Climate Change - Impacts, Part II


#1

[color=#008000]~~~ Mod’s note:
This thread is a continuation of Part I, which has been locked due to its length.
forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtop … 0#p1541500



There's been plenty of noise pretending there's nothing to be done or no one has anyone idea what to do about this problem... all the while, plenty of suggestions have been offered and the market is beginning to offer up its share as well... for example, this:

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/business/energy-environment/texas-plant-to-capture-and-then-reuse-carbon.html?_r=0]Texas Plant to Capture, and Then Reuse, Carbon[/url]

...or this...

[url=http://www.geek.com/science/ferrock-a-carbon-dioxide-sponge-thats-harder-than-concrete-1609410/]Ferrock: a carbon dioxide sponge that’s harder than concrete[/url]

Course it's a lot harder to come up with actual solutions - small and piecemeal though they may be - as opposed to sitting there obfuscating, distorting and mocking the efforts of others.  Here, on the other hand, are a bunch of moronic political ideologs giving a great example of what we should NOT be doing:

[url=http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/]House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on own research[/url]

[quote]Meanwhile, largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science.

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations...

...In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, [b]the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”[/b][/quote]

This ranks right up there with legislatively abolishing sea level rise.  Way to go, GOP.

#2

:astonished: :loco: Astounding. We wouldn’t want any actual facts influencing policy decisions, would we?

Still, that’s reality. People who argue that the laws of physics don’t apply on planet X or country Y (as per your other post) are so far beyond help that there’s no point arguing, but the fact remains that they’re the ones making the rules and directing the funding. All the rest of us can do is get on with implementing solutions - however small one’s personal contribution might be. With luck, 50 years from now, the denialists will all be sitting there smugly saying “See? we told you everything was OK”, as utterly unaware of everything going on behind-the-scenes as they are today.


#3

Let me see if I have this right. In one thread Vay is justifying the actions of scientists to keep their research secret and here he is demanding that Republicans not try to allow certain scientists to use their opinions/findings to subvert the political process albeit through an environmental organization that sets regulations/rules/policy. So which is it Vay? Do you want transparency or don’t you?

I note that in the first case, we are talking about research data… why not share it? and in the second, we are talking primarily about a regulatory agency and policy issues. Vay supports government interference but not scientific transparency and honesty. I think that is the “consensus” that 97% of those who post here will agree with.


#4

[quote=“fred smith”]Let me see if I have this right. In one thread Vay is justifying the actions of scientists to keep their research secret and here he is demanding that Republicans not try to allow certain scientists to use their opinions/findings to subvert the political process albeit through an environmental organization that sets regulations/rules/policy. So which is it Vay? Do you want transparency or don’t you?

I note that in the first case, we are talking about research data… why not share it? and in the second, we are talking primarily about a regulatory agency and policy issues. Vay supports government interference but not scientific transparency and honesty. I think that is the “consensus” that 97% of those who post here will agree with.[/quote]

Both sides - yours and his - are ideological. That is anathema to honest science, and thus to honest public policy based on science.


#5

[quote=“Vay”]House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on own research

[quote]Meanwhile, largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science.

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations…

…In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”[/quote][/quote]

Quoting someone who can say it so much better: Bwahahahahaha… :roflmao: :roflmao:

Welcome to the United States of America, the land of unlimited impossibilities…


#6

No scientists are trying to keep their research secret. They were being carpet-bombed with spurious FIA requests. It isn’t a scientist’s job to deal with such crap (let alone death threats and other such garbage). We’ve been over this.

How are they “subverting the political process” via consulting on their own research? It’s a ludicrous accusation. So I suppose you think the CDC shouldn’t be able to consult the scientists who do epidemiology research, either? Or does this argument only apply when the science has political implications you don’t like?


#7

That is not the case and you know it. Try harder… This is not an issue of being subjected to a FOIA investigation. This is about getting access to data used to determine the trend lines and consensus that you value so much. Much like a Catholic priest, you believe that a curtain should fall down to cover the Holy of Holies and for much the same reason. The reality behind the curtain… well, it doesn’t do much for maintaining the authority and AWE to keep the Faithful in line, does it? DOES IT?

