Dataset Preview
The full dataset viewer is not available (click to read why). Only showing a preview of the rows.
The dataset generation failed
Error code: DatasetGenerationError
Exception: ArrowInvalid
Message: JSON parse error: Missing a closing quotation mark in string. in row 155
Traceback: Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/packaged_modules/json/json.py", line 153, in _generate_tables
df = pd.read_json(f, dtype_backend="pyarrow")
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pandas/io/json/_json.py", line 815, in read_json
return json_reader.read()
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pandas/io/json/_json.py", line 1025, in read
obj = self._get_object_parser(self.data)
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pandas/io/json/_json.py", line 1051, in _get_object_parser
obj = FrameParser(json, **kwargs).parse()
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pandas/io/json/_json.py", line 1187, in parse
self._parse()
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pandas/io/json/_json.py", line 1403, in _parse
ujson_loads(json, precise_float=self.precise_float), dtype=None
ValueError: Trailing data
During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 1997, in _prepare_split_single
for _, table in generator:
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/packaged_modules/json/json.py", line 156, in _generate_tables
raise e
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/packaged_modules/json/json.py", line 130, in _generate_tables
pa_table = paj.read_json(
File "pyarrow/_json.pyx", line 308, in pyarrow._json.read_json
File "pyarrow/error.pxi", line 154, in pyarrow.lib.pyarrow_internal_check_status
File "pyarrow/error.pxi", line 91, in pyarrow.lib.check_status
pyarrow.lib.ArrowInvalid: JSON parse error: Missing a closing quotation mark in string. in row 155
The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/src/services/worker/src/worker/job_runners/config/parquet_and_info.py", line 1529, in compute_config_parquet_and_info_response
parquet_operations = convert_to_parquet(builder)
File "/src/services/worker/src/worker/job_runners/config/parquet_and_info.py", line 1154, in convert_to_parquet
builder.download_and_prepare(
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 1029, in download_and_prepare
self._download_and_prepare(
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 1124, in _download_and_prepare
self._prepare_split(split_generator, **prepare_split_kwargs)
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 1884, in _prepare_split
for job_id, done, content in self._prepare_split_single(
File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 2040, in _prepare_split_single
raise DatasetGenerationError("An error occurred while generating the dataset") from e
datasets.exceptions.DatasetGenerationError: An error occurred while generating the datasetNeed help to make the dataset viewer work? Make sure to review how to configure the dataset viewer, and open a discussion for direct support.
pred_label
string | pred_label_prob
float64 | wiki_prob
float64 | text
string | source
string |
|---|---|---|---|---|
__label__wiki
| 0.757139
| 0.757139
|
Kent League 2021/22
12 February 2022 - Kent League - Norman Park
27 November 2021 - Kent League - Foots Cray Meadows 29-11-21
13 November 2021 - Kent League - Danson Park, Bexleyheath 14-11-21
23 October 2021 - Kent League - (incls B&B YA C-C Champs) Somerhill Park, Tonbridge 26-10-21
16 October 2021 - Kent League - Swanley Park 17-10-21
27 November 2021 - Kent League - Foots Cray Meadows
Full results here...
Storm warnings and a bitterly cold day didn't put off another hearty contingent of Blackheath athletes as 17 took on the latest challenge of an invigorating winter season.
While Stephen Strange cast a spell over the rest of the field, the Blackheath team showed we meant business with a strict no base layer policy so as to embrace the elements in all their glory. Micah reluctantly embodied this attitude but benefitted greatly with another strong performance to finish 13th in his debut cross country season. Alex Gibbins kept him an honest in 14th and proved he is back to his best. Dan Kennedy and Graeme Lugar ran most of the race in tandem after the former paid for a pacey start, but reeled the latter in practically on the line to illustrate that all's fair in love, war and cross country, leaving them 26th and 27th. This quartet secured another 3rd place in the 4 to score category, keeping the club in 3rd in the overall standings.
The depth of the team shone through thereafter as Luca Ercolani stormed home in 38th place, closely backed up fellow veteran Fintan Parkinson in 48th, while Darren Corneille maintained his form well after a rapid start to attain his best ever Kent League finish of 53rd. The ever dependable Greg Firth continued his solid season in 60th, Simon Harris backed him up in 68th, and Blair Wilson, who so early he didn't know what to do with himself, placed in 70th. The scoring 12 rounded were rounded off by Chris Tuck, who snuck into the top 100 in 98th, and Jason Meers in 103rd; another who recorded his best league finish to date. This put the club in 4th place in the 12 to score category on the day and overall.
Next across the line were three of this season's Kent League ever presents Tim Ayres (something of a surprise) in 113th, Steve Hough in 116th and Richard Byford in 135th as they all recorded their best finishes of the season. In contrast, the final two Heathens to finish were league debutants Rob Whyte in 167th and Michael Neal in 179th, who couldn't have picked a finer day to get the measure of cross country.
Up the Heath!
Dan, Chris and Ross
13 November 2021 - Kent League - Danson Park, Bexleyheath
23 October 2021 - Kent League - (incls B&B YA C-C Champs) Somerhill Park, Tonbridge
Well done to everyone who made the trip down to Tonbridge on Saturday to help put out what was again another strong turnout of Heathens.
The efforts were well rewarded as we managed to finish second in the 4 to score and 3rd in the 12 to score. So improved on the week before.
First home and showing he can do more than just run a marathon was Ross Braden whose 3rd place was a welcome change to the weeks before dominance by Tonbrige AC.
He was backed up strongly by Micah Evans in 21st place who is having a very strong start to his B&B cross country career.
By comparison he was followed home in 26th place by Alex Gibbins who has run more Kent league XC than he will admit.
Not far behind and taking a week off from coaching legs, bums and tums was Tom Desborough was 31st, we hope to see him at a few more races. Tom was chased home by Jon Vintner 33rd, who made the journey up from Winchester to show off his new lean physique.
Fintan Parkinson then showed that a few beers the night before makes little difference with a 42nd placing ahead of Luca Ercolani in 45th and Gregory Firth in 52nd.
Then some good packing as Darren Corneille 85th, Simon Harris another debutant in 86th and Roger Beswick in 90th. Martin Parkinson was then another first time B&B Kent Leaguer in 101st with Paul Sharpe 106th.
Chris Tuck then got home in 121st with Steve Evenden staying on his feet for 128th. Jason Meers then followed on in 138th with Steve Hough in 150th and ever present Steve Pairman in 156th. Richard Byford continued the road back to fitness in 172nd. With Tim Ayres and his bag of excuses and half term cold in 195th.
Andrew Tutt was then not far behind in 206th, Rod Harrington following on in 219th and Luigi Arcuri rounding out a strong performance by all in 226th and now in 3rd place in the M60 category.
Well done to everyone that turned out with a few more people we could even be turning out 2 twelve to score teams. So would be great to see as many as possible at Footscray on the 27th November.
Finally if anyone wants to run the London XC champs at Parliament hill on 20th November then please let us know by 2ND NOVEMBER AT THE LATEST. A great chance to get a early crack at Parliament hill before returning for the national.
See you all on Saturday at the Mob Match in Coulsdon
16 October 2021 - Kent League - Swanley Park
Well done to everyone who competed yesterday in the first full length cross country race of the season in a humid and somewhat sunny Swanley Park. We had a strong contingent of 20 men to tackle a twisting and turning course soft in parts and firm in others.
Dan Kennedy led the charge in 13th place after a patient start as numerous people hared off. Next home, in his cross country debut for Blackheath, was Micah Evans in an impressive 22nd place. Kent League ever present Alex Gibbins put his recent marathon jaunt to good use in 30th place, and Fintan Parkinson stormed home in 35th place for one of his best ever Kent League finishes to complete the 4 to score quartet and secure 4th position out of 20 complete teams.
Luca Ercolani produced another fine run a mere fortnight after his recent marathon PB to reach 41st, Greg Firth followed in and impressive 52nd, Ian Scott, another debutant, was next home in 59th, and Roger Beswick fell just short of winning his age category in 77th.
There was a smattering of Heathens just inside the top 100 with Darren Corneille in 87th, Paul Sharpe in 92nd and Chris Tuck in 96th, as another triumvirate of Tim Ayres (116th), Jason Meers (119th) and Steve Evenden (124th despite a fall and drawing blood in the grittiest run of the day) closed on behind them in short order. Tim's finish also attained 4th place in the 12 to score team category, in sync with the 4 to score measure.
Steve Pairman was grateful to cast aside management duties and focus on the running in 153rd place, Rich Byford continued his path back to full fitness in 171st, and just pipped a returning Steve Hough in 174th. Andrew Tutt battled through to 213th, Luigi Arcuri crossed the line in 225th and Rod Harrington returned from injury to bookend the team in 231st.
This was a great start to the season and will hopefully set the tone for all upcoming races, starting with next Saturday's 2nd Kent League fixture at Somerhill School in Tonbridge. Full details will be sent out later this week.
We hope to see as many of you there as possible.
|
cc/2022-05/en_middle_0072.json.gz/line6
|
__label__cc
| 0.747156
| 0.252844
|
Applied Real Estate Analysis, Inc.
914 S. Wabash
www.areainc.net
© 2003-06 AREA, Inc.
SEARCH areainc.net
Find pages with all any
of these words:
Redevelopment of Historic Pullman Neighborhood – Chicago, Illinois
The City of Chicago had been considering several different modernization options for the historic Pullman site on Chicago's South Side when a tragic accidental fire all but destroyed some of the key Pullman buildings.
To honor the history of Pullman, the City launched an initiative to redevelop the site virtually in its entirety, preserving what was left of the original structures.
AREA was hired to examine the financial feasibility of different commercial ventures that the City wished to attract to the neighborhood and to determine the potential economic impact of each type of business.
Mixed-Use Development – Cleveland, Ohio
For the pension fund of the United Church of Christ, a national religious organization, AREA analyzed the potential for developing a major mixed-use complex in downtown Cleveland that would include office, hotel, residential, retail, parking, and day-care uses.
We documented demand for an economy-priced hotel, a small amount of retail space, support parking, and a child-care facility, in addition to the office space that was already committed.
A development of the scope supportable by demand could not be justified because of the cost of site acquisition and clearance. Thus, the client decided not to proceed with the project.
Gen. Mitchell International Airport Industrial Parks – Milwaukee, Wisconsin
AREA was retained by Milwaukee County to analyze the market potential for industrial-park development in areas adjacent to Milwaukee's Mitchell International Airport.
Our analysis involved projecting the future absorption of approximately 600 acres of land in scattered parcels around the airport, analyzing potential sales prices for land with infrastructure improvements, and assessing the importance of the airport as a marketing tool for the land.
Near North Tax Increment Development Analysis – Chicago, Illinois
AREA was part of a team headed by Carmiros, Ltd., a land-use planning firm, that was retained by the City of Chicago to prepare the Near North Tax Increment Development (TID) Plan.
The proposed TID area encompasses several public housing developments, including the Cabrini Homes, in which the Chicago Housing Authority will redevelop several buildings using HOPE VI funds. Hoping to stimulate private investment in this area, the City of Chicago plans to use the TID financing mechanism to fund public improvements.
AREA's role was to assess private market development opportunities and forecast the potential enhancement in equalized assessed values (EAVs) and real estate tax revenues that could result from residential and commercial redevelopment and rehabilitation in the TID area.
AREA also prepared the incremental real estate tax revenue projections used by the city in underwriting the initial two-series bond issuance for this TID, including two 23-year forecasts of incremental property tax revenues were prepared, based on anticipated enhancements of the EAV tax base for the project area.
The development forecasting AREA performed was based on an analysis of recent development trands and demographic trends, coupled with discussions with developers that were active in the project area.
Proposed Minor League Baseball Stadium – Round Lake Beach, Illinois
Round Lake Beach, a community north of Chicago, retained AREA to analyze the market potential for a new baseball stadium/civic arena. Our findings indicated that there is a market for a minor league baseball franchise in Lake County.
Not only do demographics of the area compare favorably with those of successful stadiums around both Chicago and St. Louis, but Round Lake Beach is in a rapidly developing section of the greater Chicago area. The site's location relative to arterial roadways and Interstate 94 supported our conclusion.
Downtown Office Space – Washington, D.C.
For the RREEF Funds, AREA analyzed the Washington-area economy and the downtown office market to advise the Fund on disposition of an office building it owned at 1627 K Street, N.W.
As part of this study, AREA looked at the District's current and projected leasing trends, rental rates, management costs, and related costs, as well as current and future local economic growth, and office demand and supply.
Office Space in Two Broward County Submarkets – Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Also for The RREEF Funds, AREA examined two of the seven major southeastern Florida office submarkets—with a focus on future prospects for office space in the Cypress Creek/Commercial Boulevard and Southwest Broward markets.
Rental Housing Developments – Lake County, Illinois
AREA examined the economy and apartment market of Lake County, a suburban area north of Chicago, as part of its evaluation of two Lake Bluff apartment properties for the RREEF Funds. We focused on the performance of the local apartment submarket and a subset of five directly competitive apartment properties over the 1997-2007 forecast period.
O'Hare International Airport Surplus Land – Chicago, Illinois
AREA was the subcontractor to Jones Lang LaSalle on an assignment to assist Chicago's Department of Aviation with the disposition of five large tracts of vacant land located on the periphery of O'Hare International Airport. AREA's role was to appraise the parcels and establish achievable price levels for use in sale negotiations.
In previous work for the Department, AREA had organized over 200 tenant files and abstracted the associated lease agreements for Chicago's three airports—O'Hare, Midway, and Meigs Field.
