Great, you could have summarized it but the article was very short anyway. I have been at that wall and through Check point Charlie two times so I am ?? about your points. Most posters ask me about the wall since I have seen quite a lot of it.
You would be waiting a long time for that! Him understanding the basics of the thread topic would be required for that.
I perhaps replied to this claim though it is called the Curry corner for a reason. To deal with the derailment, well distant from the border, was the City of Berlin. So the wall around Free West Berlin was entirely on the soil of the East German side. So if you mean keep them in the much larger East side, it was to keep them in. Also keep them out of West Berlin due to economics. To illustrate. At that time we exchanged one dollar for 4 marks. I exchanged 4 West German marks for 16 East German marks. My dollar was worth 4 times as much in East as in West Berlin. It felt like I was almost eating free. I managed to eat in a shabby looking restaurant in East Berlin. The deal was good but more like a small warehouse than restaurants I was used to eating at. Every meal I ate in West Berlin was at a cafe or nice restaurant but the meals I ate at my then Fiancees home with her parents. Prior to the wall, it was easy for East Berlin citizens to show up to work in West Berlin and effectively boost their income and scurry back to East Berlin to spend their earnings and live cheaper. The communists wanted that ended.
More Curry reports. https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/...mb-warming-rate-in-climate-models/#more-24352 A Test of the Tropical 200-300 mb Warming Rate in Climate Models Posted on September 17, 2018 by curryja | 2 Comments by Ross McKitrick I sat down to write a description of my new paper with John Christy, but when I looked up a reference via Google Scholar something odd cropped up that requires a brief digression. Google Scholar insists on providing a list of “recommended” articles whenever I sign on to it. Most turn out to be unpublished or non-peer reviewed discussion papers. But at least they are typically current, so I was surprised to see the top rank given to “Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere,” a decade-old paper by Santer et al. Google was, however, referring to its reappearance as a chapter in a 2018 book called Climate Modelling: Philosophical and Conceptual Issuesedited by Elizabeth Lloyd and Eric Winsberg, two US-based philosophers. Lloyd specifically describes herself as “a philosopher of climate science and evolutionary biology, as well as a scientist studying women’s sexuality” so readers should not expect specialized expertise in climate model evaluation, nor does the book’s editors exhibit any. Yet Google’s algorithm flagged it for me as the best thing out there and positioned two of its chapters as top leads in its “recommended” list. Much of the first part of the book is an extended attack on a 2007 paper by David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson and Fred Singer on the model/observational mismatch in the tropical troposphere. The editors add a diatribe against John Christy in particular for supposedly being impervious to empirical evidence, using flawed statistical methods and refusing to accept the validity of climate model representations of the warming of the tropical troposphere. Use above link for the whole story
What are you accusing me of not understanding? Do you read the actual posts by me showing the Curry reports from many scientists? Since you allege you understand, what percent of Earth is cloud covered?
I don't believe East Berlin is in any way representative of communism. Don't get me wrong - I certainly don't believe communism can possibly work. Let's remember that Russia lost 20,000,000 citizens to the German war machine. It's not like Russia came out of that loving Germans. And, the western world had far more to offer. Russia was still suffering seriously with large areas of scorched earth destruction and starving people. Also, remember that it is America that is stopping Mexicans from coming here to work, not the other way around. The idea that Mexico would object to workers bringing back American dollars doesn't really fly. Any eastern bloc objection to bringing back western currency hits me as more likely to be political than economic. And, let's not forget that in was a major interest of Russia to hold the line drawn at the end of the war - a line drawn through the sacrifice of millions of lives. The USSR stated that the wall was entirely defensive. We didn't see it that way, of course, as we wanted Germany reunited as a western power in the east - with communist influence removed.
Copy & Pasting is all you have done in this thread! Whenever anyone has asked you to explain in your own words a summary of any of the many videos and links you have posted, you have run away
If you truly believe they are that stupid, I will be forced to agree with you and do their homework for them. Do you believe they are that stupid?
The number of posts you make really doesn't count for anything when you limit your consideration to articles anointed by a holder of a strong opinion. You are carefully excluding the majority view - including the majority view of the selected articles you post.