[quote]The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data. Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said
NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
“I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” Mr. Horner said. “These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.” The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.[/quote]

Read more: washingtontimes.com/news/200 … z3KTuIjwgA

AND from Slate for Christ’s sake! and more in the text below about your scientists being "overwhelmed by FOIA requests)

[quote]Attempts to get critical information from agents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meet with little success. Why? They claim immediate response to their work is mandatory for planetary survival and time is running out.
Here is what Slate reported on March 30 2014.
In a new U.N. report released on Monday morning (Japan time) scientists come to a stark conclusion: Unless the world changes course immediately and dramatically, the fundamental systems that support human civilization are at risk. If true, surely the world has the right to know every bit of information used for this conclusion, but that hasn’t happened. There’s a contradiction between orchestrated publicity raising the threat, but
silence, obfuscation, and outright denial regarding questions about important data, process, and methodology.
Suspicions are driven by natural curiosity and desire for complete openness in science, but also by their behavior to date.

What have they got to hide? A great deal, as the leaked Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails attest. CRU countered challenges to their views by setting up the PR web site RealClimate and controlling information such as William Connolley’s editing of Wikipedia entries.
Publicly they played the victim card claiming they were ordinary scientists trying to do their work but overwhelmed, possibly deliberately, by Freedom of Information requests.


The requests occurred because they refused to provide answers and information.
A siege mentality was apparent from the start. The Wegman Report investigation and analysis of the hockey stick fiasco provides an example in the critical paleoclimate group.

Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

The latest effort to get information released was thwarted by a court ruling regarding Michael Mann’s material. I
t said Mann’s work was protected from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests due to the “proprietary nature” of the information.
How this impinges on the Amicus Brief, filed by a consortium of media in Virginia to obtain the same information, remains to be seen. The real issue is the data he is withholding, but that is not the Amicus’ concern. The opening paragraph of the Argument explains,

Exemptions to VFOIA (Virginia Freedom of Information Act) must be narrowly interpreted to comply with the legislative intent behind the law and to ensure the public and the news media sufficient access to the government to promote an understanding of its operations. Public universities are necessarily included in VFOIA and the media has a strong interest in being able to monitor University spending operations. While truly proprietary information in the possession of a public university should not be subject to request under VFOIA and in fact is properly exempted, email among professors is not entitled to a blanket treatment as proprietary. Instead, such communications are an essential part of the functioning of the University and must be subject to public scrutiny. Because such communications have been held not to implicate academic freedom, and because the type of email at issue here does not include unpublished information in which the professors or the University have a competitive interest, it must be subject to VFOIA. The lower court’s broad definition of “proprietary nature” cannot stand if VFOIA is to retain any meaning.

Openness and access for the media are important but abrogation of that responsibility by the mainstream media (MSM) allowed and encouraged CRU and IPCC behavior.

An appeal is necessary because of the nature of the material; taxpayers funded its production; and it is the basis of globally changing policy. State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli used the “Fraud against Taxpayers Act” against the University of Virginia when seeking Michael Mann’s work. When an author receives compensation does the ownership of the article belong to the payee, unless otherwise agreed? Did any of the IPCC participants contract retained ownership of their work? Participation in production of a public document with global policy implications implies you will provide full details in its derivation.

Leaked CRU emails indicate important players, like Phil Jones, CRU Director, anticipated the questions. He advised people how to hide and avoid FOI requests. Here is an email he sent on 2 February 2005.

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years.
If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!

On 10 December 2008 he wrote to Ben Santer;

Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA (Climate Audit), but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.

Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan (Solomon) aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey (bureaucrat in English TV comedy series) here!

And then a devastating postscript in a 21 February 2005 email to Michael Mann, cc’d to Bradley and Hughes.

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.

Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

On 21 January 2005 Phil Jones responded to concerns about FOIA from Tom Wigley, former Director of the CRU, grandfather overseer of the IPCC central characters.

As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University. I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.

IPR is Intellectual Property Rights and similar to the Proprietary Rights (PR) Michael Mann used to prevent release of his material. Jones suggests it is the final fall back position and so far it seems to work for Mann.

