Here’s a new open thread.
Also a notice: I’ve been so intensely busy lately I haven’t had much time for the blog. This condition will continue for at least another week (I hope, not much longer than that), at which time I intend to resume blogging on a regular basis. In the meantime, carry on with discussion; I’ll try to be diligent moderating comments.
Categories: Global Warming
 | Gavin's Pussycat on Open Thread #13 |
 | Zeke Hausfather on Open Thread #13 |
 | dhogaza on Dangerous Curves |
| dhogaza on Open Thread #13 |
| dhogaza on Open Thread #13 |
 | michel on Open Thread #13 |
| michel on Open Thread #13 |
 | george on Dangerous Curves |
| george on Dangerous Curves |
 | Ray Ladbury on Dangerous Curves |
 | john on A (brief) Tale of Three S… |
| dhogaza on Open Thread #13 |
| dhogaza on Open Thread #13 |
| Gavin's Pussycat on What’s Up With That… |
 | Kevin McKinney on Open Thread #13 |
552 responses so far ↓
Slioch // March 8, 2009 at 1:05 pm |
Hi Tamino
Maybe this is a good time to think about trying to find someone to organise the Open Mind archive so that it is more easily accessible. There is a huge amount of information within your numerous postings, not least your very clear use of graphical evidence, that is very useful in countering the garbage.
Unfortunately, it is not very easy to access even if you know what you are looking for, and it is difficult to find material on a particular subject if you don’t know where or when or even if it occurred.
Maybe there is someone in your readership with the necessary skills (that rules me out) and the time to provide an index of your posts, akin to that provided on the Realclimate site?
b_sharp // March 8, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
I was starting to wonder what was happening, though I don’t post much I read this blog frequently.
Is anyone here familiar with the following ? http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/03/disproving-green-house.html
I’m looking for a reasoned and clear response to it so I can address it on the local right-wing denier radio show.
Any help would be appreciated.
tidal // March 8, 2009 at 8:49 pm |
methinks there are already some here who have done what Slioch is recommending… I know that I have bookmarked various “Best of Tamino” links that others have posted elsewhere (ironic!) on the web…
this is a tremendous resource… thanks.
David B. Benson // March 8, 2009 at 9:34 pm |
b_sharp // March 8, 2009 at 6:48 pm — The Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner paper has been fisked in threads here:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
(climatologists), here:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/
(chemist), and possibly here:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/
(ex-climatologist [and very sharp]).
luminous beauty // March 8, 2009 at 9:50 pm |
b_sharp,
Technical dismantling here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
General rebuttal here:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html
Barton Paul Levenson // March 8, 2009 at 10:17 pm |
b_sharp,
G&T’s paper has been appropriately trashed in a number of places on the web. I’ll respond to each point briefly below:
Yes, “greenhouse effect” doesn’t really describe how a greenhouse works. Scientists have known that for longer than G&T have been alive.
Take the temperature in representative areas and take the average. They had the figure approximately right as far back as the late 19th century.
It’s the difference between the Earth’s mean global annual surface temperature of 288 K and its radiative equilibrium temperature of 255 K (I get 254 K myself). Yes, if Earth didn’t have an atmosphere, its albedo would probably be different and Te would be a little different, but so what? What possible relevance does that have?
The formulas of cavity radiation aren’t generally used at all in atmosphere physics unless one is discussing blackbodies. The Stefan-Boltzmann law:
I = s T^4
is the basic “cavity radiation law.” For a graybody one adds an emissivity term, and for a real body one adds a wavelength or frequency subscript to the emissivity term and accounts for the fraction of radiation output in the range of interest. Usually you can use the Planck law for the blackbody fraction, then multiply by the appropriate fractional constants.
Very true. The Earth’s atmosphere is in radiative-convective balance, not radiative balance. G&T apparently think climatologists don’t know this.
Thermal conductivity and friction are covered in the expressions for surface cooling by sensible heat loss, which is part of what makes up the “convective” part of “radiative-convective equilibrium.” They are only set to zero for theoretical simplifications usually shown to students.
cce // March 8, 2009 at 11:45 pm |
Of possible interest:
I’ve updated my “Layman’s Guide” to the temperature record to include data from 2008. I’ve also expanded the discussion of satellite lower tropospheric temperatures, and added some on sea surface.
I include a graph of various corrections to UAH through the years, and I compare some of the more notable satellite corrections to the infamous GISTEMP “Y2K Error.”
For the discussion of SST, it’s notable that GISTEMP’s choice of HadISST (interpolated) and the Reynolds satellite data looks like a wise one. All of these analyses have many of the same authors, but the HadSST2 data appears to have some significant discontinuities beyond the mid century bucket problem. There is a very large step change in 1998 that coincides with the addition of new buoy data.
Regarding GISTEMP’s smoothing methods, I compare 250 km to 1200 km since 1979. It’s often said that the difference is primarily from interpolating the poles, but 40% of it comes from the tropics due to poor coverage in South America and Africa. The sea surface is essentially complete, so any time you add more land surface into the mix, the proportion of land to ocean increases, and because land warms faster than ocean that shows up in the analysis.
What this boils down to is that HadCRUT is artifically warm beginning in 1998, but the 1200 km smoothing increases GISTEMP’s warming relative to HadCRUT. As time goes on, GISTEMP will likely warm faster than HadCRUT, especially after HadSST2 is corrected. Not that GISTEMP is “exaggerating warming.” It’s probably the best of the surface analyses but it will reinforce the “skeptics” belief that Hansen is cooking the numbers.
http://cce.890m.com/temperature-record/
http://cce.890m.com/temperature-record/gallery
http://cce.890m.com/temperature-record/references
fred // March 9, 2009 at 1:02 am |
Idiots. Didn’t you even read G&T?
Clearly the greenhouse effect IS falsified as it does not fit within the framework of Feynman diagrams. Besides Earth has a 4 corner simultaneous 4 day time cube which certainly precludes greenhouse warming.
Ray Ladbury // March 9, 2009 at 1:08 am |
Gerlich and Tscheuschner is a wonderful example of why physicists should never drink and derive.
michel // March 9, 2009 at 7:06 am |
Taking it Seriously
An article in today’s UK Independent is worth reading carefully. It summarizes the latest views of the UK Met Office.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/carbon-cuts-only-give-5050-chance-of-saving-planet-1640154.html
Read this, and then consider again the reaction to my earlier postings about the need for immediate and dramatic social change programs. Think again about the recommendation to shut up, stop whining, and drive a bit less and eat a bit less red meat.
One of two things is true. Either this stuff, that is coming out of well respected institutions, is exaggerated hogwash.
It is one possible reaction to it, and if that is true, we could indeed carry on driving and shopping while congratulating ourselves that our Prius is more fuel efficient than an SUV, and eating a bit more fusilli with asparagus sauce instead of that juicy porterhouse.
Or, they are right, in which case the ONLY thing that has a reasonable chance to save human civilization on earth is really dramatic immediate action, and that will involve, whether you all like it or not, huge and immediate changes to the way of life of those who use among other appurtenances of civilization the California freeway system and the Chinese coal fired generating stations, now coming on line apparently at the rate of one per week.
The numbers being offered here are truly impressive.
Vicky Pope is quoted as saying:
Get real, people! If this is true its about closing down the suburbs and the freeways, and going organic, now. And replacing those air conditioners with fans, while we are at it. Anything else is denial.
Chris // March 9, 2009 at 10:54 am |
“It’s the difference between the Earth’s mean global annual surface temperature of 288 K and its radiative equilibrium temperature of 255 K (I get 254 K myself). ”
Note that if “surface” re: the ocean referred to the seabed (i.e. the underlying land surface – which ought to be exposed over the entire globe in a theoretical zero water vapour scenario), then the mean global annual surface temperature would be ~280K or less. Whereas it’s the relatively very thin warm ocean “skin” which inflates atmospheric temperatures over both ocean and land. Could it be that the oceans contribute a substantial proportion of the 33C number by their very properties and dynamics, rather than just through being a source of water vapour?
Saltator // March 9, 2009 at 11:31 am |
A bit of Ad Hom’ing eh Ray?
Ray Ladbury // March 9, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
Saltator, Have you read the document in question. It is a bad joke. If I considered the two gentlemen who wrote it to be physicists, I’d be ashamed to be a physicist. It is hard to find anything they got right! What is more, when their errors were pointed out to them, they not only refused to slink away in shame, but kept trying to polish their turd of a paper.
No, my attitude is not one of ad hominem attack, but utter contempt.
Ray Ladbury // March 9, 2009 at 1:13 pm |
Chris, Uh, I have no idea what you are talking about, but I’ll venture that the answer is “NO”.
Ray Ladbury // March 9, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
Michel, Great. Keep us posted on how your attempts to shut down the CA freeway system and Chinese coal-fired power plants are coming along. Meanwhile if you want to discuss policies that have a reasonable chance of success, let us know about that, too.
Sam Weiss // March 9, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
That the G & T paper has now been published in what some will call a peer-reviewed research journal (although I notice the journal in question put the paper in a “review” section and not a “research” section) will provide the professional skeptics and AGW deniers no end of opportunities to “prove” once again how AGW is a “hoax”.
Not being a climatologist I’m not privy to the inside discussions among the profession at the coffee clutches and bar sessions… but I wonder how often it is discussed how truly great a PR battle lay ahead for any politician to implement any policy that will actually address AGW concerns (in a meaningful way.)
In the US, given that about half the population still does not accept evolution, how will any politician find the where-with-all to stand up to the (well funded) sources of FUD wrt climatology?
Though many here may have voted for President Obama, does anyone still think he can implement a stringent policy of reducing CO2? Will not his own party turn against him on this matter, just like they did on VP Gore after the latter returned from Kyoto? Economic conditions are conspiring against any sort of carbon tax or cap-n-trade scheme.
A lesson to be learned from the G & T fiasco is that the APS has abrogated responsibility to counter an anti-scientific movement degrading the scientific process, no? This whole affair (along with the Monckton fiasco, etc.) gives any denier-activist enough ammunition to pelt the politicians’ constituencies until they are drowned in confusion.
caerbannog // March 9, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
Saltator: Focuses on the ad-hom and ignores the substantive technical rebuttals….
That seems to be a favorite tactic used by the contrarian side.
chriscolose // March 9, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
The extent of the intellectual quality of G&T is them “disproving” the greenhouse effect through the example of a pot of water on a stove. They claim that the bottom of the pot is hotter with no water in it; however, since water vapor radiates infrared energy downward the opposite should be true. Therefore, they think the greenhouse mechanism is invalid.
Ray’s ” It is a bad joke” is an understatement. Anyone who actually takes this paper seriously needs to find a new academic interest. At best, it is a “spot the error” exercise for upper-level undergraduate students.
dhogaza // March 9, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
Same tactic used by creationists. “evolutionary biologists are mean, therefore evolutionary biology is wrong”.
Ray Ladbury // March 9, 2009 at 6:45 pm |
Sam Weiss, I think you overestimate the impact a single wrong paper will have–even one published in a “peer-reviewed” journal. The thing to remember is that science builds upon itself. No result is solid until someone else uses it to push the field even further. Since G&T provide no insight that advances our understanding of climate, it will sink into the obscurity it so richly deserves. True, the denialists will trumpet this as a triumph, but at the same time it puts the lie to their claim of a conspiracy against denialist scientists. Hell, if this piece of crap can be published, we’ll let anyone in. And we will, but increasing their understanding is up to them.
As to Obama, I’m amazed how many people are eager to write him off not 60 days into his administration. This is a guy who derailed the Clinton political machine and still managed to stay “mainstream” enough to pick off John McCain. I do not know if he will succeed in establishing a sane climate policy. I’m sure that even if he does, it won’t be everything we want it to be. However, I do think he’s the right person to be trying.
Hank Roberts // March 9, 2009 at 6:57 pm |
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?method=init&solId={542CE21B-E45F-CF2E-67A7-2372232C5045}&path=open
B.9 item therein is proposal for study:
Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23 (.PDF)
Hat tip to solarcycle24.com, whose radio-ham owner works consistently to separate the solar cycle discussions from terrestrial climate discussions.
Hank Roberts // March 9, 2009 at 7:23 pm |
Hey Tamino — is this trend line done right?
(It’s economics, not climate, but looks … odd)
http://dshort.com/charts/SP-Composite-secular-trends-with-regression.gif
[Response: The trend line itself looks about right, bearing in mind that the y-axis is logarithmic so it's really a regression of ln(S&P) against time. The number indicating percentage gains and losses can be misleading, since each rise is compared to a previous low value while each fall is compared to a previous high value.]
Eli Rabett // March 9, 2009 at 9:14 pm |
Fred wins the thread. Time to open a new one.
Fred, if you don’t mind I’m going to move your comment to the top of my G&T posts.
Hank Roberts // March 10, 2009 at 1:04 am |
Michel, someone posted that same thing at RC.
I can’t find any source for it — can’t find the named committee for sure (something similar, though); there’s no mention of the MetOffice doing a scenario run for any such committee _at_ the MetOffice website either.
Maybe it’s true, but [citation needed].
No point goingall hyperbolic about mere hypotheticals, as my artillery teacher used to say.
Saltator // March 10, 2009 at 4:13 am |
Gerlich and Tscheuschner posed the following questions to Rabbett and have yet to receive a reply:
“1. What is the most general formulation of the second law of thermodynamics?
2. What is your favorite exact definition of the atmospheric greenhouse effect within the frame of physics?
3. Could you provide me a literature reference of a rigorous derivation of this effect?
4. How do you compute the supposed atmospheric greenhouse effect (the supposed warming effect, not simply the absorption) from given reflection, absorption, emission spectra of a gas mixture, well-formulated magnetohydrodynamics, and unknown dynamical interface and other boundary conditions?”
It may be that Rabbett (a laser spectroscopist?) is a bit of a bunny when it comes to climate physics.
Perhaps Ray, who is a physicist can get over his contempt and answer those questions.
I would like to see a reasoned response as I, a non-physicist, do not yet have a problem with their logic. Please educate me. I am not convinced by Levenson’s attack as he even agrees with them on a couple of points.
[Response: Are you really so gullible? G&T, without doubt, are way over the stupid threshold. They are no more credible than the "non-anthropogenic cause of CO2 increase" crowd.]
Barton Paul Levenson // March 10, 2009 at 10:41 am |
Chris writes:
No, it isn’t.
The ocean, like any other warm body, radiates infrared light. In the absence of some power input above that available from sunlight, it would cool to the Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature of 255 K (which, of course, means it would freeze and cool further still).
Saltator // March 10, 2009 at 12:43 pm |
caerbannog,
“Saltator: Focuses on the ad-hom and ignores the substantive technical rebuttals….”
Substantive or substantial? Different things.
vibenna // March 10, 2009 at 12:47 pm |
I read some comments on a previous thread about colonising the Moon, and whatnot. Why would anybody want to colonise the Moon when you can just colonise the outback of Australia instead?
You don’t have to haul the domes up a gravity well, and you can truck desalinated water from the coast in a relatively benign environment.
Kevin McKinney // March 10, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
FWIW, Ray’s comment was *not* an ad hom, just a snarky quip. A true ad hom must have the form of “Mr. A is a bad person, therefore he is wrong.” I know, I sound like the proverbial English major.
Chris // March 10, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
“No, it isn’t.
The ocean, like any other warm body, radiates infrared light. In the absence of some power input above that available from sunlight, it would cool to the Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature of 255 K (which, of course, means it would freeze and cool further still).”
You misunderstand me. I was breaking down the 33C, not suggesting that in the absence of GHG the radiative equilibrium temperature would be any different.
My argument applies particularly to the transition between an ice-covered and ice-free ocean surface. While the seabed temperature remains close to about 275-277K, an inversion (using atmospheric terminology) occurs as the ocean skin warms from sub 273K to potentially much warmer as it is exposed to solar radiation and/or warmer surface water transported from more tropical areas.
Simplistically, what I’m suggesting is that the true current equilibrium temperature – which should be compared with a 255K earth-sized lump of similar albedo rock with no atmosphere – is closer to the temperature of the seabed rather than that of the sea surface i.e. about 275-277K. In other words (to borrow terminology from a different debate) the surface equilibrium temperature should be much colder, but the extra cold is “hidden” in the ocean (i.e. below thermocline depth) by the fact that denser water [down to ~4C] sinks.
Sorry got to go, which means this post is more of a draft than a final product……..
Ray Ladbury // March 10, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
Saltator says, “I would like to see a reasoned response as I, a non-physicist, do not yet have a problem with their logic. ”
Saltator, this is why you do not merit the term “skeptic”. You will latch onto any straw you can use to buttress your complacency about addressing this threat. G&T’s “rebuttals” are about as substantive as their original argument.
1)What the hell does a “general” statement of the 2nd law have to do with climate science? What the hell do they even mean by “general”?
dS>=0 in a closed system?
2)Wow, they actually managed to have a question that was sort of related to their topic. I would phrase the definition this way: The greenhouse effect is the forcing provided by components of an atmosphere that cools adiabatically with temperature in which those components absorb outgoing longwave radiation and redistribute some of the energy as kinetic energy, thereby warming the atmosphere. This is an oversimplification, but it’s about as well as I can do in a couple of sentences.
3)Rigorous? What the hell does that mean? Hell, do they consider lattice gauge theory rigorous? Look at the models Lazar has been doing. That is pretty much from first principles.
4)Again, see the stuff Lazar and BPL have been doing.
To contend that the scientists (including Eli) don’t know what they are doing is just flat stupid and disrespectful. What is more, this stuff has been looked at not just by climate scientists, but by external experts from the National Academies, the American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union and on and on. There is not one professional or honorific scientific society that dissents from the consensus science. NOT ONE!
The problem is that G&T have not bothered to learn climate science. Gerlich is a mathematical physicist. Tscheuschner is a condensed matter wonk. Neither of these areas touches even remotely on the physics of climate! And it is clear from even a glance at their paper that it is based on misunderstanding of the science. Hell, it doesn’t even read like a science journal article, but rather what it is–an attempt to pass itself off as science to gullible laymen. As Pauli would say–it’s so bad it’s not even wrong.
Ray Ladbury // March 10, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
Chris, You are confusing a lot of different concepts. First, you are suggesting that the deep oceans are the true temperature of Earth in equilibrium with sunlight. Unfortunately for your conception, the sunlight never makes it down beyond about 10-100 meters, so radiative equilibrium is pretty much irrelevant. Hell, why stop at the ocean’s floor, why not go to the mantle or the core-mantle boundary to calculate the “true” temperature of the planet.
Yes, the ocean floor will radiate in the IR, but the IR radiation won’t make it very far, and sunlight is pretty much irrelevant to the energetics there. Maybe you want to think your draft through a little more.
b_sharp // March 10, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
Thanks to everyone who provided links.
I started life on the web taking part in the evolution ‘debate’ and have been quite shocked and dismayed by the number of anti-science arguments out there. To find just as many, if not more, in the AGW arena is really starting to piss me off.
Do these people not know how to think?
b_sharp // March 10, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
Saltator;
Why would anyone take the time to answer these questions when G&T miss the obvious and rather simple concept of increased radiation slowing down cooling? From what I can see, G&T are trying to claim that it is impossible for the tropopause to ‘warm up’ the surface because the 2LoT (creationists use this one a lot too) only allows heat transfer from warm to cool. This claim was debunked and the process explained in at least 50 posts at Rabbett.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 10, 2009 at 8:14 pm |
> Do these people not know how to think?
Do you really expect an answer?
fred // March 10, 2009 at 8:57 pm |
Saltator please rigorously explain how your questions fit into the general framework of relevance.
bluegrue // March 10, 2009 at 10:18 pm |
Salator,
what has magnetohydrodynamics to do with climate? Have you ever asked that yourself? Come on, have a guess. The answer: Nothing. MHD describes the behavior of plasma, gas with an appreciable degree of ionization, which you will only find in the Ionosphere.
All that G&T take out of MHD are continuity equations , i.e. energy, momentum and mass conservation for neutral particles, physical laws that are independent of MHD. There is no plasma involved whatsoever. It’s like invoking the laws of Quantum Mechnics to explain the workings of a bathroom scale. G&T are good at throwing smoke screens like that, and I despise them for doing this to the general public.
Eli Rabett // March 10, 2009 at 11:15 pm |
G&T remind Eli of the old saw that you have to know 90% of the answer to ask an intelligent question. Their nonsense doesn’t even get within 1 sigma of the problem.
FWIW, the most general formulation of the second law is that shit happens. As G&T have shown, sometimes it gets published.
OK T you can kill this one, but I thought I would give you a chuckle.
[Response: Funny enough to let it through.]
Ray Ladbury // March 11, 2009 at 1:01 am |
Another formulation of the 2nd law I like:
If you add a teaspoon of wine to a gallon of sewage, you get sewage. If you add a teaspoon of sewage to a gallon of wind, you get sewage.
Ray Ladbury // March 11, 2009 at 1:06 am |
b_sharp says, “From what I can see, G&T are trying to claim that it is impossible for the tropopause to ‘warm up’ the surface because the 2LoT (creationists use this one a lot too) only allows heat transfer from warm to cool.”
That’s about it, and YOU didn’t have to take 115 pages of turgid, nonsequiturs to say it. Bernie Madoff will be sentenced to read G&T on Thursday, but it will be overturned by the Supreme Court as cruel and unusual punishment.
Kipp Alpert // March 11, 2009 at 3:07 am |
Ray Ladbury:I,m glad to hear you wish to give Barach a chance. The global cooling lobby is already all over him. If he can’t do it,who could.
Deniers can also be racists, among other things less than that.At first your background impressed me most,until I heard you call someone a food tube. KIPP
Kipp Alpert // March 11, 2009 at 3:35 am |
Chris Colose said: “They claim that the bottom of the pot is hotter with no water in it; however, since water vapor radiates infrared energy downward the opposite should be true”. From my small brain, this seems true. Since the Sun is so docile, shouldn’t we be getting cooler. Did you hear the joke about underwater volcanoes.
It just reminds me of my pimples in High School.
Yuck.
Kipp Alpert // March 11, 2009 at 4:46 am |
Chris:And Imagine if you put some GHG’s for your lid.Hot stuff.
Greg Simpson // March 11, 2009 at 5:53 am |
There has been much discussion on the web about the possible effects of the unusually long and deep solar minimum that we’ve been in. While I’m sure the actual effect of this would be completely unobservable because of the weather noise, has anyone made a believable theoretical estimate of how much cooler this should make the temperature? While I can make a wild guess that it might be around 0.01 K, I would have expected someone to put in the effort to come up with a better number.
[Response: You might be interested in this.]
bluegrue // March 11, 2009 at 9:43 am |
Here’s the pertinant passage from G&T v4 at arxive
Yes, they do have “dihydrogen monoxide” in it, I kid you not.
Yes, G&T are correct, in that the bottom of the water-filled pot on a stove is cooler than the bottom of an empty pot. However their explanation is ridiculous. So what is really happening?
1) Filling the pot with water increases its heat capacity by several hundred percent, so at a minimum the bottom of the pot will heat way slower than the bottom of the empty pot.
2) They add a new, highly efficient mechanism for heat transport away from the bottom of the pot: convection
3) Once the boiling point is reached, heat is further used up to evaporate water. Latent heat of evaporation anyone?
Further observations:
A) In case the heating coil is not regulated, the heating coil glows brighter under the water-filled pot, as its outward heat transport is hindered. You can consider this a greenhouse effect.
B) Holding your hand above the water-filled pot (before it has reached boiling point, watch for serious burn risk in hot water vapor) will show you, how very effective water is at absorbing infrared radiation.
All of the above is Physics 101. There is no way G&T could conceivably miss this, given their formal training. They are purposefully and deliberately preying on laymen. Disgusting.
Barton Paul Levenson // March 11, 2009 at 11:38 am |
I tried to reply to Saltator’s four questions and the blog ate my response. I’ll try again here, and if I fail, I’ll try posting at Rabbett Run. I suppose the stupid spam filter is feeling frisky again…
Saltator wrote:
1. dS = {closed-form integral} dQ / T, where S is entropy (measured in Joules per Kelvin in the SI), Q is heat (J) and T temperature (K). Obviously for a non-isothermal process you’d have to derive an equivalent expression, e.g. through the gas laws for a process involving gases.
2. “The mechanism by which greenhouse gases in a planet’s atmosphere warm the planet’s surface above the temperature expected from radiative equilibrium alone.”
3. Try any of the following:
Houghton, J.T. 2002. The Physics of Atmospheres. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Petty, G.W. 2006. A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. Tucson, AZ: Sundog Press.
Goody, R.M. and Y.L. Yung 1989. Atmospheric Radiation–Theoretical Basis. NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
4. The question makes no sense and thus can’t be answered. The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with reflection, magnetohydronamics, or dynamics. G&T have merely thrown technical-sounding words together here to intimidate people unfamiliar with physics. It’s like asking, “How do you explain the rainbow, quantitatively, on the basis of relativistic wavelength-dilation, quantum tunneling, and the Zeeman effect?”
Saltator // March 11, 2009 at 12:40 pm |
Ray,
“There is not one professional or honorific scientific society that dissents from the consensus science. NOT ONE!”
So what? Have you ever been asked to contribute or vote on the formulation of your professional society’s position on this issue?
I certainly wasn’t by mine.
Saltator // March 11, 2009 at 12:51 pm |
Ray,
“Neither of these areas touches even remotely on the physics of climate! And it is clear from even a glance at their paper that it is based on misunderstanding of the science.”
Are you as an isotope physicist and the Lagomorphid as a laser spectroscopist remotely qualified in climate physics (which is no special brand of physics by the way)? It does not prevent you or he from contributing your physical knowledge so why should they be denigrated from doing so?
Why don’t you two just answer the questions posed? Your dancing around them and criticising G&T in a most unprofessional and denigrating way speaks volumes for your ignorance.