Well given I started the Curry Corner, and I engaged in also derailing this, I accept my part of the blame too. First for you. Were you in East Berlin when the communists ran it as if it belonged to them? I did not go into any other communist country. Joe Nemeth in the Army with me told me about his country Hungary and he was shot at by the Communist Soviets there. I was amazed by his story of his time at the university and facing tanks in 1956. Joe escaped communism and joined the US Army purely to get a faster citizenship. I did not go to Berlin with him but showed him photographs. I owned a car. I drove him to various German cities and got to know him fairly well. I was here in CA the day I talked to a man that told me he was a Nazi in Germany and he was forced by the Russians into labor to tear down German factories to be put on rail and sent to Russia. I have a very good idea what the Russians thought of Germany. Do we believe Germans were well regarded by Eisenhower who tried to destroy Germany? I also used to talk to Arkady Factorovich in person when he lived in my city. Arkady served both as an enlisted man for 1 year in order for his commission earned in his university to kick in so he was then a Soviet officer. I am totally up to date on what the Germans did to the Russians. You can see Arkady speaking on Cspan. https://www.c-span.org/person/?arkadyfaktorovich I was engaged to a beauty in West Berlin and at first we were to be married in the USA. Her parents spoke no English but she did. Between her and her parents, i learned a lot about life deeper into East Germany than most knew at the time. Her father, born in East part of Germany had been a town mayor and owned a home and car. He fled with his family to West Berlin. Guess why? His home and business was about to be confiscated by the East German Government. He sent cash to West Berlin and separately the family took different ways to get into West Berlin prior to the city being walled in. I am trying to explain East Germany and not Mexico. i was there 2 times in all and felt like posters might enjoy an actual visitor to East Berlin telling my experiences there. I was in West Berlin for about 40 days in all. Russia saw them as escaping to jobs in West Berlin then spending it in East Berlin for what amounted to a profit. When they worked in the west naturally it harmed labor supply as the Russians saw it. I saw Russian military people in East Berlin. I did not take photos of them due to fear on my part. When men walk around with machine guns as arms, you would be dumb to photograph them. I would love to show off my photos of East Berlin but so far all i can do is use them as avatars. If you know how to transfer my photos to this forum. i would love to know. To help those who do not know, in Berlin all rail traffic in the West part was abandoned. West Berlin people had no way to escape the city other than by commercial airplanes. My fiancee flew to my German city to visit me there.
Gee, sounds to me like a permit for me to ignore anything you present that is science. There has to be an agenda when the change to temperature globally only amounts to 1 degree in the past 140 years. What do you think the agenda is? Also, the group think crowd that blames man never tells us how we men control climate. Are they shy? When i suggest to the alarm crowd that a good solution to their problems is planting trees, they balk and engage me as if i know nothing about what loves Carbon Dioxide. I mention how heavy that gas is and that most all of it enters plants and the ocean and they still are alarmists. why is that? Why don't any of you argue Curry's points to tell me why a Ph.d Climate expert has it all wrong? I show you her work.
As a separate question that was ignored. What part of Earth is cloud Covered as a percent of our planet?
LOL. It's ignored because it is a stupid question! Define a cloud. Is my kettle that is boiling right now forming a cloud? Is the mist above the grass in the morning a cloud? . The answer does not have any bearing to any discussion
Yes, I crossed at Checkpoint Charlie a couple times. I was impressed how the subway tickets worked, with a wheel that emitted tickets while showing what the previous ten or so people had paid. You could turn the wheel without paying! There were no guards or other personnel, at least during work hours. I don't doubt what you witnessed. I do doubt your reasoning behind actions taken as you stated in that previous post.
I don't believe temperature measurements have agendas. I suspect the real issue has to do with understanding what can (and does) result from small changes in Earth's average temperature. ?? The impact of greenhouse gas emissions has been broadcast loud and often. Agencies such as NASA and NOAA have charts that show what is driving that warming. There is certainly no "shy" about it. I'm all in favor of planting trees. However, I don't see anyone with credentials in biology who thinks planting trees will be sufficient to head off the warming we're experiencing. You seem to be assuming that you've found something that scientists don't know about. Pardon me if I see that as highly doubful. I do not believe for a second that a meaningful conclusion about a scientific paper is likely to come from people on this board addressing such a paper. Can we duplicate the work independently (a criterion of science) - no, we can't. Can we martial other results in a way that we can be confident addresses the issues in the paper - no we can not. Etc. In fact, people on this board sometimes don't even know what climate IS!! We need expert opinion. And, expert opinion is available. Unfortunately, the topic has complexity and it comes from humans. So, we have to deal with there being outliers. The majority of experts do not agree with Curry on some issues. With other issues, they do agree with Curry. Disagreement comes regarding human responsibility for change that is happening. Areas of some agreement include actions we should be taking to mitigate the damage of the warming, some process ideas concerning how science works (including on ways to handle outlying results), etc.