TIF Analysis for Proposed Downtown Commercial Atrium – Milwaukee, Wisconsin
AREA examined the potential for a mixed-use retail and office development that would be linked—via Milwaukee's skywalk system—to the Grand Avenue Mall, an existing atrium developed by The Rouse Company.
Local property owners wanted to create a facility that would complement the Grand Avenue Mall and provide convenience retail for downtown office workers. The proposal involved adaptive use of historic properties as well as new construction.
AREA staff assessed the demand for additional retail space, identified potential tenants, defined marketable lease rates and terms, prepared detailed financial analyses of alternative development sizes and characteristics, and evaluated the need for public-sector subsidies, especially tax increment financing.
Episcopal Diocese – Chicago, Illinois
This nonprofit organization retained AREA to analyze the sale and/or development potential of its prime Near North property, taking into consideration its relocation costs under several specific alternatives.
We analyzed development scenarios based on the client's needs and market realities, prepared a financial analysis showing the upside and downside potentials of the most feasible strategy for the property, and provided the client with recommendations.
We also retained an architect to prepare graphic representations of the most viable scenario.
Other selected site analyses:
Office-market conditions and trends in downtown Chicago—for an institutional real estate advisory firm.
Marina and related land development in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Development adjacent to the "U" Street Metro station in Washington, D.C.
A 200,000-square-foot retail center on the edge of a blighted Chicago neighborhood.
Mixed-use development in downtown Cleveland, including retail, office, and hotel components.
A high-rise apartment building constructed over a public parking structure in downtown Evanston, Illinois.
A 700-unit rental development including townhouse, mid-rise, and high-rise structures in downtown Milwaukee.
Renovation and expansion of a strategically located office building in downtown Chicago.
AREA Rents™
|
cc/2022-05/en_middle_0072.json.gz/line14
|
__label__wiki
| 0.523194
| 0.523194
|
Blake Red "The Darkness"
Blake Red recently released visuals for the latest single, "The Darkness", from her most recent EP, "The Cradle".
The single features a contribution from the legendary musician Nona Hendryx. This is the only track on her EP that Red did not perform all the elements herself.
The EP is filled with powerful lyrics and riffs that would make any '90's Alt Rocker jealous.
The Cradle (EP) by Blake Red
Published: October 21, 2021 |
Blake Red
|
cc/2022-05/en_middle_0072.json.gz/line18
|
__label__cc
| 0.687475
| 0.312525
|
Battle in the Sky
The Tiki Company » Battle in the Sky
The shit’s hit the whirling device here. After a few hours in the airship, we noticed that a big black arcane cloud was approaching us from the stern. Tibles sent his eagle Emryss to scout it out for us, and the demonic little bird came back to us with a warning that we were being chased by a military vessel.
Tibles had equipped us with special ammunition and alchemical weapons, but that certainly wouldn’t be enough. We were overtaken by the superior ship, and before we knew it, we had been enveloped in dark purple fog. We manned our battle-stations and prepared for the worst. They were upon us in an instant, and wasted no time in ripping holes in the side of our airship, then boarding us. Belarin and Peregrine swung over to their ship, while me, Tibles, Boris, Jackson, Bonnie, Nakisha, and most of the crew stayed behind. When pirates set foot on our deck, I knew our ship would be going down. Tibles headed below deck, and found Jackson. I headed down there as fast as I could, and helped Tibles carry out an injured Nakisha and a terror-stricken bonnie.
Meanwhile, our crew was being slaughtered, and Peregrine and Belarin were ripping holes in the enemy’s forces aboard their own ship. Our vessel was done for, so me, Tibles, Boris, Nakisha, and Bonnie swung onto the pirate ship.
Through the fog it was hard to make out, but I thought I heard Belarin and Peregrine towards the stern. I made my way over, to see them standing atop a pile of corpses, fighting with all their might. Amidst the chaos, I lost track of the others, but the three of us fought as hard as we could. Peregrine delivering precise cuts with his scimitars, Belarin repeatedly cheating death and defying all odds against him, and me, giving as much medical support as I could.
In the end, we killed the guards, and stood panting atop a pile of mutilated corpses. We took a moment to catch our breath, enveloped in fog, taking in the utterly silent stillness around us. Our ship was gone, as was the crew.
Peregrine began walking towards the ship’s bow, and immediately his sighs of relief turned to calls of alarm. The mist lifted enough to show a force of pirates, at least three dozen, surrounding our bound and restrained comrades. They had guns aimed at us.
I told them that if they were planning on killing us, we would gladly take them down too. I aimed my crossbow at the air bladder above us. Belarin and Peregrine both aimed up as well. Whoever the captain was, he must have had some sort of death wish. He told us to go ahead. We obliged, and with a loud pop, broke three nicely shaped holes in the only thing holding us afloat. The ship began to descend.
The captain demanded that I relinquish the sword that I had taken. I politely told him ‘no.’
He ordered the crew to fire upon us.
—Richard J Buckles
|
cc/2022-05/en_middle_0072.json.gz/line20
|
__label__cc
| 0.560435
| 0.439565
|
Follow @Cruise_TT
Cruise news, forum and port timetables and schedules. Lists which ships are in what ports for upcoming days.
Asia/Far East (8)
Australia/New Zealand (6)
Canada/New England (2)
Cunard (16)
East Coast (20)
Fred Olsen (11)
Greek Islands (0)
Holland America Line (8)
Mexico/Central America (9)
Norwegian Cruise Line (40)
P&O Cruises (2)
Pacific Northwest (1)
Paul Gauguin (5)
Royal Caribbean (21)
Windstar (0)
Norwegian Epic to Sail from Southhampton in Fall 2015
CruiseTT
Norwegian Cruise Line,
Norwegian Cruise Line announced today that Norwegian Epic has added two sailings to and from Southampton, England in 2015, marking the first time that the ship has visited the port since the inaugural ...
EXPLORER OF THE SEAS TO HOMEPORT IN SOUTHAMPTON, U.K. AND SAIL EUROPEAN WATERS IN 2015
Royal Caribbean,
Mediterranean,
Royal Caribbean International’s Explorer of the Seas will sail its very first Europe season in summer 2015. The cruise line’s Adventure of the Seas, which was originally ...
Disney Cruise Line Charts a New Course for Norway in 2015
In summer 2015, Disney Cruise Line is charting a magical new course for northern Europe – exploring for the first time the Norwegian fjords, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Plus, Disney Cruise Line is returning to the Baltic for all-new itineraries, including sailings from Copenhagen, Denmark to St. Petersburg, Russia. Cruises to the Mediterranean, Alaska, Caribbean and Bahamas also are included in the summer lineup.
Bookings open to the public on March 27, 2014. More details on 2015 itineraries can be found on the Itineraries and Ports for 2015 section of disneycruise.com.
On seven and ...
Fred Olsen Cruise Lines to commencing its first-ever cruise season from Bristol
Northern Europe,
Fred Olsen
Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines will be commencing its first-ever cruise season from Bristol (Avonmouth), at the Port of Bristol, in April 2014, offering guests a range of great-value holidays on board its elegant 880-guest cruise ship Boudicca, from a 14-night ‘Canary Islands & Portugal’ cruise, to a scenic 28-night sailing to ‘The Adriatic with Venice’.Guests can even follow in the footsteps of international film star Ben Stiller, who shot many scenes in his latest hit movie, ‘The Secret Life of Walter Mitty’, in Iceland – Fred. Olsen will be offering a fascinating 14-night ...
Cunard Line to Make Maritime History in Liverpool in 2015 as the company celebrates 175th Anniversary
Cunard,
Cunard Line, operator of The Most Famous Ocean Liners in the World®, is pleased to confirm two special events in 2015 to be held in its spiritual home of Liverpool, England, in celebration of the company's 175th anniversary. ...
P&O New cruises announced on family friendly Azura in 2014
P&O Cruises,
P&O Cruises has announced three new cruises on family friendly Azura in October 2014, including a six-night cruise break during the half-term school holidays. All cruises depart from and ...
MILESTONE FOR QUEEN MARY 2 Cunard Flagship to undertake 200th Transatlantic crossing 6 - 13 July 2013
East Coast,
Cunard's flagship Queen Mary 2 will be marking a major milestone on her 6 – 13 July 2013 voyage from New York to Southampton – it will be her 200th Atlantic crossing, with special speakers and performers on board to add to the celebratory mood. ...
I Book My Cruise (Votes: 42)
2+ Years In Advance (Votes: 11)
Year Before The Cruise (Votes: 18)
9 Months Out (Votes: 9)
Around Final Payment Time (Votes: 2)
Last Minute (Votes: 2)
Your Cruise Ship And Port Timetable
Powered by vBulletin™ Copyright © 2022 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
cc/2022-05/en_middle_0072.json.gz/line25
|
__label__cc
| 0.715363
| 0.284637
|
Comic Con-versation with Meri Amber!
Sutherland Shire Libraries Wednesday, June 08, 2016
Meri Amber is a geek pop singer-songwriter from Sydney. Her sound can be likened to a mesh of bright pop with a smidgen of 90s punk rock stirred in, topped off with a generous sprinkling of pop culture samples and computer game synths.
Meri Amber is performing at Another Dimension: Comic Art Beyond 2D, Wednesday 22 June from 6.00pm. All welcome!
Tell us about your journey as an artist?
That's hard to sum up in a short paragraph! I guess that ever since I was a four year old dancing around in my bedroom, imitating my favourite girl group of the time (B*Witched), I knew this was something I'd want to do. I went to Newtown Performing Arts High School majoring in music, performed as a soloist in the Schools Spectacular and have never really stopped trying to create even better experiences and an even bigger community around my art.
What are the inspirations and influences for your music?
There's so many! From other geek musicians, to more mainstream musicians, to my friends, family, pop culture and awkward social situations. Everything that surrounds me and makes an impact on how I see the world eventually becomes fodder for a song or a page of my comic. I supposed that's the way many artists operate- you don't want to get in their bad books or you may see yourself as the villain in one of their future works.
Meri, your performances are describes as quirky. Can you tell us why this is so?
My songs are quite quirky on their own, I guess the rest of the performance just follows suit. Having quirky performances is likely a natural thing to happen when your songs are about zombies, aliens, ninjas and superpowers. So, it was always meant to be.
Any advice for the aspiring comic artist you wish someone had told you?
To start putting work out. just start. I wish that I had started putting my work out earlier. There's nothing quite like actually releasing something, seeing all those extra steps you didn't know you needed to do, seeing people's responses and then learning from the experience. It's also a great way to start building your fan base early on, which is truly priceless. If later on you develop to a point you don't want to keep your earlier work out in the world, you can always take it off your website or wherever else it sits. Imperfection should never be a reason to stall.
What's next for Meri Amber?
To infinity and beyond! I have a number of super exciting collaborations I'm going to be releasing soon, a bunch of fun projects I've been building up on the side and I've gone into full on touring mode too. I'm currently answering these questions from a hotel room in Wellington, New Zealand, where I'm going to be performing at Armageddon. I'm not going to stop building the community. art and career of my dreams.
Check out Meri Amber's Website and Facebook page
Comic Con-versation with Louie Joyce
Shh quiet reads....
Comic Con-versation with Shane W. Smith!
Readalikes....Me before you by JoJo Moyes
Circadian Novels...Books that take place over a day.
Comic Con-versation with Rob Feldman!
Fiction... all dressed up!
Listen up! June is Audio book month!
2016 Baileys Women's Prize for Fiction Winner.
Know Your Standards Month 2016
We love reading... Staff Picks June 2016
Criminally good (translated) reads....
Books in translation....
Get School Ready
June reads...
Comic Con-versation 2016 with Sarah Boxall...
|
cc/2022-05/en_middle_0072.json.gz/line34
|
__label__cc
| 0.600828
| 0.399172
|
PAX East 2011: Zarf's anecdotes
I wrote a whole lot about last year's PAX IF events, because that was my first PAX and everything was exciting and new. Now it's my third (two in Boston, one in Seattle) and... everything is ho-hum and tired? No. It was an exciting weekend. But I may gush less about it this year.
Day -1
I spent Wednesday running around collecting the inventory. That includes the projector screen we used (thanks to Rick Kovalcik for letting us borrow it), and also a whole pile of books for the IF Suite. And I'll get that list out of the way right now...
From Nick Montfort's collection:
CYOA 1: The Cave of Time, Edward Packard
CYOA 12: Inside UFO 54-40, Edward Packard
Neither Either Nor Or, Joey Dubuc
You Are A Miserable Excuse For A Hero, Bob Powers
Eunoia, Christian Bök
Exercises in Style, Raymond Queneau
IF Theory Reader, Kevin Jackson-Mead, Rob Wheeler, ed.
Persuasive Games, Ian Bogost
Genesis II, Dale Petersen, ed. (contains a rare interview with Will Crowther)
Heart Suit, Robert Coover (a story on shufflable cards)
Knock Knock, Jason Shiga
From my collection:
Creating IF With Inform 7, Aaron Reed
The Inform Designer's Manual, Graham Nelson
The Knot-Shop Man, David Whiteland
Riddle & Bind, Nick Montfort
A Telling of the Tales, William J. Brooke
Engines of Ingenuity, Kit Williams
The Book of the War, Lawrence Miles
Meanwhile, Jason Shiga
3-Dimensional Maze Art, Larry Evans
The Hole Maze Book, Greg Bright
The Book of Signs, Rudolf Koch
The Book of Adventure Games 1 and II, Kim Schuette
Reality is Broken, Jane McGonigal
Last year we brought a lot of narrative-theory and game-studies books. This year I wanted the theme to be "playful books", because, after all, these are things that visitors might read for a bit while relaxing in the Suite. So I brought maze books, fairy tales, and CYOA books and parodies. Some of the fairy tales were about narrative theory and mazes, but that's because such things amuse me.