[Response: If, for some reason, you feel compelled not to believe in AGW, you should at least have enough respect for yourself not to latch onto such bad work as G&T. They've received ridicule the old-fashioned way: they *earned* it.]
Saltator // March 11, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
My apologies Ray. You are a particle physicist right?
Chris // March 11, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
Ray:
“Unfortunately for your conception, the sunlight never makes it down beyond about 10-100 meters, so radiative equilibrium is pretty much irrelevant. Hell, why stop at the ocean’s floor, why not go to the mantle or the core-mantle boundary to calculate the “true” temperature of the planet.”
Well obviously the ocean and atmosphere are one big coupled system. (With 10m of ocean being roughly equivalent to the entire atmosphere in terms of pressure as I understand it).
Surely the temperature at the ocean floor is determined by two things: the temperature of the crust below [minor], and the temperature of the upper ocean (and atmosphere) above [major]
We know that the crust is substantially warmer.
So for the ocean floor to remain substantially colder than the crust below, it must be cooled from above. Clearly, it gains and loses heat through exchange with the thermocline layer. Now if the oceans below the thermocline remain at ~275-277K, and the thermocline layer (on average) remains several degrees warmer, this implies that there must be more cold water downwelling through (or “around”) the thermocline into the deeper oceans at high latitudes, than there is cold water upwelling through the thermocline at lower latitudes. Or to be more precise, the average temperature of the downwelling cold water must be lower than that of the equivalent upwelling cold water. Especially since as well as the downwelling/upwelling, there will be a small but generalised warming of the deeper ocean from water above (conduction, radiation).
The thermocline must in turn be cooled by the mixed layer above, and similar arguments apply: the mixed layer must be losing colder water to the thermocline than it is gaining.
Hence the relevance of radiative equilibrium: Ultimately, the equilibrium temperatures of the deeper oceans, the thermocline and the mixed layer are all largely determined by the balance of absorbed solar/infrared radiation and outgoing infrared at the ocean surface.
If there is a significant net downwelling of colder water from the ocean surface (and associated net spreading of warmer surface water from lower to higher latitudes), then the ocean surface must be both emitting significantly more infrared, and absorbing significantly more – with a slight overall radiative imbalance in favour of emission. This imbalance does not cool the atmosphere because it goes to a slight extra cooling of the deeper ocean instead. (While the heat is replaced by the less cold upwelling water – which has gained a slight amount of energy (ultimately) from the crust below the ocean since it initially downwelled, as well as energy from the generalised downward spread of warmth)
What relevance does this have? Well I suggest that it is the radiative balance with no net downwelling that we would need to know, in order to establish how much GHG have (directly) warmed the planet above the ~255K baseline. And I suggest that the resulting temperature would be ~280K or less **i.e. the temperature of 90 per cent of the oceans’ volume**
Does this matter, seeing as it is the actual (resulting) surface temperature we are most interested in? Well yes, because if the effects I have described increase the most during the transition from an ice-covered to an ice-free ocean, then there is little further surface temperature increase to be expected from these effects. In other words, it may be that the direct warming effect of GHG deduced from the current mean global surface temperature may be overstated by a factor of 33/25 or more, as may the impact of future GHG increases. Which would tie in with a 2C climate sensitivity………..
Hank Roberts // March 11, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
Chris, you’re leaving out time and rate of change.
Temperature of the deep ocean is determined by the temperature _when_ and _where_? Think about it. The ocean isn’t the same temperature everywhere — not at any time.
Ray Ladbury // March 11, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
Saltator, My PhD is in particle physics (hadroproduction of charmed baryons at Fermilab’s Tevatron if you care). However, I have worked in international development, science education, science journalism and the study of radiation effects in semiconductors. I was an editor at Physics Today for 3 years and wrote on subjects ranging from geophysics to acoustic physics.
As far as climate science is concerned, I have never claimed to be an expert. I have studied the subject for a couple of decades or so, on and off, because I think it is important. It is as a result of those studies, along with my good understanding of fundamental physics, that I have a reasonable appreciation and understanding of the underlying science. G&T have clearly not made such an effort. Their paper is an embarrassment. It doesn’t even pretend to be a true technical paper–otherwise why would they spend 2 pages on trivialities like how an actual greenhouse works, whle completely ignoring the relevant radiative physics.
Have you read the paper? It’s pathetic.
Ray Ladbury // March 11, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
Chris, the problem is that the deep ocean is only coupled to the surface on very long timescales–thousands of years. Even when water mixes into the depths, most of the heat actually stays at the surface.
What matters is how much the planet has to heat up in order to restore radiative equilibrium. If you have to heat up the entire ocean, you’re going to have a really long wait. Think about it.
dhogaza // March 11, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
Because, Steckis, G&T are not contributing knowledge at any level. They’re contributing drivel, and their “contribution” has been exposed as drivel. The cold fusion people have more credibility than these two.
But, please, continue to make a fool of yourself. It’s entertaining.
luminous beauty // March 11, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
Chris,
I’m afraid your scheme is suffering from too many non-physical constraints and assumptions.
Regardless, if your 33/25 overstatement is meaningful at all, it is as relevant to the Arrhenius calculation of 5-6K sensitivity, producing a sensitivity of ~4K, not 2K.
~3K is the mean sensitivity derived from atmosphere/ocean coupled discrete modeling, where a more physically realistic treatment of fluid dynamics and thermodynamic transport including saline densities and the adiabatic processes of freezing/melting and
evaporation/condensation are considered explicitly. A result corroborated by various empirical measurements as well.
Chris // March 11, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
Thanks for the replies. I will try to think some more about it :)
(Not out loud for the moment!)
Gavin's Pussycat // March 11, 2009 at 7:48 pm |
> Have you ever been asked to contribute or vote on the
> formulation of your professional society’s position on this issue?
> I certainly wasn’t by mine.
I haven’t been either (by AGU). And that’s what I expect of them. Any attempt to put, well, facts to the vote, would be the end of my membership in what is obviously not a professional organization.
David B. Benson // March 11, 2009 at 9:02 pm |
Greg Simpson // March 11, 2009 at 5:53 am — From trough to peak of an average solar sunspot cycle, the warming is close to 0.07 K (Range of estimates is 0.05–0.1 K) with a lag of around 2 years. So some portion of this northern hemisphere’s apparant cold winter (in some places) might be attributed, to a very small extent, as due to TSI changes.
But I(’d look more to the various ocean oscillations and maybe changes in THC.
THC primer
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html
BillBodell // March 11, 2009 at 9:09 pm |
OK, I’m bored, so I’ll rise to the challenge.
I’m probably labeled a denier, skeptic, inactivist and/or lukewarmer.
Yes, I do know how to think.
BillBodell // March 11, 2009 at 9:11 pm |
Ooops!
The last comment should have been addressed to b_sharp.
I should have thought ….
Dave A // March 11, 2009 at 9:28 pm |
Ray,
“Have you read the paper? It’s pathetic.”
You may have a point. But how about extending it to papers like Steig et al, which are also being shown to be somewhat pathetic?
[Response: Either you don't believe that, in which case you're a liar, or you do believe it, in which case you're a fool.]
Dave A // March 11, 2009 at 9:35 pm |
Hey Tamino,
You in Copenhagen? Nice city. 2000 participants plus media must have some environmental impact however.
Mind you not as much as the 10,000 fest destined for December. Jeez that’s the equivalent of a small town!
b_sharp // March 12, 2009 at 12:47 am |
OT:
I hate to keep asking stupid questions but I am so very good at it so here goes.
Is there any place I can get a copy of the 1990 AR1 group1?
The local conservative radio talk show keeps going on how the IPCC has recently changed the phrase “global warming” to “climate change” because they couldn’t explain the cooling.
He has some stupid idea that scientists claim GHGs put a canopy over the globe which would not allow cooling. Every time I try to disabuse him of this he hangs up on me and then makes another stupid comment I can’t answer (because I’m no longer online). I’m going to try a less combative more gentle approach.
[Response: Many prefer the term "climate change" because temperature change isn't the only effect of greenhouse gas accumulation; changes to the hydrological cycle can be especially dangerous.
I don't know where to get the AR1 report unless it's still available on the IPCC website. Anyone?]
FredT34 // March 12, 2009 at 12:53 am |
Just my 2c : I really enjoyed a recent note on DotEarth, saying in substance “You can recognize a denier from the explanation they give for Global Warming : it’s because of the sun, or El Nino, or volcanos, or Earth’s elliptic course, or bad math, or whatever – but never because of humans”. Just as if we weren’t 6+ billion now, from 1 billion in 1800.
I’m just curious to see what explanation they’ll give in 50 or 5 years when the North Pole ice disappears in summer.
Saltator // March 12, 2009 at 1:05 am |
Dhogaza,
“Because, Steckis, G&T are not contributing knowledge at any level. They’re contributing drivel, and their “contribution” has been exposed as drivel. The cold fusion people have more credibility than these two.”
I would suggest that they contribute more than your insulting self ever could.
naught101 // March 12, 2009 at 1:11 am |
Ray Ladbury
Ray: Why do you always cut down arguments like that? There’s a possibility that even Michel’s suggestions won’t be enough. Political viability shouldn’t really be a concern of a functional climate policy, but even if it is, the Overton window would say that for a middle-of-the-road policy to get traction, we’d need people screaming for far stronger actions, to push the public debate in the right direction. In the current situation, that might even require people calling for far stronger action that Michel does.
EliRabett // March 12, 2009 at 3:01 am |
One of the points about blogging anonymously is that you are what you write, not much more, not much less. Wouldn’t have it any other way
Kipp Alpert // March 12, 2009 at 3:30 am |
b_Sharp:
I get all my brochure here for free.If they ask for your Companies name just put IBM, or if you work for a University that is even better. The Third assessemnt was the TAR, and the forthAR4.I think they called yours The First Assessmnet Report. Order what you want .I did and have all of the reports. Good Luck,KIPP
https://www.gcrio.org/orders/login.php
Kipp Alpert // March 12, 2009 at 3:44 am |
b_Sharp:About your a ocnservative talk show host. Don’t confront him. WhenI blog at Accuwhatever,I usually don’t go after the denier head on, but try to use some logic to steer the person in a better direction.You can win a few over that way. It’s hard because they have God in their wallet, and don’t know the first names of their children. KIPP
Gator // March 12, 2009 at 4:00 am |
naught101: michel isn’t calling for drastic action. He is arguing that if drastic action is required, it will never happen. If drastic action is not required, why bother. Therefore, in any case, do nothing.
dhogaza // March 12, 2009 at 4:58 am |
Actually, Steckis, I’d suggest that my insulting self contributes more than their lies.
Because at least my insulting self is *honest*.
Steckis in simple form: scientists who lie make a positive contribution to science.
Tch tch.
dhogaza // March 12, 2009 at 5:00 am |
They’ll claim natural variation, because it happened something like 125,000 years ago, and therefore can’t be harmful, because, like, that’s only like 90,000 years before the cave paintings in France and all that.
Saltator // March 12, 2009 at 5:00 am |
Dhogaza,
“But, please, continue to make a fool of yourself. It’s entertaining.”
One thing that I have noticed in your posts is your mean spiritedness. You are so aptly suited to be a shining member of the gloomy doomie brigade.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 12, 2009 at 5:52 am |
> Yes, I do know how to think.
You think you know how to think ;-)
cce // March 12, 2009 at 7:35 am |
The “CC” in IPCC (founded 1988) stands for “Climate Change” and if there was any effort to increase the usage of “Climate change” it’s due to Frank Lutz, who thought it sounded less “frightening.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Ray Ladbury // March 12, 2009 at 10:12 am |
Naught101, Politics matter precisely because politics is the art of the possible. Those calling for extreme actions that are not even feasible, let alone politically viable, while at the same time disparaging incremental contributions are not furthering the debate.
Coming from the Western US, I am also acutely conscious of the risk of backlash. We are not going to stop CO2 rise short of 450 ppmv. We might be able to reach stability between 500 and 550 ppmv. This means that we have to be planning for mitigation as well as conservation and that we have to be thinking about how to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. Will this be adequate? I don’t know. It will be a whole helluva lot better than BAU or an abortive attempt at drastic action ending in backlash. We’re looking for outcomes that are better, not ideal.
Sekerob // March 12, 2009 at 10:22 am |
Gator, are you paraphrasing or are you aligned with that interpretation? BAUie. There’s over 900 billion in credit card debt in the USA. The next bomb to go off. Pay it forward or shovel it forward? Either way, we’re fried but at least we could try to save the world… the cost will be much lower in every respect.
Why Have Some of the World’s Best and Brightest Minds Underestimated How Quickly We’re Scorching the Atmosphere?
bluegrue // March 12, 2009 at 11:27 am |
@ Saltator
I note, that you tiptoe around addressing the content of G&T’s take on climate.
Enlighten me:
1) Where do you need to employ magnetohydrodynamics in climate?
2) What is your take on G&T’s water in a pot example? Link to the arxiv version in my post above
I consider #1 as obfuscation and intimidation of laymen. You don’t find anything on MHD in the article, but Gerlich gave a talk where he shows what he is on about. You can have a look at this piece of obfuscation in all its glory here (German only):
http://www.ib-rauch.de/datenbank/gummersbach-III.html#gl6
Gerlich starts out with the MHD’s charge and mass conservation equations, adds the raw Maxwell equations for good measure and puts in the Ohmic Law (!) next. Where do you find transport of charged particles in climate? We are not talking about thunderstorm clouds here. Next he adds momentum conservation and more for good measure. He then proceeds to announce that climate models are not based on his equations and hence climate simulations are not founded in basic physics. G&T accuse the whole community of climate scientists to be negligent to the most basic of laws in physics.
You can read my take on #2 a couple of posts above.
I’m looking forward to reading your defense of G&T with regard to these points, Salator.
Lazar // March 12, 2009 at 12:05 pm |
The coal industry have a new ad.
Ray Ladbury // March 12, 2009 at 12:36 pm |
Dave A.,
Re: Steig et al.,
Actually, Dave, I have yet to see any errors identified by the brain trust at CA that invalidate the basic conclusions of the paper. What the CA process does demonstrate is the ineffectiveness of “auditing” in advancing science. A bunch of wannabes who are incapable of creating anything of value themselves attack those who have the temerity to try and actually advance the state of understanding. They’re kind of like you, Dave. Only smarter.
Saltator // March 12, 2009 at 12:42 pm |
Bluegrue,
As I pointed out to Ray, I am not a physicist and therefore will not defend G&T on the physics.
Ray Ladbury // March 12, 2009 at 12:43 pm |
Saltator,
Dhogaza directs his criticism at those he honestly considers to be idiots. The key is “honest”. G&T are either frauds, complete idiots of mentally ill. No other type of mind could produce the drivel they produced. It reads like it was written by not-very-bright Hollywood script writers called upon to produce technobabble. As both G & T have other publications to their name that are not complete idiocy (not many, granted, from what I’ve been able to find), I can only conclude that they are frauds, and worse, frauds preying on technically naive laymen. This makes them lower than snake excrement.
Saltator // March 12, 2009 at 12:43 pm |
Dhogaza:
“Actually, Steckis, I’d suggest that my insulting self contributes more than their lies.”
You contribute nothing to this debate or to the science. With the exception of invective of course.
Saltator // March 12, 2009 at 12:51 pm |
Bluegrue,
Whilst I will not defend G&T, I ask why is it that a major science journal will publish such a paper if it is so wrong on the physics? I suggest that perhaps, from a non-physicist’s perspective, it is probably more wrong by the consensus view than on the mathematics and physics.
My last on this one.
Slioch // March 12, 2009 at 2:16 pm |
Lazar:
“The coal industry have a new ad.”
Wonderful!
That’s not Richard S Courtney in the star role, I suppose?
Richard S Courtney – “I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” and ““There’s no evidence for man-made global warming; none, not any of any kind.” See:
http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Crisis-What-crisis.5054066.jp#3840433
[Richard Courtney is "Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry).... In the early 1990s Courtney was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal) and a Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management." From Sourcewatch]
Sekerob // March 12, 2009 at 3:28 pm |
Change of topic, who’s got inroads to the people doing the RSS temp publishing. Their February figure is odd at 0.230, mostly because they have not changed the January 0.322. They always change the previous month when the last month comes out.
There is a note saying that their F15 sensor, the same one used by the NSIDC for Sea Ice, showed anomaly due inteference from the RADCAL beacon and therefor they’d plan to revise in April when it would thaw again.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/open-thread-11/#comment-29516
Unfortunate just when UAH went from January 0.304C to February +0.350C anomaly.
dhogaza // March 12, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
Exactly. Contributing nothing is far more positive than the negative impact of dishonest efforts by the likes of G&T.
Get it, now? Doing no harm is, in itself, a form of doing good.
Ray Ladbury // March 12, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
Saltator, I cannot imagine why any self-respecting journal would publish the crap from G&T–unless maybe it was so painful to read and G&T so persistent (it was originally submitted over 2 years ago) that they published it just to make them go away. The physics isn’t just wrong, it’s laughably wrong. Wrong isn’t so bad. Wrong can be corrected. Instead, what G&T have done is charge into a field they obviously know nothing about, spouting equations that are utterly irrelevant to it and claim they’ve overturned physics that was established over 100 years ago!
All I can suggest is that mayb IJMPB may not be quite as self-respecting as it once was:
http://www.eigenfactor.org/detail.php?year=2006&jrlname=INT%20J%20MOD%20PHYS%20B&issnnum=0217-9792#
Steven // March 12, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
“Whilst I will not defend G&T, I ask why is it that a major science journal will publish such a paper if it is so wrong on the physics?”
Um…the International Journal of Modern Physics is not a “major journal” at all. It has a low impact factor which means no one seems to be citing any articles in it. To me the work published in these journals seems to run from irrelevant to simply wrong. As evidence of the poor level of peer review these journals have, IJMP was one journal where some turkish students were very successful at publishing plagiarized papers:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=590
The fact is, if you really want to publish a physics paper there exists enough crappy journals out there who will be happy to publish your result irregardless of whether it is correct or relevant.
Mike G // March 12, 2009 at 5:57 pm |
Whilst I will not defend G&T, I ask why is it that a major science journal will publish such a paper if it is so wrong on the physics?
It wasn’t published in a major journal. It was published in the International Journal of Modern Physics.
In the Journal Citation Reports, IJMP scores a 2007 impact factor (the # of citations/ yr of an average article in the journal) of a whopping 0.647- it’s best score in the last 5 years. Compare that to the popular science magazine, Scientific American, which scores 1.734 in the same metric- it’s second lowest ranking in the same 5 yr span.
In the Eigenfactor Article Influence ranking it comes in at 0.201 vs. 0.804 for SciAm. This scale has an average ranking of 1.00, meaning that the average article in IJMP is 1/5 as influential as articles in an average journal.
Among applied physics journals indexed by the ISI, IJMP comes in at 77th out of the 92 ranked. It’s 71st out of 82 ranked by Eigenfactor Article Influence.
b_sharp // March 12, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
Thank you Kipp and cce.
Kipp, the link you gave me no longer has AR1 but they do have AR2 so I ordered that.
I wanted to be able to quote the page number where climate change was defined. I’ll just use AR2.
Lazar // March 12, 2009 at 7:24 pm |
Saltator,
The ISI 2005 impact rankings (column B2) placed “International Journal of Modern Physics B” at 50 out of 58 in condensed matter physics, and 68 out of 77 for applied physics. Not that it matters much. Gin & Tonic’s work will die in obscurity anywhere it is published, to be cited only in pointless internet argumentation.
You should know this… Because even good journals let garbage through every so often. Journals are a low-pass filter; they let in most of the signal and cut out most of the noise, but some noise gets through and some signal gets cut. Someimtes it’s favors for friends. G&T’ was accepted by invite and was not peer reviewed. Concentrate on the physics, the physics in G&T is garbage.
The consensus is physics, and those who did the science and maintain the consensus were/are mostly mathematicians, physicists and chemists
Lazar // March 12, 2009 at 7:29 pm |
Slioch,
starring as the most trustworthy voice in the coal industry.
guthrie // March 12, 2009 at 7:46 pm |
So does someone want to write a letter to the editor castigating them for their poor pier review?
Hank Roberts // March 12, 2009 at 7:47 pm |
Mike, would you link to the sources you’re using to save readers time checking them? Is 77th counting from top to bottom?
These scores are getting some criticism generally:
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1641/B570702
Kipp Alpert // March 12, 2009 at 9:30 pm |
Ray Labury:Mitigation sounds reasonable,but is it possible.When I was a kid I used to wait in line for gas. Someone shot in, before another car and a fight broke out. People are to stupid to see the forest before the trees. How many wars are taking place right now. When GW was destroying all the evidence he got for global warming, the Pentagon, was planning on their kind of mitigation. I don’t think mitigation reflects the human pay grade. I think were screwed.KIPP
Dave A // March 12, 2009 at 9:50 pm |
Ray,
You’re so cuddly!
CA, and others, have shown deficiencies in the way information was used by Steig et al. There is also the question of the exact novel Mannian (TM) statistical technique used to come up with the answers. This is opaque and no data is being released.
You call this good science? In what way, how can anyone possibly check what they did and reproduce it?
[Response: CA and others have shown no such thing. All they "uncovered" was a data error due to the British Antarctic Survey. This is just character assassination because they (and you) so hate the truth that they'll do anything to denigrate it.
And you dare to accuse someone else of mean-spirited behavior?]
Slioch // March 12, 2009 at 10:40 pm |
Hi Guthrie
I think they’ve probably got the message already!
Call in at the Scotsman some time if you can stand it. I’d assumed you must have been head-hunted by Exxon and sent off prospecting to Outer Mongolia to try and keep you quiet.
Cheers
Mike G // March 12, 2009 at 11:09 pm |
Hank, the numbers are all from Journal Citation Reports 2007 (which includes ISI and Eigenfactor’s ratings). You need a subscription to see the most recent (2007) ratings.
Older Eigenfactor ratings and rankings are available at:
http://www.eigenfactor.org/index.php
AFAIK, older JCR ratings aren’t available online.
The rankings are from best (1) to worst (92 and 82).
Deep Climate // March 12, 2009 at 11:21 pm |
Sekerob wrote:
Their February figure is odd at 0.230, mostly because they have not changed the January 0.322.
This is not a huge surprise to those of us following the UAH and RSS data sets.
I recently did a post on seasonal divergenge in UAH. Tamino had previously done a couple of great posts on the UAH annual cycle.
I’m preparing a second post, looking at the linear trends month-by-month. Meanwhile, the graph below shows how much the UAH linear trend varies from month to month, compared to RSS (and the surface data sets).
It turns out that in recent years February has been significantly higher in UAH than RSS (I’ll be quantifying that in my post). If the recent past is any indication, by May we’ll see a wide discrepancy in the other direction. Unless UAH fixes the problem in the mean time, of course.
luminous beauty // March 12, 2009 at 11:22 pm |
When one side, with no sense of accountability, just makes things up, having a useful, principled debate is an exercise in futility. Ridicule (which is not at all the same as invective) may not be the most effective response to liars and the ignoramuses who defend their credibility (particularly for those fragile spirits who value facile politesse over truth), but appropriate it is.
It is amusing watching you make a fool of yourself.
Sorry, mate, but it’s true.
Deep Climate // March 12, 2009 at 11:39 pm |
I don’t see the graph on monthly linear trends I referred to, so I’m reposting as a link.
bluegrue // March 12, 2009 at 11:55 pm |
@ Saltator
I’m curious. What is your profession?
How can you even tell, if you lack education in physics? My retort to their “water in a pot” example is highschool level stuff, IMHO. You should have an opinion on it. G&T’s “explanation” is so wrong, that – given their formal training – I have to assume they mislead on purpose.
I’m flabbergasted by this myself. Even a journal so low on the ICI listing ought to have higher standards. However, you are asking the wrong question. Why is a “review” published in a journal that according to its aims and scope
The paper is way outside their scope. So why indeed did they invite and publish this?
bluegrue // March 13, 2009 at 12:03 am |
In my previous post “ICI” should of course have been “ISI”, sorry for the typo. Can this be corrected?
Saltator // March 13, 2009 at 12:32 am |
Luminous,
You are an idiot.
He often appeals to ridicule (different from ridicule) but his language is full of invective.
At least I try to make sense of the issue by analysing real data and following Tamino’s logic through.
Ray Ladbury // March 13, 2009 at 12:45 am |
Dave A., So, I’ll take that as a “No,” since you’ve cited nothing that even in your own deluded mind would overturn the main conclusions of the paper.
“You’re so cuddly!”
Can’t help it, Dave. Your pathetic attempts at baseless character assassination just bring out those warm, fuzzy feelings in me.
Ray Ladbury // March 13, 2009 at 1:04 am |
Kipp Alpert, I am such an optimist about the human condition that I didn’t even bother to bring any children into the world. Still, all we can do is hope we can arise to the occasion. I keep hoping Albert Camus was right in “The Plague”–that humans may be base and cowardly, but that when theymust, they can meet challenges and perhaps even acheive a degree of nobility.
I don’t hold out much hope that we’ll avoid serious climate change. That leaves us little choice but to try and mitigate the consequences if we can
Kipp Alpert // March 13, 2009 at 2:08 am |
Ray Ladbury:I guess you didn’t read “The Stranger”by Camus. “My mother died today or was it yesterday, I’m not quite sure”. That ending was pretty cool when he was visited by the priest. If you can find hope with an existentialist, than you are an optimist.You know how J.P.Sartre died. What a happy ending.
