etudiant

Members
  • Content Count

    382
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About etudiant

Profile Information

  • Location:
    NYC

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you, that makes sense. From a climate monitoring perspective, that suggests area is the one to focus on. In that context, I note that area is the lowest ever for the date, https://cryospherecomputing.tk/ Hard for me to understand why this is a disputed fact.
  2. Which is the better metric, area or extent? I've been focused on area, thinking that extent just adds another variable, yet most contributors prefer to use extent. What are the pros and cons driving the choice?
  3. Seems a sensible piece of work. Unfortunately, more people will read about President Obama's purchase of an ocean front home in Martha's Vineyard than NBER research.
  4. Windmills are selective killers, they preferentially kill large soaring birds, eagles, hawks and other large avifauna. The victims, who seek out the same windy spots to stay in the air without much effort, cannot see the blade coming down of them from above. Removing the slow breeding large birds this way is not a sensible policy imho. They also are efficient bat killers, as the vacuum left by the blade speeding by (tip speed is close to sonic velocity) ruptures the bats lungs, but bats get less attention.from the media. That said, no argument about the damages inflicted by the fossil fuel industry. But that is no reason to give the other 'green' power initiatives a license to destroy either.
  5. When considering the validity of conspiracy theories, Bismarck's axiom, 'Never believe anything until it has been officially denied', would be worth keeping in mind.
  6. At least in Europe, the deforestation is not because people cannot afford to heat their homes, it is because the 'green' incentives for 'renewable' energy have made it attractive to use pelletized wood chips instead of coal to fuel the power stations. So vast stretches of old forest have been razed to provide these pellets, which incidentally are a much dirtier fuel. This kind of senseless policy has been vigorously condemned by conservationists, but is hugely profitable for the recipients of the incentives, so ihe damage continues.
  7. Surely that is a divergence worth investigating. We all know that water vapor is the preeminent greenhouse 'gas', so a parched atmosphere just seems curious given the well above average temperatures we've seen. Does it mean the winds off Africa are unusually dry?
  8. I would be happy to see a decent analysis of the 'divergence', which should be a piece of cake now that we have another 20+ years worth of tree rings to evaluate. I have no beef with current climate measures, the sea ice measures alone are pretty strong evidence. What is less convincing to me is the earlier stability claimed, it seems inconsistent with the historical record.
  9. With no reflections on this paper, the credibility of all 'climate change' related documents is imho tainted at the source. The initial Mann 'hockeystick' paper in Nature glossed over that the same dendro evidence used to form the stick showed declining ring formation in the most recent era, which had been interpreted as periods of cooler weather. So that information was frog marched out of the paper, with a chart grafting modern temperature measures on the earlier tree ring data to create the 'hockeystick'. An honest presentation should have highlighted the divergence, which really produces a downward signal rather that the increase shown by the thermometer measures. Perhaps it just means tree ring data is not fit for the purpose of measuring temperatures. That in itself would be a useful, but afaik that analysis has not been done, nor have there been follow on studies to examine whether the 'divergence' has worsened or improved since the Mann Nature paper. As a former Wall Streeter, I'm pretty attuned to hard marketing. Prof Mann marketed too hard for me.
  10. That is rather sobering. How does anyone separate the wheat from the chaff?
  11. You know, people to leave your money to.
  12. Actually strongly disagree. This is a forum which includes many experienced/professional weather watchers/meteorologists. It is an ideal place to hash out issues with no fear of academic or other backbiting. The topic at hand is the gross exaggeration posted by the NHC about a 'non survivable' surge extending 30 miles inland, with no real qualifiers. Is that appropriate routine policy and if so, is that wise? I'm simply a Manhattan resident, so no dogs in this fight, but I was shaken by the bald statement from the NHC. It basically said: 'evacuate or die'. They were quite wrong and should at least try to understand why and tell the people, because otherwise no one will believe them next time.
  13. Some surge somewhere is highly likely, but Lake Charles was advised of a possible 20 foot surge and got nothing, the storm chasers were active on the street. Similarly the 30 mile inland surge was greatly overblown. This really hurts the credibility of these NHC advisories imho.
  14. The surge or relative lack thereof deserves serious attention, if only because the NHC warning of a 'nonsurvivable surge' was so stark, yet false. It is the kind of miss that encourages people to disregard warnings. There may yet be a big price to pay. Seen that the surge is the real killer in hurricanes, it would seem sensible to make it a serious focus. Getting it right would be vastly more productive than the scholastic arguments about whether a storm is Cat 4 or Cat 5.