Thursday some of us met up for brunch (the Friendly Toast, your home for ridiculously fancified breakfast food). Then, oh yes, Mike and Jmac and I dragged The Inventory over to the hotel and got the room set up. (We also got screwed at this point on the hotel room rate, but we wouldn't realize this until Monday.)
Dinner was at the Tavern in the Square. (Thanks to Mike for getting us a private room where we could carouse all night. In the matter of geeks getting together. Which is to say, drinking heavily and talking about software.)
I scrambled to make flyers announcing the IF Suite, and barely got to the convention center in time for my first panel:
How to fund your game development project with Kickstarter -- Cindy Au, Andrew Plotkin, Joshua Newman, Evan Balster, Max Temkin
This wasn't packed, probably because it was early on Friday. I think about two-thirds of the room was filled. (I'm pretty sure that it was the last event at PAX that didn't completely fill up.)
I've blogged about my Kickstarter success before, so my contribution to this panel will not be news to you. I was joined by the creators of three other projects:
Infinite Blank, a multi-player, casual, very lightweight world-making videogame (or toy)
Cards Against Humanity, a card game in the style of Apples to Apples for cynical people
Human Contact, an RPG patterned after the stories of Iain M. Banks, Vernor Vinge, and Ursula K. Le Guin
Cindy Au is the community-manager person at Kickstarter; she set this up. We all talked about our projects and then answered questions. I completely failed to plug the IF events at PAX.
Interactive Drama: Dialogue as Gameplay -- Jonathon Myers, Daniel Erickson, Jeff Orkin, Aaron Reed, Dan Tanguay, Martin Van Velsen
I didn't make it into this panel; I saw the line and decided I wasn't up for waiting.
This was supposed to be a panel discussion between Jonathon Myers, Stephen Dinehart, Evan Skolnick, Emily Short, and John Gonzalez. As I understand it, four of the five panelists bailed. Emily was at PAX but completely hammered by the cold she brought back from GDC. I don't know the other stories.
However, the panel wound up with a fine list of substitutes. Aaron Reed, the author of Blue Lacuna and Creating IF with Inform 7, represented the text-IF side of the universe. Better yet, he didn't fail to plug the IF Suite, using the flyers that I smuggled into the room.
I ran around the expo floor for a little bit, and then it was time for:
Non-gamers gaming -- Caleb Garner, Tim Crosby, Heather Albano, Sarah Morayati, Andrew Plotkin
This was the first of our IF Suite events, and it was packed as expected. Of course packing the IF Suite is not exactly the same as packing a PAX function room, but we were still pretty pleased.
I'm not going to try to recap the discussion -- we'll post video eventually -- but we got around a variety of angles on the topic. My stumper question, or at least the question that made everybody pause and look thoughtful, was: "Are we talking about writing games for non-gamers, or writing games that teach non-gamers to be gamers?"
I got one of the convention center's patented Extremely Boring Sandwiches for dinner. (They must have been patented. Highly trained food chemists must have worked for years to develop a sandwich that boring. However, it was food.) We then gathered for:
Meet the IF community
...which means, we all hang out in the IF Suite. Just like the rest of the weekend, but we wanted to name a time for newcomers who might be hesitant about it.
And people showed up! It was exciting.
MIT Tunnel Tour
This was an impromptu expedition to visit the MIT steam tunnels (or at least the more interesting MIT basements). I didn't go along with this, because I wanted to stay with the room and continue to greet my loyal fans. Or stay with the room, anyway.
Marius Müller took some video: Video 1, 2, 3, 4 (on Youtube).
Saturday was our big day, for circumstantial reasons: Dave Cornelson arranged for us to rent a full-sized hotel function room all day. (That's full-sized for a hotel. Still smaller than the monster PAX event rooms.) So we crammed all the events we thought would draw crowds into Saturday.
Oh, you want photos? Start with Mark Musante's PAX photo collection. Marius Müller and Jesse McGrew also took some, but those are on Facebook, so, you know, wear galoshes.
Our first event...
PAX Speed-IF
The topic list, shouted out from the audience: (And apologies to those of you who tried to shout and got overshouted -- it was disorganized in there.)
A character whose name starts with the letter "M"
Sending Jim and Kevin on a mission to locate something
The Tomb of the Unknown Tool
A 100 year old typewriter
Braintree or Alewife
One of the titles on Juhana's poster of imaginary IF titles
We had the traditional (two PAXes in a row is tradition, right?) crowd of people intently hacking away outside the IF room all afternoon. Looks like nine entries were turned in that day; you can download them from the Textfyre SpeedIF page.
Setting as character in narrative games -- Andrew Plotkin, Rob Wheeler, Stephen Granade, Dean Tate
The joke here is that I submitted this as an official PAX event. They didn't take it, because Irrational Games had submitted a panel that was essentially "Setting as character in Bioshock Infinite", and that was deemed to have more appeal to the PAX crowd. Fair enough. So we talked about settings in every game except Bioshock Infinite.
(We cheated a little, because while Dean Tate is with Harmonix Studios, he was with Irrational when Bioshock and Bioshock 2 were being designed. So he had some insights from that story-universe.)
This was fun; we basically gabbed about our favorite game settings for an hour. My panel-ending stumper was "What non-game setting would you love to see in a game?" but this turned out to be the kind of stumper where nobody has a great answer. Oh well.
We fired up the projector and played Everybody Dies by Jim Munroe. The run-through took about an hour, and then Jim answered a few questions from the audience.
The transcript will be up soon.
A lightning introduction to Inform 7 -- Jason McIntosh, Andrew Plotkin
Unfortunately we didn't get video of this; I was late getting back from dinner and so we didn't get as many laptops set up as we wanted. However, Jason recommends Aaron Reed's I7 screencast; it's the same sort of presentation.
IF Demo Fair
This was the IF event at PAX, and kudos to Emily Short for inventing the idea and making it all happen in just six weeks.
We packed the room with laptops -- and other hardware -- and packed those with sample games. In some cases, with full games. People circulated for two hours, trying everything and discussing it. It was a tremendously exciting place to be. If you found PAX's show floor to be a disappointment, you were missing the ferment of game-design discussion going on next door.
Emily covers a few of the Demo Fair entries on her blog. More detailed discussions will appear in the next issue of SPAG.
The one that I've been thinking about ever since PAX was Juhana Leinonen's Vorple, a Javascript library for animation tricks in an IF interface. This is not as frivolous as you might think. Web-based text can be very polished -- look at the CYOA engine Undum for examples -- and there's no reason IF shouldn't benefit from this.
Vorple showed in-line dynamic images, pop-up help, and smoothly-positioned overlay elements. It's not directly integrated with an IF system yet, but it clearly can be.
My job for the next two weeks is to integrate my old ideas about CSS for Glulx and Vorple's approach to dynamic content, and design a framework that will (a) fit into Quixe, (b) be practical in native (non-Javascript) interpreters, (c) be effective in native interpreters that choose to use HTML display (WebKit or whatever), and (d) be easily usable from Inform 7. Extra fun! But it's the next stage in my VM/API work, and it's time to start it.
Anyhow -- I don't want to make the Demo Fair all about me. There were a pile of other projects and games, including the promised Automatypewriter, so check out Emily's post and future discussion.
Speed-IF wrap-up
Everybody was worn out by the end of the Demo Fair, so we packed up the function room and retired to the IF Suite to look over the absurdly-named creations of the day.
Sunday was deliberately light, but we did have time for:
Curveship -- Nick Montfort
Curveship was part of the Demo Fair, but Nick wanted to give a more in-depth presentation for IF cognoscenti. (Sorry about stuffing it into the smaller IF Suite, but it was mildly apropos to see his slides projected onto the unflat surface of an upturned mattress.)
Curveship is an experimental IF system (written in Python) which explores different ways of narrating stories. I keep writing one-line intros in that vein, and it doesn't seem to deconfuse people about what Curveship is. Basically, Curveship has two unusual qualities. First: its world model includes not just facts about the current world state, but a history of past world state, the actions that got from there to here, and (for NPCs) their knowledge of the world -- the subsets of the current and past states that they're actually aware of. Second: its text output system can easily switch point-of-view, tense (past or future), level of detail, and other narrative variables.
The result is not a fully mature IF system. The parser is simplistic, and the generated text is too -- the degree to which you hand-craft the output is somewhat (not completely) at odds with the templating that Curveship uses to vary the text. But the point is to explore these capabilities. Once we know what they're good for, then either Curveship can be improved or the features can be adapted to existing IF systems.
That leaves the question of what the features are good for, and that's an ongoing discussion in the community. I don't have a good handle on an answer. I certainly use point-of-view tricks in crafting IF; I vary descriptions based on the player's knowledge, distance, and state of mind. Do I need these features to be first-level constructs that underlie every object and description? I'm not used to working that way, but maybe if I were I'd be writing different games.
And then we packed up the room and went out to a fancy Mexican place for dinner. Followed by random card games in the hotel lobby until everybody was too tired to think.
Brunch at the Friendly Toast again, followed by a quick expedition to the MIT Museum to see Art Ganson's work. Once again, two PAXes makes a tradition.
We really need a bigger IF Suite next year. Holding a hotel function room for three days straight is certainly a possibility, but we can't serve snacks there, and it's not great for sitting and relaxing. This will be discussed further.
PAX itself was almost completely uninteresting to me this year. I think this is just a phase of the game industry. My first console love is plot-heavy exploration-puzzle-environment games, and they're out of style right now. It's not like I ever went to a PAX and saw lots of big-name games I wanted to buy; it's usually one or two a year. This year it was Child of Eden, I guess. (I'm discounting Portal 2, since there was never a chance I wouldn't buy it.) Smaller games I ogled: Warp, Fez, Blinding Silence.
Not really related to the above, except thematically: I spent the weekend wondering whether PAX was the best place for an annual IF Summit and Hangout. The fact is, we are lost in the crowd; we'll never regain the in-PAX visibility that we had when Get Lamp hit. We've had a solid game-design panel at each of the last three PAXes, and that's good, but it's not necessarily a reason to do all this other stuff at PAX. And indeed, quite a few people in our rooms didn't bother to get PAX badges.
The camelly straw for me was when I went to the PAX info desk and said "Can I put these flyers here?" (For the IF Suite and events.) I did this at PAX East and PAX Prime last year, and they said "Sure." There was a place for independent but related events on the table. This year they said, "Sorry, not permitted." That's for the big sponsors, not for the likes of me.
I feel like I want to be part of a game-design convention, not a game-consumer exposition. Of course I spent last week saying "must attend GDC in 2012", which I will, but that's crazy expensive -- not worthwhile for most IF fans. At the other end of the scale is Boston Gameloop, which I also attend, but which is probably too small to organize around. Where's the full-weekend Boston game-design conference with interesting out-of-town guest speakers and multiple tracks interesting to both indie developers and game studios?
I know, I know, the answer is "run it." Funny story: I went up to a local Boston indie game person -- I won't incriminate by name -- and said "We should run a conference." The individual in question looked at me, nodded wisely, leaned forward, and said "Fuck you."
Emily Short (Mar 20, 2011 at 3:44 PM):
I feel like I want to be part of a game-design convention, not a game-consumer exposition. Of course I spent last week saying "must attend GDC in 2012", which I will, but that's crazy expensive -- not worthwhile for most IF fans.
Yeah, I had similar thoughts about whether we should shift venues, but wherever we shift to, GDC isn't it: the passes are too expensive; there really would be no appropriate way to advertise our content (and slim chance of drawing attendees away from existing official programming, especially as many pro designers are there on a mandate from their company with specific things to attend); hotels and everything else in the vicinity of Moscone are completely swarmed.
I guess the question is what exactly we're hoping to gain from attaching ourselves to some other conference. Are we hoping to evangelize about IF? Join in design discussions with people working on adjacent fields?
Mary Alexandra Agner (Mar 20, 2011 at 4:23 PM):
I know, I know, the answer is "run it."
I'm good at this kind of thing. Let me know if you want me to help :)
As an after-thought, though: it might be possible to get some IF content into the Indie Games Summit. That could be worth doing even if we're not having an IF conference alongside.
Andrew Plotkin (Mar 20, 2011 at 10:28 PM):
Indie Games Summit is a good point. (As a part of the stipulated-as-expensive GDC. I say I'm going to GDC; I don't yet know what parts I'm going to.)
What are we hoping to gain? I personally want to be in design discussions with other game designers, electronic-literature authors, and generally with crazy people. And also go to their project presentations. When I was handwaving about this at PAX itself, the names Jason Rohrer, Jon Blow, Gregory Weir, Jason Shiga came to mind -- I want to be at the kind of conference that they want to be be at. Plus of course all the IF people we've gotten to PAX in the past two years.
I believe (perhaps ambitiously, but seriously) that at such a conference, non-IF people would want to stop by an IF room to socialize, network, and investigate Demo-Fair-like events.
Emily Short (Mar 21, 2011 at 12:44 AM):
Speaker badges make the conference itself free. (There is still the hotel and flight, of course. But it makes a big difference.)
Anyway, for the kinds of meet-crazy-indies-or-semi-indies experience you describe, it sounds like GDC would be great, and the ideal mix would probably involve hanging out a lot with the IGS people and adding some main-track events like the experimental gameplay workshop (Rohrer presented a recent project there, for instance). And my own experience, at least, has been that the summit content is more consistently valuable and leads to more intensive small-group conversation than the main track. There are interesting talks in the main track, but they happen in much bigger rooms with many more people, and have a higher likelihood of being pitched at beginners to the topic (or being blatant advertisements for the speaker's studio's latest game). If what you want is to end up at drinks or dinner vehemently discussing what you just heard, do summit content.
