OT: What is Al going to do for a living now?

Page 3 of 6  


Thank you, Karl!!
When are you coming to this neighborhood? I'm not likely going to Houston ... We are thinking of trying out RVing to nice places, though (don't take that too badly, Houston, it is MY problem!).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/29/2011 5:42 PM, Han wrote:

We have a lake house, on Lake Hamilton in Hot Springs, AR ... a good 7 hour drive North East of Houston, which should give you an ample protective zone. :)
Should you exercise your RV in that direction, by all means give us some advance notice. I'm serious ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wow, that is almost next to the Great Smokey Mountains, where the AT starts. (get back tongue!!)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hey, that's where we vacationed every year (1960s) when I lived on LRAFB! Small world, huh?
-- Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/29/2011 3:35 PM, Swingman wrote:

For those with a propensity to shoot the messenger before looking in his dispacth case, here is the actual news release from the University of Alabama/Huntsville.
NOTE: This is from _an American university_, NOT some newspaper article, NOT the "Heartland Institute", NOT a left/right wing blog:
<start news release>
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) Data from NASAs Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earths atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to believe.
The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.
In research published this week in the journal Remote Sensing http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf , Spencer and UA Huntsvilles Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.
The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show, Spencer said. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.
At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained, Spencer said.
This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.
Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.
Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earths changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.
There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that, Spencer said. The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.
For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earths Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASAs Terra satellite.
The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.
</news release>
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Karl, a news release is just that. Moreover, it is an attempt by the university to make itself look better. That is the PR office's job. Weill Cornell Medical College (employer until I retired) does it too, and I could laugh about it. The motive is to elevate the university and their researchers in the eyes of the public and the granting agencies.
A spectacular news release does not make the research better or worse. The reviews I have pointed too say roughlythat Spencer and Braswell's methods weren't totally right, and their conclusions overblown.
I am truly sorry I got into this, because I do not want to besmirch anyone's work. I just had doubts about the spectacular conclusions and the overblown editorial by Taylor, who definitely has an agenda.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/29/2011 5:12 PM, Han wrote:

I didn't pay too much attention to the actual article, other than the first sentence with the word "alarming" in it.
I went straight to the research paper ... all else is guaranteed spin, and BS.
The research paper may turn out to be the same, but so have the computer climate models.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe grants are released only to people who go with the "concensus", the alarmists.

Imprecise computer models aren't overblown? If any computer modeler ever tells you that his model is perfect, he's lying. They've added hundreds of new data nodes to them over the past decade and no honest modeler thinks they're done perfecting them yet.

It's a good thing that alarmists don't have any agenda, isn't it? ;)
-- Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/29/2011 11:01 AM, Han wrote:

Where's the evidence that, on a global long-term scale, a little global warming can't be good for us?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:36:35 -0600, Just Wondering

As a flaming conservative, I don't believe we caused a bit of warming. 2 opinions, nothing more.

I agree with that entirely. What I can't believe is that liberals are OK with coal burning but not with CO2-free nuke power. Uncanny!

Ma Nature is always fanning herself, so she already knows when and how to cool herself off.
-- Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would rather have nukes than coal, and I'm still a liberal.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're one of the few more sensible libs, Han. Good show!
-- Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/3/2011 11:06 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

I'd rather have nukes than any other method except may be hydro. But what I don't like about nukes is those the regulate them. Clueless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/3/2011 5:49 PM, Leon wrote: ...

????
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Leon means that the personnel and/or the regulators don't know enough. or care enough. Of course in Japan the workers cared, but the chiefs didn't know what to do, and the regulators should be shot.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/3/2011 7:32 PM, Han wrote:

That's nonsense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Really now? Han regularly leaves dozens of messages a day. If you want to criticize something he's said, then perhaps you'd like to quote some of that message instead of just stating "That's nonsense."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/3/2011 8:32 PM, dpb wrote:

So Three Mile Island, Chernoble, and Japan are of no concern because the people in charge had and or have every thing under an acceptable level of control? They were prepared for any possibility of something going wrong? They knew exactly haw to handle every situation? Its OK for those in charge to under report what is happening and only leak information about problems when it is inevitable that the public will find out?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In none of those instances was "everything under control". Au contraire. Regulations were incomplete, people in charge at different levels were incompetent, designs were inherently unstable, or there were circumstances that should have been foreseen but that weren't. By now, we SHOULD (emphasis) know better ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/4/2011 6:53 AM, Han wrote:

Monday morning q-b'ing, in essence.
There are _always_ going to be circumstances in any human endeavor that are not accounted for a priori.
An airliner crashed on landing in Guyana just the other day; who are you going to hang for that; it should have been foreseen... :(
I'm not saying there shouldn't be (and there are, of course) continuing improvements and implementation of "lessons learned" nor that the events are ok. But the folks involved are not as incompetent and dastardly as you would try to paint them; nor do they have infinite resources nor the benefit of knowing the future.
Blame the lack of quoting on the newsreader; for some reason it didn't load the text; I intended the whole thing to stand as it was. IMO the whole diatribe is, indeed, nonsense.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.