I was listening to NPR and they had a conversation about Americans, and their overconsumption. In twenty years or less we are going to consume less, be enviromentally concious, use only what we need, and accept the challenges of climate change. The first time I took my wife to McDonalds, she walked out asking me why Americans eat their food like cattle. She’s from France, and we are still married. I’m waiting for my merit badge.KIPP
Kipp Alpert // March 13, 2009 at 2:13 am |
b_sharp: Can’t find the first assessment anywhere. If Hank Roberts doesn’t know, than no one does. KIPP
Saltator // March 13, 2009 at 2:33 am |
Tamino,
According to Climate Audit, Steig et. al. has more statistical issues than just a station identification error. There is the issue of why the retention of just 3 PCs when at higher regpars the trend starts to go negative. Also there is the issue of failing to correct for serial correlation which reduces the level of significance for the trends. The issue of spatial autocorrelation is also discussed.
Despite the irregularities I still think Steig et. al. is a useful paper and the technique is useful and I think adaptable to msu data in data poor areas of non-Anatarctic regions.
[Response: According to CA? I think you can guess how much credibility I attach to that.]
Martin Vermeer // March 13, 2009 at 7:31 am |
> There is also the question of the exact novel
> Mannian (TM) statistical technique used to come up with the
> answers. This is opaque and no data is being released.
On the contrary. Not only is there a general purpose Matlab library doing RegEM, Eric Steig actually linked to it before being off to Antarctica. What’s more, the Auditors (Jeff Id to be precise) more of less successfully used this software on the Steig data. (And its’s not Mannian(TM), Its TapioSchneiderian(TM), get your references right ;-)
Nothing opaque to those willing to learn.
Saltator, I am aware of those “issues”. They are not real. Long story… I see that even Gavin Schmidt gave up on spelling it out and rubbing it in.
Barton Paul Levenson // March 13, 2009 at 8:54 am |
Saltator writes:
And I suggest that you don’t know enough physics to be able to make such a statement. If you did, you’d be able to see that G&T’s paper is crap of the purest ray serene, or you’d at least be able to follow all the replies to it that have carefully explained why it’s crap of the purest ray serene. I do have a degree in physics, and so does Ray Ladbury, and we can tell you that G&T’s paper is garbage. Not just going against the consensus in climate science. Complete and utter garbage. Drivel. Nonsense. Capiche?
Lazar // March 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm |
Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, Thomas Gray
… for those like meself who were wondering.
Saltator // March 13, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
Tamino,
Stop prostelyzing please about CA. There is likely statistical inconsistencies in Steig et. al.
That however, does not diminish the technique used, just the peripheral argument about warming or lack of in the Antarctic.
[Response: They are totally full of shit. So are you.]
Ray Ladbury // March 13, 2009 at 1:17 pm |
Barton, you know, to be honest, I’ve never made it all the way through G&T. Every time I’ve tried, I make it about half way through before erupting into a truly artful string of profanity and setting it aside. A paper like that makes me nostalgic for the good ol’ days of paper journals when we could take the advice of Dorothy Parker literally:
“This is not a bood to be laid aside lightly; it should be thrown with great force…”
G&T may well be the worst paper ever published in a physics journal. It really should begin, “It was a dark and stormy night…” In those portions of it that I have been able to force myself through, I have not found a single redeeming quality; not one insight; not one correct approach. It’s not even the wrongness that gets me angry, but rather the obfuscation–trying to hide how wrong the paper is by throwing in a seemingly intimidating equation or a bold assertion or a pointless diversion.
I keep looking for some redeeming feature or use for this pile of crap, but the only thing I’ve come up with is as a litmus test for a verdict of non compis mentis.
Kevin McKinney // March 13, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
“crap of the purest ray serene”
Now there’s invective. Delicious phrase. And well-merited. Even my artsie background is sufficient to tell that G&T do two tell-tale things:
1) Fail to meaningfully engage the existing scholarship; and
2) Drag in the irrelevant.
Ray Ladbury // March 13, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
Kipp, Oh, yes, I read “The Stranger,” and “The Fall,” and just about everything else Camus wrote. Of all his novels, “The Plague” is the most hopeful with regard to the human condition, and also, in my opinion, his best work.
I’ve heard it said that Americans eat, while the French dine. On the other hand, McDonalds is the most crowded restaurant on the Champs Elysee, and it’s not full of Americans. One of the gifts that keeps on giving from my Peace Corps days is the fact that I’m fairly fluent in French–although I’m told I speak with a West African accent–kind of fun when frequenting some of the shops in the 20th Arondissement.
I’m afraid it is my wife who deserves the merit badge. A man should always marry a woman who is smarter than him. It keeps us honest.
luminous beauty // March 13, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
Steck’
re: Appeal to ridicule.
Do you mean it isn’t amusing watching you make a fool of yourself?
Then why am I laughing?
Oh, that’s right! I’m an idiot.
Hank Roberts // March 13, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
Kipp, don’t oversell. Please. This matters.
ANY LIBRARIAN can give anyone more help than I can. I’m an amateur at home with a computer and a few minutes, nothing more. Anyone online is giving amateur stuff.
For real help, if you really want people to get help finding information: go to the library. Ask at the Reference Desk.
Deep Climate // March 13, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
Saltator said:
According to Climate Audit, Steig et. al. has more statistical issues than just a station identification error. There is the issue of why the retention of just 3 PCs when at higher regpars the trend starts to go negative.
Here’s the relevant passage:
Retaining 3 PCs, by a fortunate coincidence, happens to maximize the trend. [Note: These were done using a technique similar to but not identical to RegEM TTLS - a sort of Reg Truncated SVD, which converges a lot faster. Jeff C has now run RegEM ... and has got 1 -0.07; 2 +0.15; 3 +0.15; 4 +0.16; 5 +0.12; 6 +0.10; 7 +0.11; 8 +0.11; 9 -0.08; 10 +0.05; 11 -0.02; 12 -0.05) so the max is not precisely at regpar=3 - so there's no need to raise eyebrows at 3 rather than 4. However, the trend does not "converge" to 0.15, but goes negative at higher regpars.
And in the previous day's post, McIntyre wrote:
It turns out that 3 was very fortuitous choice as this proved to yield the maximum AWS trend, something that will, I'm sure, astonish most CA readers.
So notice the following:
1) The graphic presented by McIntyre(twice!) showing maximum trend at 3 PCs was not generated using the actual RegEM used in Steig et al, but a modified less intensive variant (R is an interpreted language and apparently can't handle the full on RegEM).
2) There are odious references to a "very fortuitous choice [yielding] the maximum AWS trend, something that will, I’m sure, astonish most CA readers” and a “fortunate coincidence [that] happens to maximize the trend.” These sarcastic statements constitute a clear insinuation that the number of PCs retained may well have been chosen on the basis of maximizing the resulting trend – especially when the rest of the later post is a rant attacking the “hockey team” justifications for retention of the “bristlecone” PCs in MBH98 and Wahl and Amman 2006. And the half-hearted withdrawal two sentences later just begs the question – why not rewrite the post and use only the real replication data? And why not apologize clearly for the insinuation based on faulty replication in the previous post?
Nowhere does McIntyre seem to acknowledge the real issues in the selection of the optimal number of retained PCs, which will vary from case to case. If there are too few not enough variance is explained, but if there are too many the result suffers from overfitting. In both cases, the result will likely not exhibit validation skill.
The first negative trend is at Regpar = 9. This is an unrealistic number of PCs to retain, and there would have to be an extraordinary reason to do so.
Note too that the whole issue of convergence, discussed at length in the post, does not apply at all to Steig et al. Even in McIntyre’s bogus replication the RegPar trends do not form a monotonically converging series. But the real trend output from Jeff C fluctuates so that even after regpar = 12, there is no obvious point of convergence. Obviously convergence is not a relevant criterion in this case.
Hmmm, I wrote more than intended at the outset. But the point is clear – don’t look to CA for solid and fair analysis. [Can you tell I'm Canadian, and Tamino is not? :>) ]
Ray Ladbury // March 13, 2009 at 7:10 pm |
Saltator, a word, please.
You either get the joke or you are the joke. The fact that you get suckered by charlatans like G&T or Roy Spencer makes it clear that you don’t understand the physics. That’s OK. No shame there. You are at least trying to understand the data. You would do well to try and learn some of the physics, too.
Most of all, however, you might want to think that maybe there might have been at least a few smart people who did work in climate science over the past 150 years. Maybe, just maybe, they didn’t get everything wrong. So maybe it might be good to be a little circumspect when somebody tells you humans aren’t behind the rise in CO2 or when somebody produces an unreadable tome purporting to falsify 150 years of well supported science. Maybe don’t reach out for every straw before you assess whether it’s plausible.
If not, hey, I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next guy. Hopefully, you can start, too.
Former Skeptic // March 13, 2009 at 7:15 pm |
Saltator:
Tamino’s right. The folks at CA are full of themselves, and the signal-to-noise ratio is often so low that there’s no point in going through all the crap. Want an example?
http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/08/08/the-anatomy-of-a-climateaudit-post/
Read and weep – especially TCO’s rather astute comments that follow.
Hank Roberts // March 13, 2009 at 8:14 pm |
Get the Book Burro extension for Firefox, set it to include libraries, and it will find things for you like this, which may be what you’re looking for. If not — keep looking. That’s a tool .
Scientific assessment of climate change : report
by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Working Group 1.; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate.
Type: Book : International government publication; English
Publisher: [Geneva] : World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], 1990.
OCLC: 25012925
Eric Adler // March 13, 2009 at 8:52 pm |
Saltator,
I am shocked that people with PHD’s in physics would write a paper like that. They should get their degrees taken away retrospectively. I will focus on only one thing here, the unbelievably stupid claim that the GHE violates the 2LOT.
Their claim on the basis of microscopic particle physics, amounts to saying that the ground can distinguish between a approaching photons of identical frequencies depending on the temperature of the region of the atmosphere that emitted them, and won’t absorb those that were emitted from a lower temperature than the ground.
Either they are so upset by the idea of AGW that they have lost their minds, or they are dishonestly trying to snow less sophisticated people, who are so upset by the prospect of AGW, that they will believe anything that contradicts it, even if they don’t understand it.
I suspect from your posts that you are in their target population.
Kipp Alpert // March 13, 2009 at 9:53 pm |
Hank:Sorry.I have taken your previous advice,and post less.I have purchased several college texts,Basic Physics,Weather and Climate,Geology,Biology, Chemistry, but just because you helped me before I thought I would thank you.Will observe your request.Thanks, KIPP
Kipp Alpert // March 13, 2009 at 10:28 pm |
Ray Ladbury:Your right on that.My wife is the soul of our small family.She still,after thirty years is not a citizen. She’s still homesick. France is so diverse and Beautiful. Are you from Western Africa. Have you read Voltaire.KIPP
Philippe Chantreau // March 13, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
Ray is right, “The Plague” is Camus’ most powerful book. Ray did you see the prices in the other restaurants on the Champs? I’d say McDo does not really play fair :-)
I have seen before the strange argument that a cooler atmosphere can not increase the temp of a warmer surface. I still don’t understand what those using it are talking about. It’s like saying that you can’t decrease heat loss from your body by using a jacket, since the jacket will always be colder than the body.
The GH effect impairs the cooling of the surface. The more the cooling is impaired, the higher the equilibrium temperature of the surface/atmosphere system. Am I really wrong here? The physicists will correct me if I’m not reading enough into this, but I don’t see how even getting to the molecular level is especially useful to understand that basic concept (for us laypersons).
Saltator, you seem to have adopted a typical denier mindset, which is to give credence and weight to anything and everything opposing the idea of AGW regardless of validity. That’s the end of skepticism. How much did you actually check into G&T’s extraordinary claims?
Ray Ladbury // March 14, 2009 at 12:04 am |
I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Togo 20 years ago, and that’s where I learned French. It’s a much more musical language in Africa.
I can understand your wife’s feelings. My wife and I spent a week in Paris before I attended a conference in the Grenoble World Trade Center. We have fond memories of wandering the streets and meals gathered from the bakeries, cheese shops… I remember some of the best figs I’ve ever eaten. Unfortunately, the conference coincided with the demise of New York’s WTC on 9/11. It was a scary time, but people were so friendly and supportive–even the French Communists were pro-American on 9/12/2001. I was always amazed how quickly Dubya pissed away all that good will.
I’ve read some Voltaire (e.g. Candide), but not enough. He has some of the best quotes: “I was only ever ruined twice: once when I lost a lawsuit and once when I won one.”
David B. Benson // March 14, 2009 at 2:26 am |
Tamino — Would you care to comment on “It’s risky enough to compute a correlation between two highly autocorrelated time series, but when both series are basically monotonically increasing or decreasing, it’s basically worthless”?
This is someone calling into question BPL’s correlations of GISTEMP and ln CO2.
t_p_hamilton // March 14, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
”
Tamino — Would you care to comment on “It’s risky enough to compute a correlation between two highly autocorrelated time series, but when both series are basically monotonically increasing or decreasing, it’s basically worthless”?
This is someone calling into question BPL’s correlations of GISTEMP and ln CO2.”
I’ll comment that this is an admission that the point BPL was rebutting has been admitted to be wrong. The original claim was that CO2 increase lagged temperature increase. This new reply accepts that both are increasing.
[Response: The comment makes no sense. As long as the autocorrelation of the series is taken into account, all the statistics are valid. In fact, a trend analysis of autocorrelated data is its correlation with *time*, which is about as autocorrelated and monotonically increasing a series as you can get. If someone wants to claim that BPL didn't correct for the autocorrelation, that's one thing -- but to state flatly that correlation of two autocorrelated time series is worthless (which amounts to saying that the impact of the autocorrelation can't be accounted for) is silly.
The only germ of insight in the comment is what we all know already; that correlation is not causation.]
Dave A // March 14, 2009 at 8:31 pm |
Ray,
My response last night didn’t get past the gatekeeper. So let’s try a slightly different approach.
[edit]
[Response: No, let's not. Your criticisms are bull, and they've been more than adequately addressed at RealClimate. If you want to beat the dead horse, take it somewhere else.]
Former Skeptic // March 14, 2009 at 9:10 pm |
On a “lighter” note, away from the foolish shenanigans of G&T, nice to see Christopher Booker making a concerted charge to win his eponymous award.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4990704/Nobody-listens-to-the-real-climate-change-experts.html
Sekerob // March 14, 2009 at 9:50 pm |
What coincidence. Just few days ago did a dumb plot of GISTEMP monthly against a 12 month shifting differential of CO2 at ML.
chart
Don’t know how to interpret this, the eye misled maybe to see temps going up faster than CO2.
Now the oddity: GISTEMP down for February, HadOBS down, RSS down and the infallible and superior, the makers claim, UAH up. Different base lines, latter shows 0.350C+ and HadOBS +.345C+. Unheard.
Kipp Alpert // March 14, 2009 at 10:00 pm |
Philip Cantreau: I don’t think Global heating impairs cooling. But it does warm it, according to the fourth power of radiative heating. I think the fourth power refers to the Stefan-Boltzman Law. It says that the Intensity of energy radiated by a balck body increases according to the fourth power of it’s absolute temperature.The temperatures is Kelvins(absolute) which is the lowest temperature in the universe, where no vibational molecules exist. But I,m a Portrait photgrapher for Gods sake.This helped me understand Global warming more by Chris Colose; Greenhouse effect Part 2.
The take home points should be that for a planet with no infrared absorbing layer above the surface, the fourth power of the surface temperature always approximates a value determined by the incoming solar radiation. The only way the surface temperatures can exceed this value is if there is an atmosphere which acts to be a blanket to outgoing radiation. A planet can also be heated by internal processes such as radioactive decay or rigorous convections from the mantle, but these are rather negligible on the terrestrial planets. Adding greenhouse gases to an atmosphere whose temperature decreases with height must act to warm the surface by making the net downward emission greater than zero. Does this help? The more you read it, the more you get it. Maybe I will ask Ray Ladbury to help explain this. My son is in UCONN but I have just seen a High School Science book where they have a huge chapter on AGW. Now with Obama, I think we won the battle,God knows if mankind will survive. Isn’t it ironic that in the same week that GB was destroying recommedations to him about Global Warming, the Pentagon offered up a proposal to Cheney, about our self defense when the Climate warms,which it will. I want to move to Dissay, south of Toure, where my brother in law is a chef. Good Luck amego,Kipp
Ray Ladbury // March 14, 2009 at 11:29 pm |
Kipp, The radiative physics is a little complicated if you aren’t used to struggling through physics analyses. But I’m willing to try if you are.
If you have a body (no atmosphere) at a given temperature T, it will indeed radiate energy roughly in proportion to the fouth power of T. Likewise, if you have a body in a radiation field, it will absorb radiation until it reaches a temperature proportional th the 1/4 power of the energy density. Make sense?
OK, now introduce an atmosphere with some greenhouse gasses. These gasses are transparent to the visible light from the Sun, so that passes right through and heats the body’s surface. The body radiates according to its temperature–say 293 Kelvin. It’s radiating into the atmosphere, which is slightly cooler than the surface. In this layer, a certain small percentage of CO2 will be in its excited vibrational state. The radiation from below will excite more CO2 molecules. Once the molecule is excited, it can lose the extra energy either by radiating another photon or by colliding with another melecule and imparting the energy as kinetic energy (more likely), heating the atmosphere layer. The photons radiated downward warm the surface again. Those radiated upward get absorbed by the CO2 in the layer above, and the process repeats.
In summary, the outgoing IR causes more excited CO2 that would normally be present given the temperature of the gas layer. This extra energy goes into heating the atmosphere and the surface.
I’ve glossed over a lot of details, but that’s the basics.
David B. Benson // March 15, 2009 at 12:18 am |
Tamino — Tahks for the response to my question. I’ve just sent an email to BPL asking him about taking autocorrelation into account.
t_p_hamilton // March 14, 2009 at 6:39 pm — That was not this particular critic’s claim. Tamino’s reply makes clear that he doesn’t know his statistics well enough for the sort of commetns he writes.
Sekerob // March 14, 2009 at 9:50 pm — Nice chart. I suggest redoing it plotting both temperature and ln CO2, the expected forcing.
Craig Allen // March 15, 2009 at 2:18 am |
Sekerob:
It make no sense to compare the slopes of lines like this when the data have different units.
To demonstrate this, if you plot the CO2 concentration in parts per trillion, the slope will be less than that of the temperature.
The exception is where you can show that the slopes do or don’t have different signs, or that one has no slope and the other has a significant slope. These observations won’t be dependant on the units used.
chriscolose // March 15, 2009 at 5:07 am |
Off topic from the current direction of this discussion, but for those interested in the subject of CO2 variations during glacial-interglacial cycles, the author of a recent study in Science (Robert Anderson) has a lengthy comment at my site which may be instructive
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/a-new-hypothesis-for-deglacial-co2-rise/
bsharp55 // March 15, 2009 at 5:31 am |
Thank you Hank, I will do as you suggest. However I was hoping to find a free PDF, rather than a book that likely costs money.
I will also visit the local library. I suspect that the first assessment may be too old to find.
Google has made me rather lazy, I would rather punch a few characters into a field than get in my car and drive.
Philippe Chantreau // March 15, 2009 at 6:48 am |
I like Ray’s way to explain it better, Kipp. That’s pretty much the way I understood it before and amounts to the same. The end result is the equivalent of having the surface radiating up less (since some is radiating back down), so it could be described as impaired cooling (somewhat simplistic, I admit).
saltator // March 15, 2009 at 7:10 am |
Deep Climate,
“1) The graphic presented by McIntyre(twice!) showing maximum trend at 3 PCs was not generated using the actual RegEM used in Steig et al, but a modified less intensive variant (R is an interpreted language and apparently can’t handle the full on RegEM).”
The key is in the quote from CA that you used: part of which is: “Jeff C has now run RegEM … and has got 1 -0.07; 2 +0.15; 3 +0.15; 4 +0.16; 5 +0.12; 6 +0.10; 7 +0.11; 8 +0.11; 9 -0.08; 10 +0.05; 11 -0.02; 12 -0.05)”
So, it appears that RegEM was used by another person and the results were similar, i.e. that at higher regpars they did not converge but started going negative.
I am going to have a go at it myself using Matlab and see what happens.
saltator // March 15, 2009 at 7:19 am |
Deep Climate,
Ignore my reply to you. I read the later parts of your post more carefully and will take that on board and have your logic confirmed or dismissed by a statistician colleague.
Canadians, like we Australians seem to have better manners.
michel // March 15, 2009 at 8:36 am |
michel isn’t calling for drastic action. He is arguing that if drastic action is required, it will never happen. If drastic action is not required, why bother. Therefore, in any case, do nothing.
No, on the contrary. He is saying that if the situation is as represented, drastic action is the only rational course. And the latest reports coming out of the Copenhagen conference bear him out. One report for instance talked about a forecast from a prominent German scientist of the world population being reduced to 1 billion. Sea level rises of multiple meters are being forecast. This is drastic in any sense of the word.
There is no point in recommending actions which will have little or no effect on a problem. If coal fired power plants are the problem, there is no point stopping Kingsnorth, when the Chinese will commission 50 more Kingsnorths in the next year. Its feelgoodery. I am opposed to feelgoodery because it interferes with, and substitutes for, effective action. Ray ridicules me for talking about the Chinese coal fired plants. Its not ridiculous to talk about them, its ridiculous not to, if you really believe that the trains taking coal to them are ‘trains of death’. Get the rhetoric in line with the facts! Do something about the real problem. Doing something about one percent of it while refusing to address the other 99% is not doing something effective. Even if it does make you feel better.
Not that they are actually doing anything about Kingsnorth, they will just hold a couple of hour demo outside E.O.N. As if that will make any difference either to Kingsnorth or the planet!
The question for Ray, who seems to think that the goal should be 550ppmv, is what temperature rise this would lead to, and whether the view that this rise is acceptable is compatible with the reports coming out of Copenhagen? My impression is that the consensus now is that 550ppmv is a recipe for global catastrophe. Is this wrong?
michel // March 15, 2009 at 8:39 am |
Hank Roberts, you asked for a source for my quotes. The only source I have was the UK Independent link given. The Independent is not a rag – if it quoted Vicky Pope and the Met Office, one can be reasonably confident that it will have done so correctly, subject to normal reporter human fallibility. It will not have simply made it up.
Barton Paul Levenson // March 15, 2009 at 11:27 am |
David writes:
Tamino, the professional statistician, doesn’t know statistics well enough? Did you mean someone else here?
Bob North // March 15, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
BPL – I think David Benson was indicating the earlier commentator didn’t know his stats well enough, not that Tamino doesn’t know his stats well enough. Perhaps not the best sentence construction, but that’s what I took out of it.
dhogaza // March 15, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
He meant the object – “he” – not the subject “Tamino”, I do believe. The reply shows that “he”, the poster being replied to, doesn’t know his statistics well …
Ray Ladbury // March 15, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
Michel, Really, do tell. How do YOU propose to shut down the Chinese power plants and the CA freeway system? That, sir, is what is ridiculous in your posts–that and the implication that anything short of this extreme action isn’t worthless. Yes 550 ppmv is probably bad. 700 ppmv would be worse and 1000 ppmv worse still. What is more, reaching 550 ppmv in the next 20 years, would be worse than doing so, 300 years from now, when we will have hopefully developed mitigation strategies.
What we need are strategies we can implement NOW that make things better while we come up with more effective strategies.
Or you can let us know how you are progressing shutting down the Chinese power plants.
Lazar // March 15, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
Michel,
I’m still struggling to understand what you’re saying…
No. Any pragmatic action to reduce incremental costs is rational. You are dividing cumulative action into ‘big’ and ’small’ actions… and then saying it’s either one or the other. That is not logical; it is empirically unsound.
If shutting down Kingsnorth will likely save 10 lives, are you saying there is no point in stopping Kingsnorth?
Is it not that a relatively rich nation deciding to keep one coal fired plant because the effects of hypothetical action by the Chinese would be greater… the worst form of freeloading, as well as severely irrational in terms of costs?
How are we going to pressure the Chinese by doing that?
How are we going to develop replacement technology if we won’t do anything to reduce reliance on fossil fuel?
The emissions reduction of an individual is undetectable compared to global emissions. So is that of their neighbour. The cumulative effect builds. That is what nations do at times of war, especially when the odds of victory are slim… every individual takes every possible measure down to the smallest action to increase the odds. If each individual adopts the free-loading attitude that their individual contribution amounts to nothing, the government will enforce that action with legislation.
Hank Roberts // March 15, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
bsharp55 — you wanted the book I cited above using Book Burro. Where you see OCLC: 25012925 — that’s a library catalog number, used by libraries worldwide.
A public library can get most any book via interlibrary loan. You’re looking for something from before the Web existed!
You should look further at the IPCC site though, there may be pointers to the material even if not in the same form it was bound for printing.
Look all the way to the bottom of this page:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm
Hank Roberts // March 15, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
bsharp55 – for example look at the bottom of this page for 1989 and 1990 supporting material.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/supporting-material.htm
Again, I’m not saying this is the whole answer, just pointing to how to go look for it yourself.
David B. Benson // March 15, 2009 at 7:52 pm |
Barton Paul Levenson // March 15, 2009 at 11:27 am — Even in context that was not a well-constructed sentence. The critic, of your work, is over on Accuweather. I brought his sentences over here since I didn’t follow what he was saying and I thought Tamino might be able to explain. After Tamino’s response I was able to send you an e-mail and do a bit of reading about autotcorrelation and Generalized Least Squares.
In summary, Tamino knows his stuff and the critic does not.
Lazar // March 15, 2009 at 9:42 pm |
Michel, in summary… if the problem is more serious than previously thought, meaning the absolute costs are higher, then the absolute benefit of actions of relatively minor impact becomes greater, and so they become more rather than less necessary. You’re saying the opposite and I don’t understand why. It’s not a binary case of ‘large costs’ versus ‘no costs’… the costs are incremental and practically unbounded. If every individual applies your logic, then the cumulative impact of all those ‘minor actions’ not taken is … huge. And those categories ‘minor’ and ‘action’ are arbitrary. Everyone does the best they can, every little action to improve odds by the smallest fraction, to reduce costs by the smallest fraction improves our position. You disagree … ?
michel // March 15, 2009 at 10:04 pm |
Ray, I do not need to do anything about the California freeway system.