Jason Scott (Mar 21, 2011 at 10:00 AM):
My strong opinion is that IF would do well to be joining up, in some way, with writers' conferences and fantasy conferences. They are all doing well, and your share some attributes with them. RPGs, card-based entertainment and other games thrive there. I still think you have a place in PAX (not GDC) but I think in the others places you'd flourish.
Val (Mar 21, 2011 at 10:09 AM):
re "My strong opinion is that IF would do well to be joining up, in some way, with writers' conferences and fantasy conferences. " Jason, do you sf cons? Or something else? I'm not really sure what you mean. Although I admit I start fantasizing about @party, Gameloop would be more realistic. Or maybe even a freestanding event. Not as if the Boston area is low on venues.
re "I know, I know, the answer is 'run it.' " A certain thing we are both aware of from this year notwithstanding, I have expertise in this area. We just need to get enough people involved that the usual suspects don't get more overextended. But if it isn't in Boston, I'm unlikely to get involved. I'm getting to the point where I don't travel except to Canada, Europe, or to see my folks. There are three planned aberrations in the next five years, one of which is Blockparty 5. I am fraying around the edges.
re "The individual in question looked at me, nodded wisely, leaned forward, and said 'Fuck you.'" I assume this person's comment translated to "I've got enough on my plate?"
Jacqueline A Lott (Mar 21, 2011 at 11:04 AM):
A few thoughts. I would like to see whatever we do move around a bit and be its own thing.
Hosting whatever it is in a different major city each time might mean less continuity, but if many of the core folks are showing up each time, they'd help take the edge off of that. And what you'd potentially lose in continuity you'd make up for in diversity of thought and new ideas brought in by people who can't always go to Boston or Seattle. Outreach would consequently be farther reaching. I know Boston has a large community, but so does, say, Chicago. And IF is being taught in a variety of places; pairing up with those places (Seton Hill, U of CA) might make for a really great exchange of ideas.
On a related note, if we want to do outreach, let's have people present panels or work at other conventions, but given how many people in attendance didn't even have PAX badgees, it's clear that we were a main draw for many.
I would like to see us get to where we're talking more theory, more design, more craft. I was thinking of whining about this during PAX, but then realized that if our goal is to reach out to new people, greeting them with theory and design discussion might not be the way to go. That said, I think the Lighting Intro and the live CF and Demo Fair were high points of the weekend and all were great for new folks, though some more standard demos would have been good - so much experimental stuff probably gave a skewed impression to people unfamiliar with IF.
On a final note, I'm planning to organize (not alone, mind you, but I plan to get things started for) a European version of this. First step is to see how far-reaching the interest is, then pick a somewhat geographically-central spot for the meetup. Target date is autumn 2012 at this point.
"Speaker badges make the conference itself free."
Good to know (no, I didn't know that yet). However, we're not going to wind up with badges for you and me and Rob and Jacq and Mis and Sarge and Sarah and Nitku and (insert twenty other names who are contributing to the IF side of the world). GDC will be a valuable thing for me, but it's not a venue for the kind of discussion we want to have as a community.
As to everybody else's suggestions: thanks. I am still at the stage of letting ideas bubble, and I don't want to start picking holes in them. (Which is my usual unfortunate impulse, and I apologize if I've said "well, maybe, but..." to any of this in the past.)
Lisa Hertel (Mar 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM):
At one point, Arisia toyed with the idea of running a gaming convention.
Emily Short (Mar 22, 2011 at 1:57 AM):
No, that wasn't at all meant as "let's all get speaker badges." I continue to think GDC is not the right venue for a general IF conference. As a place for you personally to hang out and do things you want to do, however, I recommend summit speaking if you can swing it.
Val Grimm (Mar 22, 2011 at 10:14 AM):
I like what Jacq said. ( : The idea of a roving convention is interesting. When it comes in my direction I'd be happy to help.
Will (Mar 23, 2011 at 7:59 PM):
I'd love to help organize a Philly edition of the roving con (should such a thing come into being).
Labels: boston, convention, if, kickstarter, pax, pr-if, quixe, vorple
▼ Mar 2011 (7)
Calligraphic poetry
Remembering Diana Wynne Jones
Swarthmore: a brief report
Life Flashes By
Zarf appearances this spring
The IF Theory Reader
|
cc/2022-05/en_middle_0072.json.gz/line36
|
__label__cc
| 0.646388
| 0.353612
|
Planet Patrol: NASA Hiring Volunteers To Search For Alien Worlds’
Posted By: Kathleen Kinder October 7, 2020
The US space agency NASA is searching for alien worlds for decades. It has now sought help from common people to discover planets with aliens. The agency said that it is recruiting people to find out alien worlds. NASA said that these are volunteer posts. This means people involved in the business won’t be paid for their time and effort they put in. The space agency said that it wants people to examine thousands of pictures thoroughly to pick which is most important and having the potential to host life. According to NASA, though it will not pay anyone for their efforts, the agency expects people will show interest in working for it.
The agency said that those selected for the job will work with its Planet Patrol. Planet Patrol is a just-launched citizen-science project by NASA. According to the website, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite mission will click millions of stars in the solar system. NASA said that at Planet Patrol, newly recruited will assist experts to check the data from the TESS mission. Their task will be to study these stars to search for potential planets orbiting them. Such celestial bodies are called transiting exoplanets. NASA is confident that it will find thousands of such transiting exoplanets. It said that the agency needs people to help to spot these objects.
The agency will provide one image at a time. This will be done to ensure that suspected objects are planets in reality and minimize errors. NASA said that based on the outcomes, it will plan future missions to explore these objects. NASA has invited volunteers from different pockets of the world for its Planet Patrol project. NASA said that automated methods sometimes fail to spot exoplanets. It believes that human eyes have characteristics and are excellent at spotting such bodies. NASA has time and again sought the public’s help to execute its several missions. Perhaps this is the first mission where NASA will not pay anything to people helping it in discovering the aliens’ worlds.
Kathleen Kinder
Kathleen has been working with dailyheraldbusiness since a long time and her exquisite language skills along with the valuable knowledge she possesses about the field of science, business and technology helps her grow and attract more readers and also establish herself as an important asset to this Online News channel. Her great interest in those lies in discovering the impact of latest technology on various segments of the global economy. A post-graduate degree holder in media loves writing and shines through her content on consumer lifestyle.
Deutsche Bank Has Decided To Cut 18000 Jobs By The End Of 2022
Apple Adds Black Mode To iTunes Remote App, First Update Since November 2018
Coca Cola Has Launched New Flavored Cold Drinks
WhatsApp Brings Dark Mode To Its iOS Beta Version App With Latest Update
The US Is Forcing Chinese Company To Sale Gay Dating App Called Grindr
|
cc/2022-05/en_middle_0072.json.gz/line48
|
__label__cc
| 0.590823
| 0.409177
|
A Cool Look at Global Warming, ten years later PART II
By Don AitkinApril 17, 2018Climate Change, Environment, History, Language, Media, Politics, Religion, Research
If you missed the first part of this long essay, it is here. I am looking at what has happened in the last ten years with respect to the central assumptions of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scare, about which I wrote a decade ago. You can read the original essay here. Assumptions #1 and #2 have already been dealt with.
3. Is the warming caused by our burning fossil fuels, clearing the forests and other activities?
There is no doubt that CO2 accumulations in the atmosphere are increasing, and since we are burning a lot of fossil fuels, which release CO2 when they are burned, our activities are part of the cause of that rise. But does that rise lead to global warming? Theoretically, it does: more carbon dioxide leads, at least in the laboratory, to the trapping of more heat in the atmosphere, and thus to a higher temperature. But theoretically, also, each rise of a given amount of CO2 has a logarithmic effect, such that further increases have less effect. It is conventionally assumed that CO2 levels as the Industrial Revolution began (mid 18th century) were at about 280 parts per million. In theory again, and ignoring ‘climate sensitivity’, a doubling of CO2 would produce an increase in global temperature of about 1 degree C. Now to gain that one degree increase CO2 levels would need to be at about 560 pp. They are presently (ignoring seasonal changes) at a little over 400 ppm. When I wrote the original essay CO2 was at 385 ppm. In ten years there has been a rise of a little over 15 ppm. If we assume that each decade will produce an increase of 15 ppm, then it will be about a hundred years from now when we reach the doubling. The next doubling (from 580 to 1160 ppm) would, using the same metric, occur three or four centuries later.
This simple arithmetic suggests that there is no need to worry about an increase in CO2, and indeed that would be the case were it not for ‘climate sensitivity’, a notion introduced by climate scientists to get their models to run properly (ie. show a lot of warming). The premise is that more heat retained means more clouds and more heat and therefore more rain, and so on until (in some examples) we get runaway warming, the boiling of the seas and other catastrophes. The IPCC has stuck to this view over the last twenty years and more, and offers a range of estimates for ‘climate sensitivity’ of 1.5 to 4.5 — meaning that a doubling of CO2 might lead to an increase in global temperature of 4.5 degrees C. It has maintained that range over that time, saying that it is too hard to pick up a specific number.
A lot of attention has been paid to ‘climate sensitivity’ in the past decade, and for good reason. Indeed, I’ve written about it about a dozen times (e.g. here).Without a good deal of climate sensitivity, there is no real AGW scare. The following diagram, courtesy of Jo Nova, lists the published papers on the subject, showing their estimate, and the publication date. The blue line deals with what is called ‘transient climate response’, or what will happen in the next couple of decades. The red line deals with ‘equilibrium climate response’ — what happens when everything settles down, perhaps a century from now. You will see that both lines converge towards unity, because the more recent publications present much lower estimates. Unity, of course, means that a doubling of CO2 leads to a one degree C increase in global temperature.
I should add that an equally plausible view of it all says that more heat means more clouds, which mean greater reflectivity from the greater cloud mass, which means a reduction in temperature reaching the earth, and therefore a negative feedback, akin to the work of a thermostat. Since the temperature of the earth, as measured by palaeontological proxies, suggests that for the most part temperature remains within a fairly narrow range, there is obviously something to the negative feedback hypothesis. On the face of it, human contribution to global warming seems to be slight, though real.
4. Is the global warming likely to lead to a dangerous increase in sea levels?
I have been writing about sea levels a lot in the past year or two (in fact a dozen times in six years, most recently here), and have yet to be convinced that there is anything to be worried about with respect to our country in the slow rise in sea levels that has been occurring for the past few thousand years. Tide gauges are the best indication of what is happening locally, and they present no real cause for alarm in most parts of the world, on average about 1.7 mm per annum over the last century or so. Sea-level changes can be misleading, because land can also rise and fall. But southeastern Australia is geologically stable, so the tide gauges there are decently reliable. Yes, satellite altimeters show an increase in sea level of around 3mm per annum on average, and even such an increase, if it were real and everywhere, would allow ample time for ordinary defences against the sea. But calibrating tide gauges and the satellite readings cannot yet be done without heroic assumptions. Judith Curry’s long series on sea levels at Climate etc (perhaps start with this one, which discusses satellite altimetry) is compulsory reading if you want to get into this subject. Her last essay concentrates on the US, and her conclusion is that sea-level rise is real, and that communities likely to be affected should prepare for it. But in her view CO2 is not the real problem, while land use, population movements and vertical land movement are much more important.
The sea level rises for two principal reasons. As the oceans get warmer their volume increases, and melting land ice from glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica plays a part too. The difficulty is that anyone developing a ‘budget’ for sea levels is faced with the need to make other heroic assumptions. Some glaciers are retreating and others are advancing (there are about a quarter of a million of them) while Greenland and Antarctica are difficult field sites. Sea ice is irrelevant.
Sea level does not seem an immediate problem for much of Australia. And there is some evidence that the oceans are cooling.
5. The use of computer modeling to predict future climates
Ten years ago claims were made that improved computer power and improved modeling would solve all the problems of prediction. We don’t hear such claims so often now, and in fact, while there have been some advances, the fundamental problems remain. There are three of them. The first is that wherever we live we really need to know about our own particular climate, our own precipitation, our own floods, droughts and fires. But that is hard to do, because the global circulation models can’t easily be broken down into regional models (though attempts do exist). The second is that the chaotic element in weather and climate has not been dealt with. The third is that even the IPCC admits that our knowledge of clouds and their consequences is ‘low’. It is perhaps for these reasons that IPCC ‘projections’ of global temperature increases in AR4 and AR5 proved to be much too warm.
6. The reluctance to admit uncertainty
It should be clear now that everything we think we know about climate is surrounded by uncertainty. Some of that uncertainty is acknowledged (rarely), but on the whole those who push the AGW scare hardly ever refer to error bars, sampling error, measurement errors, empty cells, and so on. That was true in 2008. Sadly, it remains true today.
7. So, finally, what should we do about it all?
Our present Government is trying to do the impossible: somehow organise electricity supply so that it is cheap and reliable, while remaining ‘true’ to the Renewable Energy Target (RET). It simply cannot be done. Coal has become demonised, though it is the core of our electricity system. While we have a putatively ‘conservative’ government, its leading members, including the Prime Minister, are quite unwilling to educate the Australian community about the realities of ‘climate change’. Perhaps they don’t even understand them. There seems to be no real threat from ‘climate change’ to anyone in our country. There hasn’t been any evidence of harm since the late 1980s, when James Hansen told the world that doom was coming. In fact, quite the contrary. Agricultural productivity has benefited from the extra carbon dioxide available, while the planet, according to satellite imagery, is noticeably greener than it was. Extra CO2 allows plants greater vigour without the need for extra water. Supposed links from examples of ‘extreme weather’ to ‘climate change’ have no foundation in evidence, and are bogus.
