DSP analysis of global temperature by Agilent chap

Huh???

Just because temperatures are amongst the highest recorded does not mean there is not a cooling trend since 2005 anymore than the fact that a sine wave can be near it's highest voltage and the voltage is reducing.

The point is David claimed: "Great model he came up with - stuffed and proved wrong before he even posted." when the model is consistant with the facts.

SNIP

te:

up

rut3vgl/from:2005/trend

d.

trend. If you go back to 1850, it becomes a totally unambiguous upward tre nd.

rs or so - as we now can - and can see the alternation between ices ages (C O2 levels of about 180ppm) and interglacials (CO2 levels around 280ppm).

r the past 2.6 million years (which Raveninghorde has yet to get his head a round) provides a useful perspective on today's temperature excursions.

on

m for picking the time interval over which to estimate the "trend" in order to be able to present the result you thought that David should have seen.

d in 2005, and if you want to work out what's going to happen to it over th e next century or so, you need to understand what been happening over the p ast few million years, rather than concentrating on the last eight or 17 ye ars.

ed lake and ocean sediments and so forth. Take a look at it sometime. It wo n't be a revelation - science lets you make up your own mind about the mess age - but even you might find it educational.>

amongst the higher ever recorded (note the plural "averages") - and told us to pay attention to your "fact", which was that the trend line through the period was decreasing.

Perfectly true and utterly irrelevant. You have to look at the data as a wh ole, and the whole data series is nois, which makes picky out a short term trend an exercise in cherry-picking idiocy.

What model? Some whack-job delusion that the current "pause" in the warming trend reflects an underlying reversal, unlike all the previous pauses and reversals? That isn't a model, it's wishful thinking.

What started this off was you picking up Anthony Watt's bizarre analysis of the temperature record in terms of sinusoidal components, which imposes th e preconception that the underlying temperature is static. If you look at t he long-term historical record this is obvious nonsense, and if you look at the longer-term geological record for the past 2.6 million years - which h as been done - it looks even more nonsensical.

Hey, this is cool:

Quotes:

Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country's most important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk.

For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay ?20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over ?3 billion

On the other hand, when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season, supply becomes scarce. That's when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the gap, which is why Germany's energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011.

e:

Something of an exaggeration. Energy costs have gone up since 2000 but tis' s less obvious that the whole rise - or even an appreciable fraction of it can be blamed on the renewable energy sources.

the

Journalistic hyperbole, comparing apples and pears.

ants

coal

Not much more, and nowhere near as much extra if the increased power demand had all been met by burning fossil carbon.

John Larkin is good at seeing what he wants to see. Less good at recognisin g journalistic hyperbole for what it is.

In fact the thrust of the article was that Germany isn't managing it's rene wable energy as well as Sweden does, and it should run it the way Sweden do es. There's no real suggestion that renewable energy - as such - is a bad t hing, but they do draw attention to places where the administration is foul ed up - as in letting pumped storage systems be taken out of service becaus e the owners aren't getting paid enough for keeping them available.

Makes sense, Germany is retiring Nuclear power plants at an accelerated rate. Just one plant is almost worth about a Giga watt. Now what do you suppose you replace that with in winter time? Coal or oil? Maybe you'll hear more of the term Co-gen in the future.

Cheers

Seems to me that any place that has a lot of coal might have frackable natural gas. The greenies should love fracking; ng is far cleaner than coal and makes half the CO2. But they hate it, and are fighting to stop it, because they don't really care about CO2; they hate all energy, and basically hate civilization.

ote:

y's

ay 20

lar

ing

tural

akes

Most of the objections to fracking are based on the risk of it contaminatin g ground water. There may be greenies who hate all energy and want to go ba ck to the stone age. I've never met any, and it certainly isn't part of Gre en Party policy in Australia.

As far as I know their official position is that renewable energy is fine, and more of it is better. They aren't worried that it is currently twice as expensive as energy generated by burning fossil carbon - fossil carbon is getting more expensive as we run out of easily accessible deposits, and ren ewable energy prices are going to halve several times in the process of ram ping up our renewable energy generating capacity until it can take over fro m fossil carbon fueled generators. Wind power is apparently on schedule to hit parity in 2017 (if IEEE Spectrum is to be believed), large scale therma l solar is supposed to be there already, and even photovoltaic generation i sn't much more than a decade away from parity.

The people who have it in for civilisation would seem to be the people who don't want curb the rate that we inject CO2 into the atmosphere. The planet did work fine with lots more CO2 in the atmosphere some 55 million years a go, but it didn't suit the species that had evolved to exploit a cooler cli mate - a lot of new species evolved to occupy newly created ecological nich es.

Our civilisation is exquisitely well-adapted to our current weather pattern s and sea levels. It's going to be a lot easier to adapted to slightly more expensive electricity from renewable sources than it is going to be to ada pt to new crop plants in the new places that are going to get the rain from the new climate.

The Sahara was a good place to live 8000 years ago

The climate change from then to now isn't a big as the one we seem to be de ad set on effecting now.