The Almighty is going to do it for me. He has it in His sights. As Steven Chu said: “”I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen …. We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California …. I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.”.
Quoted in the LA Times, Feb 4.
Still think its so ridiculous to think about closing it down? Its going, one way or the other.
Kipp Alpert // March 15, 2009 at 10:09 pm |
Ray Ladbury: Thanks, you didn’t have to explain all that, but I relly needed to know. I love Science, and realize how much work you have put in, to have achieved what you have. I’m commited to the fight for Humanity until I die. Chris Colose wrote: Absorption of a particular gas occurs when the freuqency of the elctromagnetic radiation is that of the moleculer vibrational gas in question. So I guess this would hold true for other GHG’s like methane. Is that right. This would also warm dipole molecules as well. By convection. Just another food tube,KIPP
Kipp Alpert // March 15, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
b-Sharp.I found The first assessement report at Amazon for 9.00$.It may be used, but that is just good luck. KIPP
Dave A // March 15, 2009 at 11:36 pm |
Lazar,
“If shutting down Kingsnorth will likely save 10 lives, are you saying there is no point in stopping Kingsnorth?”
But if building Kingsnorth keeps the lights and heat on and thus saves the lives of 10 people are you saying there is no point in building it?
Barton Paul Levenson // March 16, 2009 at 12:14 am |
David,
Sorry, I misunderstood you completely. My bad.
Michel,
Hopefully if we switch away from coal ourselves, and come up with cheaper sources of energy, the Chinese will follow suit. Yes, if we act and the PRC doesn’t, we’re screwed. But who says they won’t act even if we do? Even if we make wind or solar cheaper than coal? They’re not stupid. I hear they’ve massively stepped up their wind power program recently. Does anyone have any details?
Ray Ladbury // March 16, 2009 at 12:31 am |
Kipp,
Molecules can be excited from the ground state by rotation, by vibration, by elevating an electron to a higher energy level, and so on. If you have a magnetic field, that can come into play as well. What quantum mechanics tells us is that the energy of the photon absorbed by the molecule has to coincide with the difference between two energy states of that molecule. That is, it corresponds to a “line” in the spectrum. As the molecules interact, the “line” broadens, and still more in a fluid where interactions are stronger. Finally in a solid, the “lines” become “bands”. In a plasma, the electrons and ions become dissociated, and things get really complicated–that’s the only place where the “magnetohydrodynamics” that G&T alluded to so mysteriously would come into play. That’s why any real scientist is just laughing at these guys.
Kipp Alpert // March 16, 2009 at 12:46 am |
DaveA:So where do you draw the line.When do you as a single individual change,even if it only inflluences one other person. As inaction is useless, any action is better than nothing.If my family conserves,that will save more energy for more people who conserve, and that will have a cumulative effect.If you are unable to commit yourself to Humanity in general, than individually you do not deserve to waste the energy of those that are. As far as progress goes, one step in Heaven is one less in Hell. KIPP
Hank Roberts // March 16, 2009 at 1:09 am |
Guys, if you want to argue the Lomborg stuff, it’s all opinion. You won’t learn much about statistics from trying to value individual lives on a cost-benefit basis in a blog like this. Attention …..
chriscolose // March 16, 2009 at 2:15 am |
Why care so much about what I wrote? I didn’t win any celebrity award recently. Ray’s description is right on the money.
Kipp Alpert // March 16, 2009 at 2:15 am |
Ray Ladbury:
Your first paragraph refers to the Stefan-Boltzman Law(fourth power).The outgoing radiation is(OLR)outgoing longwave radiation has less energy than incoming shortwave radiation which is transparent, which upholds the first law of thermodynamics. I am buying a book on Atmospheric Radiation.
Also water vapour is a feedback not a forcing and increases or decreases according to temperature. Kelvin is absolute zero in the universe. When I am wrong,I’m sure you will let me know.It is interesting that when you study one thing you pick up a lot more and the puzzle gets a tad more easy. Now I will go back to denialville and impart more wisdom, with a carrot or a stick.Whatever worked with my child. Thanks Again,KIPP
Kipp Alpert // March 16, 2009 at 3:43 am |
Ray Labury:
The reason that trace gases like co2 and methane, are in the troposphere, is due to their atomic weight.Hydrogen which weighs less and doesn’t stay in our atmosphere,but escapes. Helium weighs less than oxygen or nitrogen and is used in weather balloons. If you light a cigarette next to a hydrogen balloon, you could become a living space orbiter, next to a bunch of space junk. Right! FT KIPP
Philippe Chantreau // March 16, 2009 at 4:12 am |
“But if building Kingsnorth keeps the lights and heat on and thus saves the lives of 10 people are you saying there is no point in building it?”
Strange question. It’s already built, completed 35 years ago. So the question should have been “are you saying there was no point building it?” It’s a stupid question. There was a point building it 45 years ago (roughly spanned1963-1973).
As of now, the E.U. says there is no point keeping it up but perhaps one shutting it down, neither of which has any bearing on whether there was a point building it 40 years ago or not.
If you’re arguing about the proposed replacements, you’re doing it rather clumsily and it’s not obvious at all from your post.
You’re very good at rethoric Michel. Sound like a lawyer in the majority of your posts.
That brings me to wonder what in the world is the point of all that rethoric. The simple option is that you want to make the AGW “believers” (i.e. “us”, who are against “you”) admit that extreme measures are indispensable and overdue, and then argue that these measures will be more damaging than adaptation, a fairly common line.
But then again, you have shown some sophistication, at least with language, so I could be wrong. Why don’t you enlighten us and get to the point of all your freakin’ rethoric?
Ray Ladbury // March 16, 2009 at 9:43 am |
Kipp, Kelvin is a temperature scale–just like Farenheit and Celsius. For degrees Celsius, 0 degrees is the freezing point and 100 degrees the boiling point of water. For Kelvin, 273 degrees is the freezing point of water and 0 degrees is the coldest temperature attainable–absolute zero–where thermal (though not quantum) motion stops. A Kelvin is the same size as a degree Celsius. Note that we say “Kelvins” and not degrees Kelvin. So now you can say Kelvins and be one of the “in crowd” with the nerds.
Lazar // March 16, 2009 at 9:49 am |
Hank,
The discussion is more about logic than coba, or even the logic of coba.
Lazar // March 16, 2009 at 10:11 am |
Describing the GHG effect… are there multiple valid ways?
Heating or cooling can describe gross or net energy transfer, or temperature change, and ‘the system’ can similarly be described variably. Provided the definitions are physical, I think whichever works best intuitively for the individual… only beware that same flexibility gives opportunities for others to twist words and meanings! I like Phillipe’s “impaired cooling” because it works intuitively wrt net fluxes, and because the definition cannot be implied to mean something silly wrt the 2nd law.
michel // March 16, 2009 at 10:25 am |
You cannot do it without drastic changes of lifestyle. Read this:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/189293
We need neither. What we need is social, not individual action. It needs to be global, not national. It needs to be effective, not ’setting an example’. It needs to be directed to change of lifestyle of a drastic sort, not to keeping existing lifestyles going by slightly different means and technologies that in terms of engineering exist only in fantasy. Or that cannot be implemented on the scale required in the time required.
On Kingsnorth, it should be built. It is the cleanest coal plant we know how to build. The UK is in a perilous situation regarding energy. The consequences of further delays will be severe. As it is, hundreds or sometimes thousands of people die of cold every year there in winter. Start having power cuts in winter, it will get really bad. Don’t talk about ’saving 10 lives’ as if there were a way of doing that by not building this thing. That is not the choice, there are serious social costs of not building it too.
Don’t fly over here and tell us to kill people to set examples which will make no difference to GW, while saying that ‘politics is the art of the possible’ as a justification for refusing to do things in the US and elsewhere that really might make a difference.
Maybe while he is in the UK, Hansen could urge them to close down the M4, M1 and M6. This will require drastic collective social action. Yes.
He could explain that the US would love to follow this heroic example, but that drastic social collective action is really not appropriate for California or Long Island. Which will nevertheless be most impressed by the inspirational example of the UK. And they will certainly do their bit. They will be urging people to buy more hybrids to get to their malls, and more pasta when they arrive there.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 16, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
michel:
> The UK is in a perilous situation regarding energy.
Having been just last year in Newcastle upon Tyne, I cannot resist commenting… the Brits should just learn to insulate their homes, double glazing, heat pumps etc. One of my colleagues there was a British researcher now living in Lapland — in a home designed for the surrounding climate –, and he got all apologetic about his compatriots’ wasteful habits. Having immigrated myself from the Netherlands (where things are only little better), I could only nod and agree.
There’s hugely low hanging fruit to pick. And we can drastically restructure our production system without traumatic lifestyle changes (and don’t ask for links on this, after the umpteenth time posting them I’ve gotten kindo lazy). But yes, we’ll have to internalize that our economy is only a subsystem of the climate system. And rather now than later.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 16, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
Lazar,
“As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.”
– John Tyndall, 1862 (that’s EIGHTEEN sixty-two!)
Hank Roberts // March 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
> The UK is in a perilous situation …
> hundreds or sometimes thousands of
> people die of cold every year there in winter
Citation needed. Why do you believe this is true?
What is your source, and why do you trust it?
Perhaps you’re relying on something like this?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/cold-f04.shtml
But this kind of journalistic presentation has been debunked extensively.
Yes, it’s true that the further south you go, the more wintertime excess deaths show up, because there’s less insulation and less heating. The effect is even worse once you get closer to the Mediterranean where they have less or no insulation and heat.
Michel, seriously, you can obtain actual information and cite useful sources. Try it.
Here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=death+rate+winter+Europe+cold
Read the published work, please. You have this habit of just throwing down statements as though it were obvious what they mean, and it’s consistently stuff that’s being spun at very high rates in the PR and press sources. If you’d just look stuff up for yourself, you’d be able to contribute something interesting.
So far it’s almost all just homework help problems, stuff you could do for yourself.
It’s _boring_, looking up sources for you.
Hank Roberts // March 16, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
Oh, and that Scholar search will also help understand why the frequently repeated claim of ‘fewer deaths because of warming’ is bogus. There aren’t fewer, it’s when during the year they occur. That can be changed any time by insulating houses further south, so elderly people stay warmer in winter. Business as usual would be to simply put less insulation in new housing built further north on the theory that it will be warmer outside so why spend the money.
Beyond that if you read the statistics from the far North, it’s knowing how to dress warmly and staying indoors. When a person is outdoors in winter, dry and very cold air is much less dangerous than less cold but damp air. This stuff should be obvious.
Ray Ladbury // March 16, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
Michel,
Given that:
1) You aren’t even listening to what others are saying
2) You don’t understand the science
3) You don’t understand technology development
4) You are prejudging the solution based on a current snapshot
5) You are given to hysterical rants
can you give us any good reason why we should pay attention to anything you say? What is needed NOW are concrete actions the people can take NOW. Don’t give us this crap about “It’s all or nothing.” Hell, the recalcitrance of folks like you is one of the reasons we’ve lost 2 decades in dealing with this threat. If you don’t have concrete ideas on how to make things better, then standing out of the way while the rest of us try mght be a good strategy for you.
JCH // March 16, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
Death counting do to extreme weather is hopelessly flawed. Infirm people can die of hypothermia at remarkably warm temperatures.
Respiratory illness in cold climates cluster around the cold and flu season. They have similar numbers of respiratory deaths in warmer climates, but evenly dispersed throughout the year. Older people do not have longer life spans in Florida and Alabama; they have longer life spans in North Dakota Minnesota.
But Lomborg has gotten some miles out of this nonsense.
Tom G // March 16, 2009 at 5:01 pm |
I’ve been following this exchange with Michel and in my humble opinion he is simply a delayer.
He has been playing the part of the devil’s advocate with the sole intent to confuse the issue.
luminous beauty // March 16, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
michel,
Some more fun with numbers a la Newsweak:
Lifetime of a 500MW coal-fired electric plant = 40yrs.
Current world coal-fired electric production = 3.8TW
By 2050, all existing coal-fired electric plants will have to be replaced at a rate of a new 500MW plant nearly every two days.
Regardless.
Oh! My! God!
Meanwhile, in Other News…
b_sharp // March 16, 2009 at 5:52 pm |
Hank, thanks for the help. I took a look at those pages a while ago but from what I can see even the Cambridge UP no longer has the report listed. I checked my local library, not there either.
Kipp: Thanks for the help.
I just looked, couldn’t find it. I found the newer stuff but not the first AR. Got a link?
Philippe Chantreau // March 16, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
Not sure I’m buying your scare tactics Michel. If anything, the UK would be better served with nuclear power plants, IMO.
Hank’s pointers describe reality much better.
And back in 1902, self propelled aeroplanes were nothing but engineering fantasies.
P. Lewis // March 16, 2009 at 7:50 pm |
When, I hear you ask?
Can’t say I recall them happening (not even this year in the worst winter in umpteen years), but perhaps I was on holiday at the time.
Now, whilst I genuinely believe we in the UK are in for a bit of a “squeaky bum” time on the power front next decade, quite simply the lights will not be allowed to go out. There are delivery issues on the manufacturing front for new nuclear plant (everyone rushing to get in on the act creating a bottleneck), but deals would be struck where technically possible, perhaps with some remedial actions, to continue to run the existing nuclear plant until new plant comes on line (and I’m sure government will ride roughshod over planning issues if the need arises). Similarly with the coal-fired plant issues raised regarding use at peak times only.
Pragmatism, providing there is a clear, unambiguous commitment to replace present generating capacity, will trump ideals every time. And quite honestly, though not ideal, 2 or 3 years extra running dirty coal generating capacity will not unduly add to the problems we have been building into the biosphere … as long as the commitment to change is written in stone.
The point raised about housing stock and poor insulation in the UK is true. I know. I grew up in a single-skin concrete construction house put up in the late 1950s/early 1960s when the governments of the day were rushing to put up houses quickly and cheaply. My mum still lives in one; as do many thousands in the town I was born in (and in many similar towns throughout the country). There’s little one can do: knock ‘em down and build anew (expensive; and how much CO2 would that output?); build on outer skins (expensive); build in inner skins (in already small houses). I can’t see any of these routes happening on a large scale, though individuals may opt for the latter I suppose (I think I would).
Kipp Alpert // March 16, 2009 at 8:18 pm |
Chris Colose:You wrote the article, and Ray Ladbury answered a question. Did you want to win an Award.
Phil Scadden // March 16, 2009 at 8:51 pm |
Michel (and perhaps everyone), you can download a free book (or buy it if you want it in bedtime format) from http://www.withouthotair.com which seriously informs this debate. Its remarkably readable but the authors intent is provide numbers into the energy debate about sustainable energy. He has the numbers on what is physically possible as well as comment on economically physical. In particular he is interested in informing the debate about what the UK needs to do to be off fossil fuels by 2050.
He explains how to use his methods to do the sums for other countries. Format is sections on how we use energy (cars, planes, heating etc) and how we produce it (wind, solar, nuclear). At back are technical chapters with the physics for those that want the detail. Everything is well referenced.
I am still reading but it builds to section on 5 possible energy plans for UK. These are discussion points really each with its own evil and good. Both sobering and hopeful because it really outlines the limits of the possible.
I cant recommend this book highly enough. If you want the numbers – eg how much do I save if I drive half as slow; how much wind power can you possibly get; can we run on biofuel etc? – without the bullshit, then this is the place to go. Even better, it is highly entertaining reading. Dont make sweeping statements about what energy plans without consulting.
Kipp Alpert // March 16, 2009 at 9:03 pm |
ChrisColose:I never want to get credit for writing something I didn’t write.I need to be intellectually honest.
Dave A // March 16, 2009 at 9:37 pm |
BPL
“. But who says they won’t act even if we do? Even if we make wind or solar cheaper than coal? They’re not stupid.
What the F… do we do in the interim before renewables get to anywhere, if ever, they can replace reliable baseload?
Are you asking the Chinese to wait for 50 years?
Its totally unrealistic!
Dave A // March 16, 2009 at 9:43 pm |
Philippe Chantreau,
How pedantic can you be? It was obvious I was referring to the new station
Dave A // March 16, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
Kipp,
I’m with you all the way until you get to“one step in Heaven is one less in Hell.”
Kipp Alpert // March 17, 2009 at 12:07 am |
Ray Ladbury:What the answer was to my dumb question about GHG’s being at a certain level of the atmosphere is pressure density, or Magnetic permeability um.So all this is for me to use for the fight about getting it done now!At least I will know what I am talking about rather than delay what must be changed now for Humanity in the end,trumps 12 people who don’t know how to dress for cold weather. Pioneers and our Forfathers didn’t even have one coal fired plant.
Unless you are drunk or stupid you can adapt.As if deniers gave a damn.
Lazar // March 17, 2009 at 12:22 am |
Michel,
In the here and now where we don’t have a world government, can’t stop Chinese building coal fired plants, and can’t switch off mass transit, people are left to decide whether to take ’smaller’ steps or carry on with BAU.
… of course I wasn’t… you discussed Kingsnorth under the premise that coal-fired plants are a bad idea… the costs of Kingsnorth were assumed hypothetical not real…
I replied whilst accepting the premise….
Please… your response?
Kipp Alpert // March 17, 2009 at 2:48 am |
DaveA: One step forward is better than two steps backward.
Kipp Alpert // March 17, 2009 at 2:55 am |
Bob North : Ya! Tamino is a statiholic. He can’t help himself sometimes. I can see him at home making a chart on the refrigerator why his wife should buy the Grapefruit as opposed to the oranges.
[Response: Statiholic, yes. But stupid enough to meddle with the wife's shopping habits, no!]
Phil Scadden // March 17, 2009 at 3:06 am |
Shutting down China? Well dont export industry to China and dont buy Chinese goods. Simple. Ethical? Hmm. The people who created the problem want someone else to pay for it with their lifestyle.
The simplest start for the west is dont build more coal plants unless they have CCS; invest heavily in renewables and research; work to create clean industry in India and China (esp. dont shut them out of clean technologies). You dont need world government to impose a carbon tax on imports with a dirty carbon footprint.
Hank Roberts // March 17, 2009 at 5:07 am |
> grapefruit
Data from studies at this point is contradictory, a mechanism is known, but not well understood.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/health/25real.html?_r=1
michel // March 17, 2009 at 8:16 am |
No. If that is all it does. Obviously there is some point in saving ten lives! If we could save ten lives (net of course) by vaccination against some illness, we should do that too.
What I am disputing is that closing Kingsnorth will have the effect of producing a net savings of ten lives.
I would also dispute, if you are seriously going about saving lives in the UK, that closing Kingsnorth is where you would start. You’d start with death on the roads, and you might also focus on alcohol abuse and hospital induced infections and excess winter mortality among the old.
Take death on the roads. In the UK a bit under 3000 people a year are killed, and (estimates vary) several times that number are seriously injured. Children and the old are a large proportion. Various measures are routinely proposed and rejected which would reduce that number. The fact is that as a society, we do not, as a matter of fact, seem to consider these entirely predictable deaths and injuries important enough to do anything about them. In some curious way these deaths do not seem to count and the number inspires neither indignation nor action.
People dispute what I say about the UK energy situation and excess winter deaths. I’ll post separately.
michel // March 17, 2009 at 8:46 am |
The view that hypothermia and inadequate heating is a cause of excess winter death among the old is fairly commonplace in the UK, both in government and the charitable sector. It is the basis of a government program, the Winter Fuel Payment, which pays £250 per household to people between 60 and 79, and £400 a year to households over the age of 80. The actual calculation is more complicated than this, but the principle is correct.
So if you are correct, and it is simply an urban myth, it is at least one which is shared at the highest levels of UK government, and is believed strongly enough to motivate the spending of real money.
Here is a typical charitable sector site writing about it. But you can find articles in the quality press about it all the time.
http://www.poverty.org.uk/67/index.shtml
Is the UK in a perilous situation regarding electricity generation? It seems there is a consensus that it is. Here for instance is the Times:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1813006.ece
Here is a story from an environmental site which makes basically the same point
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=116451&keybold=climate%20AND%20%20change%20AND%20%20risk%20AND%20%20underestimated
There is a real problem here.
So to US residents, one would say that before you start telling the UK to close Kingsnorth, just figure out for yourselves what proportion of UK generating capacity it is going to represent in say five years time. Then get on with closing down an equivalent percentage in the US. When you’ve done it, get back to us.
Till then, stop telling us you cannot do things you want us to do, because at the borders of America, politics becomes the art of the possible.
michel // March 17, 2009 at 8:51 am |
I’m not sure of having made the point about Kingsnorth and road deaths clearly enough. My point is, if you are looking to lower CO2 emissions in a way which will maximize the living experience of the residents of the UK, you’d go after transport first. Because the more you lower driving, the lower the death and injury rates, and lots of those are happening among children. The returns from this will be enormous. The returns from closing Kinsgsnorth for an equivalent CO2 savings will be powerfully negative.
If we are picking where to save CO2, transport and food production are where to focus on, not, at least not right now, and not in the UK, electricity generation.
Sekerob // March 17, 2009 at 9:42 am |
For KIPP, something is missing in your last few posts.
Gareth // March 17, 2009 at 11:14 am |
What are you? Man or mouse?
Do the shopping yourself…
(I do. It’s cheaper.)
luminous beauty // March 17, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
michel,
The last sentence from your poverty link:
Are you saying not building one coal-fired replacement plant will cause the government to withhold the winter fuel allotment?
Many poor Americans have to rely on the generosity of Hugo Chavez. Many well-off Americans think that is undue meddling in our domestic affairs.
Kevin McKinney // March 17, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
Poking around this morning, I found more on developing economies & renewables (wind in this case):
1) Top ten countries in installed wind energy generation capacity:
http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/images/Publications/2008_Report/Top_10_total_installed_capacity_2008.jpg
(India was the surprise for me.)
2) GWEC annual report summary:
http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnewstt_news=189&tx_ttnewsbackPid=4&cHash=acbd5fcd72
(Presumably you can cut & paste this unwieldy URL.
(The story lays out the exponential growth curve in wind capacity, and highlights that in the near term, China will be the growth leader due to aggressive investment.)
Hank Roberts // March 17, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
Michel, it’s a shift in the time of year when people die, and this pattern is more pronounced the further _south_ you go in Europe because of the lack of insulation. They don’t build buildings to retain heat and stay warm and dry because it’s been cheaper in the short term to provide heat instead of insulation, weatherproofing, dry indoor air and warm clothing.
That doesn’t prove what you claim.
When the planet gets warmer it moves the range in which business as usual would simply build without insulation and weatherstripping, moving the problem along with the climate change. It’s the lack of longterm conservative thinking about how to build without wasting resources that needs to change here.
Simon Evans // March 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
Michel,
1. It is not a choice between blocking development of a new plant at Kingsnorth and saving lives elsewhere. You are simply presenting a false dilemma.
2. The option is not to prevent Kingsnorth and thus leave people to freeze to death, as you rather dramatically seem to imply. It is a matter of what choices we make as to the means of electricity generation going forward.
3. Power stations are responsible for the largest component of UK CO2 emissions – larger than transport, all of other industry, and so on. If we are to progress emission reduction it is unavoidable that we look to reduce emissions from generating electricity. It is also far more feasible to make equivalent percentage reductions in this area than in transport. Besides which, any future decarbonising of transport is likely to depend heavily upon electricity, and therefore the need to develop low-carbon electricity is all the more obvious.
Hank Roberts // March 17, 2009 at 3:33 pm |
> Expats on the Portuguese Algarve have spent
> the last few months shivering in their damp
> apartments and villas wondering what had
> happened to the advertised 3,000 hours of
> sunshine a year.
>
> After the wettest winter for 15 years, even the > poshest property is falling victim to mildew.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7937086.stm
wildlifer // March 17, 2009 at 3:34 pm |
I guess my post disappeared into the aether. A few denialists are hitting me with a “study” by Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “We realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said. “I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing,” he added.
Tsonis further added: “The temperature has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift towards cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.” [ See also: Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 ]
[Response: The Tsonis paper is an interesting exercise in mathematical masturbation. His comment that temperature has flattened indicates a lack of statistical rigor in characterizing the data.]
Deech56 // March 17, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
Friends, I swear that I have fallen into another dimension. In trying to make a point about life back when CO2 levels were higher than today, I mentioned looking back to the historical record, followed by a comment inspired by poster Hank Roberts. (Hopefully, the HTML tags will work correctly.)
Why do I bang my head against the wall?
Hank Roberts // March 17, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
> Why do I bang my head against the wall?
Because it will feel _so_ good when you stop.
Alternative: go to Discovery’s website and see if they cite a source for that; if not see if they have a contact link and ask them for one!
Hank Roberts // March 17, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
> Tsonis
See Gavin’s cautionary inline response here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/olympian-efforts-to-control-pollution/#comment-115040
where he wrote:
[Response: I guarantee that few of the people quoting this study have even read the abstract, let alone the paper, and have absolutely no idea what is being discussed. A quick read is sufficient to discover that a) this is a discussion about how the climate reacts to forcings, not whether it does, and b) doesn’t look at GCM output (and so can’t really assess whether GCMs are in some way deficient), and c) explicitly states that the authors expect the long term trends to continue to warm. How this supports the idea that GW is false is completely beyond my ken. It proves rather (once again) that there are plenty of people who can type faster than they think. - gavin]
Barton Paul Levenson // March 17, 2009 at 6:53 pm |
Dave A, in his usual charming fashion, writes:
I don’t think it will take 50 years to build smart grids, and as I have pointed out before on this very blog, there are solar thermal plants now achieving close to 24/7 operation just by storing excess heat from peak hours in molten salts. In any case, you can use fossil fuels for baseline power and provide a greater and greater fraction from renewables as the smart grids go up. I never said you had to shut down all the coal plants later today. I do say you should stop building new ones and build renewable instead. You’ve got enough fossil fuel plants to provide baseline power already; new plants should use solar, wind, biomass, or geothermal (another 24/7 source).