Carbon taxes are not much talked about any more, but the RET is the kind of government commitment that has the effect of a tax, on everyone and on every productive enterprise. It is, quite simply, a kind of madness. It doesn’t matter what Australia does. A week’s activity in China will obviate any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that Australia makes. If we were true to these CAGW beliefs we would not sell coal at all to anyone. That wouldn’t stop Chinese emissions: China would simply buy the coal it needed from elsewhere, but it would at least show that someone actually took it all seriously. What we have, at the government level, is out-and-out hypocrisy.
That we continue to export coal, while retaining an RET, is fatuous. Its only rationale is the fear of losing votes. And there’s the rub. The Labor Party has announced that if elected it will be even sillier, if that is possible, than the Coalition. To repeat: on the evidence, ‘global warming’ is not harmful to people, the planet or to eco-systems now, and for an extraordinarily long time, if then. ‘Climate change’ is not, on the face of it, due to human activity, at least to any noticeable degree. The two terms make up a semi-religious belief, as one can see by reading any Greens material on the issue.
That we have endured it for so long is almost incredible. Worse, I don’t see any sign of a quick back-track.
LATER: Frequent commentator David (and others from time to time) find it hard to understand about the rise and rise of CO2 over the last half-century, along with the rise and then relative stasis of ‘average global temperature’ Though I have provided this diagram before, perhaps it’s time to show it again:
Yes, there has been a rise since 2016 (and then a more recent fall). It’s not too difficult to understand, and just a casual glance might make a reader wonder about the imagined CO2 control knob.
Nev says:
Don Aitkin, a fossilized fool who writes nonsense about fossil fuels.
Nga,
If you want to comment here, it would be more straightforward, and vastly more honest, to use your own ID.
Don Aitkin, a fossilized old fool who writes nonsense about fossil fuels.
michael reed says:
Yep then I am a fossilised fool too.Then the other side must wind and solar dopes.Both of these revered technologies are old ,highly inefficient and save
no more in their carbon foot prints due to the need for fossil fuels in their manufacture.However for the true believers in CAGW this new age brings
a return to the dark ages.Look at all of the fuel “poverty” that has been created with options like -don’t eat and keep warm or don’t warm and eat or
maybe neither -just die.
This hand wringing over a half a degree or so celsius ( while we are now seeing real suffering in our communities) makes me both very angry
and sad.Over the last thirty years I had not suffered from any of the so called dire effects of climate change.At what point should we just stand back
and say “hey we are destroying our economy and comfortable way of life (and creating untold hardship for many) for some unproven theory”
Meanwhile real ecological disasters are occurring in the Solar Uyuni in Bolivia because of the mining of Lithium for the batteries that go in smart phones
and electric vehicles.Oh and what about that other environmental and pollution disaster that’s occurring right now in inner Mongolia all for the need
of rare earth metals(this place really looks like a black hell on earth with all its real pollution acrid smoke stakes and liquid acid tailing lakes) like Neodmeium which is used in the nacelles of the “clean energy “windmills. All of this for what? I know the answer I have been told it’s to save the
planet from carbon pollution.Oh golly gee but what happened to the due diligence /cost benefit analysis in all of these clean wind and solar technologies ,quite apart from the unintended consequences of slicing up and frying many species of birds and bats.Oh please answer and explain
to me how these real ecological and polluting disasters are “saving the planet.Then I will continue to hang my head in shame as a real fossil fool like
Don apparently is.
Don, the above is not my comment. Must be another Neville and Don should be able to check the email link to verify this fact.
You are right. Not yours but one by Nga, who went off in a hissy fit some years ago saying she would never return. Well she did, stealing your ID for the purpose. It looks as though the ID problem is back. Are any other commenters seeing another name and email address in the boxes when they want to write something?
Brian Austen says:
On your final paragraph, what I don’t get is the contradiction between human caused global warming pretty much accepted now by government, on the one hand, and on the other a policy of relentless population increase as well as ever increasing economic expansion with more of everything.
The two positions are surely mutually exclusive.
Bryan Roberts says:
But, doncha know, the Government has commissioned a Report that says (surprise, surprise) that immigration is an unqualified good, and that we would all be poorer without it remaining at present levels. Some of these guys should get out of the house once in a while.
it is probable this is all academic. We know that we can produce fusion power and know it can be done. We just need the engineers to build the machine. Who is to clean up the wind turbines, as far as I know and unlike miners, they have paid no bond to remove the ghastly contraptions. Farmers and landholders cannot afford to remove both the metal and the concrete. perhaps we should insist on a bond be paid for all the turbines, $250,000 each. Seems fair as miners have to pay, quite rightly, to return the land they wreck, to as near original condition prior to mining.
The Greens would never tolerate Cold Fusion because electricity would be too cheap. The whole point of Climate Alarm is to make energy expensive. Imagine a bulldozer powered by cold fusion
Good point. Yes, they are in contradiction. But some of government policy is like that: two departments pursuing contradictory goals, apparently unaware of each other.
But the theory is that cabinet government should prevent or rectify such contradictions.
But it’s one thing for government to run contradictory policies. It seems that no one ever notices. The advocates for producing and selling more and more stuff travel more, support nighttime sporting events powered by coal fired power stations, etc. etc.
No one ever notices such contradictions, or perhaps turn a blind eye.
It basically means that very few of the advocating warmists really believe their propaganda.
Despite any and all arguments to the contrary, Albert Bartlett demonstrated years ago (in relation to his own city of Boulder, Colorado) that our dear leader’s mantra of jobs and growth is ridiculous. The people know it – ninety percent of comments about immigration, in any forum, are negative. Point to any country in which a flood of immigrants has made the people richer, or their living conditions better. Not even Australia. Only the political class are blind, and wilfully so.
Let’s be honest and just say that every govt on the planet is dishonest and are totally hypocritical about the use of and export of fossil fuels.
And their attempts at so called mitigation via Kyoto and now Paris COP 21 are just BS and fra-d. If this isn’t true then we must conclude that not one govt on the planet understands very simple first grade maths and science.
The IEA makes it very easy to understand with their pie graphs, but I find it so hard to get anyone interested enough to show the graphs to the public. It’s a wonder Lomborg has any hair left on his head after decades trying to get this very simple data to the public. Even the Bolter isn’t interested.
What is their problem explaining this stupidity to the public? Don or anyone have an explanation for this? Sure beats me.
Now here’s something not generally considered:
Jamal Munshi
Date Written: March 21, 2018
It is proposed that visitation by extraterrestrial spacecraft (UFO) alters the electromagnetic properties of the earth, its atmosphere, and its oceans and that these changes can cause global warming leading to climate change and thence to the catastrophic consequences of floods, droughts, severe storms, and sea level rise. An empirical test of this theory is presented with data for UFO sightings and surface temperature reconstructions for the study period 1910-2015. The results show strong evidence of proportionality between surface temperature and cumulative UFO sightings. We conclude that the observed warming since the Industrial Revolution are due to an electromagnetic perturbation of the climate system by UFO extraterrestrial spacecraft.
Keywords: Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Action, UFO, Extraterrestrial, Parody, Correlation, Proportionality, Cumulative Values
SD, please tell us the peer-reviewed journal that printed this. It looks like a spoof to me.
You got it in one, Don:
And doncha just luv the combination of the Groaner and Nutticelli:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/05/american-conservatives-are-still-clueless-about-the-97-expert-climate-consensus
A Canadian reader wonders why I don’t use the Christy/McNider paper of 2017 that showed a TCR response of 1.1 ± 0.26 C for a doubling of CO2, and indeed it doesn’t appear in the graph. My guess is that the graph predates the publication of the paper.
He goes on to point out that 80 to 85 per cent of Canada is still covered in snow, well past the middle of April. I was aware of the long lingering winter there, but have to say that at the moment all we can say is that Canada has had a spectacularly long-lasting winter.
Ian MacCulloch says:
As a geologist with marine geology experience having drilled offshore strandlines along the East Australian coast line nearly 50 years ago I have to say that both Judith Curry and yourself have a long way to go. At issue is the state of the ice distribution at 12,000 years BP as mapped by the USGS. Compared to the present distribution the volume exchange between the date then and now cannot be explained by the difference between the two ages of mapping. Deep ice core drilling shows no gaps in the ice fossil record – if fact the oddest aspect about Greenland and Antarctica cores is the remarkably constant rate of accumulation regardless of what was going on around them over time. It is clear that these ‘core’ ice sheets are ice accumulators and remain unaffected by climate change. In fact, the deep cores act as excellent repositories of climate, fine particle, gases of all types and so on. It is the rate of change both advance and retreat of the shorelines reported in Professor Curry’s blog is replica of a similar graph produced by Australian geologist many years earlier by RW Fairbridge in 1960. These advances and retreats gave rise to the fossil strandlines that I drilled successfully in the early 1970s. The rates of change, as Professor Curry pointed out were extremely rapid. Ice movements as represented by terminal moraines sites in North America and Europe cannot account for such volumetric changes in ice. I think you have to look at the possibility of the contracting and expanding earth theory first raised to me a oil and gas conference by a Dr Wilson about 2001 held at the University of Illinois. He had some interesting evidence on his poster to support his theory especially using geomorphology in the Gulf of Mexico to support his claims.
If this theory ever gains acceptance it will destroy the barely measurable micro atmospheric events that the alarmists rely upon to spread their tale of woe.
Finally, the sea level did peak about 2 metres above its current level some 8,000 years ago. I have mapped heavy mineral sand layers well above sea level at Bremer Bay, WA that correlated perfectly with the now mined out high level heavy mineral deposits mined out in the 1960’s on the Gold Coast (not to be confused with the elevated seams on Stradbroke). There were no golden sands before the miners cleaned the place up.
Thank you, Ian. I know a little of Fairbridge’s work, but would be keen to learn more.
Yes Don, He is quoted in Arthur Holmes Principles of Physical Geology, 1964. The reference to his paper is in Nature 1958 vol 181, p 1518 and also in Scientific American, 1960 Vol 204 (May) pp 70-9. It was a remarkably accurate paper in identifying the main standline second out from the shoreline. The records of the surveys were sadly binned (insufficient space in the NSWGS) though there is some peripheral reporting still on file.
A link to a paper of R W Fairbridge – http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/RichardMackeyForum2008.pdf – quite an achiever for the alma mater
Thank you. This is the paper I have read before. Richard Mackey sent me a copy.
Climate change alarm scratches a lot of backs and too many people have hitched their wagons to the Global Warming Star for rationalism to be be heard. Nature is indifferent to politics and maybe a mini ice age will bring it undone
A brilliant geologist at the time – all this done without access to global information that we can access today. Most astute conclusions.
Doug Lavers says:
For the past 600 million years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were generally far above today’s values . From a graph I copied from Scotese and Berner, the values ranged from about 7000 ppm to about 300 ppm.
The Ordovician Glaciation occurred when the figure was of the order of 4000 ppm.
In two decades, my view is that the idea that CO2 controls climate will seem bizarre.
Here’s a link to the Christy, McNider study showing a TCR response of just 1.1 C for a doubling of Co2. This was published in Sept 2017 and is closer to the older Lindzen study etc .
How long before the IPCC starts to wake up and why are we paying so much more for clueless S&W energy? Certainly we should be following the NON OECD example and building new reliable Coal fired plants here in OZ.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf
The risk to the world’s climate depends on climate sensitivity and each decade will not produce an increase of 15 ppm.
The rate of increase of CO2 is discussed here:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2112153-a-pause-in-growth-rate-of-atmospheric-co2-is-over-heres-why/
Population increase and industrial and agricultural increases are the obvious causes.
Als climate sensitivity has to include the second effect that a initial warming will produce its own “outgassing” of CO2 plus an artificial increase in water vapour. It is possible to find a CO2 spurt that follows temperature pulses on top of the more general rise of CO2.
That’s not really an analysis, Chris, and it doesn’t explain why there was a pause. It is in fact a patronising little piece of no consequence.
I agree with you that climate sensitivity is the key. So where do you think it is at, and why?
Do you really believe that Chris? If so, can you please tell us how to mitigate your so called CAGW problem?
I can always show you the IEA data again to prove the futility of wasting endless trillions $ until 2100.
But just think, blith, if the “outgassing” from the warming ocean reduces its “acidity”, it might reduce plant and soil acidity likewise.
And increase Global Worming.
If indeed population increase is the cause, closing down coal mines and power stations do not seem to me to be the answer. What about closing down immigration instead?
But if we close down immigration, Treasury says we won’t be able to afford our electricity.
The article says:
“The annual increase in CO2 levels varies a lot, but in the 1950s it averaged less than 1 part per million (ppm) a year. It increased to around 2 ppm in the early 2000s as CO2 emissions soared. Then between 2002 and 2014 the annual rise remained fairly constant, at just over 2 parts per million.”
This indicates that CO2 will not increase at 15 ppm per decade.
This is corroborated by NOAA which shows an increasing CO2 growth rate,
https://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
In fact increases of 3pp pa are now possible.
http://www.noaa.gov/news/carbon-dioxide-levels-rose-at-record-pace-for-2nd-straight-year
Chris, you know no more about the future than I do, but nonetheless you state that ‘CO2 will not increase at 15 ppm per decade’. You mean, perhaps, that if things go on as they are, then CO2 will increase at something more than 15mm. In any case, my 15 ppm was an ‘if’ proposition, not a prediction. And it will take a long time for the 560 ppm level to be reached, and most of the warmth has already occurred!