The Virginia media group Amicus Brief may redress problems created by Mann’s use of PR. Mann knew that as a “public figure” he was subject to a different level of what was defamatory. Shouldn’t that also apply to his PR? He tried to downplay the challenge claiming he was a ”reluctant public figure”. This reluctance didn’t prevent him promoting public adulation and recognition by bragging about and falsely claiming he was a Nobel Prize winner. Actually, the Nobel Institute gave it to the IPCC for their contribution to world peace. This categorically implies the IPCC work had global implications and therefore much greater consequence.

Mann consistently advances the importance of his work and the threat it confronts. He makes the link in such works as, “Do Global Warming and Climate Change Represent A Serious Threat To Our Welfare and Environment? He pushes the same message in many television appearances. These are hardly the activities of a “reluctant” person.

In my opinion this changes the standard of disclosure for his data and work. What is the basis for such an alarmist message that demands world-changing action with economic and social upheaval?
Taxpayers who funded and are impacted have a right to know.

Earlier I said the PR was the final fall back position, but that only applies to legal actions. Phil Jones used a few unscrupulous tactics successfully. He convinced the University of East Anglia (UEA) that they should not have to reply to request from Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit. He did it by denigrating and demeaning them with phrases like “types of people” in his 3 December 2008 email to Wigley,

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.

Jones anticipated FOI request for emails by advising erasure. On 2 February 2005 he wrote,

If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Did this attitude cause him to use the second defensive technique of losing the data?
On 29 May 2008 he advised Mann and others to erase emails.

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith (Briffa) re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Apparently, Mann’s material or data is not erased or lost yet. Presumably he believes the PR ruling provides all the protection he needs.


Data Mann withholds was used to create the “hockey stick” handle and data Phil Jones lost created the blade,
an event he said was “not acceptable”. The graph dominated the 2001 IPCC Report as Ross McKitrick detailed. The Report was pivotal in convincing the world that human produced CO2 was causing global warming. The hockey stick graph became the poster child.

Justice demands that Mann’s claim of Proprietary Rights be offset by the way in which the data and work was funded, produced and used. Funding was public at all levels, the IPCC is a UN agency globally funded, their work received maximum public approval with a Nobel Prize, their work was consciously directed and promoted to influence public policy through the Summary for Policymakers that profoundly altered national and international policies for energy and economies. If they believe the work done is so valuable, why do they persist in keeping it from the public? It is another example of the gap between justice and the law, especially as it relates to climate and the environment.[/quote]

Sound like anyone is being “overwhelmed” with FOIA data requests… which were made because of the refusal to provide the data or research or decision-making process behind how PUBLICLY funded research and policy decisions were being formulated.

[quote]
The world’s source for global temperature record admits it’s lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of “the science”.

Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:


Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

In 2007, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, CRU initially said it didn’t have to fulfil the requests because “Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites”.

Now it’s citing confidentiality agreements with Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office. Others may exist, CRU says in a statement, but it might have lost them because it moved offices. Or they were made verbally, and nobody at CRU wrote them down.

As for the raw station data,

"We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites,
only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues.
We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e.
quality controlled and homogenized) data."

Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn’t impressed by the excuses. [b]
McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands.

[/b]
McIntyre says he doesn’t expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed. ®
[/quote]

Thought that I would add a bit of context to your “homogenization” argument and WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? Just release the raw numbers? This is publicly funded so why the big secret? WHY? I think that we know… don’t we Vay? WE DO and SO DO YOU!


#8

Very admirable that you guys are still trying to fight the good fight against people like Fred Smith, but at some point you guys have to realize you’re arguing against someone who would have supported the scientific “evidence” that leaded gasoline is not harmful to people, or the scientific evidence that cigarettes are actually good for us. Might be better to spend your efforts trying to influence the people who are still on the fence and would be open to listening to the actual evidence.


#9

[quote]My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or “jump” in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA’s Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an “oversight” that would be fixed in the next data refresh.


NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding.
The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again – maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.[/quote]

Notice the correction that NASA made regarding its figures (I know I know I KNOW that this is for the US and not globally) BUT NASA still revised its figures based on independent analysis that identified a problem that led to greater accuracy… surely THAT is the goal of SCIENCE, correct?


