| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
| Quote: | | More stronger hurricanes, fewer weak ones. |
Yet this is not true, as the number of powerful major hurricanes is unchanged. Major hurricanes don't exactly escape notice, especially in the era of ships with radios, and even more obviously in the era of satellites. This is a very reliable figure that is simply not changing.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/fig32.jpg
Thats atlantic only. I see some pacific figures for all hurricanes(no trend) but can't find any for major hurricanes.
Also the ACE numbers would reflect higher wind speeds if they were there... yet they are not.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/tropical-cyclones/2011/annual/EPAC_ace_2011.png
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/cyclones-figure2-2015.png
| Quote: | | Global warming increases trade winds |
There is no evidence of that. I actually just ran some numbers(behind a security firewall, so no sharing of the raw data) for wind frequencies at global long term weather stations. There is no change since the records began.
| Quote: | | We've seen some really fast intensification in recent years. |
There is no reason to think rapid intensification is any different now than it was prior to global warming. The histories show some pretty mighty storms back then too.
While the ocean surface is a little warmer, the air is also a little warmer. The temperature gradient appears to be unchanged, or nearly unchanged. The evaporation rate is unchanged... the oceans are not absorbing any more or any less solar energy than they were prior to GW. The energy available to a hurricane... is therefore also unchanged.
| Quote: | | permafrost and how it's melting |
This of course is true. No arguments there. Obviously as temperatures slowly rise, the latitude of permafrost retreats poleward a bit.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
 Sat Dec 10, 2016 6:23 pm |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | Quote: | | Global warming increases trade winds |
There is no evidence of that. I actually just ran some numbers(behind a security firewall, so no sharing of the raw data) for wind frequencies at global long term weather stations. There is no change since the records began. |
There is an interesting side note to this in that Winter storm frequency and intensity is trending upward since the 1950s. That is long enough to establish a climate trend (i.e. greater than 30 years). This is true of both high and middle latitudes except Winter storm frequency at middle latitudes which doesn't appear to be showing a trend in ether direction. That being said, climate scientists cannot yet attribute that trend to global warming with any reasonable certainty. But I do think it's interesting and it would be consistent with expectations in a warming climate.
More info here:
Climate.gov: Are record snowstorms proof that global warming isn’t happening?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
| Quote: | | Winter storm frequency and intensity is trending upward since the 1950s |
The data does not support that conclusion. There is no significant change in frequency of high winds, precipitation, or low clouds, at the worlds biggest airports(the best place to find reliable weather data going all the way back).
|
| Back to top |
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:01 am |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | The data does not support that conclusion. |
Did you read the linked report? So you are saying that the government climate scientists are wrong? And that their data is wrong?
Please feel free to provide corrected data sources and analysis.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
| Quote: | | So you are saying that the government climate scientists are wrong? |
Yup. Or at least that website is wrong. Are those real scientists or bureaucrats and politically appointees making a website? If they were scientists, why did they make such an amateur level mistake: not labeling their main chart with units? I have no idea what kind of clown runs 'globalchange.gov', but I have never heard of them. What is a storm? What isnt a storm? How is it defined? Why are unit labels missing?
And yes, I read the report, which appears to be statistically insignificant or flat out wrong. Assuming that main chart's units are percent, then ~1% is completely insignificant.
As for the raw data, there are multiple datasets available. The precip has been covered multiple times recently in this thread.
For winds and cloud cover, there are many sources, but this one is a great starting point: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/isd
Note, the NCDC is a pretty reliable outfit with a legitimate reputation as guardians of actual data. I'm sure some bungling politician has forced them to publish a silly headline somewhere, but their raw datasets are pretty solid.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:30 am |
|
|
That's quite funny. The data source they called out for those charts was... wait for it... NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
This figure appears in chapter 2 of the Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment report - The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was established by Presidential Initiative in 1989 and mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990 to “assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.”
It's all there... just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it wrong (and you haven't said why it is wrong).
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
The NCDC contains much valid data. It existed long before the politicization of global warming and before any clown with a B- in some fuzzy studies field and a blog became a 'climate expert'. The raw data at NCDC, from everything I have seen, is solid.
Many people have trouble interpreting that data correctly. Some clown can say they got data from a good source and then reach some completely unfounded conclusion, which appears to be the case here, through no fault of the raw numbers.
As for why it is wrong, the lack of units is worth a failing grade by itself. Is this remedial high school physics class or a supposedly scientific government group? Assuming units are % change in yearly storms, or change in absolute number of yearly storms, the data indicates no significant trend. Finally, the blatant contradiction between their conclusion and the raw numbers which I have reviewed. If you don't want to trust my word on that(and why would you trust some random guy on some forum?): you should then look through the data yourself.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
Tue Dec 13, 2016 3:44 pm |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | As for why it is wrong, the lack of units is worth a failing grade by itself. |
Not sure why you keep missing it. It's there if you actually read the report and follow the references.
| Quote: | | The time series represent standardized departures, which are deviations from the longterm average that have been divided by the spread in the data (e.g., the standardized departure of frequency in a given year/location is computed by subtracting the long-term average frequency at that location from the actual frequency in that year/location, then dividing the difference by the standard deviation of the frequency in that location).
The time series were derived from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction–National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP–NCAR) reanalysis (Kalnay et al. 1996) using a modified version of Serreze (1995) as detailed in Wang et al. (2013). Each series has an increasing trend from 1948 to 2010 that is statistically significant (0.01 level). Overall, there is good agreement between these series and those of McCabe et al. (2001), which were presented in the previous NCA report (Karl et al. 2009). |
* The units were already there
* The series is statistically significant
Since I've provided it for you, I'm guessing were all good and the report is acceptable now.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
That the units are there in the reference material does not excuse the amateur mistake of not including them on the plot on 'globalchange.gov' or 'climate.gov'.