What subway? I did not see a subway there in 1963. Actually the subway was a method I did not ever use when in Berlin. I was on an Army tour bus the first time and the last time was myself and one other soldier walking through. We met on the tour bus. Why don't you understand the Soviets put the wall around West Berlin. Why? All of Berlin was inside the Soviet sector which was about 100 miles (could have been kilometers) from Berlin. As I have indeed factually reported. Next to obtain 100 percent accuracy, I shall try to locate specific data on distance from West Germany to the city of Berlin in 1963. Google gave me this Justus von Widekind, lives in Berlin Answered Feb 27 · Upvoted by Tilman Ahr, lives in Berlin The shortest Autobahn transit was 164 km (100 m) between Helmstedt/Marienborn and Dreilinden (Berlin) Google Maps Vehicles not licensed for Autobahn (bikes, tractors) could use the B5 (Bundesstraße 5 (like an Interstate Highway), Google Maps) towards Hamburg. The 250 km would have to be covered in a single day (as one of my school mates did on a bicycle in the late 1970ies). These plus further train tracks and inland waterways are covered here: Transitverkehr durch die DDR – Wikipedia
Hurricane Florence: climate dynamics context " Posted on September 18, 2018 by curryja | 49 Comments By Judith Curry “Impending massive hurricanes bring the best out of weather twitter and the worst out of climate twitter” – Joseph Maykut Every time we have a tropical cyclone landfall in the U.S., there is an explosion of public statements regarding the role (or not) of human caused global warming on the impacts suffered upon landfall. This blog post sorts through the various claims, and also provides a way forward for objectively assessing them. Note, I am almost finished with my big report on sea level rise. After that, I will begin a comprehensive assessment of the hurricanes and global warming topic. This post is a preliminary taste, before I really dig in and focus on this. Meteorological recap Florence originated from a strong African easterly wave that emerged off the coast on August 30. Heading on a west-northwest trajectory, the system became a tropical storm on September 1. An unexpected bout of rapid intensification ensued on September 4–5, Florence emerging as a Cat 4. Wind shear then tore the storm apart and Florence degraded to a tropical storm by September 7. The system regained hurricane strength on Sept 9 and major hurricane status by the following day, becoming a Cat 4 on Sept 10. Afterwards, Florence weakened slightly as it underwent an eyewall replacement cycle. After some restrengthening wind shear reduced the intensity although Florence continued to increase in horizontal size. On Sept 14, Florence made landfall on the southern coast of North Carolina as a Cat 1. The main meteorological impact has been record breaking precipitation, that is continuing as the post-tropical storm slowly moves across the mid Atlantic states, expecting to exit back into the Atlantic later today. The forecast for Florence has to be regarded as a success story. 5-7 days lead time was provided for a landfall (or pseudo landfall) near Wilmington, SC. Florence presented some challenges for intensity forecasting, owing to its very large size and evolving complex structure. Pre landfall forecasts of storm surge, wind speed and precipitation were qualitatively correct, sufficiently accurate to support emergency management planning 3-5 days in advance. A full verification report will be forthcoming, comparing track forecasts from the different models (including CFAN’s forecast), plus CFAN’s landfall wind forecasts and precipitation forecasts. The controversy In an unusual move, on Sept 12 a ‘pre-event attribution’ analysis was published online [link]: We find that rainfall will be significantly increased by over 50% in the heaviest precipitating parts of the storm. This increase is substantially larger than expected from thermodynamic considerations alone. We further find that the storm will remain at a high category on the SaffirSimpson scale for a longer duration and that the storm is approximately 80 km in diameter larger at landfall because of the human interference in the climate system. This was followed by a USA Today op-ed by Roy Spencer, entitled Hurricane Florence is not climate change or global warming. Its just the weather. The title pretty much summarizes the article."
Willreadmore: I do not wish to copy and paste your remarks. You seem unaware that for the past 25 years a lot has been made of temperature change (global warming) and later climate change. If I happen to note events, I am told, wait there Robert, that is only weather. Then when I ask for proof, i get sent back to me Weather. Funny how it works that way for them and not for me. Now the rush is to raise taxes very high. Also minimize the auto to the point if carries what a motorcycle carries. This to get the magical amount of fuel economy. I point out that auto design is well known and how to get the magic mpg is to lose weight. Some say cut horsepower. I tell them that per auto design, the auto uses the correct amount of horsepower to accelerate and then to hold cruise speeds. If you only need 100 hp to move to a speed of 60 mph, the auto uses that amount. It then boils down to how fast must you reach 60 mph. If you want to reach it in 10 minutes it takes much less than if you want to do it in 2 seconds. Also, I get vague replies. Such as scientists say??? Say what? What scientists say this? Give me the names of some of them. i give the names of my scientists.
