scottmartin49

In case anyone still needs to be convinced, here's some incontrovertible evidence for you: https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy/videos/1160303567343833/

Well, you've just proven another GOP theory. There's no way they can be descendants of the great apes....

Bread mold? Sea Slugs?

I think I'm more concerned about the giant push of cold water into the North Atlantic via the Davis Strait; the knock-on from that will be interesting to watch play out over the next 2-3 months. In addition, it pretty much cements the theory for what's driving the 'cold pool'.

The ball is now in China's court to have any meaningful reduction in global emissions.

But the good news for the U.S. is the better air quality due to more gas and renewables.

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/new-co2-emissions-report-shows-chinas-central-role-in-shaping-worlds-climate-path/

 

Since China is responsible for almost 30 percent of current global emissions and emissions continue robust growth, to have any realistic chance of keeping below two degrees requires strong action by China. We estimate that the remaining emission quota to stay below two degrees Celsius requires China to reduce emissions at around 8 to 10 percent per year and this is, in many cases, greater than the mitigation challenge for the United States. By comparison, the transition to nuclear energy in France, Belgium and Sweden in the 1980s led to reductions of 4 percent per year, but they only lasted for a decade. The mitigation challenge for China is immense.

I wonder if that chart takes into account their recent refiguring upwards of coal consumption(?), if not, then yikes!

Here in central Texas... 

 

A more detailed and precise estimate of your solar potential is easy to produce by using the PVWATTS calculator created by NREL [link]  It takes into account array location and weather for that location when calculating solar energy production.

It always cracks me up when people attempt to either implement or disdain solar generally while looking at it from a 'low watt' perspective. Here in the land of constant cloud cover, solar is a joke. Wind, however, is profitable at .07 kwh. Our local REA Co-op uses a NYS grid sourced combination of hydro (Niagara Falls, St. Lawrence), nuclear, and etc. to deliver a base volume at .04 kwh, and an overage price of .07. The gap is closing quite quickly, particularly as older nuclear plants are decommissioned.

Reading the tinfoil hats is amazing entertainment

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/frances-top-tv-weatherman-suspended-for-criticising-climate-dogma/

Speaking of which(!), I was reading a takedown of the NCAR CCSM4 on there and was wondering if anyone here had an opinion on its validity for seasonal forecasting. Any one?

Since I'm right in that 'AMOC induced' ice age compensatory reaction zone, I'll report. Those damn Wooly Bears are reporting the same winter forecast they've done for the past two (frigid) winter seasons.

As a sidebar to this discussion; my favorite Met from the UK issued his (early) winter forecast ahead of time due to the 'ice-age panic' that's developing over there due to the cold N. Atlantic. He's a straightforward traditionalist not given to hyperbole, and is willing to 'blame' the AMO even though we're not really due to flip yet, but...he gave up! He forecast exactly....nothing!

Looking back over years of analogue data, and going over all the tele's and models, he doesn't see any way to get a reasonable forecast out of it, and said to wait until November.

Now look, we can argue the minutiae and pedantry of any individual posts hyperbole, or we can exaggerate the reserve of others into a claim of 'denial', but neither path leads anywhere positive. Would it be possible to agree that we're beyond the realm of easy understanding of current phenomena and their relationships to one another based on easy attribution to past experience?

We're NOT going to ascribe causation for anything deemed new here in this forum- no one of us will do that- so from that perspective we're all just B.S.'ing, or agglomerating our opinions around unproven science, but can we agree that 'things are different'?

I think they are, and I've yet to hear anyone credible say otherwise. To admit that means that sometimes we'll have to admit to simply 'not knowing'! ( )