(And you still haven’t dealt with the reason for the pause, which means that you can’t ignore the possibility of further pauses later.)
There was no pause in CO2 – there was mundane variation in rate of growth of CO2.
When the next growth rate is determined for the decade 2010-2020 it will be higher than the 2000-2010 decade as shown here:
You will note a pause in growth for the decade 1990-2000 but the CO2 levels in the atmosphere continued to increase as seen here:
https://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
although there was a very minor change in slope during the 1990’s. If this is the total impact of the pause in the 1990’s I do not think there will be a noticable impact today from a smaller pause in growth rate.
The Barrier Reef Bed-Wetters Assoc. is out in force again today to claim the reef will “never be the same” since the bleaching from el Nino.
As nothing is ever “the same” they can justify a sci-paper on it and justify their own superficial existence.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-19/marine-heatwave-so-bad-it-cooked-parts-of-great-barrier-reef/9667518
Scroll down and see pictures of recovery.
At the time you may remember the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Dr Russell Reichelt, said the authority had withdrawn from a joint announcement on coral bleaching with Professor Hughes this week “because we didn’t think it told the whole story”.
Well more of the story is now becoming more apparent.
But don’t expect these “experts” to rationalise about it.
In spite of all that “warm weather” in the Arctic recently, sea ice volume surges 3,000 cubic kilometers since early March:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Arctic-ice-volume-2018-april-15.png
JimboR says:
“In any case, my 15 ppm was an ‘if’ proposition, not a prediction. ”
But none the less, a pretty silly proposition. Just eye-balling your own graph above you can see it’s not linear, and you offer nothing as to why you’d expect it to be linear. It may well have been a completely hypothetical ‘if’ proposition in one paragraph, but then you boldly clear the decks and start the next paragraph with:
“This simple arithmetic suggests that there is no need to worry about an increase in CO2”
Perhaps the problem is your arithmetic is too simple? Stacey and Hodgkinson did a simple best-fit of the 12-month running means of the Mauna Loa data and found it to be quartic. If you’re correct then we have:
“it will be about a hundred years from now when we reach the doubling. ”
If they’re correct, then it hits 560 in about 47 years for now. It’s a big difference. Their estimate is based on the data, yours is based on your usual eye-balling, picking two datapoints, declaring it a linear relationship with no justification as to why it might be, and then boldly jumping to…
Perhaps that’s an example of what David would call “misdirection”.
Jimbo, middle: it might be a big difference if there was any more warming to come. If warming occurs in a logarithmic fashion, then most of it has occurred anyway, from 280 ppm to say 320. There’s not much left.
Your graph is incorrect.
The left hand scale is not scaled so that it occupies the same vertical space as the right hand scale.
If you place two series on the same graph, they HAVE to be scaled appropriately.
Indeed, a standard ploy used by those trying to “misdirect”. They dynamic range of the blue temperature plot occupies about 33% of the left axis’s dynamic range, while the dynamic range of the black CO2 plot occupies about 78% of its axis.
Don, why not take the left hand axis from -1C to 10C, then even more people would believe you!
“If you place two series on the same graph, they HAVE to be scaled appropriately”
True, but the scales (the y axes) do not have to be the same.
Yes. You can always read off the relevant values.
A scaled graph of temperature and CO2 concentration by time.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.egee102/files/files/Lesson_03/graph4.JPG
Instead of arguments between angels and pinheads, if the pinheads ever choose to live in the real world, this is the CO2/temp graph they should be looking at.
The correlation is oh so obvious…er…isn’t it?
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/tbrown_figure3.png
Chris, There are many variants of these graphs, and they all start with the same data. The difference is one of presentation. Your ‘scaled’ graph does not have the two axes starting from the same point (nor did mine).
What do you think your graph shows? I agree that you can arrange data to show almost anything, if that is your purpose. But it is really difficult to show that CO2 has any kind of direct link to global temperature (always assuming that concept means anything). And unless you disagree that warming through CO2 accumulation occurs in a logarithmic fashion, what is it that worries you? For you and Jimbo, it seems that you believe that doom awaits us. I disagree, and show why. Your arguments and data somehow miss the mark, and yet you are worried. It puzzles me.
But you plug away…
However you present it the data shows:
around 1960 CO2 was 317ppm and temp was 0.6C cooler than around 2011.
Over this long period, when natural variations have played out, the net effect is a temp rise of 0.6C for around 70ppm CO2.
So if we increase CO2 at 3ppm per year, we will heat the climate another 0.5C by a much shorter period.
So says science.
Chris, ‘science’ might say this if all your assumptions and measurements were accurate. But they’re not. We don’t really know what the temperature was in 1960. You haven’t referred to logarithmic increase at all, so your figure for an increase in Av Gl Temp is almost certainly wrong. And to another matter: the UK Met Office and many other ‘authoritative’ sources do refer to a pause or hiatus in temperature — it’s not just me. We don’t know why it occurred, although there are 70+ proposed explanations for it. The graphed data suggest cyclic influences. Yes, you can say that av. gl temp has been going up, but then (if you trust GISS or HadCRUT) it’s been going up for 150 years or more.
Why is it so important for you to hang on to the possibility that AGW is really catastrophic?
Don we do know what the temperature was in 1960 and earlier;
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
My figure cannot possibly be wrong if the data is correct.
The latest increase in CO2 is over 3ppm per year.
For the enlightenment of blith and Jimb:
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Where, Exactly, Is The Man-made Climate Problem?:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/20/where-exactly-is-the-problem/
We do NOT know what the temperature was in 1960. What we have are estimates. The estimates are of the ocean sea surface temperatures (71 per cent of the globe), where the data come from ships traversing particular routes. If you want good data you have to wait until 1979 and the satellite coverage. All this has been argued out many times here.
DA: “Your ‘scaled’ graph does not have the two axes starting from the same point (nor did mine).”
It’s not the starting point that’s the major problem with your graph, it’s the two y-scales you used. If you compare the range of the data Vs the range of the axes, your graph comes in at about 33% for Temp and 78% for CO2. Chris’s at about 83% and 72%.
Why did you do that? If you didn’t create the graph, then ask whoever did. There’s only one reason I can think of, and it does your reputation no good. Regardless of whether you created the graph, or copied it from elsewhere, you attached it to your essay and that speaks volumes of the integrity you bring to this discussion.
Jimbo, this is another of your shifts from arguing about data and argument to denouncing the writer. I know that you retreat to saying that this isn’t your field, and that you trust the experts (whoever you think they are). But these little pernickety interventions don’t add much to the discussion
The news today is that a Queensland farmer has been fined $113,000 for feeding his cattle on rolled Mulga, a practice that has been going on in the area since settlement as it is the reason farmers value this country [for its Mulga drought-proofing] and the Mulga regrows rapidly, ready for the next drought. It is country where it often doesn’t rain for years at a time but it is always drought-proof because of the marvellous Mulga scrub.
Now the Qld Labor govt want to end this practice to “control” emissions and cool the world yet these same foolish CAGW alarmists are more than happy to do and support the following:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/18/green-shock-entire-forests-being-murdered-to-produce-wood-pellet-biomass/
But I am sure that Australian Universities will now be getting their PhD students to come up with theses to show how equally sustainable Mulga-rolling is [koff].
Dr Roy Spencer looks at the benefits of more co2 on agriculture around the globe.
He uses data and compares it to the modelling carried out by the media alarmists. Rainfall is increasing and increased tonnages have been experienced plus the extra co2 has helped as well.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/the-100th-meridian-agricultural-scare-another-example-of-media-hype-exceeding-reality/
BoyfromTottenham says:
Regarding your comment ‘Our present Government is trying to do the impossible: somehow organise electricity supply so that it is cheap and reliable, while remaining ‘true’ to the Renewable Energy Target (RET). It simply cannot be done.’, I would add that the public really needs to understand the pernicious effects of the (L)RET on the viability of our essential baseload generators, which are the linchpin of our previously stable, reliable, low cost electricity generation system.
Firstly the LRET scheme forces baseload generators to reduce their output in favour of ‘renewables’ – which reduces both the market share and profitability of our essential, but apparently sacrificial baseload generators.
Secondly, as the output of ‘renewables’ generators is and will continue to be subsidised by around $85/MWH, these generators are ‘profitable’ almost regardless of the wholesale price they sell into. The existence of the LRET in anything like its current form IMO is inimical to the survival of our essential baseload generators.
On the other hand, the huge subsidy to inefficient, unreliable and intermittent ‘renewables’ generation provided by the LRET ensures that more and more ‘renewables’ capacity will be built and continue to take market share off baseload generators, further reducing their viability. Therefore any attempt by the federal government to ‘fix’ our broken electricity generation market which retain the LRET (or augment / replace it with the NEG) are doomed to fail. Why cannot our federal government understand this?
Yes Boy from Tot you are correct, RET is a disaster for our energy system. Today clueless S&W make up just 0.8% of the world’s total primary energy and the IEA projection is that it could be 3.6% by 2040.
IOW it is a total fra-d and con trick and costs the taxpayers of the world 1 to 2 trillion $ a year according to Lomborg.
This can make no measurable difference to temp by 2040 or by 2100 and we’ll still need coal, gas or nuclear into the future for at least 75% of our energy needs. Of course if fusion become the new energy source then all bets are off.
But why isn’t any of this explained to the long suffering taxpayer?
Here’s the Lomborg link to the latest IEA report.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/where-do-we-get-most-of-our-energy-hint-not-renewables/
DA: “If warming occurs in a logarithmic fashion,…”
Don, warming occurs in a logarithmic fashion relative to CO2 levels, hence the often quoted “x° rise per doubling of CO2”.
DA: “then most of it has occurred anyway, from 280 ppm to say 320. There’s not much left.”
That conclusion is only valid if you believe CO2 rise is linear relative to time. If, by way of hypothetical example, CO2 rise is exponential relative to time, and warming is logarithmic relative to CO2 levels, then warming becomes linear relative to time.
I think you’re in a circular argument here. Let’s recap:
1. you assert CO2 rise is linear Vs time and conclude “there is no need to worry about an increase in CO2”.
2. when pressed you concede your assertion was a hypothetical ‘if’ not a prediction, but somehow your conclusion remains valid
3. when further pressed you assert your conclusion remains valid because “warming occurs in a logarithmic fashion”
Warming does indeed occur in a logarithmic fashion, relative to CO2 levels, but that only supports your original conclusion if CO2 rise is linear. You cannot ignore the shape of the CO2 level graph, it’s critical to all of this.
An instructive graph on the warming effect of CO2 in 20ppm increments :
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Nk5DfoRWFDQ/UWTdpHSVMRI/AAAAAAAAMX0/taaQ4sWBkZY/s1600/heating_effect_of_co2.png
Jimbo tell us what you would do about it and then tell us what difference it would make?
IOW what energy source would you choose to replace fossil fuels or nuclear, and what difference would it make by 2040 or 2100?
For heaven’s sake Jimbo, what evidence can you point to for the proposition that the rise in CO2 is exponential relative to time?
I think you might be verballing me there Don, so I’ll use the same defence you used to defend your data-defying claim that it’s linear: “my 15 ppm was an ‘if’ proposition, not a prediction”. Unlike you, I even gave a clue by prefixing mine with: “If, by way of hypothetical example…”, but perhaps you missed it in your haste?
Now I did quote Stacey and Hodgkinson’s finding that the best fit was quartic, so if you want to test your bold claim that “there is no need to worry about an increase in CO2” you might start there. At this stage just about anything would be better than your semi-retracted claim that it’s linear.
No verbalising on my part. No data on yours either. A link to the authors you quoted would be a help. I’m happy to read material.
Don, I’m trying to explain to you the flaw in your maths argument, you don’t need data for that. Think abstractly occasionally.
ISBN 978-9814508322 p206 and p268
As far as I know, all these datasets are publicly available, and you keep telling us you’re a numbers man from way back. Download the Mauna Loa data and do you own analysis. That text was published in 2013 so their data-fit is probably due for an update. Show us why you think it’s linear. If you don’t think it’s linear, then tell us what you think it is.
One thing is for sure, you need to have done some analysis of the shape of that curve before you can make bold claims like: “there is no need to worry about an increase in CO2”. You made that claim I didn’t. You offered no data or analysis to support that claim. You’re the one with outstanding homework to do. Let us know what you find.
Jimbo, the link you provided didn’t come with money! I don’t go behind paywalls. If there is a page or two you can scan, fine. If not, I’ll leave the issue.
My suggestion that there is no need to worry comes from the shape of the curve (yes, slightly dished from the 1950s, but pretty straight for the last thirty years, plus the logarithmic effect, plus the clear evidence that increasing CO2 so far has been a great boon to humanity and virtually all life forms. I see no clear sign that the boon will not continue for a century at least, probably two or three. And the catastrophic scare stuff is not based on much more than assumptions and suppositions.
Don, you can easily and freely replicate what they did without access to their text.
Approach 1: Download the CO2 data, find the best fitting function you can to mimic it, add the usual provisos about uncertainty in past performance being a good indication of future performance (they list quite a few) and then do your logarithm maths on that function to see what expected temperature rises you’ll get, using your own sensitivity settings.
Approach 2: Look at a graph of CO2 data, declare it “slightly dished” and “pretty straight” over various time periods (I just looked, it’s not), wave your hands about logarithms and declare it’ll all be fine.