#10

No, I do not know it. I know that scientists bristle at being bombarded with spurious, hostile FOI requests that are intended only so political hacks can sit there and anamoly-hunt it for anything they can mis-represent for political ends. Look at the points about “Mike’s Trick”, “Hide the decline” and “Trenberth’s Travesty”. All complete cooked up bullshit.

Oh really? Here’s the same info from Wikipedia I’ve already shown you:

[quote=“Wikipedia”]We know from the IPCM log that CRU received four requests in 2007, two in 2008, and one in the first half of 2009 (four were fully granted and three rejected).

Then came the storm. Between 24 July and 28 July, CRU received no less than 60 FoI requests, and 10 more between 31 July and 14 August. The requesters demanded access to both raw temperature station data and any related confidentiality agreements. The Review found evidence that this was an organized campaign (one request asked for information “involving the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]”). The Review says “such orchestrated campaigns [have] literally overwhelming impacts on small research units.”[/quote]

We’re talking about a research unit with an average of 3-5 scientists on staff over a decade. You think this shit is reasonable? Were the scientists of a “siege mentality”? Damn right they were! Who wouldn’t be, under such ridiculous circumstances.

Um, the consensus is based on tens of thousands of pieces of research, and has to do with much more than just the surface temperature trend. And as for the data, primary surface temperature thermometer records (NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT); satellite measurements of the lower troposphere temperature processed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH); and 5 major reanalysis datasets which incorporate station data, aircraft data, satellite data, radiosonde data, buoy and ship measurements, and meteorological weather modeling… all show basically the same trend-line. How about YOU show me a ANY evidence that the trendline is wrong… or else shut about about Catholic priesthood?

Regarding that crap from your article about the Hockey Stick and that sheister Steven McIntyre:

Of course it is. The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA, which both maintain temperature records that use slightly different methods but show close agreement, have publicly documented the peer-reviewed adjustments they make to raw data:

National Temperature Trends: The Science Behind the Calculations

And incidentally, 1934 was only fourth hottest even in the United States, behind 2012, 2006, and 1998.

Um, no, “we” don’t. As I’ve already said (and proven, several times), the temperature record is corroborated numerous ways. Where’s YOUR evidence that it’s wrong? Nowhere. Now go genuflect and say ten hail mary’s at the altar of free market fundamentalism.

And incidentally, in that orgy of copy and paste, you totally ignored this little point:

Seriously, I’m dying to hear how forbidding scientists from being consulted on their own research constitutes “transparency”. One of many many other questions you’ll never ever answer.


#11

I totally disagree with your careful consideration of the scientists. They went YEARS before delivering the requested data and then suddenly wonder why people don’t trust them? I notice you have not commented directly on the VERBATIM emails. Why not? As to the EPA… I think that the last three years have seen quite a bit of politicking with this organization. Wonder how that happened? Would you care to assess the executive orders and how this affects politics regarding the EPA particularly with regard to how rules/regulations are set in the LEGISLATIVE body, Congress? Nothing to see here! Just move along! Onto Immigration! My way or the highway! Why are you people getting so mad? Why won’t you cooperate?! The just say “no” Congress, right? Would you like to say here right now that the executive actions with regard to the EPA have not generated a “right back at you pal” attitude in Congress? And you think that this is about transparency? REALLY?


#12

I find it totally hilarious that fred, who has probably never been within 100 yards of a bunsen burner, is apparently the world’s foremost expert on what scientists do.

Would it not be helpful for him to simply start his own thread, in which he can expound his theories of The World According To Fred Smith, without cluttering up the climate discussions?


#13

BWAHAHA nice non-response, Fred. Try again.


#14

Ah… look Vay… you have impressed Finley. Major coup! Score your cap a feather!

AGAIN, we have the emails with the VERBATIM responses. I see that you like to use your “reports” to “interpret” those remarks none of which is taken out of context. The whole string of emails is right there… now, given that we can all read those here… under what circumstances would you suggest that they are appropriate? AND remember the massive FOI requests came AFTER the 2007-2009/2010 stonewalling. When was Climategate again? was that 2009? so, er, um, yeah… when did those massive FOI requests start poring in? What did you mention? 60? of them? Yeah…


#15

More evidence of those dastardly scientists wasting public money. When will it ever end?