David B. Benson // March 17, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
Deech56 // March 17, 2009 at 4:38 pm — That’s not good for the wall.
Kipp Alpert // March 17, 2009 at 7:57 pm |
Hank Roberts:Where doth you find such stuff.
Kipp Alpert // March 17, 2009 at 7:57 pm |
Tamino: Only way to survive.
Kipp Alpert // March 17, 2009 at 7:59 pm |
Sekerob: What’s missing. Some knowledge, please share?
Dave A // March 17, 2009 at 8:54 pm |
BPL,
“You’ve got enough fossil fuel plants to provide baseline power already”
Are you talking about the US here, because that certainly isn’t the case in many parts of the world?
And your solar plants. Exactly how big are they and how much energy are they actually providing?
And the smart grids, yes they will grow, but how fast? You can’t install smart grids everywhere at the same time.
This whole process will take much longer than you seem to think (its not at all like sending people to the moon!) and in the interim fossil fuel use will need to grow.
Kipp Alpert // March 17, 2009 at 11:03 pm |
Hank Roberts:Zotero is a firefox extension,as you know,but when I get Mfirefox it takes over my computer,and I like the google toolbar a lot.
It seems to bury google. My computer has plenty of space so I use favorites, which isn’t well organized. Your advice about books versus websites is so true.I do take all your reccomendations. Sir. KIPP
Lazar // March 18, 2009 at 12:20 am |
Michel,
Good. I am relieved that you do not consider ’small’ actions to be worthless or irrational.
Ray Ladbury // March 18, 2009 at 1:08 am |
Dave A.,
Actually, in places where there is no grid, renewables already offer competitive energy. Battery technology is improving all the time–and not just Li-ion. Even reliable lead-acid batteries are undergoing a revolution of sorts (see recent issue of The Economist Tech. Quarterly).
So, other than climate, politics, science and technology, are there any other subjects you’d like to expound upon that you don’t understand?
Kipp Alpert // March 18, 2009 at 2:46 am |
Baton Paul Levenson:
Everything you said makes sense. But how do you legislate morality.
Instead of Americans buying nets for kids against malaria in third world countries, Americans spend more money on their dogs. On T.V. they have the Dog Whisperer show, but how many people really listen to NPR or care about poor people here. Like our Vets!
In China with a burgeoning middle class, everyone wants to buy a car. The world’s abundance of coal is a major hurdle. Obama has just thrown some money, for green technology, and if this turns a profit, only than will things start to happen. It’s not if or when but why, and we don’t have an overabundance of emotional intelligence.
Deep Climate // March 18, 2009 at 6:04 am |
The Discovery article on the Swanson-Tsonis paper was also cited at CA.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause.html
Here’s the part that doesn’t get quoted by skeptics:
” Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it’s just a hiccup, and that humans’ penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.
“When the climate kicks back out of this state, we’ll have explosive warming,” Swanson said. “Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.”
But all the same, I don’t see any statistical evidence yet that AGW has slowed much if at all, even temporarily. There are still decade-over-decade temperature increases, as has been demonstrated clearly here and elsewhere.
michel // March 18, 2009 at 8:41 am |
Of course I am not saying that! What I am saying is that not building this one will lead to power shortages and blackouts and price rises and that will kill (old) people in winter. Logica the consultancy is quoted as reporting that the UK will lose 25% of its current generating capacity by 2015. Do not build Kingsnorth, it will make no measurable difference to the planet, but it will make a big difference to the old in the UK winter because it will lead to power outages and price rises. There is a crisis in UK electricity generation even with Kingsnorth. Without it, it will be even worse. You want to save carbon emissions, this is exactly the wrong place to start doing it. You want to start saving lives, this is not a way of doing it.
There is a great American tradition of this sort of thing, and Hansen is squarely in it. Fly in someplace you know nothing about, and offer prescriptions which are both impractical and which the US has no intention of following itself.
Hansen should stay home and close his own plants, and when he has done that, maybe he can consider coming over to the UK to explain how it was done and what the lessons were. Those of you who want to get excited about Kingsnorth should do the same.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 18, 2009 at 9:03 am |
You don’t have to. You grow capacity at the rate it is needed, i.e., the same rate generating capacity depending on it comes on line.
The amount of work and resources need to build a new coal-fired power plant isn’t any less than for a similar sized solar or wind array or geothermal or whatever. Yes, there may be bottlenecks for some raw materials — there is a study on this for the US, don’t have link handy. But if you replace coal-fired plants as they are phased out, it is a thirty-year process, the depreciation time for a plant.
It will take thirty years at least, whether we start now, or start later. So better start now, don’t you think? If we start later, I expect based on the science, that we’ll find ourselves in panic mode, scrapping perfectly good working power plants, a huge destruction of capital.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 18, 2009 at 9:08 am |
PS you could actually bother to read what BPL wrote — with comprehension. Should have saved myself the trouble, near everything I pointed out was already in his post. It’s a bit senseless repeating facts when they won’t stick anyway.
Kevin McKinney // March 18, 2009 at 11:02 am |
BPL, this tactic appears to be a current strawman: “If we just stop burning fossil fuels, it will be economic ruin!”
Just had this conversation elsewhere; I responded roughly as you did. Honestly, where do these ideas come from?
Since we were talking about Germany, I pointed out that the domestic deployment and exports of renewable technologies are currently a bright spot in a dismal economic picture. Got accused of changing the subject.
Ray Ladbury // March 18, 2009 at 2:35 pm |
The arguments that phasing out fossil fuel plants will bring economic ruin is a red herring. First, it’s not clear whether we have 30 years of coal reserves given the growth rates likely in China, India and the rest of the developing world. The fact is that we need to find solutions other than fossil fuel–and that is true even if we didn’t have the climate threat. Those who are saying that fossil fuel is a prerequisite for civilization are in effect saying that civilization is merely a short interval between hunter-gatherer phases of human existence. I’m perfectly satisfied to dismiss such opinions as being lunatic fringe.
Sekerob // March 18, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
[i] Kipp Alpert // March 17, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Sekerob: What’s missing. Some knowledge, please share?[/i]
You’re letting it get to you. IGNORE the agitators. They’ll never turn and only suck energy, so by letting them be you’ll be conserving energy. Anyway, the style looked different from what I remembered from you weeks earlier and your traditional sign off was/is missing, so I wondered if it was possible to impersonate and just use someone else’s handle?
On FFX addons, check out CoolPreviews. Absolutely brilliant, by second favorite after ScribeFire. Greatly increased my reading/navigation speed habits.
SEKEROB ;-)
Lazar // March 18, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
Michel,
This comment is bizarre…
Hansen has not closed Kingsnorth, nor has he closed any U.S. plants, nor does he have the power to do any such thing. He position on coal plants is the same toward the U.S. as it is the U.K., but he has put far more pressure onto the U.S. side, and you can read all about that here. Hansen is a climate scientist, CO2 is a well-mixed gas, and the effects of climate change are global.
David B. Benson // March 18, 2009 at 6:52 pm |
Looks like peak oil has already come and gone.
Peak coal is next, perhaps as early as 2020, only a decade away.
Doesn’t make a lot of sense to spend around $2 billion to build a new large coal-fired generating station now, does it?
Kipp Alpert // March 18, 2009 at 7:05 pm |
SEKEROB: One handle is good enough. I do need more time and studying to learn. Accuwatever is insulting drivel,so I will post less, and let them stew in their own juices. Extremists sure carry a bunch of anger, so I guess blogging for them is better than hitting their wives. I don’t see how Gore or Dr.Hansen are the devil incarnate. KIPP
Lazar // March 18, 2009 at 8:12 pm |
Michel,
Or they could invest in new natural gas plants, gas imports, renewables, nuclear, and energy efficiency. If they start now, natural gas, renewables, and efficiency improvements will come online in time. Nuclear a few years later.
How do you intend to limit carbon emissions and not increase energy costs?
Timothy Chase // March 18, 2009 at 8:53 pm |
From Swanson and Tsonis (2009), Has the climate recently shifted? (first paragraph):
However, for the period from 1950 to 2008, the presentation:
North Pacific Decadal Variability in the Future
by Di Lorenzo E. with collaborators: Schneider N. Cobb K. M., Chhak, K, Franks P. J. S., Miller A. J., McWilliams J. C., Bograd S. J., Arango W.J. Sydeman, H., Curchister E., Powell T. M. and P. Rivere
Presented at:
PICES 17th Annual Meeting, Oct 24 – Nov 2, 2008, Dalian, China
Beyond observations to achieving understanding and forecasting in a changing North Pacific: Forward to the FUTURE
available at:
http://www.pices.int/publications/presentations/PICES_17/Best_17/Best_2008.aspx
… gives the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation a lead time of ~10 months on ENSO with R* = 0.64, and that is for 1950-2008. According to:
North Pacific Gyre Oscillation
http://www.o3d.org/npgo/
… NPGO bottomed out at the beginning of 2005 and has been rising ever since. If the lead applies over the next few years then it would appear that we should see ENSO peak some time in 2010-2011.
Dave A // March 18, 2009 at 9:37 pm |
Ray,
You are clutching at straws whilst laying red herrings.
Where are these developing countries that are finding renewables to be the future? Name them.
On the coal front, the supplies available in the UK could last for 300 years. Supplies are similarly available elsewhere. Perhaps you missed the last zero when you were surfing.
Dave A // March 18, 2009 at 9:41 pm |
Lazar,
How do you intend to limit carbon emissions and not increase energy costs?”
How do you intend to limit carbon emissions and not increase the burden on the poorest in society?
Dave A // March 18, 2009 at 9:46 pm |
Ray,
Have you noticed Shell (not your favourite company, I guess) has pulled out of backing wind and solar because they are “uneconomic”?
Says something when one of the World’s biggest energy companies does that, does it not?
David B. Benson // March 18, 2009 at 11:10 pm |
Dave A // March 18, 2009 at 9:37 pm — Ha! Follow this link
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/hubbert-hearts-hansen-hubbert-curve-was.html
to see just how wrong you are about coal.
Ray Ladbury // March 18, 2009 at 11:55 pm |
Dave A., Well, apparently we can add the exponential function to that long list of things you don’t understand. The same folks now saying we have 300 years of coal were saying we had over 100 years of oil in the 70s (funny, that includes Shell Oil, but not T. Boone Pickens, who is still investing in wind and water).
Do you really think coal will last 100 years when Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, Indonesians and Africans start consuming like Yanks and Brits? Do you really think it will last 100 years when we start using it for all the stuff we now use oil–transport, agriculture, chemicals…?
Dave A., if you want to just sit back and think that everything you need for comfort in your dotage will miraculously just appear, that’s fine. I rather doubt we’ll see any creative solutions wafting over from your direction. Meanwhile, the adults–you know, the ones who concern themselves with ensuring the continuation of civilization–have work to do.
Kipp Alpert // March 18, 2009 at 11:55 pm |
DaveA:You are an Idiot.Why wouldn’t shell, an oil company say any thing else.
Hank Roberts // March 19, 2009 at 12:04 am |
> clutching at straws whilst laying red herrings.
Block that metaphor!
> How do you intend to … not increase the
> burden on the poorest in society?
1) Stop ocean acidification, since many of the poor live near the ocean and rely on the ocean for food
2) Deal with sea level rise
3) Don’t oversimplify
Kipp Alpert // March 19, 2009 at 12:06 am |
Ray Ladbury: Here is a comment that a delayer (he calls himself Anonymous)for good reason picked up and used over at Accuweather.
Really? Today, over at Tamino’s OPEN MIND, one of the bloggers had to tell you that Kelvin was a temperature scale, not absolute zero. You are a light year from knowing how anything works.
As you know, your comment was that kelvins is incrementally the same as Celsius, and I had inferred that the difference was that Kelvins starts at absolute zero which is -273.16 C. So why do I deal with this crap. KIPP
Timothy Chase // March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am |
Dave A wrote:
I don’t know as of yet about developing countries, but here in the United States wind seems to be doing rather well:
… relative to coal.
And interestingly, wind also seems to be doing well –
… as a percentage of all new electricity.
David B. Benson // March 19, 2009 at 12:57 am |
Shell Oil Co. intends to concentrate on biofuels. Simon R. comments on this:
http://www.icis.com/blogs/biofuels/archives/2009/03/shell-puts-all-of-its-renewabl.html
David B. Benson // March 19, 2009 at 1:03 am |
Chip Kappenburger[sic], it seems, claims to have done the analysis presented in Pat Michell’s congr3essional testimony. The result claimed is that the climate models all track too high compared to actual temperatures. It’s on Lucia’s as well.
I strongly suspect systematic bias (zero adjust problem), but have neither the time nor expertise to track it down.
luminous beauty // March 19, 2009 at 1:15 am |
http://www.martinot.info/productive_uses.htm
Ray Ladbury // March 19, 2009 at 1:20 am |
Kipp, indeed a degree celsius is equal in magnitude to a kelvin, and the origin of the kelvin scale is indeed -273.16, so in fact you were correct. The difference between you and “Anonymous” is that you are trying to learn, while he is content in his ignorance.
t_p_hamilton // March 19, 2009 at 2:09 am |
DaveA asks: “How do you intend to limit carbon emissions and not increase the burden on the poorest in society?”
Economy of scale works wonders to makes things affordable for all. Especially when what they rely on is becoming more scarce, making price go skyrocketing.
Kipp Alpert // March 19, 2009 at 2:44 am |
Timothy Pace:YES!The many windmills are being manufactured by GE, an American endeavor.
Americans use 25% of the worlds energy and have 55 it’s population. What other Countries do is another debate, but if Dave new the implications of stalling at this time, I would think that his head would lead his heart to action. Any advance in green technologies far outweighs the consequences of adding more co2 to our Planet’s atmosphere, and the mitigation
and chaos that will follow.
Kipp Alpert // March 19, 2009 at 2:45 am |
Yes!5%.
Kipp Alpert // March 19, 2009 at 2:46 am |
5% of it’s population, not 55
Kipp Alpert // March 19, 2009 at 2:52 am |
Hank Roberts:Very excellant points.
Timothy Chase // March 19, 2009 at 3:18 pm |
I hope it is alright to post this in the open thread…
On Swanson and Tsonis, Part I of III
Some thoughts on:
Swanson, Tsonis, (2009) Has the climate recently shifted?, Geophysical Research Letters
The theory of synchronized chaos lends itself to three different interpretations on the relationship between forcings and the climate system. First, as the authors apparently believe, synchronized chaos may be triggered by changes in forcings, but chance determines what the reorganization of the climate system will do (temporarily) in terms of temperature trends — on the order of perhaps thirty years. This interpretation is suggested to them by the behavior of the Lorentz attractor where the system will settle down in one part or the other of the attractor — temporarily — but a perturbution of the system may lead to it flipping to the other state. However, unlike the Lorenz attractor, the long-term trend of the climate system must ultimately be determined by the forcings it is subject to — which is why they believe that any period of flat temperatures must ultimately give way to warming in a system where levels of greenhouse gases are increasing.
Alternatively, there are entropy production theories that view the climate system as something that will quickly reorganize itself, such that a forcing of the system will lead to a state in which the system dissipates energy and entropy at a higher rate. Reoganzation thus acts as a kind of negative feedback, much like Lindzen’s reduction in cloud cover results in more infrared radiation escaping into space. However, unlike near equilibrium entropy production theories, far from equilibrium entropy production theories of the sort that would apply to the climate system are notorious for being ill-defined.
Timothy Chase // March 19, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
On Swanson and Tsonis, Part II of III
Finally, there exists the possibility that synchronized chaos and reorganization is either neutral or positive relative to forcing but reacts quickly to changes in the system. The inspiration for this view may lie in part in Corti et al. (1999):
Timothy Chase // March 19, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
On Swanson and Tsonis, Part III of III
There is a narrative of sorts through which climatologists understand the global warming during the twentieth and the early twenty-first centuries. It is a narrative in which the climate system responds to different forcings at different times. And this is a narrative that Swanson and Tsonis appear to ignore. The narrative that they tell is one in which what is responsible for the major transitions in the trajectory of the climate system are not due to changes in forcings but synchronized chaos followed by reorganization, with chance determining whether reorganization dampens or amplifies the warming due to what could very well be constant forcing. The exact details of this narrative no doubt depend upon who tells it or the climate model that they appeal to, but the story goes something like this…
At the beginning of the twentieth century, temperatures were recovering from the cooling aerosols of major volcanic eruptions. Net methane production was positive during the earlier part of the twentieth century, leading to global warming. Likewise, the build up of warming methane and carbon dioxide prior to the 1930s combined with the the parallel growth of cooling aerosols meant that with the catastrophic decrease in industrial production during the 1930s we would see temperatures climb more quickly since anthropogenic aerosols tend to remain in the atmosphere for only about ten days but methane and carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for much longer. Aerosols from internal combustion engines and industrialization were dominant from 1940-1975, resulting in temperatures remaining more or less flat as the result of global dimming.
Laws were put in place during the seventies which “cleaned up” fossil fuel combustion in both the United States and Europe, reducing aerosols, leading to the modern period of global warming that began around 1975 where the effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide outweighed the global dimming effects of aerosols. During this period, net methane production was more or less flat, so in terms of greenhouse gases the global warming that took place was principally due to rising levels of carbon dioxide. Global brightening may have begun to play a role in the mid to eighties or early nineties. In the early twenty-first century, aerosols may have once again become important at least below the Arctic as aerosol-laden industrialization ramped up in China.
The third view, that in which the climate system reacts quickly to changes in the forcings, and does so in a way that is either neutral or positive relative to forcings — lends itself to this narrative. In this approach, the climate system may very well exhibit stepwise behavior. However, it not only sensitive to perturbation, but to the direction of perturbation — much like the positive feedback that appears to have played such a strong role in the transitions between climates of the distant past.
Kipp Alpert // March 19, 2009 at 7:57 pm |
Ray Ladbury:With David B.Benson and Paulm, that makes for a fight between three Normals against twenty deniers at AccuWeather. I would not ask a Particle Physicist to waste his time there, but I did post your remark that you made to me, which I appreciate very much. Thanks,Kipp
David B. Benson // March 19, 2009 at 9:50 pm |
Timothy Chase — Thanks. That was an interesting three part read!
Dave A // March 19, 2009 at 11:26 pm |
Kipp,
Shell put a lot of money into renewables and actually own a number of windfarms. They ultimately decided it was not economic.
Dave A // March 19, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
DBB,
Remember the world is actually alot,lot bigger than tha US!
Dave A // March 19, 2009 at 11:37 pm |
Ray,
I didn’t say coal will be used to replace oil in all the uses the latter has. But there is certainly plenty of coal around to provide electricity.
On a different note, your continual gratuitous insults are really rather boring.
Dave A // March 19, 2009 at 11:49 pm |
luminous beauty,
Interesting site, I will definitely read some of those links, but I note that the most recent one is dated 2004 and most of Martinot’s are 2002.
Perhaps not a lot has happened since then.
Timothy Chase // March 19, 2009 at 11:54 pm |
CORRECTION: the first paragraph of “On Swanson and Tsonis, Part III of III” might be less confusing (where it speaks goes from speaking of one narrative, then the other, then switches back without making the transition clear) if it were to be broken up into three paragraphs and to read:
In this way it explicitly refers to only one story as a “narrative.” It would probably be best if I were to break up other paragraphs as well as I wrote this as it came to me. However, this paragraph was the most confusing and most in need of editing.
Anyway, I hope this helps.
Dave A // March 20, 2009 at 12:03 am |
Timothy Chase,
But what underpins the 10,000MW of windpower in Texas and Iowa and ensures the electricity continues to flow when the wind isn’t blowing?
MattInSeattle // March 20, 2009 at 3:29 am |
BPL: I do say you should stop building new ones and build renewable instead. You’ve got enough fossil fuel plants to provide baseline power already; new plants should use solar, wind, biomass, or geothermal (another 24/7 source).
Small steps first. Over the last 8 years renewable energy generation grew at 5%/year and we’re at 2.5% of all generation coming from alt. To meet the current administration’s goal of 10% alt energy by 2012, it requires alt energy to grow at 39.5% YoY.
Do you think that will happen?
Do you think it’s possible?
Timothy Chase // March 20, 2009 at 4:01 am |
Dave A wrote:
First, whatever renewable or renewables you choose to invest in, use very high voltage direct current to transfer it over great distances with little power loss. With wind, chances are it will be blowing somewhere. Second, make sure that you have an efficient way of storing energy. I’ve heard of using liquid salts, for example. With wind, chances are it will be blowing sometime.
However, personally I prefer solar panels, especially the kind that work at night — very cheap, works night and day, summer and winter, but will require a little more R &D. Three years at their “current rate.” But I suspect that could be accelerated.
Timothy Chase // March 20, 2009 at 4:38 am |
David B. Benson wrote:
Thank you!
Actually I brought Tsonis et al. up before:
And there is other literature, e.g., on the network of teleconnections that exist between oscillations. I had mentioned something about this earlier over at RC:
But unfortunately I never got back to it, and since then my hard drive has gone belly up twice. Lost well over a thousand pdf tech articles, a fair number on climatology, but the vast majority on evolution.
Gradually building up my collection of climatology tech articles again and storing them online. Offline I’m using the same machine, different hard drive, and I suspect the motherboard. Can’t really afford anything else at the moment — but I’ll get some flash drives when I can — and try not to lose them. (I had an 80 Gb a little while ago, same size as my current hard drive, but lost it on the bus.)
dhogaza // March 20, 2009 at 5:06 am |
CO2 emissions are still free. That’s the bottom line emissions.
That doesn’t mean that they’re truly free in the global economy, only that we still haven’t learned how to capture true costs to the long-term economy to consumers.
Ray Ladbury // March 20, 2009 at 1:30 pm |
Dave A., Type “Renewable energy and development” into any search engine, and you will get more resources than you will have time to read on work that is going on NOW. I saw the potential of renewable energy at work when I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa 20 years ago. Solar cookers were being used in place of charcoal. Solar water heaters were being used for laundry. Photovoltaics were powering pumps to irrigate vegetable gardens. And all of this was in little villages with little possibility of seeing “the grid”.
As to insults, they are hardly gratuitous. My hope is to goad you into actually contributing something positive to the conversation–or failing that, to leave. Don’t tell me the wind doesn’t blow all the time. I already fricking know that. Don’t tell me that coming up with a sustainable global economy is going to be tough and require a lot of effort. I frickin’ know that, too. And don’t try to blow sunshine up my skirt and tell me that everything will be alright and that we’re being alarmist, because I frickin’ well know that ain’t so.
So, Dave, I’ll make you a deal. You start looking at how we can solve some of the problems we face–start making positive contributions–and I’ll take back half the nasty things I’ve said about you. Hell, I’ll even let you pick which half.
Barton Paul Levenson // March 20, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
Matt writes:
It’s certainly possible, if we structure the incentives the right way, or have a massive government program to that effect, or a combination of both. Compare the number of Liberty Ships around in 1940 to the number around in 1943. Or calculators in 1970 and 1973. Or cell phones in 1990 and 1993.
Barton Paul Levenson // March 20, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
Also, when I divide hydro + other renewables by total electricity generated for 2007 (EIA figures), I get 8.5%. Are you counting hydro? It counts as a renewable resource, and Obama was probably counting it. Going from 8.5% to 10.0% in three years would require a year-on-year increase rate of 5.6%, which is probably doable.
Barton Paul Levenson // March 20, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
I note, also, that “other renewables” increased from 96,525 megawatt-hours in 2006 to 105,238 in 2007, which is a 9% increase, not 5%.
Lazar // March 20, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
Modelling West Antarctic ice sheet growth and
collapse through the past five million years
David Pollard & Robert M. DeConto
Nature, 2009
doi:10.1038/nature07809
Neat study that ties in very well with recent observations. There are (freely available) videos…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/suppinfo/nature07809.html
This is a widely reported result (’5 deg C ocean temperature rise for WAIS collapse’) but it ain’t tightly constrained…
luminous beauty // March 20, 2009 at 3:03 pm |
Sure. You can do a search on Google, can’t you?
Yes, you can.
Timothy Chase // March 20, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
A little more regarding the “solar panels” that work at night…
What we are talking about is converting thermal radiation into electricity using nano-antennas embedded in cheap plastic. Computer simulations show that they could get up to 92 percent efficiency in the bands that they are targetting (However, current field tests are giving them 80 percent.)
Please see:
By harvesting thermal radiation, they could be collecting energy night and day as the earth radiates the thermal energy it acquired during the day. Likewise it could collect thermal energy from industrial processes.
Please see:
Nantenna sheets could also be used to help cool down buildings and computers…
… and even be used to protect electronics.
The material has been designed to be cheap and could cost just pennies per square yard:
David B. Benson // March 20, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
Dave A // March 19, 2009 at 11:30 pm — Well, I obviiously know that, so what is the point of such a fatuous remark?
David B. Benson // March 20, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
Timothy Chase // March 20, 2009 at 4:38 am — On an earlier thread we went through the 3.6 year oscillation in ENSO and other records. Turns out it show up in the Atlantic SSTs, presumably a teleconnection.
One which might exist and is currently of some interest is cloudiness.
Hope you machines behave beeter now.
MattInSeattle // March 20, 2009 at 7:41 pm |
BPL: Also, when I divide hydro + other renewables by total electricity generated for 2007 (EIA figures), I get 8.5%. Are you counting hydro? It counts as a renewable resource, and Obama was probably counting it. Going from 8.5% to 10.0% in three years would require a year-on-year increase rate of 5.6%, which is probably doable.
I was not counting hydro since a) we won’t see any new hydro coming, and b) since the growth was so modest under Dubya.