One of those approaches is science, the other is faith. I can’t understand why a “numbers man” wouldn’t want to use the numbers?
Jimbo, like David, you want me to do some more work. I have enough to do, and have just returned from two weeks away. So, with respect, why don’t you do the work, offer the argument, present the results, add in the uncertainties, and let the readers decide for themselves?
Don, I don’t need to do any work, because I’m not drawing any conclusions from the data (despite your earlier verballing that I’m claiming it’s exponential…. I’m not, and I never did).
I’m simply comparing and contrasting the two approaches taken, one by a geophysicist and geologist, the other by a political scientist. Both start from the same data, and draw very different conclusions. I believe the methodology taken by each explains why.
“you want me to do some more work. I have enough to do”
Don, far be it from me to tell you how to divie up your time, but have you considered spending less time writing, and more time researching? It may change how you view a lot of this stuff.
Jimbo, for someone who claims no expertise, and does no work to improve what he has, you are extraordinarily patronising.
Jimbo, this is one of your sillier series of comments. Let’s just say that Don did these analyses. What would you say if he came up with a result of which you didn’t approve? Remembering that there are hardly two people who spend their lives doing just these analyses, who actually agree with each other.
Don, the one thing your musings on this topic have convinced me of, is that political scientists are 99% political and 1% scientist, and I think I’m being mighty generous with the 1%.
All I can say, after these futile exchanges, is that there may well be something in what you say.
Jimbo, what you don’t understand is that fewer than 1% of real scientists have any interest at all in politics.
Don, if you had half the curiosity you claim to have on this subject, you’d do your own research and I suspect would come to an entirely different conclusion. A while back I pondered what your great great grandchildren would make of all this as they read it in the inter-webby archives. You posited “I hope that they will say that he kept thinking about things”. An equally likely outcome in my view is that they’ll say “He kept thinking about things right up until he got to the things that would have led him to the truth”.
I wouldn’t harp on except that it is a recurring pattern. Over the few years I’ve been following this blog, every once and a while people who seem to have genuine expertise in the subject turn up in the comments section. Invariably that ends up with you in a position that defies some combination of the data, maths or physics. Your time constraints elsewhere (understandably) result in you retreating with little more than a polite and grateful I-don’t-have-time-for-this-now acknowledgement. Then a few months later, it’s as if none of it ever happened and you continue churning out the same debunked stuff.
Instead of pontificating and waffling [i.e. blithering] jimb, how about giving us just one example of that “same debunked stuff” that Don “churns out”.
Jimbo, to repeat, ‘there may well be something in what you say’.
Hold on, sonny Jim. Jimbo is not actually saying anything.
“I’m simply comparing and contrasting the two approaches taken”. If he wants to take a position, he should say what it is. Otherwise he’s just a race caller.
Don’s chart shows a temperature rise from around -0.5C [1980] to +0.5C [2017] for a rise in CO2 of 65ppm.
This means there will be another rise, around a full degree, when CO2 increases another 65ppm or thereabouts.
This will occur in less than 50 years particularly if the yearly growth averages over 2ppm per year.
If the increase in CO2 is maintained at 3ppm per year, then all this will hit us in just 22 years.
Maybe there is some other nexus between CO2 rise and temperature – may be a logarithmic aspect, This is canceled if the growth in CO2 is exponential through being driven by global economic growth.
Chris, it’s curious how the first 20ppm of CO2 atmospheric concentration is so influential whereas the effect of increasing concentrations diminish pro rata. Starting from today’s levels to achieve an additional degree of warming attributable to CO2 alone virtually all fossil fuel ever known would have to be burnt. Exponential economic growth wouldn’t suffice
Effects may appear to diminish but only after looking at relatively short run trends. If you start at 1998 you can show a period in which temps fell as CO2 rose.
If you probe the data carefully you can even find periods where the was little change in temps while CO2 rose.
However if you look at all of the scientific data, the net effect is a rise of around 1C for 65 ppm or thereabouts in the long run.
Yet more evidence that Greenland temps haven’t changed much since 1880. This just supports the 2005 Vinther et al study that came to a similar finding about Greenland temp trends.
Greenland seems to be responding to the AMO cycles and natural variability.
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/04/greenland-same-temperature-now-as-1880/#more-58425
It is very easy to show CO2 is exponential over time.
The trend (12 monthly averaged) is concave so clearly is not linear.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/every:12
Further if you take the derivative – it is obviously increasing.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/every:12/derivative
This means exponential trends are obvious and clear – beyond skepticism.
You can corroborate this from NOAA charts I indicated earlier.
The northern hemisphere link between rising CO2 and temp rise is quite strong from 1960 or so.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/every:12/from:1959/to:2018.333/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1959/to:2018.333/mean:132/scale:90/offset:337
You can run the same exercise using Roy Spencer’s data, and there is a clear increasing temp trend as atmospheric CO2 rises.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/every:12/from:1979/to:2018.333/offset:-22/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2018.333/mean:12/scale:90/offset:350
Did you check this trend too, blith:?
ABSTRACT: Homicides in England and Wales 1898-2003 are studied against the atmospheric carbon dioxide data for the same period. The Charney Equilibrium Sensitivity of homicides is found to be ?=1.7 thousands of additional annual homicides for each doubling of atmospheric CO2. The sensitivity estimate is supported by a strong correlation of ?=0.95 and detrended correlation of ?=0.86. The analysis illustrates that spurious proportionalities in time series data in conjunction with inadequate statistical rigor in the interpretation of empirical Charney climate sensitivity estimates impedes the orderly accumulation of knowledge in this line of research.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Except when there is a cause and effect mechanism.
Except when you can EFFECTIVELY ESTABLISH a cause and effect mechanism.
FIFY, blith.
Clive James made this observation about the red herrings used to deflect climate common sense of which this thread is a classic
“Alarmists have always profited from their insistence that climate change is such a complex issue that no “science denier” can have an opinion about it worth hearing. For most areas of science such an insistence would be true. But this particular area has a knack of raising questions that get more and more complicated in the absence of an answer to the elementary ones. One of those elementary questions is about how man-made carbon dioxide can be a driver of climate change if the global temperature has not gone up by much over the past 20 years but the amount of man-made carbon dioxide has. If we go on to ask a supplementary question — say, how could carbon dioxide raise temperature when the evidence of the ice cores indicates that temperature has always raised carbon dioxide — we will be given complicated answers, but we still haven’t had an answer to the first question, except for the suggestion that the temperature, despite the observations, really has gone up, but that the extra heat is hiding in the ocean.”
There’s been plenty of NH snow this winter and Japan now has a tourist attraction of a 56 feet high snow roadway that is a drawcard for tourists. Incredible photos at the link.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/22/its-been-a-bad-winter-all-over-snow-in-japan-56-feet-high/
Tim Walshaw says:
Arguments about CO2 can go on forever. As far as I am concerned this entire question of global warming was resolved by a book written years ago by Professor William F. Ruddiman “Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum”. I recommend, strongly recommend, that you read it. It will resolve all this nonsense.
Anyway what he said was that there has been a downward trend in the Earth’s temperature since a peak at 8000 BC towards an ice age in about 2000 years time. This is caused by perturbations in the Earth’s orbit, that you can look up on the internet, called the Milankovitch cycle.
Now why aren’t we entering an ice age now? As Ruddiman clearly explains, the maintenance of the Earth’s temperature (more or less) is caused by the release of METHANE due to human activity. The major source of this is rice irrigation in China and the Far East. He has carefully enumerated the influence.
So the reason why we have not entered an ice age is due to METHANE released by rice cultivation.
However Ruddiman did not go into the short term cycles. There are also short term Milankovitch cycles. (There was a downturn in 1866 that froze the Thames). There was a recent upturn between 1970 and 2000, that kicked off the global warming furor – false correlation. Now there is a downturn for the next 30 years. So I can make a very certain prediction. The coming winter will be cold and dry. Next summer will be cold. And so on, colder and colder, for the next 30 years. Yes the seas will get colder. The arctic, antarctic, will get colder. and the number of polar bears will increase.
CO2 has little effect on the climate.
I’ve mentioned Ruddiman before:
http://donaitkin.com/perhaps-carbon-dioxide-increases-are-postponing-the-next-ice-age/
The solar industry in Germany has become a total train wreck. This country was the poster child for so called renewables but it has failed dismally and the number of jobs have fallen off a cliff as well.
Oh and Germany has not seen recent falls in their co2 emissions even though they were a world leader in S&W energy. Like Japan Germany has now started to build new Coal fired plants to service their future energy needs.
Surely OZ needs to wake up and ditch the clueless RET lunacy and start building new Coal plants here as well?
http://www.thegwpf.com/green-mega-flop-german-solar-industry-crashes-and-burns/
Prof Ole Humlum will join the UK’s GWPF. He has authored scores of scientific studies on the climate and is sure to bring a breadth of knowledge and experience to his new job.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/04/06/top-climate-scientist-co2-model-assumptions-invalid-natural-climatic-variations-dominate/#sthash.R5bu0shG.G5dz2jZz.dpbs
WUWT has a post on the 20th anniversary of Mann’s ridiculous HS study. Willis Eshenbach doesn’t seem to be very impressed with “upside down Mann”. Others underwhelmed by Mann’s HS are Steve McIntyre, Muller etc and many more scientists who were quoted in Mark Steyn’s book. But Mann’s nonsense was paraded by the IPCC etc until they woke up. Here’s his comment.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Michael Mann is a lying liar who spends his spare time lying. Among the biggest is a lie of omission. He was found to have committed a grievous mathematical error in the original Hockeystick calculations (failure to center the data before the principle components analysis).
He also neglects to mention that he used post hoc proxy selection. And he doesn’t think it’s worth noting that his method will “mine” hockeysticks out of red-noise data.
He is as far from a scientist as a man could possibly be—opaque, dishonest, and completely without principles … in fact, I’d say he specializes in unprincipled component analysis.
For more of his slimy double-dealing, see here … and for the true story of the hockeystick, see ClimateAudit.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/23/flashback-twenty-years-ago-today-the-infamous-hockey-stick-was-published-in-nature/
Extensive reading of the scientific literature and various books published on this topic leads to the conclusion that the science is totally uncertain and pathetically weak. From an intellectual point of view, the really interesting issue is the uncanny parallel with religious cults. There is lots of stuff published on this and here for example are excerpts from one list on the web:
1) Believers pretend to possess indisputable truths about the past, present, and future.
2) They refuse to debate its dogma, calling it “settled science” and attacking critics. They try to prohibit scientific research that contradicts this dogma. They call for criminal persecution of those who publicly disagree with the dogma.
3) The alarmist movement has a formal doctrine-setting body — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They quote these holy texts and use them to justify their decisions.
4) The alarmist movement has its own priest class of climate scientists. They believe that only members of the priest class are capable of understanding and seriously discussing “climate science.”
5) The climate change cult appears to worship the computer models that its members built with their own hands — literally man-made idols. Much of the content of IPCC’s texts comes from these computer models.
6) The alarmists deny, ignore, or distort elementary scientific facts, some of which should be known even to kids eg – Sunspots and the effect of solar activity changes.
7) The alarmists appeal to medieval beliefs that nature has existed forever in some unchanged state. They deny natural climate change, higher CO2 levels in the geological past; natural sea level increases in the current interglacial period; tectonic movement; and the complex trajectory of the Earth’s motion around the Sun.
8) The climate change cult has its own eschatology—calamities, catastrophes, and the end of the world caused by global warming. To avoid this horrible end, we have to repent (i.e., accept the climate change cult dogma), stop sinning (releasing CO2), and generously pay whomever the IPCC or UNFCC will tell us to pay.
9) The climate change cult seeks and actually exerts control over governments. Even worse, it provokes international conflicts over hot air (country quotas to release carbon dioxide).
There’s really only one answer to air pollution, more government:
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/04/19/lung-assn-pollution-condemns-california/
The latest 2018 Lewis and Curry study finds similar low sensitivity for a doubling of Co2.
When will the IPCC wake up and take notice of these latest studies ?
https://judithcurry.com/2018/04/24/impact-of-recent-forcing-and-ocean-heat-uptake-data-on-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/#more-24068
What does this mean “Transient climate response (TCR), a shorter-term measure over 70 years, represents warming at the time CO2 concentration has doubled when it is increased by 1% a year.”
1% per year is over 4ppm?
The evidence we have shows a 1° C for an approx. 65 ppm increase.
This was produced by a rise around 2ppm /yr.
“Transient climate response (TCR), a shorter-term measure over 70 years, represents warming at the time CO2 concentration has doubled when it is increased by 1% a year.”
Formally, the TCR is a model metric; it’s a way of estimating the sensitivity within a climate model. What happens is that you a run a model in which the only thing that you change is atmospheric CO2 and you do so by increasing it by 1% every year. This kind of of increase would double atmospheric CO2 in 70 years. The TCR is then the change in global surface temperature at the time at which CO2 has doubled (technically, it’s the difference between the initial temperature and the 20 year average centred on the period 70 years after the start).
In the real world, this isn’t what is happening; atmospheric CO2 is not simply change at 1% per year and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not the only external factors that can influence surface temperatures (volcanoes, the Sun, other greenhouse gases, aerosols). However, you can still estimate a real world TCR by looking at the net change in external forcing (which is really just a measure of how much these external factors influence the energy balance) and the associated change in surface temperature.
Since I’m commenting, can the author of this post give an indication of how much they would expect the surface to have warmed given an increase in atmospheric CO2 from about 340ppm to 405ppm. The final figure in the post would seem to be being used to imply that we’ve warmed far less than expected. Can the author provide some numbers to indicate if this is actually a reasonable inference?
