Because you know how to tee it up, shlep-rock.
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
We rented chalets near the Main Lodge at Mammoth a few times when we had fewer kids and more money. The A-frame chalets have a second-floor loft with a sliding door opening onto nothing. I asked the agent about it - he said "blizzard exit".
http://aff.bstatic.com/images/hotel/max500/379/37959827.jpg
It doesnt snow that much in the Sierras.
signed, The Donner Party.
Hüsker Dü
DA
No, I believe the term for many of both you a Izzy's responses would be, "cliche".
Well La-Dee-Fricken-DA!
Current depth at the Mammoth Ski Patrol Sesame Street instrumented snow-study site - 109 inches.
Last year the depth peaked at 112" in mid-March. The best year recently was 2010-11, when the depth was 128" on Jan 1 and got to 213" in late March.
http://patrol.mammothmountain.com/Home.aspx
Hüsker Dü
DA
Great depth, fantastic, Trumpian in fact!
Hüsker Dü
DA
"For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction"
Bruddah IZ
DA
Is that what you meant?
Sheriff Joe
DA
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.
To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
Then this.
April 2015, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 299–318
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.
To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
Then this.
April 2015, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 299–318
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education
Bruddah IZ
DA
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.
To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
Then this.
April 2015, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 299–318
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education
In other words, a circle jerk.
Multi Sport
DA
I heard Wez and E are going to Mammoth. I'll be looking for them on Sesame Street..
Sheriff Joe
DA
Those 2 love birds won't even get out of the cabin.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Solar Roads -- Remember These When Environmentalists Accuse You of Being "Anti-Science"
December 27, 2016, 1:32 pm
I have written about the horribly stupid but oddly appealing idea of solar roads many times before, most recently here. As a quick review, here are a few of the reasons the idea is so awful:
Even if they can be made to sort of work, the cost per KwH has to be higher than for solar panels in a more traditional installations -- the panels are more expensive because they have to be hardened for traffic, and their production will be lower due to dirt and shade and the fact that they can't be angled to the optimal pitch to catch the most sun. Plus, because the whole road has to be blocked (creating traffic snafus) just to fix one panel, it is far more likely that dead panels will just be left in place rather than replaced.
But the environmentalists are at it again, seem hell-bent on building solar roads with your tax money; (hat tip to a reader, who knew these solar road stories are like crack for me)
France has opened what it claims to be the world’s first solar panel road, in a Normandy village.
A 1km (0.6-mile) route in the small village of Tourouvre-au-Perche covered with 2,800 sq m of electricity-generating panels, was inaugurated on Thursday by the ecology minister, Ségolène Royal.
It cost €5m (£4.2m) to construct and will be used by about 2,000 motorists a day during a two-year test period to establish if it can generate enough energy to power street lighting in the village of 3,400 residents.
The choice of Normandy for the first solar road is an odd one, given that:
Normandy is not known for its surfeit of sunshine: Caen, the region’s political capital, enjoys just 44 days of strong sunshine a year
Wow, nothing like a 12% utilization to really bump up those returns on investment.
The article follows the first rule of environmental writing, which is to give the investment required or the value of the benefits, but never both (so the return on investment can't be calculated). This article follows this rule, by giving the investment but stating the benefits in a way that is impossible for the average person to put a value on, e.g. "enough energy to power street lighting in the village of 3,400 residents". Since we have no idea how well-lighted their streets are or how efficient the lighting is, this is meaningless. And by the way, they forgot to discuss any discussion of batteries and their cost if they really are going to run night-time lighting with solar.
But, the article does actually give something close to the numbers one would like to have to evaluate another similar investment, and oh boy are the numbers awful:
In 2014, a solar-powered cycle path opened in Krommenie in the Netherlands and, despite teething problems, has generated 3,000kWh of energy – enough to power an average family home for a year. The cost of building the cycle path, however, could have paid for 520,000kWh.
As a minimum, based on these facts, the path has been opened 2 years and thus generates 1500 kWh a year (though probably less since it likely has been open longer than 2 years). This means that this investment repays about 0.29 percent of its investment every year. If we ignore the cost of capital, and assume unlimited life of the panels (vs a more likely 5-10 years in this hard service) we get an investment payback period of only 347 years. Yay!
December 27, 2016, 1:32 pm
I have written about the horribly stupid but oddly appealing idea of solar roads many times before, most recently here. As a quick review, here are a few of the reasons the idea is so awful:
Even if they can be made to sort of work, the cost per KwH has to be higher than for solar panels in a more traditional installations -- the panels are more expensive because they have to be hardened for traffic, and their production will be lower due to dirt and shade and the fact that they can't be angled to the optimal pitch to catch the most sun. Plus, because the whole road has to be blocked (creating traffic snafus) just to fix one panel, it is far more likely that dead panels will just be left in place rather than replaced.