We managed 5% YoY under Dubya from 2000 to 2007, I was kind of hoping the plan would be a bit more spectacular than “Dubya + 10%”. Is that really all the president is aiming for? Is just 5.5% YoY growth to alt energy? A teeny bit more than Bush?????
Timothy Chase // March 20, 2009 at 7:43 pm |
Dave A wrote on March 18, 2009 at 9:37 PM:
David B. Benson responded at 11:10 PM:
The link takes you to two charts, one for US oil, one for UK coal.
UK coal looks like it itsn’t simply dropping from the peak but more or less bottoming out. The peak was a little shy of 300 metric tons per year. It now looks like they are producing less than 20 metric tons per year.
Dave A responds on March 19, 2009 at 11:30 PM:
David B. Benson asks (as of March 20, 2009 at 6:40 pm):
Apparently Dave A wasn’t paying any attention — either to you (when you mentioned the UK coal and gave a link to charts on both US oil and UK coal production) or to the second chart (which specifically stated that it was about UK coal). What you cited fairly well demonstrates that he doesn’t know what he is talking about when it comes to coal in the UK. It may very well be the case that the UK has coal to last 300 years (at the present rate of usage), but obviously it isn’t worth digging up — given how drastically coal production has fallen since the peak in 1913.
*
As for world oil, what we have is pretty much the same story, only a little earlier on. We appear to have passed the peak back in 2005 — although it could be a little further out. In all major oil producing regions of the world, oil production has been either more or less flat or falling for some time. But during better economic times the world’s hunger for energy will only grow, particularly as the third world continues to try and catch up with first world living standards.
David B. Benson // March 20, 2009 at 8:56 pm |
Unfortunately AAAS Science is behind a paywall for me, but the abstract page for
The El Niño Cycle: A Natural Oscillator of the Pacific Ocean—Atmosphere System
NICHOLAS E. GRAHAM and WARREN B. WHITE
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/240/4857/1293
directs one also to citing papers with the word “chaos” in the title.
Dave A // March 20, 2009 at 10:31 pm |
Timothy Chase,
There is plenty of coal in the UK, however, the Thatcher government set out to destroy the mining industry and then made a strategic decision to switch to North Sea oil. Consequently the UK coal mining industry was run down, with fewer and fewer pits being operated. But the coal is still there and capable of being mined.
You also DIDN’T PAY ATTENTION because the graphs clearly refer to production and not recoverable reserves
Dave A // March 20, 2009 at 10:48 pm |
Timothy Chase,
You also fail to take into account the price of coal, which as demand rises will increase.
Thus even sourcewatch, an outfit that argues coal reserves are overestimated also acknowledges that price plays an important part in the extent of recoverable reserves :-
“The Gillette field in the Powder River Basin coal region of Wyoming is the world’s most productive coal mining area. In 2006 it produced 431 million tons of coal, or 37 percent of total United States production. In 2008 the U.S. Geological Survey released a detailed assessment of the coal resource in the Gillette field. USGS concluded that the portion of the recoverable coal that can be mined, processed, and marketed at a profit, based on conditions in 2007, including $10.47 per ton and assuming an 8 percent rate of return, is 10.1 billion short tons for the six coal beds evaluated.[8] This is about half the estimate arrived at by a 2002 study of the same field, which arrived at an economically recoverable resource of 23 billion short tons.[9] However, if the price of coal is assumed to be $14.00 per ton, matching the sales price of coal for the Gillette coalfield as of March 2008, the reserve would be 18.5 billion short tons, assuming no increase from 2007 operating costs.[10] If cost per ton rose to $60, the estimated reserve would rise to 77 billion short tons.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_reserves
David B. Benson // March 20, 2009 at 10:57 pm |
Tamino — Here is a suggested link for the Climate Data page:
International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP)
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/isccp/table_isccp.html
Dave A // March 20, 2009 at 11:12 pm |
Ray,
“. I saw the potential of renewable energy at work when I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa 20 years ago. Solar cookers were being used in place of charcoal. Solar water heaters were being used for laundry. Photovoltaics were powering pumps to irrigate vegetable gardens. And all of this was in little villages with little possibility of seeing “the grid”.”
No doubt these things work to an extent Ray – as long ,that is, as the locals continue to live in their “little villages” and don’t, heaven forbid, aspire to the lifestyle we have here in the West.
That would really upset the applecart and….hmm, I could make a gratuitiously insulting comment here about the Peace Corps, but won’t
David B. Benson // March 21, 2009 at 12:07 am |
Those interested in the “burning coal” question really ought to look at David Rutledge’s essay of TheOilDrum. There are follow-on articles at various blogs.
Timothy Chase // March 21, 2009 at 1:21 am |
Dave A wrote:
When did she make her decision: 1913? 1950?
The peak was 1913 just shy of 300 million per year, and there was another lower peak around 1950 at a little over 220 million tons per year, but it has been pretty much downhill ever since.
Thatcher lead the conservative party from 1975 to 1990. By 1974 they were down to producing 110 million tons annually, but in 1975 coal production was at 128. In 1983 it was 119. Thatcher didn’t start switching from coal to oil until 1984 at the time of the strike.
In 1984 it dropped to 51. But by 1985 it was back up to 94 then 108 in 1986, just 2 below 1974. Since she left office in 1990 it has declined from 92 to 17 in 2007. I don’t believe she was responsible for that.
Please see:
DUKES 2008, Table 2.1.1, Coal production and stocks 1970 to 2007 – http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/
dukes2_1_1.xls
… from:
The EBO Presentation
the free range ‘energy beyond oil’ project
Section 17. What About Coal?
http://www.fraw.org.uk/ebo/presentation/ebo_2008-section-17.shtml
*
Dave A. continued:
Actually I stated:
… in the comment that you were referring to.
The coal which they mine is that which is easiest to get to and of the highest quality. The longer this process goes on the deeper they will have to mine and the lower the quality of the coal that they will mine. At some point it will simply make more sense for them to close the last mine and import all of their coal from elsewhere. Assuming they continue to use coal for however long the world supply lasts.
Timothy Chase // March 21, 2009 at 1:46 am |
Dave A wrote:
Of course demand will increase. Prices will increase. Particularly as get further from Peak Oil and try to substitute coal for oil. But the figures that you quote are for US coal, not UK. We were all discussing UK coal, not US, not the global supply.
World production of coal could continue to increase for several decades. Presently we are investing in an infrastructure that will increase our dependency upon that production — for as long as it lasts.
We could do as the Germans did back in World War II and produce synthetic oil from coal — with twice carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy of regular oil. We could invest in shale. At some point it will be “profitable” to do so. We can expand production from the tar sands of Canada — with three times the emissions.
We could seal the fate of modern civilization. And we could do so with every nation in the meantime pursuing a limited amount of fossil fuel at higher and higher prices as the appetite for energy grows. We can wage wars over limited resources, indeed, this has already begun.
We can poison the oceans with our emissions, destroying the coral reefs upon which so much of our fish production depends. Drought, famine, rising sea levels, and large parts of the world rendered uninhabitable by summer heat and humidity — we can have it all. Or we can pull back, invest in renewables and leave those who come after us with future that may be far brighter than the world that we now know.
Kipp Alpert // March 21, 2009 at 2:09 am |
Dave A:
People in little villages can even wish to have food enough for their next bowl of rice or piece of bread. Some were inspired by a Peace Corps volunteer, and they might be a Doctor, and help those in their little village. Have you volunteered yourself , to help others, and inspire them in your career. There is that under, underclass, who’s tears that flow, beneath the City streets.
David B. Benson // March 21, 2009 at 2:29 am |
Found out today enough about clouds not to have further interest in that topic just now. To summarize, clouds, even low clouds, have no good correlations with the solar cycle and what there is appears to be a postivie correlation.
So explanations for the enhanced effect of the TSI change over the solar cycle will have to come from something else.
From
http://www.amath.washington.edu/people/faculty/tung/publications.html
K.K. Tung, J. Zhou and C.D.Camp; 2008: “Constraining Model Transient Climate Response using Independent Observations of Solar-Cycle Forcing and Response” Geophys. Research Lett., 35, L17707,doi:10.1029/2008GL034240.
building on
K.K. Tung and C.D. Camp; 2008: “Solar Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface in NCEP and ERA-40 data: A linear Discriminant Analysis” Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D05114, doi:10.1029/2007JD009164.
C.D. Camp and K.K. Tung; 2007: “Surface Warming by the Solar Cycle as Revealed the Composite Mean Difference Projection” Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L14703, doi:10.1029/2007GL030207.
it seems that a moderately large value for transient climate sensitvity will do it, but I still have some questions about these three papers.
Ray Ladbury // March 21, 2009 at 2:53 am |
Dave A., Actually, Dave, say whatever you want. I think I can bear it, since I am confident that :
a) you’ve never set foot in the third world
b) you don’t have the wit to even come up with a creative insult
Peace Corps is an interesting and worthwhile experience. I would contend that it even made me a better physicist. It also emphasized to me that what is important is not finding “the solution,” but rather making things better in the here and now for whoever is present and with what is available. That is a lesson your life experience clearly has not provided.
Timothy Chase // March 21, 2009 at 3:33 am |
David B. Benson wrote:
1988. Not blody likely. However…
Fei-Fei Jin, J. David Neelin, Michale Ghil; El Niño on the Devil’s Staircase: Annual Subharmonic Steps to Chaos; Science, 1 April 1994, Volume 264, pp. 70-72
Eli Tziperman,Lewi Stone, Mark A. Cane, and Hans Jarosh; El Niño Chaos: Overlapping of Resonances Between the Seasonal Cycle and the Pacific Ocean-Atmosphere Oscillator; Science, 1 April 1994, Volume 264, pp. 72-74
Let me know if you are interested.
timothychase at gmail
David B. Benson // March 21, 2009 at 6:55 pm |
Timothy Chase // March 21, 2009 at 3:33 am — Thanks, but if I have enough interest I can walk a few blocks to a research library. I’d only have enough interest (right now) if one or more of the ocean oscillations showed any signs of phase lock on the solar cycle. I assume this does not occur, or somebody would have written a paper about it already.
So it looks like the GCMs (most of them anyway) are using too high a value for ocean heat flux; lowering that will raise the transient climate sensitivity without (despite what Tung et al. say) raising the equilibrium (Charney) sensitivity, at least by enough to bother with.
Still have to be sure I agree with the line of reasoning in the Appendix of Tung & Camp (2008).
Dave A // March 21, 2009 at 8:02 pm |
Ray,
“It also emphasized to me that what is important is not finding “the solution,” but rather making things better in the here and now for whoever is present and with what is available”
Wouldn’t disagree with this at all – remember my
leftish background which caused some comment here a while back?
I would say, however, that it is you that is wanting to curtail many of the things that are currently available for improving people’s lives not me.
Kipp Alpert // March 21, 2009 at 8:03 pm |
Dave A:I give photography lessons to inspire
young inner city NYC kids to help them climb out of Harlem. What do you do in your Science, to inspire those that have less than you. There isn’t a better feeling in the world than to watch young kids to find things that are so ill(cool), and see them grow. Growing out of a ghetto isn’t all about the money, it’s a state of mind, and part of self realization.Last night you almost reached the bottom with the comment you didn’t make about the Peace Corps. Kids out of school saving lives, in the worst possible enviroment is what progress should be all about. Join the club, it’s free and worth it. It never really is about the money. You don’t have to have kid’s of your own, if you adopt the human race. KIPP
Dave A // March 21, 2009 at 8:11 pm |
Timothy Chase,
I was using the US figures as an example of how the change in price can dramatically increase the level of recoverable reserves. If this pertains in the US, it pertains in the UK and elsewhere in the world (although the exact specifics for each country/pit will obviously vary.)
Timothy Chase // March 21, 2009 at 8:13 pm |
David B. Benson wrote:
Not that much of an dampening or amplifying effect then. Of course in the tropics we saw during the late eighties and nineties cloud cover diminish. Could be climate oscillations or what we can expect from the long-term trend once China stops pumping so many aerosols into the atmosphere.
But in either case diminished cloud cover simply resulted in less outgoing visible light and more outgoing infrared with a net balance of approximately zero. Of course there is the super greenhouse effect, but that is water vapor.
*
David B. Benson wrote:
Forcing is forcing, more or less. The distribution of the forcing will be different. And then of course there is the ultraviolet in sunlight, but I doubt that makes much of a difference.
*
David B. Benson wrote:
Reminds me of a bit of Kerry and hurricanes. Of course at this point I think clouds are somewhat more important. Then again there is the question of poleward oceanic and atmospheric circulation and the extent to which this may result in an equable climate.
Alternatively, there was that snake which could have downed an anaconda — and that points to a continued temperature differential. But that is just one piece. Perhaps a local phenomena of some sort.
A fair amount would seem to ride on this — in China, India and part of the US. The latter is more of an open question though as at least some recent modeling suggests an expansion of drought from the west.
*
David B. Benson wrote:
Everything seems to point towards 3 K, maybe 2.6-2.8. 1.1-1.2 for carbon dioxide, 1.2 for water vapor, then the rest from other fast feedbacks.
Everything except for the positive feedback from the carbon cycle — which wouldn’t show up in that sort of math. How quickly will that kick in? Additionally, oceanic circulation seems to go deeper the faster climate change takes place — and there are the methane hydrates, more than we expected, closer to the surface, and more vulnerable due to cracks in the ocean floor.
Let us know what you find out about clouds. You seem to think it is still an open question and I would like to know more.
Dave A // March 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm |
Timothy Chase,
You keep banging on about declining production and seem to equate this with declining reserves. There are many reasons why production declined, but most relate to the availability of other, cheaper, sources of energy. But the nail in the coffin of the UK coal industry was Thatcher and her legacy in destroying the mining communities and privatising the industry is the continued decline in production since she departed.
But as I said the coal is still there, and it could be mined given the will. And price will play a large part in this.
Lets use an analogy. The South Crofty tin mine in Cornwall closed in 1998 after almost 400 (yes, 400) years of production. It recently reopened -
“We have little doubt that the mine is viable,” says Alan Shoesmith, WUM’s chief executive. “The demand for tin is at an all-time high. When South Crofty closed, the price of tin was about £2,400 per tonne. It is now £8,000 and could go higher. The technology has also advanced; we are widening the tunnels and can expect to be able to quadruple the amount of ore we can extract per year. South Crofty will change from a low-volume/high-grade mine to a high-tonnage/low-grade one and still be a going concern.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/13/communities.regeneration
The mine has considerable reserves left.
David B. Benson // March 21, 2009 at 10:39 pm |
Timothy Chase // March 21, 2009 at 8:13 pm — I’m done with clouds, since clouds cannot explain the large (0.17 K) variation in temperature over the solar cycle.
The range 2–4.5 K is for Charney sensitivity; the transient sensitivity is around 2/3rds of that.
Anyway, it doesn’t seem that the solar cycle plays any role in the PDO, despite what some claim:
On the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation: Might they be related?
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0723/2007GL031584/
which discusses a quite interesting teleconnection.
Hank Roberts // March 21, 2009 at 10:47 pm |
Coal doesn’t occur as parts per million in rock. Analogy FAIL.
Timothy Chase // March 21, 2009 at 11:25 pm |
Dave A wrote on March 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm:
It would seem to be indicative of the ease with which those reserves can be mined and of the quality of the coal. If the coal is out of reach or of particularly poor quality then for economic purposes it might as well not exist.
And as I said, peak production was nearly 300 million tons back in 1913. The year before Thatcher entered office (1975) it was 110 million. The year after she “switched” (1985) it was 108. By 1990 production had dropped to 92 — five years later. It seems to me that the drop from 300 to 110 is far more significant. Likewise the drop from 92 to 17 in 2007 would seem far more significant.
*
Dave A wrote on March 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm:
Coal production in other parts of the world is increasing. It the UK it has been declining more or less since 1950 when it was around 230. I don’t see evidence that it will be economical to increase coal production in the UK.
*
Dave A wrote on March 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm:
I have heard capitalism accused of many things, but an inability to get minerals out of the ground is not one of them. And unions basically destroyed the railroad industry in the US through various inefficient labor practices and insisting upon higher wages than the market could support and restricting the pool of labor. Ceteris paribus this applies to the coal industry in the UK.
*
Dave A states earlier on March 21,2009 at 8:11 pm:
Apparently not — as coal production is increasing elsewhere but more or less steadily declining in the UK since 1950. If we knew nothing about UK production this would be a hasty generalization, but since we know that UK production has been declining it is more in the form of a red herring….
*
Dave A wrote on March 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm:
… and that is a red herring.
*
Dave A wrote on March 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm:
The burden of proof at this point is yours, not mine.
*
Dave A wrote on March 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm:
Of what quality? How accessible? And will a major increase in production be warranted and able to compete with other regions where coal production has been increasing while UK coal production has been in long decline?
In any case, all of this is quite academic. Humanity as a whole would appear to have more than enough fossil fuels (coal, shale and tar sands) to effective seal the fate of modern civilization. And for me that is the central question, the fate of modern civilization, not the extent to which UK coal plays a role in its demise.
Timothy Chase // March 21, 2009 at 11:45 pm |
David B. Benson wrote:
There have been empirical studies of the seasonal cycle of ocean heat flux. As such it would appear that ocean heat flux is not simply something which must be estimated but measurable, and if it is measurable it would seem that the results of those studies are taken into account by climate models, would it not?
Something to ask Gavin, perhaps.
David B. Benson // March 22, 2009 at 12:22 am |
Timothy Chase // March 21, 2009 at 11:45 pm — A paper by Shaviv states that ocean heat flux measurements vary from 3 units down to 0.2 units. Not well constrained by those observations. Shaviv then arbitraily picks 1 unit for the rest of his study; I suspect this is where he gang agley, but I’m still working on his paper.
Timothy Chase // March 22, 2009 at 12:34 am |
David B. Benson — after a closer look, it appears that there is a fair amount of work to be done on ocean heat flux, e.g.,
Timothy Chase // March 22, 2009 at 1:21 am |
David B. Benson wrote:
You are right: I was thinking of the Charney climate sensitivity and the slow feedback climate sensitivity. Transient would be lowest at 2/3 the Charney and slow feedback is 2* Charney according to Hansen.
Normally I just think of the Charney as the climate sensitivity like everyone else except to the extent that I always keep the slow feedback in the back of my head — and otherwise don’t give it much thought. My apologies.
Kipp Alpert // March 22, 2009 at 1:29 am |
So it shall be written,
So let it be done!
Moses.1956 Yul Brynner or Hank Roberts.
Timothy Chase // March 22, 2009 at 1:36 am |
Dave A wrote:
Hank Roberts wrote:
Additionally he is speaking of a single tin mine as opposed to an entire industry, and the mine was closed for roughly a decade prior to reopening — unlike the UK coal industry which has been declining fairly steadily from 1913 until now with a slight hiccup around 1950. Not really the sort of “analogy” required to strengthen his case.
Kipp Alpert // March 22, 2009 at 2:14 am |
Timothy Chase: I just read a couple of reports on more coal reserves being discovered in Alaska, more coal than in the contiguous United States. The conflict between Obama Administration and further coal production in parts of West Virginia, I think is definitely a good thing. I have seen the tops of Mountains being demolished and it is sickening. Yes we have enough coal to kill ourselves.We are so occupied by territorial agression, and selfish greed, that we won’t let a good thing like Global Warming, get in the face of our own demise. We will certainly take a couple of other species with us. Maybe we can open up a couple of Sarah Palin Moose burger franchises in Alaska.Those miners sure get hungry after they risk their lives. Hell,it’s just human nature. I want to start a bungy jump for Jesus off a glacier. My slogan”if you want to be born again, be born again better than everyone else”. Kind of catchy, Huh!
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS315US315&q=alaskan+coal+deposits
michel // March 22, 2009 at 2:45 am |
Lazar, what I’m voicing is an impatience with Hansen flying in from the US, a society which is not remarkable for its low use of fossil fuel energy, or for its progress in reducing that use, to instruct the UK, a country with lower use, in a seriously threatening situation with regard to electricity generation, in what to do about one particular power plant.
Face it, this is irritating! Almost as irritating as the US evangelists who fly over every so often to lecture us about the benefits of sexual abstinence and lowering the divorce rate – both things on which the US, that global HQ of the pornography industry, would seem in a weak position to give instruction to others.
However, my irritation with Hansen and the evangelists is now fading, because we seem to have our own home grown crazed obsessives who are appearing in our national press with such gems as the following:
It is clear what our response to Hansen should be: we should send Porritt over to California, where he can lead demonstrations designed to close down the California freeway system and urge them to lower their population to sustainable levels. While there, he can explain that we would love to close down our own freeway system and reduce our population, but unfortunately, though necessary, it is politically impossible.
This would achieve a number of worthwhile objectives, including turning the tables on Hansen, letting the US have a taste of how it feels to be advised what you should do by people who have no idea what is involved for you in doing it, and no intention of doing it themselves, and not least, it would get Porritt out of the UK at least for a while, and perhaps, if Californians react as their reputation suggests they might, permanently.
So our new slogan will be: Hansen go home! And take Porritt with you!
dhogaza // March 22, 2009 at 3:36 am |
With every post, Michel makes clear his belief that the science must be false is because he fears the consequences of its being true.
Understandable enough. Millions (billions?) of smokers share that fear and convince themselves to be skeptical.
Yet … smoking does cause cancer and heart disease.
And increasing CO2 emissions does warm the planet.
dhogaza // March 22, 2009 at 3:41 am |
And, tch tch … Silicon Valley is a world-class center of research for improving efficiency and lowering costs of photovoltaic panels, being driven by concerns for global warming.
The US is investing in infrastructure to reduce driving. Portland, Oregon, where I live, has invested very large sums of money in light rail for regional commuting, streetcars for local trips, has long had planning initiatives and zoning codes designed to increase density along mass transit corridors, is the most bike-friendly city in the country (and I’d guess more bike-friendly than any comparable city in the UK, and yes, I’ve been there) – we’re near the 10% mark in daily bike commutes downtown, etc.
So your claim is not only false, but as someone who’s worked politically for such goals for about 25 years, downright insulting.
Timothy Chase // March 22, 2009 at 4:08 am |
michel wrote:
Trust me — he gives our coal mining companies plenty of grief, too.
michel wrote:
Do you mean like the Green Banksy? Are they any closer to figuring out who he is?
Kipp Alpert // March 22, 2009 at 5:16 am |
Michael:Hansen has spent his life discovering the underpinnings of global warming, and has stood up for Global Warming when it wasn’t a slide show(target CO2).He should have Won the Nobel Peace prize. But I have objected to his behavior in England while he was in an official capacity at NASA GODDARD. If he is retired he can do what he wants. I wish more people stood up and shouted, bcause we are in deep trouble, and at least he is brave, and true to his convictions.To you he might be the ugly American but who cares. There is a lot of stuff that’s going down with Global Warming, so much that I couldn’t articulate on a page. One or two more celsius, and forget about it. Species extinction,Ocean acidification, millions of people suffering more that right now,and of course the deaths from water stress. So if Hansen is Poltically incorrect tuff shit.
Sekerob // March 22, 2009 at 10:51 am |
Re michels quotation, What the press writes someone said or not said does not require debate to know it’s rarely complete and verbatim. Reduce it’s population “growth” is more than likely the omitted word. Given the great tabloids reporting on a 13 year old boy making a 14 year old pregnant, hurray hurray, education, including sexual education at the base of any developed nations economic capacity, clearly flunking big time. China had for decades the 1 child per family draconian rule. They’ve grown to 1.35 billion I think notwithstanding, because wealth brings health and extended life expectancy.
Ray Ladbury // March 22, 2009 at 1:01 pm |
Dave A., Find one place where I have said that climate change will necessitate that the poor remain poor. Just one. I have been quite consistent in presenting development and climate challenges as two facets of the multi-faceted problem of sustainability.
You seem to be contending that the only way for progress to continue is the continuation of the status quo.
What you seem to fail to understand is that sustainability isn’t “optional”. It is a prerequisite to the continuation of civilization. If we do not develop a sustainable civilization, then civilization will merely be a brief interlude between periods of hunter-gatherer existence for homo sapiens. This will happen. It is a mathematical certainty.
I look upon the difference between our two positions as a sort of Pascal’s wager. If you are right and sustainability is impossible, then civilization will end and we will descend again into barbarism. If you are wrong, we will extend the benefits of civilization to our progeny.
For this reason, I cannot see any benefit to your way of thinking. It is certainly valid to argue about HOW to reach sustainability. However, to argue that it is impossible prejudges an uncertain situation and ensures that civilization will collapse. That is not only counter productive, it is morally abhorrent to me. Therefore, that is why I see nothing of value in your contributions. Defeatism does not equate to realism.
luminous beauty // March 22, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
michel,
You are entirely welcome to come to California and protest our freeways.
Maybe that frumpy chauvinist attitude will mellow with a little sunshine.
Ray Ladbury // March 22, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
Michel, Did you enjoy your burst of outrage? Good. Now maybe consider a little bit of reality. The atmosphere doesn’t care whether the CO2 comes from the US or Great Britain or China. As scientists, Hansen and the rest of us can’t draw borders around our science. Coal is the wrong solution no matter where. We cannot ignore irresponsible climate decisions across borders than we can ignore someone poisoning a well in the next village.
What is needed are alternatives. Got any?
John Mashey // March 22, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
I’ve spent a lot of time in the UK, including farm country. Lovely places … but the UK grows 60% of its food. People are used to thinking of CA as LA/Hollywood or SF Bay Area/Silicon Valley/Stanford/Berkeley high-tech, but CA is also Central Valley/agriculture/UC Davis. CA has the largest agricultural business among US states, and exports 1/3 of what it grows.
We have (fresh) water problems, and will have more (snowpack). Sea level rise won’t help CA agriculture at all, but it will help the UK a whole lot less, since there isn’t exactly a lot of room to move uphill and inland… *Most* of CA’s coastline doesn’t get bothered by the first meter of SLR. [The Delta is another story).