I find the whole TCR notion wobbly. But since you ask, let us assume that CO2 levels in 1750 were at 280 ppm, and that doubling the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, other things being equal, increases global air temperature by 1.1 degrees Celsius. We don’t have any kind of accurate figure for global air temperature in 1750, and we also suspect that there is some kind of cyclic tendency in global air temperature anyway. CO2 ppm are currently at about 410. What would expect from an increase from 340 to 405? Not much. What has happened in air temperature? Not much. It goes up and down. The climate4you website shows stasis for the most part, unless one sees every rise as being CO2 induced and every fall as natural variation. Not sure I can add much more.
Thanks, I’ll expain why I’m asking. In going from 340 to 405 ppm (roughly the change in atmospheric CO2 shown on your graph) we would expect the associated change in radiative forcing to be about 0.93 W/m^2 (Delta F = 5.35 ln (405/340)). If the TCR is around 1.8C, then we’d expect the surface temperature to change by about 0.5C. The temperature axis on your graph goes from -1C to 5C, which makes it look as though the temperature change is very small. In fact, it makes it look as though it is much smaller than expected. However, the temperature change we’ve actually experienced is pretty close to what we would expect.
Yes, if all your assumptions prove to be the case, and there is nothing added through any kind of natural variation.
We have little data of consequence about CO2 in the atmosphere prior to Mauna Loa, but we do have global temperature data (of a rubbery kind) from about 1850. They suggest that there has been a strong cyclic influence to the present, Of course, the Industrial Revolution may have been the kick-start for the whole CO2 process, though it doesn’t seem particularly plausible to me. And since i don’t know why the so-called Little Ice Age (which wasn’t one really) started, or why the Mediaeval Warm Period finished, I don’t know whether what we are seeing is yet another cyclic effect. But to ascribe the warming of the last fifty years to CO2 strikes me as a leap into the unknown.
I’m not sure I can help you any further.
Indeed, this would seem clear.
What I was trying to point out is that your graph is rather misleading. You make it seem as though the it has warmed far less than would be expected, given the change in atmospheric CO2, despite it actually having warmed roughly in line with what would expected. If you’re going to present a graph like that, then the two y-axis scales should be consistent (in the sense that if there is some expected relationship between what is on one yaxis and on the other, then the scales should be consistent with that relationship).
Yes, the point about the two axes has been made by others, and it’s a fair point too. I myself wrote an essay a couple of years time ago about the way in which the same data can be made to give different appearances by the way they are presented graphically. Nonetheless, I do not find persuasive your suggestion that warming is occurring at the rate that might be expected, because it relies not only on your expectations but also on too many assumptions. No one seems to deny that CO2-induced warming is logarithmic in its effect. If that is the case (and we all seem to rely on Callander) there is not much warming left to come from that cause. If warming continues at a steady rate then I have to accept that it comes from some other cause or causes.
“If that is the case (and we all seem to rely on Callander) there is not much warming left to come from that cause. If warming continues at a steady rate then I have to accept that it comes from some other cause or causes.”
Or that the rate of CO2 rise isn’t linear (and it isn’t, and there’s no reason to think it should be).
Warren Blair says:
Have you read Dr Edwin Berry’s preprint “Why human CO2 does not change climate”?
His preprint has been in review at Elsevier since October 2017.
At May 2018 Elsevier has not received a request for clarification or an objection from a peer reviewer.
It continues to be reviewed.
If you’d like to read it, please email me.
Will do. Thank you.
Make a lot of sense, Warren:
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims human emissions raised the carbon dioxide level from 280 ppm to 410 ppm, or 130 ppm. Physics proves this claim is impossible.
The IPCC agrees today’s annual human carbon dioxide emissions are 4.5 ppm per year and nature’s carbon dioxide emissions are 98 ppm per year. Yet, the IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750, which is 30 percent of today’s total.
How can human carbon dioxide, which is less than 5 percent of natural carbon dioxide, cause 30 percent of today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide? It can’t.
This paper derives a Model that shows how human and natural carbon dioxide emissions independently change the equilibrium level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This Model should replace the IPCC’s invalid Bern model.
The Model shows the ratio of human to natural carbon dioxide in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inflows, independent of residence time.
The model shows, contrary to IPCC claims, that human emissions do not continually add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but rather cause a flow of carbon dioxide through the atmosphere. The flow adds a constant equilibrium level, not a continuing increasing level, of carbon dioxide.
Present human emissions add an equilibrium level of 18 ppm, which is the product of human carbon dioxide inflow of 4.5 ppm per year multiplied by the carbon dioxide residence time of 4 years. Present natural emissions add an equilibrium level of 392 ppm, to get today’s 410 ppm.
If human emissions continue as at present, these emissions will add no additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If all human emissions were stopped, and nature stayed constant, it would remove only 18 ppm. The natural level of 392 ppm would remain.
I found this reference at: http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-not-change-climate/
He makes a claim:
“Physics proves this claim is impossible.”
and suggests:
“When outflow equals inflow, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will remain constant.”
Unfortunately the key point is that, N.B.
The flow of GHG’s into the atmosphere is NOT constant. It is increasing.
The flow of GHG’s out of the atmosphere is NOT constant. Sinks are becoming saturated.
The author – Berry – the claims to provide an:
” in-depth focus on the physics of carbon dioxide flows into and out of the atmosphere,”
and cites;
“IPCC (2007) estimates the carbon dioxide flow from land to atmosphere is 56 ppm per year, and from oceans is 42 ppm per year, for a total of 98 ppm per year,” [He provides no usable reference].
However the flows from land have increased since 2007 (9.54 Gt/C) to 2016 (11.15 Gt/C).
The data is here: https://data.icos-cp.eu/licence_accept?ids=%5B%22mtuoxtXq4VhQaZmS4hPJuoQZ%22%5D
The supposed flow from oceans to atmosphere is usually not rated as significant and the flows are:
http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCP2017/PNG/s07_CarbonCycle.png
although there may be some “out gassing” due to warmer ocean temperatures. This creates a rising CO2 after a heat increase, not a rising heat after CO2 [the real issue].
Chris, without going into the detail of your response, I was struck by your remark that sinks were saturated. Who says so, and how do they know? The satellite photography shows that the world is notably greening, especially in the semi-arid regions like the Sahel. The cause is presumably more CO2 in the atmosphere, encouraging greater growth in plants.
The specific point was made some time ago in “Nature Climate”. However the gist can be seen now by a simple Internet search;
http://theenergymix.com/2017/06/27/atmospheric-co2-numbers-show-global-carbon-sinks-becoming-saturated/
The main sink is water not vegetation which emit CO2 during night time.
Chris, you need to do much better than a NYT story which only ‘suggests’ what you say. NASA has no doubt that the earth is getting greener, even though it also says the increased CO2 is causing all sorts of bad things (which are contestable). Here’s a link:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
The essential point is that more CO2 means more plant life, which is good for us all.
I don’t understand. Are you implying New York Times makes unfounded suggestions?
Vegetation is not an adequate net sink. Most CO2 absorption (sinking) is water. The impact of vegetation is already accounted for in land use change within existing carbon budgets and still CO2 concentration rises at an accelerating rate.
There are plenty of other corroborating resources on saturation if you run your own internet queries.
You certainly have a bad habit of shooting messangers.
Anyone truly interested in understanding CO2 accumulations in the atmosphere w.r.t. global sinks may lie to run a google search query on:
“Nature Climate Change” saturation
And come to their own informed decision.
There was a comment on the Science Show that floating diatoms fix more carbon than all the worlds rainforests.
The detritus sinks quite literally
Chris, I don’t shoot messengers, and you are not one anyway. You are a disciple, a believer. It doesn’t matter what evidence is put in front of you, you will find an objection to it or some other factoid or story that makes you feel that you are right after all.
If the oceans are warming up, then they will be releasing carbon dioxide, not taking it in. The amount of heat involved is hard to measure, and most diagrammatic examples I have seen show ocean uptake and degassing to be of the same order. What can’t be denied is that there is more plant life than there was and more vigorous plant life as well, because of greater CO2 levels. It looks as though there is a ready capacity for the biomass to accept and use increased amounts of the gas. It would follow, I think, that the notion that the plants represent a saturated sink can’t be right.
I am open to argument and evidence, as on anything, but stories in the NYT don’t work for me. Indeed, everything I have seen in this area rests on estimates and guesses. If you can find something really hard, data-based, no models, and accessible (no paywall) then you may find a readership.
Go on believing, Chris. It’s obviously important for you. I’ll leave you in peace to ponder on the coming catastrophe.
Blith, being immersed in your belief system, as you are, always never forget to remember that in many billions of years the earth has yet to encounter a “tipping point” that all you enuresistic disciples of “whinnying jimmy” embrace as your primary instruction by your primary instructor.
More fireside reading for our bewildered blith:
“100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong!”
https://climatism.blog/2017/09/26/100-of-climate-models-prove-that-97-of-climate-scientists-were-wrong/
When people start using words like disciple, factoid, I quickly assume they are the ones coated in this muck.
You state:
“… and most diagrammatic examples I have seen show ocean uptake and degassing to be of the same order. ”
But this is a claim with no evidence, so is more likely to be a factoid waved out of context.
The context is that for GHGs to cease rising, then the ocean uptake must be greater than the degassing.
So it seems you have pointed to the problem, not the solution.
Apart from city heat sinks there’s no evidence for people driven climate so I don’t see why you’re worried about ocean degassing
Just check out what blith’s like-minded, climate-concerned mates get up to:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/05/chevron-wins-38m-from-environmentalists-behaving-badly-extortion-fraud-witness-tampering-corrupt-practices/
“I myself wrote an essay a couple of years time ago about the way in which the same data can be made to give different appearances by the way they are presented graphically.”
Was that your motivation in doing it yourself in this essay? Were you hoping to persuade people less trained in data analysis?
No motivation. I have a large collection of graphs and fossicked around it quickly until I found one that would do. Speed and lack of thought were the villains.
|
cc/2022-05/en_middle_0072.json.gz/line58
|
__label__wiki
| 0.625254
| 0.625254
|
APTA Streetcar and
Heritage Trolley Site
Hosted by the Seashore Trolley Museum
El Paso - June 2012
Existing Systems
About Hosts
[Back to El Paso]
El Paso, TX — Extended Streetcar Route Approved
According to the El Paso Times, The El Paso City Council on June 5 approved a potential 5.2 mile routing for a streetcar system from Downtown to the area near the Glory Road Transfer Center. This vote followed the council's decision a month ago to spend $1.25 million on a preliminary study for the construction of a streetcar system.
The route approval allows city staff to continue the study and apply for $90 million in state money to build the project. The two-line route would run along Oregon and Stanton streets from Franklin Avenue to Glory Road with a downtown loop route on Father Rahm Avenue, Santa Fe Street, Franklin Avenue, and Kansas Street.
The complete system, including streetcars, is expected to cost between $20 million and $25 million per mile, project manager Rick Nannenga said. A complete cost report will be presented before Council in the next few weeks.
|
cc/2022-05/en_middle_0072.json.gz/line65
|
__label__wiki
| 0.625449
| 0.625449
|
Contact/Legal
An attack on happiness
Posted on 11/14/2015 08/11/2017 By LeagueofCulture
image by Jean Jullien
League of Culture exists because of mine (and, thankfully, others) absolute refusal to believe that a world without cultural activities is a fine world to live in. There is no such thing as an acceptable target for attack. Office blocks, military headquarters, cartoonist’s offices, anywhere there is loss of life there is tragedy. But the callousness of Friday 13th November’s attacks, at a football stadium, at a concert hall, strike at the heart of cultural experiences. And this makes me angry.
Culture exists as a way for humans to form connections. The atrocities of a few hours ago hit into ideals of friendship and happiness. The ‘Blitz spirit’ kicked in, with moving footage of football fans singing the French national anthem as they were evacuated. A song, to bring them back together and show the attackers they could not be torn apart.
At the time of writing, the band on stage at the Bataclan when the shootings started, Eagles of Death Metal, are all safe and well, but certain crew members have yet to be accounted for. In crises such as these, it is the audience we think of first, a huge mass of people trapped in terror. But the workers at these venues are in just as much danger, and they cannot give in to fear.
As I’ve mentioned before, I used to work front of house at IWM London. I only had to help evacuate the building once, and it was a false alarm. But there is an extra layer of panic when you are evacuating somewhere in a capital city that has faced terrorism before. Especially when the rest of your working day is spent wandering round exhibits that detail exactly how awful an attack would be.
Happily, I can only imagine what the people of Paris are dealing with right now. The news reports are positive, not about what happened, but about what is happening now, #PorteOuverture trending on Twitter as Parisians throw open their homes to those stranded, photos of landmarks across the world lit up in red, white and blue to show solidarity.
I would much rather art was created out of peaceful times, but how beautiful to see that even in times of extreme darkness, when the very cultural fabric of a nation is attacked, it is a cultural activity, photography, singing, that helps make things better.
This was written by Vicky Prior, League of Culture’s Director and is not intended to wholly reflect the views of the organisation.
*The original article misidentified the artist of the Paris Peace sign as Banksy. Apologies to Jean Jullien, its true creator.
MPs stand up for National Gallery staff in House of Commons debate
Donate to eccentric museum in York
League of Culture relies on donations and membership fees to meet running costs. Just £5 helps keep the campaign running
Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Fara by JustFreeThemes. Back to top
League of Culture use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse this site you agree to our use of cookies.OK Legal
|
cc/2022-05/en_middle_0072.json.gz/line70
|
End of preview.
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 3