Attribution methods The key issue is how different scientists mentally frame the problem of attribution of the causes of extreme weather events. Here are 4 different frames that I’ve identified: It’s just weather (e.g. Roy Spencer). This is the null hypothesis, and looks to identify more extreme events in the past. Conditional approach (e.g. Kevin Trenberth, Jim Hansen). Examines basic thermodynamic impacts, and changes in circulation, focused on understanding AGW impacts on basic mechanisms. Climate model based attribution (pre-event attribution analysis, Fredericke Otto, Myles Allen). Compares climate simulations without anthropogenic forcing, with simulations including anthropogenic forcing. Detailed observational analysis that includes not just trends but also mechanistic covariances (e.g. Jim Kossin). Re #1. This is indeed the null hypothesis, but we cannot rule out AGW effects based on this argument. The detection component of this approach is very useful in identifying previous extremes in historical and paleo records. Re #2. The conditional approach is useful in pointing to #4 type observational analyses, but is insufficient on its own for attribution Re #3. The climate models simply are not fit for this task. Such analyses implicitly assume the a) climate model sensitivity is correct; b) climate models correctly simulate internal variability; c) climate models correctly simulate extreme events; d) climate models correctly simulate thermodynamic feedbacks; e) climate models correctly simulate large-scale weather events and blocking patterns. Re #4. This is the way to go, relatively few studies taking this approach. Results need to be carefully interpreted in terms of the impacts of natural modes of variability.
Intensity The debate on hurricane intensity has been summarized in these previous blog posts: Hurricanes and global warming: 5 years post Katrina Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina JC interview: hurricanes and global warming The punchline is that while we would expect a signal of increased intensity from global warming, any signal is at present lost in the noise of natural variability. The point I want to make here with regards to Florence (and this also relates to Harvey, Irma and Maria in 2016) is that these hurricanes (which went to Cat 4 or 5) are over performing their thermodynamic base. My basis for this conclusion is the operational hurricane forecasts provided by my company Climate Forecast Applications Network. We make intensity forecasts based on ensemble wind speeds predicted by global weather models, and also apply a statistical thermodynamics based intensity models to these ensembles. The statistical model assess the thermodynamic intensity potential. The high intensities and the rapid intensification was driven primarily by storm dynamics, and not thermodynamics that could be attributable to AGW. And finally with regards to Florence, she was only a Cat 1 at landfall, after reaching Cat 4 (twice). From Phil Klotzbach: Also of interest in this regard. Part of what did in Florence’s intensification is that it was a victim of its own success. Look at the cold wake following the track, resulting from wind-driven mixing that brings cold water to the surface. Size matters Seth Borenstein’s second article (cited above) makes the important point that Cat 1 is woefully inadequate for describing Florence’s landfall impacts. Florence had a large horizontal extent once it started the eyewall replacement process. Large horizontal extent directly relates to landfall impacts: storm surge, large horizontal extent and duration of tropical storm level wind speeds, rainfall, and tornadoes. 5-10 years ago, there was interest in the financial/insurance sector in including size in measures of hurricane intensity (e.g. the Carvill Index). Also the metric Integrated Kinetic Energy (IKE) is a 2-D version of Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Is hurricane size relate to global warming? I’m not aware of any studies that really address this, the most relevant one that I know of is the masters thesis by Angela Fritz (of Washington Post fame, yes she was my student) entitled North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones: A Kinetic Energy Perspective Here are figures that Angela Fritz created: R34 refers to the radius of tropical storm force winds It would certainly be interesting to update this analysis for the N. Atlantic and extend to global. What I see is that the big jump in size and IKE occurred in 1995, with the shift to warm phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Interpreting this as a trend from global warming would be misleading, although there is possible some component there that could be associated with global warming. For another perspective on Florence’s size: Florence’s size was much much smaller than Typhoon Manhkhut in the West Pacific, where tropical cyclones tend to have much larger horizontal extent than in the Atlantic. Understanding this difference is a prerequisite before attempting to attribute anything related to the horizontal size of Atlantic tropical cyclones to global warming. Track and stalling The track for Florence, with a North Carolina landfall, was unusual for storms on this initial path: The reason for Florence’s unusual path relates the to presence of a massively large high pressure system across the North Atlantic and Northeastern U.S. The figure below shows the 1018 hPa isobar, with higher pressure to the north. Florence was unable to punch through this region of high pressure, and continued moving to the wast towards the Carolinas. The horrendous rainfall associated with Florence was associated with its stalling once it reached the coast. Again, this is the presence of high pressure system to blame: Some of the analyses of Florence cite a