Now lets move on past the useless clowns at those 2 websites, and move to the actual article, a much better piece of work: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00162.1
A minor trend may exist in a certain reanalysis database. But is that real? Reanalysis data is partly model based and much less reliable, especially offshore where it is mixed with less observational data. I would question why model data is used at all, when much more reliable surface observations exist, every hour, of every day, for major airports. Especially when that work concludes that the biggest change is noted offshore, where their reanalysis data is least reliable. | Quote: | | "There is suggestive
evidence of a shift toward offshore activity, with slight upward trends along U.S. coasts." |
The actual airport observations indicates no significant change in high wind events.
The actual paper of course, does a pretty good job of indicating that, and is in much better agreement with my conclusions and the actual data.
| Quote: | | There is suggestive evidence of an increase in
extreme winds at the annual time scale over parts
of the ocean since the early to mid-1980s, but evidence
over land is inconclusive. |
I would argue that the more reliable land based obs should be weighted at a much higher factor than the offshore re-ann data, and thus the conclusion for the entire thing would be 'no trend'. Especially when many of those old airports are coastal airports. The trend that Boston or Halifax experiences (or in this case does not experience) is a pretty good proxy for the nearby near-shore regions, such as the Canadian Maritimes/Grand Banks, etc.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:00 am |
|
|
There is a new study on the greenhouse gas payback time for solar energy. It takes a lot of energy to manufacture solar panels, and most of that uses fossil fuels. Then the question is how long it takes for those panels in use to save that energy and thus become net greenhouse gas savers.
Abstract
| Quote: | | Since the 1970s, installed solar photovoltaic capacity has grown tremendously to 230 gigawatt worldwide in 2015, with a growth rate between 1975 and 2015 of 45%. This rapid growth has led to concerns regarding the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of photovoltaics production. We present a review of 40 years of photovoltaics development, analysing the development of energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions associated with photovoltaics production. Here we show strong downward trends of environmental impact of photovoltaics production, following the experience curve law. For every doubling of installed photovoltaic capacity, energy use decreases by 13 and 12% and greenhouse gas footprints by 17 and 24%, for poly- and monocrystalline based photovoltaic systems, respectively. As a result, we show a break-even between the cumulative disadvantages and benefits of photovoltaics, for both energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, occurs between 1997 and 2018, depending on photovoltaic performance and model uncertainties. |
Results excerpt
| Quote: | | Energy pay-back times drop from around 5 years in 1992 to around just under 1 year for poly-Si and just over 1 year for mono-Si PV systems currently |
I just wanted to point out a process issue for me. When I post about these kinds of articles, I have found them either through news sites or sometimes advocacy sites. But I always follow links back to the original article where available and confirm the description and any quotes are from the original article. It adds all of two or three minutes of my time but I think makes for a more reliable report to this site.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WANative
Member
Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
|
|
WANative
Member
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:15 pm |
|
|
This is interesting info. Without clicking any links, what generating source (coal, gas, oil etc) was used as the baseline or did they compare multiple sources?
10-12 years ago, payback in terms of carbon emissions in relation to coal was 10 years.
I wonder where the 1000% reduction came from?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
onemoremile
Member
Joined: 26 Dec 2010
Posts: 1305 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim |
| WANative wrote: | | This is interesting info. Without clicking any links, what generating source (coal, gas, oil etc) was used as the baseline or did they compare multiple sources?
10-12 years ago, payback in terms of carbon emissions in relation to coal was 10 years.
I wonder where the 1000% reduction came from? |
Years ago, there was a group investigating the payback for solar, the findings included going as far as trying to determine: amount of diesel burned by heavy equipment involved in mining, transport of the materials, energy required to refine elements, extra expense of getting workers to the mines/factories and all the other fuel consumptive sources. When I've looked at more recent articles, they usually just include energy of manufacture. The conclusion for the older study was that solar (with the technology of the time) would be net negative for its entire functional lifetime. The older panels (1990s/early 2000s), would degrade a little faster than they were supplying the carbon offset. I had read about 5 or so years ago that there was finally tech that would make solar basically neutral (on average), location was somewhat a factor--the farther from the generators the more carbon you offset due to cancelling transmission losses.
“Arbolist? Look up the word. I don’t know, maybe I made it up. Anyway, it’s an arbo-tree-ist, somebody who knows about trees.” G.W. Bush
“Arbolist? Look up the word. I don’t know, maybe I made it up. Anyway, it’s an arbo-tree-ist, somebody who knows about trees.” G.W. Bush
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6309 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:15 pm |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:27 pm |
|
|
The study I posted above attempted to aggregate all sources used to mfr solar panels since the 70s or 80s. So it's intended to take into consideration all the various types energy generation that were actually used in the mfr of all panels in use.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WANative
Member
Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
|
|
WANative
Member
|
Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:01 pm |
|
|
| drm wrote: | | The study I posted above attempted to aggregate all sources used to mfr solar panels since the 70s or 80s. So it's intended to take into consideration all the various types energy generation that were actually used in the mfr of all panels in use. |
Again without actually reading the study (sorry, lazy  ) did the consider who the end user would be and compare that also?
Somebody in Arizona using it to supply energy for air-conditioning loads instead of sucking power from a coal plant would be a no-brainer but what about the guy in Eastern Washington or Tennessee who draws hydro power?
Did they consider the environmental impact of the inverters and charge controller one needs to have in order to make the solar panels work as well as the storage batteries one needs to have in order to be able to make use of the energy after it's gets dark?\
That's my main issue with these "studies". I hurt my poor little Trump voting brain reading them only to be sorely disappointed at the lack of "use in the real world" data they are based on.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