But the environmentalists are at it again, seem hell-bent on building solar roads with your tax money; (hat tip to a reader, who knew these solar road stories are like crack for me)
France has opened what it claims to be the world’s first solar panel road, in a Normandy village.
A 1km (0.6-mile) route in the small village of Tourouvre-au-Perche covered with 2,800 sq m of electricity-generating panels, was inaugurated on Thursday by the ecology minister, Ségolène Royal.
It cost €5m (£4.2m) to construct and will be used by about 2,000 motorists a day during a two-year test period to establish if it can generate enough energy to power street lighting in the village of 3,400 residents.
The choice of Normandy for the first solar road is an odd one, given that:
Normandy is not known for its surfeit of sunshine: Caen, the region’s political capital, enjoys just 44 days of strong sunshine a year
Wow, nothing like a 12% utilization to really bump up those returns on investment.
The article follows the first rule of environmental writing, which is to give the investment required or the value of the benefits, but never both (so the return on investment can't be calculated). This article follows this rule, by giving the investment but stating the benefits in a way that is impossible for the average person to put a value on, e.g. "enough energy to power street lighting in the village of 3,400 residents". Since we have no idea how well-lighted their streets are or how efficient the lighting is, this is meaningless. And by the way, they forgot to discuss any discussion of batteries and their cost if they really are going to run night-time lighting with solar.
But, the article does actually give something close to the numbers one would like to have to evaluate another similar investment, and oh boy are the numbers awful:
In 2014, a solar-powered cycle path opened in Krommenie in the Netherlands and, despite teething problems, has generated 3,000kWh of energy – enough to power an average family home for a year. The cost of building the cycle path, however, could have paid for 520,000kWh.
As a minimum, based on these facts, the path has been opened 2 years and thus generates 1500 kWh a year (though probably less since it likely has been open longer than 2 years). This means that this investment repays about 0.29 percent of its investment every year. If we ignore the cost of capital, and assume unlimited life of the panels (vs a more likely 5-10 years in this hard service) we get an investment payback period of only 347 years. Yay!
Bruddah IZ
DA
Christmas Advice for Those Worried About Global Warming
December 26, 2016, 9:04 am
If you are worried about greenhouse gasses and global warming, then I have some Christmas advice for you. When you are done with your Christmas tree, do NOT take it to one of those "recycling" locations most towns have. The recycling process is typically chipping and mulching the trees, which just accelerates their decomposition into greenhouse gasses. If you are really concerned about catastrophic warming, you want to use your tree as a carbon sink. Have it shrink-wrapped in some sort of plastic what won't biodegrade and then landfill it -- the deeper it is buried, the better. Those folks trying to get you to "recycle" your tree are secretly in the pay of the Koch brothers and trying to trick you into ruining the environment.
December 26, 2016, 9:04 am
If you are worried about greenhouse gasses and global warming, then I have some Christmas advice for you. When you are done with your Christmas tree, do NOT take it to one of those "recycling" locations most towns have. The recycling process is typically chipping and mulching the trees, which just accelerates their decomposition into greenhouse gasses. If you are really concerned about catastrophic warming, you want to use your tree as a carbon sink. Have it shrink-wrapped in some sort of plastic what won't biodegrade and then landfill it -- the deeper it is buried, the better. Those folks trying to get you to "recycle" your tree are secretly in the pay of the Koch brothers and trying to trick you into ruining the environment.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Humans 'don't have 10 years' left thanks to climate change - scientist
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world...eft-thanks-to-climate-change---scientist.html
There's no point trying to fight climate change - we'll all be dead in the next decade and there's nothing we can do to stop it, a visiting scientist claims.
Guy McPherson, a biology professor at the University of Arizona, says the human destruction of our own habitat is leading towards the world's sixth mass extinction.
Instead of fighting, he says we should just embrace it and live life while we can.
"It's locked down, it's been locked in for a long time - we're in the midst of our sixth mass extinction," he told Paul Henry on Thursday.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world...eft-thanks-to-climate-change---scientist.html
There's no point trying to fight climate change - we'll all be dead in the next decade and there's nothing we can do to stop it, a visiting scientist claims.
Guy McPherson, a biology professor at the University of Arizona, says the human destruction of our own habitat is leading towards the world's sixth mass extinction.
Instead of fighting, he says we should just embrace it and live life while we can.
"It's locked down, it's been locked in for a long time - we're in the midst of our sixth mass extinction," he told Paul Henry on Thursday.
"Authorities have known for hundreds (thousands) of years that controlling the climate requires sacrifice on the part of others"
Sheriff Joe
DA
Shit, I've got plans.