In the developed world, the UK is one of the countries that ought to be *most*worried about climate change (+ Peak Oil, which is Not Good for a place that imports food via ships; maybe teh CHunnel can be expanded.)
b_sharp // March 22, 2009 at 7:39 pm |
I just changed from Vista to Linux in an effort to get a clearer picture of deniers. I had hoped they would look less, well … ignorant. Didn’t work.
I may have to try a Mac, and if that fails I’ll have no choice but to go back to DOS.
Kipp Alpert // March 22, 2009 at 7:52 pm |
luminous beauty: If the Sun doesn’t mellow you, standing on your freeway will.
Richard C // March 22, 2009 at 9:25 pm |
Tamino, ladies, gentlemen, dolphins, white mice and sceptics, if I may beg your indulgence.
In common with many of you, I have been provided with some webspace by my internet service provider. I use mine as a collected links page, nothing exciting, a few blogs, graphs of the sea ice. I now wish to start developing a climate library, but given that this is a public space thought that it could also become a climate self education resource, (yeah, okay, somebody else has done it, probably).
I am aware of the IPCC’s AR4, Spencer Weart’s Discovery of Climate Warming and Pierrehumbert’s Principles of Planetary Climate, I’ve even read parts of each, but thought I would like information in smaller chunks, so I’m looking for published peer reviewed papers, not blogs and opinions. The rules are full papers only and no paywall. I would like the basics first, so no impacts of the North Atlantic Oscillation yet.
So, who can point me at my first paper. Arrhenius wouldn’t be bad if somebody has got a link.
Lazar // March 22, 2009 at 11:25 pm |
Michel,
Ok, I get that you are irritated, and that Hansen’s nationality is the cause, but I still can’t understand why — why does that make you irritated?
1) Hansens’ advice is correct (or not) regardless of nationality.
2) James Hansen is not responsible for the (in)actions of the U.S. government (which he has fought for two decades) nor U.S. populace indifference.
3) Even if he were, that does not effect the soundness of his advice.
4) U.K. emissions of a global impact are a global concern.
5) Hansen is generally highly informed on energy economics, and is a realist.
6) You do not know that Hansen has “no idea what is involved”.
7) In fact, I think Hansen is correct, there are viable alternatives and building more coal plants is irrational.
8) ‘nationality’ and ‘irritation’ are trivial concerns relative to the scale of the problem.
The US is not an individual. Individuals are not ‘the US’.
Michel, again I’m confused…
Why do you think that is a “worthwhile objective”? Do you disagree that there are population limits? Or do you think that 30 million is not a sensible limit? If so, why?
Saltator // March 23, 2009 at 12:48 pm |
Ray Ladbury.
“If we do not develop a sustainable civilization, then civilization will merely be a brief interlude between periods of hunter-gatherer existence for homo sapiens. This will happen. It is a mathematical certainty.”
Prove it.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 23, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
> Prove it.
It’s a tautology. Look up the definition of “sustainable”.
tortoise // March 23, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
Saltator:
not sustainable = cannot be continued indefinitely
cannot be continued indefinitely = will end
therefore:
not sustainable = will end
QED
Is that really what you were questioning? If not, what?
michel // March 23, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
The UK population right now is 61 million and rising. One needs to know by when it is desired to reduce it to 30 million, but on any timescale of interest to those alive today and their children, it can only be done by either forced mass emigration, mass murder, or a combination. Like, how would you go about cutting the US population in half? Any ideas? Well, its going to be no easier in the UK.
The population could perhaps be stabilized at present levels by the forced repatriation of all illegal immigrants and a total ban on further immigration. There is not, at least so far, the political will in the UK to do this, any more than there is in the US. As long as the UK cannot introduce effective stabilization measures, talking about cutting the population in half is just a waste of breath.
Are there limits? Not sure. There are certainly effects on quality of life of increasing population, but to describe those as effecting sustainability is not very clear or useful. Could the UK, appropriately structured and planned, and with industrial management to match, support itself with a population of 100 million? 200 million? Probably. Could the US survive with half a billion? Probably. We might not enjoy living here, but there is no reason to think densities would set limits to survival. Look at Hong Kong.
The language of sustainability is not helpful. What we should be talking about is what we want.
As to alternate sources of electricity generation in the timescale required, you did not take on board the implications of Logica’s view that 25% of current generating capacity will be lost by 2015. There are lots of windmills in the UK. They do not make an iota of difference to base load. This winter was marked by unusual cold and flat calms. When you need them most they generate least. The Severn Barrage, were it to be built, might make a big contribution. It will take longer than that to bring online, and it will be a world first in terms of scale, and the environmental damage will be huge. Its not a safe bet at all. Wave power is promising. Not in this timescale.
Otherwise the suggestion is build more natural gas plants. This shows ignorance of the UK’s situation in regard to natural gas. The North Sea is running out, and supply from Russia is not secure as Europe found out this winter. The UK generating industry made the mistake of building natural gas generation plants when gas was cheap and available, and are now regretting their dependence on it.
New nukes are being planned, but are subject to intense opposition, and anyway will take longer than 2015 to come on stream. Homes can be better insulated, but there are real limits to what can be done to the UK housing stock without wholesale teardown and rebuild.
No, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions in the UK in a sensible way, you don’t focus on Kingsnorth. You build it, but you focus on lifestyle changes. For relatively small amounts of money, cycling could be made possible and safe, rail lines could be reopened, car use could be cut back, public transport enabled, and agriculture made less energy intensive.
You could more than save Kingnorth’s carbon relatively easily like this, while improving overall quality of life in the UK, and not imperilling lives due to power failures, but it would require serious social change.
The fallacy with Kingsnorth is the desire to keep lifestyles unchanged, while at the same time refusing to commission one of the basic building blocks without which current lifestyles cannot continue. The UK actually needs that electricity. It does not, in the same way, need to consume all that gasoline and diesel.
My irritation with Hansen has to do with the fact he comes from a country making little or no inroads into its own CO2 emissions, and accounting for vast amounts of them, but chooses to come to the UK and focus on one particular generating plant. But this plant is in a country which has reduced the intensity of its CO2 emissions as a function of gdp quite dramatically. You can see this in Pielke’s paper of January 27, 2009 “The British Climate Change Act: A Critical Evaluation and Proposed Alternative Approach” – take a look at the charts. Whether you like RP or not, the facts are not in dispute.
I feel, and I’m increasingly not alone in this, that I don’t want any lectures from Hansen or other US ecologists until they have cleaned up their own act some, and my irritation is increased by the fact that any talk of US lifestyle changes get rejected in this forum as being politically out of the question. The US ecology movement is in danger of flying around the world urging people to do as they say, not as they do. Remove the beam from their own eyes, before turning to the mote in the UK eye. As true now as it was then.
fred // March 23, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
Richard C, try this:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bibdate.htm
A very small number are linked as PDFs. A few more can be found by googling around. For recent papers behind paywalls, the authors homepage sometimes houses a PDF
Hank Roberts // March 23, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
Ray’s stated the definition of ’sustainable’ — that if we don’t sustain civilization, it will end.
elspi // March 23, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
Congrats Saltator! You have just bombed elementary logic.
What Ray said was a Tautology. That is a statement in logic whose truth table has only Ts.
If the civilization is not sustainable then it will (by definition of the word “sustainable”) fail.
You could argue that the result would be extinction instead of the hunter-gatherer option,
but you cannot argue that an unsustainable civilization can be sustained.
Back away from the keyboard and think for the once in your life.
Pat Cassen // March 23, 2009 at 4:53 pm |
Richard C — check out
Lots of good stuff.
Hank Roberts // March 23, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
P.S., it’s easy to find civilizations that were not sustainable. E.g.:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?sourceid=Mozilla-search&q=%22fertile+crescent%22+erosion+salt
Kipp Alpert // March 23, 2009 at 7:01 pm |
Saltador: Even an amatuer like me can see how our seasons have changed now in Connecticut. My wife’s roses just came up. But it just went down to 32 f, and tomorrow will be back in the 60,s f. If you read Dr. Wearts on Rapid Climate Change you would get a hint. But maybe there has been to much proof and you can’t see the forest from the trees. Deniers are a dime a dozen and like children they can say the dumbest things and get away with it. But why don’t you go to your room, because we have a new party coming and you might get in the way. Well at least the Pentagon is getting ready. At least clean up your room.That is the least thing you can do.
Conservation is fun and you can meet other people too. The math is 1+1=2. Even someone like me can add that up, DOH!
Ray Ladbury is assuming that best case is hunter gatherer, and others would say we have become to civilized. Before the Younger Dryas, after the last meteor, only the American Indian survived,
and after the melting, they didn’t have to move in small groups to survive. It only took three or fout thousand years. But maybe you were an Eagel Scout.
Kipp Alpert // March 23, 2009 at 7:03 pm |
Before Younger Dryas.
Climate Criminal // March 23, 2009 at 9:28 pm |
Saltator,
Of course unsustainable demands can maintained for short intervals only. It is for YOU to prove how an unsustainable civilisation, can be maintained indefinitely.
For a start, take Earth: population still growing; with the average standard of living still increasing; per capita energy use rising; numerous natural resources past peak production and nearing depletion [phosphorus & etc.]; climate change and all it means; environmental degradation increasing; overfishing of all sea fisheries; increasing desertification; deforestation.
Please prove me wrong!
As far as I know, the size of the Earth and its resources has not recently increased to match the demands placed upon it.
Dave A // March 23, 2009 at 9:54 pm |
dhogaza,
“And increasing CO2 emissions does warm the planet.”
Except increasing CO2 doesn’t seem to have warmed the planet over the last few years. Now why should the temperature flatline even though anthropogenic CO2 production has increased at ever greater levels since 2000?
[Response: You get the "bag of hammers" award for the dumbest comment in a while. I've posted about statistical fluctuations, and the utterly meaningless "trend" over the last few years, so many times I'm getting sick of it. Pay attention or go the hell away and quit bothering the rest of us.]
Kipp Alpert // March 23, 2009 at 10:19 pm |
P.S.Read the IPCC, add it up for yourself. You really don’t have the maturity to get it. You are only projeting your own insecurity. Like Dave A , you need attention. Be a man or woman and make a stand. This is the most serious problem that has ever effected the Human Race. This is not Chess and it is not a game. You know the certainty of Global Warming, and even why it is getting warmer. Why don’t you say you don’t have the emotional intellegence to underdstand
the significance, because if you did, you wouldn’t play your game. You would try to find solutions, not make more problems. Your not too humble either. KIPP
Philippe Chantreau // March 24, 2009 at 2:38 am |
Saltator, that’s a really strange way to word your request. What is not sustainable, by definition, will not be sustained, regardless of our perception. If you engage in physical exertion that demands a certain level of oxygen delivery and your cardiovascular system does not meet that demand, the exertion can not be sustained. If attempts are made to continue despite regulatory mechanisms, damage will occur, then possibly death. If a bank keeps on handing loans to recipients who are unlikely to pay them back, the bank will fail. For sure. It’s mathematical.
This is probably your way of arguing that our current civilization is not unsustainable and that what is termed sustainable (a word that certainly makes you cringe considering the hatred you’ve diplayed of environmental concerns) is not to be pursued.
Considering how you went for Spencer’s CO2 fantasies, why should anyone believe that any kind of rational argument could alter that conviction in any way? Hence the waste of time in trying to respond to your request. That’s typical “skeptic” rethoric that no amount of evidence will ever suffice to sway.
Personally, I think that the burden of proof should be the other way around. I want to be shown how the senseless frenzy of consumption that we call civilization today can be sustained without any limit in time, especially since it has failed to lift so many out of poverty and to a point where the day to day survival is not in question.
I want to be shown how using finite resources at an increasing rate without searching for replacements does not limit the long term benefits drawn from these resources.
Beyond any physical sutainability concerns, I want to be shown how our future as a species is not threatened when the very best emotions, feelings, behaviors that we can produce have been hijacked by advertisers to be prostituted in TV ads, all for the sake of business (i.e. to try sell us useless crap).
I want to be shown why, as human beings, we should strive for ever more superficial and meaningless lives spent chasing material things that don’t even make us happy, reducing us to some sort of cargo cult, except with a better image. For many, however, the better image does not carry a truly better understanding of how the cargo comes to them.
Needless to say, if I’m shown why and how all this may be, I will be skeptical too, although not in a rethorical sense, like so many calling themselves “skeptics.”
Kipp Alpert // March 24, 2009 at 3:25 am |
Lazar:May I post your last comment over at Accuweather.They have been trashing Hansen for everything and your responsible points are relevant. Thanks KIPP
MattInSeattle // March 24, 2009 at 5:55 am |
RichardC, is that you? The same one that asserted on RC that the 2010 Prius would get 90 MPG, or 72 MPG if you used EPA ratings?
And that if only the government required Toyota to license the technology to every car makers that the CAFE could be raised to 75 MPG in a year no problem?
Hah. The 2010 Prius numbers came out. And as I predicted, a modest improvement over 2009.
You can’t rush CAFE, no matter how badly those that have never made anything substantive in their life might believe otherwise.
Walter Crain // March 24, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
CALLING ALL SCIENTISTS (especially ones named “jim”)
i was talking (blogging on capitalweather.com) to a global warming denialist the other day and he trotted out the senate minority report and oregon list. he challenged me to produce a similar “list of scientists” who “signed a document” in the “public record” stating they “believe in” man-made global warming. shockingly, i couldn’t. i think he felt he had proved something.
have you heard of “project steve”? if not google it.
i thought project steve was such a clever and funny way to “rebut” the obvious “denial” of the case/truth for the “scientific consensus” on evolution. (and those denialists LOVE lists!) i’m almost sure a similar consensus exists in the case of “global warming”. the percentage may not be 99% like in project steve, but it must be up there. i’m not a scientist so i can’t go around to my friends and have them sign this silly list. CAN YOU SUGGEST A FORUM for the idea of maybe a “PROJECT JIM” (for james hanson) for global warming? you have to pick a name with about 1% of the population (of scientists), hopefully in homage to important global warming scientist.
any scientists out there interested? if not, do you know of some scientist with a sense of humor who would do it?
Walter // March 24, 2009 at 2:04 pm |
before you say something like, “a stupid list like that doesn’t prove anything” and/or “i can’t waste my time with something like that” consider that there are many people who not only deny global warming, but also still, unbelievably to me, deny the scientific consensus. they’ll point to the political motivations of the scientists or say scientists just spout this “global warming alarmism” to keep their funding for global warming research coming in… they think groups like the IPCC and national “scientific societies” are in on some conspiracy and/or their “official statements” do not represent the views of the majority of their members.
anyway, please think about it.
Henrik // March 24, 2009 at 2:31 pm |
Re: Richard C
“On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Arrhenius_pdf
Lee // March 24, 2009 at 4:36 pm |
Mashey:
“*Most* of CA’s coastline doesn’t get bothered by the first meter of SLR. [The Delta is another story).”
Correct – The Delta gets destroyed by the first meter of SLR. The consequence of that – as I’m sure you know – will be much more than just loss of ~ 500 – 1000 square miles (depending on where we hold the loss ) of farmland as productive as any in the world.
The delta river/channel system is also the keystone of the state’s fresh water distribution system. Lose the Delta to estuarine waters, and we lost the ability to ship fresh water from north to south.
That is a solvable problem – but not cheaply. It would force construction of a peripheral canal to carry water around the Delta. Building a combined Middle River / Western Canal project, probably the most cost effective solution in case of loss of the Delta, would cost upwards of 1o billion dollars, perhaps more than 20 billion. Coupling that canal project to the existing forebays and distribution canals south of the delta would cost billions more. Finding and building alternatives to the current river channels for bringing water through the delta to the Bay area would cost billions more.
All that for the first meter of SLR, and just to handle the single problem off fresh water distribution impacts.
Mitigation ain’t cheap.
elspi // March 24, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
Michel (who now has a PhD in missing the point)
” Like, how would you go about cutting the US population in half? Any ideas? Well, its going to be no easier in the UK.”
Due to the efforts of people like Michel, the population around the world will be reduced the same way it always has been, by war, famine and pestilence.
We could of course do it through attrition, (slashing the birth rate) but that, we are told by these LOVELY people, would be INHUMAN.
So instead we will go the Easter Island route with the cannibalism and all.
I imagine that michel’s mother makes very good soup, but I wish we didn’t have to share a planet with his ilk.
Ray Ladbury // March 24, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
Dave A., Isn’t it interesting how you ignore the last 2 decades of dramatic warming and concentrate on a couple of cool years–that are still in the top ten warmest on record. Shouldn’t that tell you something about the selectivity of your “skepticism”?
BBP // March 24, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
I still think it’s unlikely, but cold fusion is getting back in the news (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/6333164.html) If it does turn out to be real it could make a real difference.
Hank Roberts // March 24, 2009 at 5:47 pm |
> the “bag of hammers” award
Perhaps adding a box at the top of the page listing the winner would help new readers.
t_p_hamilton // March 24, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
Kipp, I think you hit the nail on the head. The deniers here (and I assert those everywhere) lack the emotional intelligence to admit the problem. Or deal with the problem, or to propose solutions.
They will cry “It is not happening” or “It is impossible to remedy” (sometimes both!), when global warming is happening whether we want to or not, and it will have severe effects that need to be dealt with, whether we want to or not. This requires adult behavior.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 24, 2009 at 6:36 pm |
Make it ‘Project Gavin’ and I’m game :-)
Jim Eager // March 24, 2009 at 7:20 pm |
Walter Crain, this site may be far more useful than a simple list:
Most-Cited Authors on Climate Science
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/
It gives much more than just names, it puts those names in perspective.
Richard C // March 24, 2009 at 7:51 pm |
Fred and Henrik thanks for the links, Pat, your link didn’t make it through.
MattInSeattle there are at least two of us. I tend to put a space before the C. I’ve also been around a while so it is quite probable that we have clashed in the past. ‘Owever, I don’t know what an EPA rating or CAFE is, they must be called something else on my side of the pond. So, is it my turn to say Hah!? :-)
Michel why must the UK stand alone in a renewables scenario? We are already connected by electricity cable and gas pipeline to the mainland. If we go for renewable electricity why can’t that continue?
We have plenty of coastline for wave power, shallow seas for tidal lagoons, acres of rooftops for solar, and plenty of ground for wind. Until a recent change in set aside policy we also had thousands of acres available for biofuels. And then there is waste, how much do we landfill that we could burn? If capturing gas will work for coal, why wont it work for waste? Coal is not our only option.
As for increasing population, by birth rate and by immigration this is a deliberate policy. Our political and economic landscape cannot conceive of any system except unending growth. Something will have to give at sometime. Sooner would be better, I live just outside the south-east corner of the M25, it’s getting crowded.
Phil Scadden // March 24, 2009 at 8:27 pm |
Re: Project Jim. Gavin at RealClimate says there has been discussion about a “project steve” for climate change. Obviously he is considering it.
Phil Scadden // March 24, 2009 at 8:55 pm |
I find I have to agree with much of Michel’s points. Reading Dave Mackay “sustainable energy – without the hot air”, I see the numbers for the UK are depressing. Whether the energy use per person is 125kWh/day (official) or 195kWh/day (his calculation which looks at “imported energy” via goods), there is no way that local renewable energy sources can PHYSICALLY meet that demand let alone socially or economically. http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html
Chapter 18. I cant recommend this highly enough. If I lived in UK, then I think I would be looking hard at nuclear – and yes, the problem is population. If you want to make a REAL difference, then forget the CFLs (well dont but dont stop there). Consider instead:
- restrict family size to 2 or at most 3
- buy a house where you can walk or take public transport to work. Better still go high density, energy efficient and dont build on arable land.
- send your children to local schools and activities that they can get to by walk or pubic transport
- dont fly! One intercontinental flight every 10 years isnt too bad.
- limit the stuff you buy, especially high energy stuff like cars.
- Dont eat meat grown on land that would sustainably grow other food.
- Insulate, insulate and use solar and heat pumps to heat.
- vote, lobby, pay, etc for electrification of transport.
Dave A // March 24, 2009 at 11:13 pm |
Philippe Chantreau;
“especially since it has failed to lift so many out of poverty and to a point where the day to day survival is not in question. “
This is of course a ridiculous point. In 1950 the Worlds population was around 3 billion, today it is over 6 billion.
So today there are actually far more people who are not living in poverty than there were in 1950. Moreover the percentage of people who now live in poverty is also less than it was in 1950. That is because Western progress and prosperity has expanded growth around the World and generally dramatically improved the wealth of much of the globe.
Saltator // March 25, 2009 at 2:24 am |
Ray,
I want to see your MATHEMATICAL proof. I want to see mathematical proof that if this civilization fails we will revert to a hunter-gatherer existence and not be replaced by another different civilization which has happened every time a civilization has failed in the past 10000 years..
Kipp Alpert // March 25, 2009 at 2:28 am |
Philippe Chantreau: Your last comment was so relevant that I posted it over at AccuWeather.
It reminded me of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s
paper on Nature. Particularly on the topic about Commodity. What nature has given us and how bountiful we are. Our family feels this is true,
and we stay modest and thankful. Your comment about loving the cargo so much that you forgot how it came was on point.. I have just finished a paper by Dr.Hansen et al, and it hit me in the gut.
Target CO2 which I believe everyone here has probably read. The interpolations and extrapolations made from the end of the Cretaceous 65 my before present, through the Pleistocene, to now, gives one a perspective on what is going on today. He based his paper on empirical evidence, as Climate models are another source of uncertainty he said.In his last paragraph he gives us a twenty year window before we reverse or stop coal production, or mitigate by capturing those dirty particles, and stop the CO2 from escaping. There is too much coal left, but as he concluded this will take a Herculean effort. I’m not sure how much coal and other particulates are falling on Snow, but it seems we are screwing up some perfect reflectivity, and that corn snow in the Alps will be next to melt. He even had a last comment about deniers, and they do matter. I have joined a group in town, so wherever I can make a difference I will. Today a denier actually said “Well we are all going to die sometime”. Love is a free currency and you can give as much as you want. Why should Mankind die because we didn’t do enough.
Philippe Chantreau // March 25, 2009 at 3:49 am |
Michel,
“Look at Hong Kong.” I do and, as my sight is broad, I see all the land and wells and pipelines and sewers and ships and quarries and forests and rice fields and distant factories and everything else that makes its existence possible. It adds up. To a lot more than just Hong Kong. How long it can go on is another matter.
As for your comment on quality of life, it is about the only insightful thing you have said in a long time.
I’m ready to fight to the death those who’d want to turn this entire planet into some abomination of an engineering project devoting every square centimeter of land, every liter of water and every form of life to the exclusive service of humans. Not only because of the ugliness of it and the misery of living in it, but because it is bound to fail and lead to the demise of humans anyway. What makes you think that reproducing the Biosphere experiments at a planetary scale will be a success?
Reading about ecology (I know, ugly word in your book) reveals that natural systems are always more efficient than man made ones at using resources and energy. Nature beats human hands down at thermodynamic games.
MattInSeattle // March 25, 2009 at 5:35 am |
Walter: they’ll point to the political motivations of the scientists or say scientists just spout this “global warming alarmism” to keep their funding for global warming research coming in… they think groups like the IPCC and national “scientific societies” are in on some conspiracy and/or their “official statements” do not represent the views of the majority of their members.
Consensus said Iraq had WMD. Consensus said world financial markets were stable.
Consensus is often wrong.
Yes, DATA shows we have been warming. But THEORY says we will continue to warm.
What we are actually debating here is whether the THEORY is more sound than it is.
If the THEORY were rock solid, then Hansen’s predictions from 20+ years ago would be much closer than they are (in fact, many global measurements have us below is “best case” which assumed we started reducing GHG emissions in 2000. Of course, we blew through that and never looked back) . If we were at the top end of Hansen’s prediction, you’d definitely have my attention.
Terry // March 25, 2009 at 8:55 am |
Re responce to Dave A at // March 23, 2009 at 9:54 pm. …….Yes but just how robust is the data that is used in the analysis. I doubt that any serious scientist would agree that it is robust, and there in lies the essential element of scepticism. Note that this is not the same as denialism.
Saltator // March 25, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
Phillipe,
I agree that at the current rates of consumption, our civilization is heading for a crunch point. Where I differ with Ray is that there has been no abandonment of an agrarian and reversion to a hunter gatherer lifestyle after the collapse of any civilization in the last 10000 years. If I am wrong please show me.
Reverting to hunter gatherer lifestyles did not occur after the collapse of the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Mayan, Chinese, Polynesian, Moche or any other civilization that I can think of. What occurred was the dismantling of the social, political and administrative structures, not the collapse of the agrarian system.
Resource limitation is only one of the catalysts for a civilization’s collapse. Usually the civilization is already in decay before resource limitation occurs because invariably social and political factors are already in play.
Saltator // March 25, 2009 at 1:35 pm |
Ray Ladbury,
“Dave A., Isn’t it interesting how you ignore the last 2 decades of dramatic warming and concentrate on a couple of cool years–that are still in the top ten warmest on record. Shouldn’t that tell you something about the selectivity of your “skepticism”?”
Actually Ray, in the last three decades of satellite temperatures, only the 1990s had a significant warming trend. The regressions for the 1980s and 2000s are not significant. Therefore your statement of dramatic warming over the last two decades is unsustainable.
[Response: It has often been emphasized that shorter time spans reduce the statistical significance of analysis; with a short enough time span, no trend, no matter how strong, will pass significance tests. It has also been repeatedly emphasized that one decade isn't long enough, given the signal-to-noise ratio in global temperature.]
Ray Ladbury // March 25, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
Saltator, agriculture depends for its success on predictable climate. Predictable climate is not something we can take for granted, and it has only been in the last 10000 years or so that humans have experienced such predictability. It is also in the last 10000 years that agriculture gained ascendence over hunter-gatherer lifestyles in terms of the food production. I don’t think this is a coincidence.
