populist insurgency.

Just wow!

Patterson also recalled Mercer arguing that, during the Gulf War, the U.S. should simply have taken Iraq’s oil, “since it was there.” Trump, too, has said that the U.S. should have “kept the oil.” Expropriating another country’s natural resources is a violation of international law. Another onetime senior employee at Renaissance recalls hearing Mercer downplay the dangers posed by nuclear war. Mercer, speaking of the atomic bombs that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, argued that, outside of the immediate blast zones, the radiation actually made Japanese citizens healthier. The National Academy of Sciences has found no evidence to support this notion. Nevertheless, according to the onetime employee, Mercer, who is a proponent of nuclear power, “was very excited about the idea, and felt that it meant nuclear accidents weren’t such a big deal.”

“Most people at Renaissance didn’t challenge him” about politics, Patterson said. But Patterson clashed with him over climate change; Mercer said that concerns about it were overblown. After Patterson shared with him a scientific paper on the subject, Mercer and his brother, Randall, who also worked at the hedge fund, sent him a paper by a scientist named Arthur Robinson, who is a biochemist, not a climate expert. “It looked like a scientific paper, but it was completely loaded with selective and biased information,” Patterson recalled. The paper argued that, if climate change were real, future generations would “enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life.” Robinson owns a sheep ranch in Cave Junction, Oregon, and on the property he runs a laboratory that he calls the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Mercer helps subsidize Robinson’s various projects, which include an effort to forestall aging.

Patterson sent Mercer a note calling Robinson’s arguments “completely false.” He never heard back. “I think if you studied Bob’s views of what the ideal state would look like, you’d find that, basically, he wants a system where the state just gets out of the way,” Patterson said. “Climate change poses a problem for that world view, because markets can’t solve it on their own.”

Magerman told the Wall Street Journal that Mercer’s political opinions “show contempt for the social safety net that he doesn’t need, but many Americans do.” He also said that Mercer wants the U.S. government to be “shrunk down to the size of a pinhead.”

Mercer financed Bannon and Trump...

David Magerman, in his essay for the Inquirer, notes that Mercer “has surrounded our President with his people, and his people have an outsized influence over the running of our country, simply because Robert Mercer paid for their seats.” He writes, “Everyone has a right to express their views.” But, he adds, “when the government becomes more like a corporation, with the richest 0.001% buying shares and demanding board seats, then we cease to be a representative democracy.” Instead, he warns, “we become an oligarchy.”

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 22, 2017, 06:26:41 PM »
For max snowfall you need a warmish atmosphere with lots of water vapor and temperatures around freezing. Too cold and rel humidity is lower and snow flakes are too small. Around and little above zero C flakes are at their largest and depth builds quickly. A little warmer and it's rain... no I do not see that happening....a ton of snow that melts quickly....

Consequences / Re: General Drought Stuff
« on: March 22, 2017, 05:50:58 AM »

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: March 21, 2017, 11:29:06 PM »
E.U. Passes Arctic Protection Resolution
Members of the European Parliament called for measures to protect the vulnerable Arctic ecosystem, ban oil drilling there and keep it a low-tension and cooperation area.

They call for a ban on oil drilling in “icy” Arctic waters of the E.U. and the European Economic Area, as the use of fossil fuels will further accelerate climate change. This does not automatically imply a total ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic, as, also on Thursday, the European Parliament rejected a proposal for a total ban of oil and gas exploration in the Arctic.

Looks like another half measure which leads to nothing.

Only the 4 nations can do wth, US, Russia, Canada and Norway. The rest if the EU can pass as ma t resolutions as they want.....

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 21, 2017, 11:36:07 AM »
I appreciate the reply Terry! Definitely OT :) but interesting nevertheless

EDIT: the stupid well never dries. "GOP Congessman: Chesapeake Bay Pollution Is God’s Fault", if anyone needed a reason why the Trumpster conned the little guy....

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 20, 2017, 11:50:03 PM »
I agree with Terry.  There is no correlation between IQ and ethical and compassionate behaviors, or common sence.  In some cases there is an anti-correlation.

Common sense is what IQ tests are designed to measure, so there is a very strong relationship there. Income and wealth are odd in that there is a positive relationship up to 2 statistical deviations above normal, then a strong negative correlation.

As far as governance, I've wondered if the old Chinese model of meritocracy through strong, tested examinations at every level of civil service might have merit. The Grand Poo Bah might be deranged, but his orders were carried out by professionals capable of tweaking things until a reasonable result might be expected.


I have seen examples of very high IQ with inability to relate to other human beings. I don't know which IQ tests you refer to, but most of the ones I have taken don't seem to relate to common sense.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 20, 2017, 01:16:06 PM »
If you only read one article today....THIS is the one:

"White House installs political aides in Cabinet agencies to be Trump's eyes and ears."

A real sociopath at work....


Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: March 20, 2017, 12:16:48 PM »
China reducing their coal huh???

China kickstarting new coal boom in Pakistan

(Climate Home) – Chinese investments are speeding up new coal developments in the Thar region of Pakistan, despite local water scarcity and pollution and an abundance of solar energy potential.

The CEO of Sindh Engro Coal Mining Company (SECM), Shamsuddin Ahmad Shaikh, said on Thursday that with government and investor support – particularly from China – its coal developments in Thar are running quicker than expected.

SECM is developing a 1,320MW coal power plant in Thar which is expected to be completed by June 2019.

Also under development is the Sino-Sindh Resources Limited (SSRL)’s open pit mine, which is expected to produce 6.5m metric tonnes a year. It will reach commercial operation as early as 2018. Coal from this pit will power a 1,320MW plant, expected to be operational by 2019.

Addressing a seminar in Karachi, Shaikh said that SECM can “considerably” reduce electricity costs to 6¢ per unit once its Thar coal production reaches a capacity of 4,000MW.

Thar’s provincial chief minister Syed Murad Ali Shah, said the coal projects will “change the face” of Pakistan’s biggest city Karachi and Sindh, the province in which Thar is located. […]

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 20, 2017, 12:12:20 PM »
You don't need AI to run any of those models. And a model is  by construct incomplete. It tries to uncover the major physics and processes and it can not account for all time scales... from the chemistry of the oceans to tectonics. The more complex the model the more difficult to parse the output and make correlations that are valuable and traces back to specific physical processes. We have the real life model as you said. We have managed to only make empirical connections e.g. with El Nino we have these expected weather patterns, which some times materialize and others not.

Without the reductive nature of models we would learn nothing about the underlying physical processes.


You do not need a variable sun to create a PDO or any other natural oscullation. Just the shape and evolution of Earth' s orbit with local local Ocean and land topography is enough.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 20, 2017, 11:02:08 AM »
I agree with Terry.  There is no correlation between IQ and ethical and compassionate behaviors, or common sence.  In some cases there is an anti-correlation.

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 20, 2017, 02:50:05 AM »

(EDIT2: Some students I know are organising a climate lecture in York, UK. They already have a prominent denier and are looking for a climate scientist to counter him. I suggested Kevin Anderson but I don't think he's replied yet. Any other suggestions? I'll see if I can get help with the homework!)

What is the point of debating a Gish galloper?? It is almost futile unless the climate scientist is able for a Gish gallop of his own. Countering one by one the points of a Gish gallop is a waste of time....

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 19, 2017, 06:24:19 AM »


The majority of the scientists and engineers do not have the skills to be concise,  on target and quick on come backs. It is unfortunate...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12