paper by Jim Kossin [link] that found that tropical-cyclone translation speed has decreased globally by 10 per cent over the period 1949–2016. This is most likely a robust result, although the interpretation of what has caused this remains open to debate. However, the effect described by Kossin is very different than the out-and-out stall that we saw for Florence and Harvey in 2016. These are blamed on blocking high pressure systems. So are these blocking systems changing with global warming? Rahmstorf and Mann say yes [link], related to Arctic warming. This is a hotly debated issue, stay tuned for a more detailed analysis of this issue as I work on my new hurricane assessment. But if you consider multi-decadal to interannual internal variability, it is pretty difficult to argue for a global warming signal. Storm surge The maximum storm surge from Florence was 10-12 feet, although because of the complex coastal geography, surge was felt inland Jeff Masters of Weather Underground has a good article on Florence’s storm surge [link]. The title of the article is Florence’s 1-in-100-year storm surge breaks all records. The record for all-time highest water level at Wilmington, NC, where records extend back to 1935, fell. “Note that sea level in Beaufort has risen by about 0.7 feet since the time of Hazel, largely due to human-caused climate change, and Florence would not have been able to break Hazel’s record without it.” According to NOAA, sea level has risen at these locations by the following amounts: Wilmington: average rate of SLR of 2.3 mm/yr, or 9 inches per century. Beaufort: average rate of SLR of 3.04 mm/yr, or 12 inches per century So, how much of this sea level rise can we blame on warming (human caused, or natural)? Karegar et al. (2016) provides a GPS-based analysis of vertical land motion on the U.S. Atlantic coast: Wilmington: -1.41 mm/year, for a value of absolute sea level rise of 0.9 mm/yr Beaufort: -1.13 mm/year, for a value of absolute sea level rise of 1.9 mm/yr It is somewhat surprising to see such different values of absolute sea level rise for two locations that are relatively close, but this probably depends partly on how close the GPS station is to the actual tide gauge. In any event, the maximum amount of sea level rise that could be blamed on human caused global warming (assuming all warming in last century is human caused) is substantially less than the sea level rise measured at tide gauges. According to Masters, that little boost of sea level rise made the difference in breaking the record Beaufort. However the amount of sea level rise that you can potentially blame on human caused global warming is substantially smaller than what is measured at tide gauges, owing to vertical land motion. Rainfall Florence set tropical rainfall records for North Carolina and South Carolina, there was also considerable flooding inland as far north as Massachusetts. To what extent can we blame this substantial rainfall on human caused global warming. Well, the major cause of the large rainfall (same as for Hurricane Harvey) was the stalling and slow motion of the storm. What of the claims that the warm sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic contributed to the heavy rainfall? Well the Atlantic surface temperatures weren’t particularly warm in the main development region of the North Atlantic where Florence spun up its intensity. The warm Atlantic temperatures were further north and didn’t particularly influence Florence’s intensity. The basic thermodynamic argument is that warm surface temperatures result in a larger equilibrium vapor pressure (then wave hands) and therefore more rainfall in tropical cyclones. It is not implausible to imagine that warmer sea surface temperatures could contribute to increased rainfall in tropical cyclones (#2 style of attribution argument). Well, for this argument to be convincing, the following analyses need to be done (a #4 approach): Look at the liquid water path and precipitation data from microwave satellite back to ~1979 for all Atlantic tropical cyclones (best to extend globally as well). I used to be very active in this research [link] I need to catch up on this research but I suspect that there has not been much done re tropical cyclone water climatology. Calculate the “characteristic life time” (CLT) of the condensed water (sum of liquid and ice) and water vapor may be determined by dividing their amounts by rainfall rate. Also the precipitation efficiency is the precipitation divided by the condensed water Relate above parameters on a storm by storm basis to the local sea surface temperatures. Assess the influence of SST on liquid water path, precipitation, characteristic life time and precipitation efficiency. If no significant relationship with SST, then give up. If significant relationship with SST, then assess the relationships in context of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc. I’m not signing up to do these things, but I’m laying out what needs to be done. Summary I’ve scratched the surface of the complex issues surrounding the weather and climate dynamics of Florence, but the take home point is that convincingly attributing any of this to human caused global warming is very challenging, and the strategies used by the mainstream climate community to do this (#2, #3) are woefully inadequate and misleading to scientists, the public and policy makers.
Excuse you, Robert. Summarizing the videos and links you regurgutate is YOUR homework. It is not everyone else's job to watch videos you never watched and read articles you never read, then spoonfeed them back to you.
You cannot be serious. You are not a teacher, and we are not students. If you fit anywhere in that analogy, it's the kid who didn't read his assignment and so falls on his face during the book report.