"[i]CSP [Concentrating Solar Power] plants commonly uses large numbers of mirrors to focus sunlight onto a tower spray painted with a black paint material that is designed to maximize sunlight absorption. However, being subjected to such high temperatures day after day degrades the material, meaning such plants usually need to be shut down once a year or so to allow the degraded light-absorbing material to be chipped off and a new coating applied and cured.

To overcome this problem, the US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) SunShot program challenged UCSD researchers to develop a material able to operate at higher temperatures than existing materials and for much longer. With financial support from the SunShot program, a multidisciplinary team at UCSD developed a material using particles ranging in size from 10 nanometers to 10 micrometers.

When spray-painted onto a metal substrate for thermal and mechanical testing, the researchers found that the “multiscale” surface these particles form is able to withstand not only temperatures in excess of 700° C (1,292° F), but also years of exposure to air and humidity. The structures are also able to trap and absorb around 90 to 95 percent of light, while letting less than 30 percent of infrared light at near the peak of 500° C (932° F) black-body radiation escape.[/i]"

Full article: gizmag.com/nanoparticle-base … lar/34550/


#16

Finley has found an example to buttress his point!!! Finley has found an example to buttress his point!!! Finley has found an example to buttress his point!!! too bad he is only blowing down a strawman.

Did anyone EVER say that government agencies NEVER come up with anything useful? No? What have we been saying? That OFTEN government programs are wasteful and inefficient and that the private sector does a much better job of leading technological innovation.

Now, GIVEN this ONE example of DOE success, would Finley care to characterize the IPCC led effort to research and set policy prescriptions as an efficient, effective, cost-beneficial practice? Hmmmmm… crickets… chirp… so… loudly… LOUDLY… crickets… chirp chirp chrip… but never mind… let’s not be churlish… FINLEY has FOUND an example to buttress HIS point!!!


#17

nowt to do with your halfwitted argument, fred. Just thought people who are actually participating in the discussion might be interested in the latest tech.

Couldn’t resist a snide aside, is all.


#18

Seeing as their seem to be 2 threads going at the moment, could we have one for people actually interested in discussing it and the other for Mr Smith’s pearls of wisdom?


#19

[quote=“fred smith”]Ah… look Vay… you have impressed Finley. Major coup! Score your cap a feather!

AGAIN, we have the emails with the VERBATIM responses. I see that you like to use your “reports” to “interpret” those remarks none of which is taken out of context. The whole string of emails is right there… now, given that we can all read those here… under what circumstances would you suggest that they are appropriate? AND remember the massive FOI requests came AFTER the 2007-2009/2010 stonewalling. When was Climategate again? was that 2009? so, er, um, yeah… when did those massive FOI requests start poring in? What did you mention? 60? of them? Yeah…[/quote]

I’ve said as much as needs be said about the emails. There was a siege mentality - created totally by nutty, self-entitled, hostile denialists acting in an organized fashion (proof that they were organized is above).

Here is a hilarious example of a bunch of denialists - including Judith Curry, Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts - getting all worked up and pointing fingers about some anomalous NOAA data that turned out to be a faulty cable:

NOAA and temperature data - it must be a conspiracy

That’s par for the course with these whackos. I don’t blame the researchers one bit for being defensive in responding to these people. Their interest is not in “improving” or “correcting” - it’s in throwing shit to see what sticks. Already said this above, and you went on talking as if I’d said nothing.

Now YOU explain why you think there’s a problem if ten different measures of surface temperature come up with almost exactly the same trend. And, while you’re at it, explain why you think there’s a problem with the hockey stick when it has been replicated more than ten times.

And re your crap about the EPA (BTW I’m totally on board with Obama’s end-run around our denialist Congress; if the EPA isn’t for regulating pollutant, what is it for?) - none of that explains how forbidding scientists from advising on their own research = “transparency”.


#20

2007-2009, almost three years… how many FOI requests during this time?
ClimateGate 2009 December/January 2010… these are the emails supplied from that period.
The floodgates on FOI opened AFTER ClimateGate and PRECISELY because of these dismissive, uncooperative emails requesting that key sets of data NOT be supplied and information and communication on the subject DELETED.