Ray Ladbury // March 25, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
Matt, your comment merely illustrates that you are utterly ignorant of what is meant by “scientific consensus”. All it means is that you can’t understand the phenomena/field of study without the concepts, techniques, etc. That’s it. Since the contrarian approach is completely moribund, having yielded no new insight into climate in decades, I think you could say we have consensus on the role of greenhouse gasses in climate science and on the resulting consequences ewhen those gasses are on the rise. Scientific consensus is very rarely wrong when it is coupled with dynamical modeling.
Ray Ladbury // March 25, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
Gee, Saltator, then why is 2008, the coolest year this decade, still among the ten warmest recorded years? You can stick your fingers in your ears all you want. It doesn’t change physical reality.
MattInSeattle // March 25, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
Ray: your comment merely illustrates that you are utterly ignorant of what is meant by “scientific consensus”
Good grief, Ray, you talk about this like it’s an incredibly nuanced term. It’s not. It simply means that a large majority of scientists believe something to be true based on the observations to date and the confidence in the science.
If temps today were very close to Hansen’s “Scenario A” then the consensus would be even stronger. Heck, I’d be board big time.
If, in 10 years we are below “Scenario C” by quite a ways then even you should be wondering all this, and scientific consensus on the causes of warming will be in tatters. Will you revise your thinking at that point?
Given that in his wildest dream Hansen never believed we’d be at current temperatures 20 years ago I’m not sure why you are so harsh to those that won’t fall in line.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 25, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
> Consensus said Iraq had WMD.
No way. Consensus — defined as the considered judgment of experts in a field — was sceptical of the claim and the evidence presented. But it was suppressed by the political establishment, the same that tried also to suppress the climate consensus. Both are abundantly documented.
Fortunately a community operating in the open is not that easily suppressed.
Lazar // March 25, 2009 at 6:49 pm |
Michel,
The answer would be ‘as soon as possible within reason’… reason being an evaluation of costs of action versus inaction, for various actions, requiring various timescales.
1) The website of the people you’re aiming at (the Optimum Population Trust) lays out what targets and what actions they think are reasonable. None are as drastic as you have suggested.
2) Distant timescales can require immediate action.
3) Action taken sooner is likely to be less costly, and the costs will be more spread out.
4) Taking action to preserve human civilization is of vital interest to myself and any sentient human.
5) There can be immediate benefits in quality of life. Fertility rates will likely effect the quality of life for most people alive today, and their children and grandchildren.
A finite planet cannot provide indefinite population growth. It is impossible. Any such attempt will be thwarted by reduced life expectancy and increased infant mortality, by hunger, disease, and war.
I want a sustainable population.
Continuing consumption of natural capital will (eventually) render natural production unable to support the population. And rather large numbers of people will die in rather horrible ways.
Back to the point. You want any discussion of what a sustainable population level would be to disappear. I still do not understand why.
You’re forgetting Norway, which is Europe’s second largest supplier, and LNG, although LNG is much dirtier, it is not as dirty as coal.
Rationing carbon and price increases are one and the same thing, and are necessary to counteract both climate change and the depletion of fossil fuels. Price increases reduce waste. Efficiency improvements alone do not work.
… which is why I wrote build nat. gas now and nukes come online after a few years.
I agree with you that renewable technology is not ready to supply baseload, which is why I have consistently advocated for nuclear.
We should do all that as well.
But not build coal plants.
Fossil fuel depletion and climate change are a brick wall. If at the first pain from fossil fuel depletion we react to maintain our fossil fuel consumption, we are in effect speeding toward that brick wall. We must slow down consumption, i.e. ration, i.e. increase prices. This process will not be painless, but it will be far better than hitting the brick will. All nations face the same problem.
The U.K. does not generally need one washing machine per household, dishwashers, plastic figures in cereal packets, four or five lightbulbs per room, old boilers, incandescents, indoor temperatures high enough to walk around in shorts and sweatshirts in the middle of winter, approximately 60% of cavity wall houses uninsulated…
This still makes no sense…
I repeat…
1) James Hansen is not responsible for the (in)actions of the U.S. government
2) which he has fought for two decades
3) nor for U.S. populace indifference
4) U.K. emissions are a global problem; they are everyone’s business
5) Hansens’ advice is correct (or not) regardless of nationality
Ray Ladbury // March 25, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
Matt says, consensus “…simply means that a large majority of scientists believe something to be true based on the observations to date and the confidence in the science.”
No. It has nothing to do with “belief”. Rather, it means that it is universally used because it is necessary to understand the phenomenon. There’s a difference. No one polled me about what constituted the Standard Model of particle physics or the Preliminary Reference Earth Model. They just used them because you couldn’t make progress without them.
As to current temperatures, why are you giving me weather reports? Temperature fluctuates. What is more, we do not necessarily expect all of the warming to be immediately evident. Again, your ignorance is showing.
Lazar // March 25, 2009 at 6:59 pm |
Kipp,
You’re welcome to. Hope it helps.
luminous beauty // March 25, 2009 at 7:47 pm |
Matt,
Hansen ‘88 was ‘the’ consensus document of a consensus that emerged circa 2001?
I don’t think so.
Please, get up to date.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf
Kipp Alpert // March 25, 2009 at 7:52 pm |
Saltador: How can you compare Ancient Societies to today. Most now in our technological wonderment can’t even change a tire. We are also experiencing Rapid Climate Change. We have the Superbowl(the fall of Rome)with our Doritos and Studweiser. Do you really think today is the same as Ancient societies,This is an invalid assumption and a useless argument. Survivor man can’t even catch fish, so he sits and plays his blues harp until the helicopter comes. We are over equipped physically and under equipped mentally as Einstein said. Besides, instead of arguing, shouldn’t you be out there in the world to spread the truth about our serious plight. Few will read this blog, but societies can act for change if the people say they want it. Save mankind first, then argue about our adaption. Time to Focus! KIPP
John Mashey // March 25, 2009 at 9:37 pm |
Various:
1) Brian Fagan, Floods, Famines and Emperors, 1999.
2) Brian Fagan, The Long Summer, 2004.
3) Brian Fagan, The Great Warming, 2008.
4) Jared Diamond, Collapse, 2005.
Civilizations do fall, sometimes when water goes elsewhere. They of course fall for other reasons.
It’s more that they died, or moved somewhere else, when they couldn’t generate enough food within the constraints of their energy/transport system.
One of the worst educational problems we have is the increasing percentage of people who are poorly -informed about agricultural realities, although of coruse, since all people eat, almost everyone has opinions about food :-). In 1900, the US was 40% farmers, and most people didn’t live that far away from farms. Now it’s 2%.
Lee: yes. This is one more reason CA has the worldview it does about AGW, and this interlocks with the agriculture issue. You probably know:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/us.htm
http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/ca.htm
(there’s one per state, and they are very useful data sources, although of course there are many caveats, and the following are just rough ratios from those pages):
Many think of Silicon Valley or Hollywood, but CA is also the largest (and likely the most diverse) agricultural state, with ag products in 2007 at $33B, which for example compares with new England & ~Mid-Atlantic, i.e,, covering BosWash:
CA: $33B (37M people)
{MA, ME, NH, VT, CT, RI} $3B (14M people)
{NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, VA}: $20B (55M)
So, that’s $33B: 37M and $23B: 69M (for NE+Mid)
Of course:
{IN, IL, IA, KS, NE}: $73B: 27M.
In ag production/person in different states/areas, to pick a few:
$93 MA
$219 New England (VT & ME help MA)
$129 NJ (the Garden State)
$257 NY
$541 PA
$365 total Mid-Atlantic
$335 total New England + Mid-Atlantic
$905 CA
$999 CA+OR+WA
$1033 IL (i.e., even with Chicago)
$7080 IA (see Hansen note later)
$9082 NE (but Google: Ogalalla Aquifer)
$2730 {IN, IL, IA, KS, NE}
$1,092 US as a whole.
Conclusion: CA grows a lot of food for itself, and exports substantially. The Mid-west grows a huge amount of food, but has low overall population density,so it exports most of it. The NorthEast imports a lot of food, much from hundreds of miles away, at least. This is all OK, as it does make sense to grow food in places that have natural advantages.
Hits to CA ag (Delta SLR & snowpack issues) will be noticeable country-wide.\
If Peak Oil hurts long-distance transport, the mid-Atlantic & especially New England are in for some *serious* rearrangements, like cutting a lot of trees down again, and trying to recreate more local farms, and people moving away.
The USA has one of the most powerful agricultural systems in the world, but it has some serious fragilities, also.
RANDOM ASSOCIATION:
James Hansen was born in Denison, IA, (now) a 7000-person town right in the middle of serious farm country, and still lives in a farm area (in PA). hence, it is just possible that he is more aware of climate influence on agriculture than many Americans.
Dave A // March 25, 2009 at 9:39 pm |
GP,
As a long time activist in CND I knew that claims about 45 minute threats of the use of WMD by Saddam were wide of the mark.
At the same time, however, there was a ‘consensus’ among Western Intelligence Agencies that Saddam was still very interested in developing WMD and that there was no reason to believe that he had not clandestinely continued his programmes.
I would also point out that Saddam, himself, actively cultivated this impression
Philippe Chantreau // March 25, 2009 at 9:42 pm |
Matt’s hypothetical scenario of no more warming in the next 20 years: the funny thing is that, even if the system does not behave as expected in the next 20 years, there is no explanation or theory that has been described by the so-called “skeptics” that could truly explain that. It will have to be elucidated once again by the people who really study climate, because, as wrong as they may have been in such a scenario, they’ll still be more qualified to do it than all “skeptics” put together. I’m sure, however, that it wouldn’t deter you from claiming “victory” and going on and on about it.
Dave A // March 25, 2009 at 9:44 pm |
GP,
Also let’s not forget that Saddam had readily resorted to the use of chemical weapons in the war with Iran and against his own people in Halabja.
He thus had ‘form’ and there was no reason to believbe he would not do the same again.
Dave A // March 25, 2009 at 10:05 pm |
“It has also been repeatedly emphasized that one decade isn’t long enough, given the signal-to-noise ratio in global temperature.”
Presumably then the signal to noise ratio in the 1940s would not have been counted as significant, but by the mid 1970s climate scientists were warning of a coming ice age.
Lets face it the temperature from 1910 has warmed, cooled and warmed on roughly 30 year cycles and we are now 10 years in to another cooling phase.
Now what other natural phenomena seem to operate on a roughly 30 year cycle? PDO, perhaps.
[Response: Is that the best you've got? The "scientists were warning of a coming ice age" lie? The only ice age they were warning of was many thousands of years from now.
You're doing nothing but repeating bullshit which has been often refuted, for a long time. If this is the level of intelligence you apply to this issue ... hang your head in shame.]
elspi // March 25, 2009 at 10:12 pm |
MattInSeattle :”If temps today were very close to Hansen’s “Scenario A” then the consensus would be even stronger. Heck, I’d be board big time.”
Hansen’s prediction was Scenario B as you well know you liar.
This has been another addition of : Lies and the lying liars who tell them.
Lazar // March 25, 2009 at 10:29 pm |
I think that this…
Tropical Pacific Climate and Its Response to Global Warming in the Kiel Climate Model
Park et al.
Journal of Climate
January 2009
DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI2261.1
relates somewhat to what Timothy Chase was describing…
… so, if I understand… a forcing may be a sufficient condition for a changed ENSO regime, but the actual form of change is chaotic. Maybe those are the wrong words?
Lazar // March 25, 2009 at 10:44 pm |
Michel,
Sustainable population…
Regional Climate Change in Tropical and Northern Africa due to Greenhouse Forcing and Land Use Changes
Paeth et al.
Journal of Climate
January 2009
DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI2390.1
Kipp Alpert // March 25, 2009 at 10:58 pm |
Matt:I can’t speak for Ray but since we are going to change,as Society dictates, why not change now.Wouldn’t it be cool to be the first with good solar panels and wind power. Why but them from the Chinese. Mitigation is a fools choice. Whatever scenario you would like does not change the reality of being prepared first. The pentagon has made it’s plans. Why shouldn’t we.
We did a story down in Mexico about 20 years
ago. Up Toluca Highway, above Mexico City there were a lot of villages, made from corrugated boxes. You need to get out more.
Go out at night and look around Seattle. How many people come out then. Desert Storm vets,
junkies, and homeless people. Imagine you were one of them. I thank God everyday I was born here,and not on some inlet in Alaska where native Americans must get out or drown. How much Human suffering would it take for you to see there is too much at stake now to be complacent. So Ray expanded a term, good. Talk to a California fire fighter. Open up your eyes.
Hank Roberts // March 26, 2009 at 12:39 am |
> Scenario C
Don’t you people _ever_ bother checking for bogosity before reposting these claims from the PR sites? Good grief, Seattle, look it up.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=r&q=Hansen+Scenarios+climate&as_ylo=2006&btnG=Search
MattInSeattle // March 26, 2009 at 2:56 am |
Herb Alpert: You need to get out more.
I am am starting my 3rd passport. They fill with stamps before they expire. Please don’t worry about me getting out enough.
MattInSeattle // March 26, 2009 at 2:59 am |
elspi: Hansen’s prediction was Scenario B as you well know you liar.
You are missing my point. I’m simply saying if we were close to A, or above A, then I’d be on board.
And I suppose if we were 5 degrees below C you’d have wondered away from AGW as a pet cause and instead have moved on to something else.
And thus, we both are exhibiting similar responses to changing data. Right?
MattInSeattle // March 26, 2009 at 3:10 am |
Ray Ladbury: As to current temperatures, why are you giving me weather reports? Temperature fluctuates. What is more, we do not necessarily expect all of the warming to be immediately evident. Again, your ignorance is showing.
Ah yes, the ever changing goal posts. If Hansen ‘88 was off in 1990, it’d be due to “weather not climate”. Now here we are 21 years from his prediction and again we’re told this is merely a weather report.
And you forget that Hansen predicted a barn door in the first place. It’s like me predicting the sum of the scores of the next superbowl would be between 5 and 100. And then each team scoring a safety.
In 1988, what would Hansen say the odds were, all things considered IF we kept producing CO2 like a fratboy on a friday night and we ended up below scenario C 21 years later?
MattInSeattle // March 26, 2009 at 3:38 am |
Gavin’s Pussycat: No way. Consensus — defined as the considered judgment of experts in a field — was sceptical of the claim and the evidence presented. But it was suppressed by the political establishment, the same that tried also to suppress the climate consensus. Both are abundantly documented.
Nope. I think you are lumping in monday morning quarterbacks and political opportunists who assumed a contrary position without any data to support it (eg. Obama) simply to appeal to a base.
Those world leaders/influentials that believed Iraq had WMD prior to the invasion: Blair, Bush, Chirac, every leader in the middle east, Powell, Clinton, countless members of congress (including Kerry, Rockefeller, Boxer, Daschle and on and on), CIA, Schröder, the signatories of UN 1441, Blix, Howard, and on and on.
Those world leaders (and influentials) that didn’t believe Iraq had WMD prior to the invasion: Putin, Ritter, ???
[Response: I think you're wrong about world leaders who believed Iraq had WMDs -- you just padded the list with every name you could think of. Hans Blix kept saying he had NOT found sufficient evidence, but Bush ignored him and invaded anyway.
And many of those who did believe, did so because Bush lied about the evidence.
And if you think the WMD/Iraq thing in an apt analogy to scientific concensus -- then you know nothing about scientific concensus.]
Kipp Alpert // March 26, 2009 at 3:51 am |
Lazar:
Thanks;
I may be a private in this man’s Army, but I will make up for it by effort and spreading the truth,or what I understand to be true. I’m reading a book that Chris Colose recommended, and I will understand it in about five years,maybe. Hank sure has a cool sense of humor.Very British.
http://www.theonion.com/content/
Walter // March 26, 2009 at 3:52 am |
jim eager,
thanks for that link. that sure is a lot of good info about the consensus.
phil scadden,
yes, i’ve been bothering as many climate scientists as i can about that silly list for many weeks now…. looks like maybe it IS gaining traction over at realclimate! boy i sure hope so.
Saltator // March 26, 2009 at 4:42 am |
Tamino,
“Response: It has often been emphasized that shorter time spans reduce the statistical significance of analysis; with a short enough time span, no trend, no matter how strong, will pass significance tests. It has also been repeatedly emphasized that one decade isn’t long enough, given the signal-to-noise ratio in global temperature.”
True to some extent. However are we not dealing with noise being multiple processes. i.e. there are cyclic processes operating at many different time periods at play? Why is it then that the 30 year time frame is considered the minimum time frame for the signal to emerge from this complex noise regime? Is it not true that the 30 year time frame is chosen merely because to investigate the causes of noise and identify them from the signal is either too hard or too costly to implement.
My contention is that 10 years is not too short a time frame to determine trends. This is particularly so when those noise processes are of a cyclical nature with a periodicity of 10 years or so (e.g. PDO, ENSO, IOD, AMO, Sunspots etc.). I contend that a decadal time scale is sufficient to account for the majority of the short-term cyclical and random noise in the climate system. In fact, by not taking into account these fractional cyclical processes in the 30 year time frame and considering them as noise actually acts to reduce the signal to noise ratio not to improve it. Therefore, signal to noise ratio cannot (or should not) be the primary consideration in selecting a 30 year time scale for determination of climate effects.
Your thoughts and counter-points on this please.
michel // March 26, 2009 at 7:55 am |
From the ‘let them eat cake’ archives:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article5977714.ece
Not that the gas fired stations will be of any use in the winter, when the Russians shut down gas supplies.
Inquiring minds are wondering what exactly was in it for the UK in becoming a ‘global leader in renewable energy’. Not a lot. Having dependable electricity though, now that would be nice.
Ray Ladbury // March 26, 2009 at 10:08 am |
Dave A., Actually, the scientists worried about cooling in the 60s and 70s were a minority. What is interesting is why they were wrong. They had the mechanism of the cooling (actually, temps were flat, not cooling) right (aerosols from fossil fuel conbustion), but they were assuming too low a CO2 sensitivity. This is why it always amuses me when denialists bring out the cooling canard–it’s actually support for anthropogenic causation rather than against it. They’re just too dim–about both science AND history–to realize it.
Barton Paul Levenson // March 26, 2009 at 10:57 am |
Matt in Seattle writes:
AGW theory rests on five points:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859). Nowadays, with quantum mechanics, we understand why. This is as rock-solid a scientific fact as you can find anywhere.
2. Carbon dioxide is rising (Keeling et al. 1958). No one disputes this, either.
3. The new CO2 is coming from human technology (Suess 1955). Radioisotope signatures are hard to argue with.
4. The temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, UAH, RSS, etc., etc., etc.)
5. From 1880 to 2007, temperature anomaly and ln CO2 correlate such that 76% of variance is accounted for. The correlation doesn’t prove the theory and is not the source of the theory, but lack of such a correlation would be a strong blow against the theory.
Which of the above points do you dispute?
Ray Ladbury // March 26, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
Saltator says “My contention is that 10 years is not too short a time frame to determine trends. ”
You can contend all you want. It don’t make it so. First, your “periodic” forcers are not truly periodic–only roughly so. Second, 30 years is really only sufficient for signals with characteristics quite different from the noise–e.g. a more-or-less steadily rising term like greenhouse forcing signal juxtaposed against quasi-periodic and random noise. If you are trying to pick out one quasi-periodic term from the rest, you might have to wait a very, very long time. What I would suggest is to run a Monte Carlo simulation with various sources and characteristics of noise. In some put in a “signal” with the desired characteristics. For the ones with no signal, see how often you are fooled into thinking there is one at various sampling periods. Then look at the runs with your signal–how reliably can you identify it at various times?
The question is what confidence level do you want to have for your trend? Publishable generally means 90-95% CL.
A lot of smart cookies have looked at this problem. I rather doubt they are too far wrong.
Ray Ladbury // March 26, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
Matt, Well, you can evidently read a thermometer. Congratulations. You remain utterly ignorant as to how to assess the significance of data. The “scenarios” represent an ensemble average of runs given the conditions of the scenario. Any particular realization of that scenario may be above or below–and has precisely zero relevance to model predictions. Is current WEATHER well outside the expected realizations? Nope.
Now perhaps since you’ve mastered the art of reading a thermometer, you might want to look at other measurements–like 2 trillion tons of polar ice lost in the past 5 years. Like the fact that the oceans are starting to saturate in their ability to absorb CO2. Like ocean acidification. Drop reality a line sometime, Matt. You haven’t touched base in a long time.
MattInSeattle // March 26, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
Tamino: I think you’re wrong about world leaders who believed Iraq had WMDs — you just padded the list with every name you could think of.
LA Times in 2004: “Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Tuesday that until the final days before the war, he and U.S. officials — and perhaps even Saddam Hussein — believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction”
Chirac: “Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.”
And on and on. Hold our leaders accountable. Holler if you want the quotes on everyone. Putin and Ritter are the only ones I’ve been able to find with CLEAR statements about lack of WMD. Everyone else was just along for the ride, using it to push their political agenda every which way.
The applicability to science is definitely there with human nature being what it is. In the case of WMD, we had all these people look at a set of data, and in their head they turned it from a 50% or 60% probability to a slam dunk. How does the human mind permit this? And why does it happen over and over? And why do you think scientists are immune? (they aren’t).
[Response: Nobody ever claimed scientists are immune to anything -- that's just a strawman argument.
But there are correction mechanisms in the scientific process, and a strongly conservative reluctance to tout claims that are unsupported by strong evidence. Which makes science a much better path to truth than politics. If you don't get that, you haven't a clue about how science works.]
MattInSeattle // March 26, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
Michel post quoted: Inquiring minds are wondering what exactly was in it for the UK in becoming a ‘global leader in renewable energy’. Not a lot. Having dependable electricity though, now that would be nice.
After some more checking, it does appear that current US administration is targeting a 5.0% growth rate in alt energy through 2012, while the previous administration achieved 7% without really doing anything specific.
We’ll see if cap and trade makes it. It probably won’t, which will mean the current administration will be doing zilch for alt energy.
And it will be blamed on the current economic climate and hard times in the land plenty.
MattInSeattle // March 26, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
BPL: Which of the above points do you dispute?
None. My hunch if that 2xCO2 is a fraction of the 3.0 that most believe. Hansen, of course, believes it quite a bit higher.
I think there will be a mechanism found that we don’t yet understand that indeed shows it effectively closer to 0.5.
Is that so irrational? I suspect I’m the same number of sigmas out as Hansen, just in the other direction.
[Response: You think a mechanism will be found? Closer to 0.5? S-B alone gives 1.1 or 1.2, so you'd need strong negative feedback to get down to 0.5. But all indications are that feedbacks are overwhelmingly positive.
Yes, that's SO irrational.]
Barton Paul Levenson // March 26, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
Saltator writes:
It is not up to you to determine what is statistically significant and what is not. This is something that can be measured — and has been. Ten years is not enough for any statistically significant trend. You regress temperature anomaly on year and find the p value associated with the coefficient of the year term. You can do it in Excel. Let me know if you need further details.
elspi // March 26, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
“You are missing my point. I’m simply saying if we were close to A, or above A, then I’d be on board.”
The GG levels have been tracking the assumptions of Scenario B. Given that, what kind of moron expects to see the temperature following scenario A?
Hansen’s was amazingly accurate, but your response is “If only his prediction had been way off then I would believe it was right.” Are you really that dishonest?
t_p_hamilton // March 26, 2009 at 9:01 pm |
Hmm, it seems that not only is the emotional level of the deniers that of children, so is their ability to play scientist.
The latest examples:
Matt in Seattle:”You are missing my point. I’m simply saying if we were close to A, or above A, then I’d be on board.
And I suppose if we were 5 degrees below C you’d have wondered away from AGW as a pet cause and instead have moved on to something else.
And thus, we both are exhibiting similar responses to changing data. Right?”
Not even close! A 5 degrees deviation from scenario C (lower OR higher), would put the climate scientists in a real tizzy, rushing to find out what new laws of physics have escaped our notice over the past 150 years, and why they have not shown up before.
Now, how are you dealing with the data? What is your quantitative explanation for the various phenemona? You don’t have one, do you?
How do you handle noise in the data? What is the characteristics of this noise? You have no clue, do you?
Speaking of noise, in weighs Saltator:”My contention is that 10 years is not too short a time frame to determine trends. This is particularly so when those noise processes are of a cyclical nature with a periodicity of 10 years or so (e.g. PDO, ENSO, IOD, AMO, Sunspots etc.).”
Here is a clue: These sources of noise have characteristic time scales but are not periodic. All one has to do is examine the ENSO indices.
Error 1: Stating that PDO is entering a cool phase of X years, and hence there will be “cooling” for X years. Error 2: Taking the short term noisy signal and fitting anything long term like PDO is supposed to be. Error 3: Proclaim that there need be no concern about CO2 emissions based on an invalid analysis when a multitude of measurements and modelling work says we need to worry. Error 4: The attribution of recent cooling to PDO ignores the well known effect of LaNina effect.
FAIL.
Phil Scadden // March 26, 2009 at 9:27 pm |
MattinSeattle:
Um Scenario A is temps you would get with exponential increase in forcings.
Scenario B is what we actually have. You say you would be on board if we got the temps predicted for Scenario A but the forcings of B??
BPL –
6. You could add stratospheric cooling as well.
Kipp Alpert // March 26, 2009 at 9:47 pm |
Ray Ladbury: Or any smart human?
Pressure determines the height of the atmosphere.
CO2 is around 8 to 10 KM if it doesn’t first collide with another molecule.
Gravity pulls it back down. Why is expressed as 8 to ten um( I can’t post the left line on the u which they call magnetic permeability,
or magnetic constant. Is it that height in the troposphere is do to its own magnetic draw or lack of it or something like it’s weight or temperature. or are we talking apples and tangerines.I bet that every differnet wavelength has its signature magnetic constant.So is at a certain place in the troposphere by it’s distance between peak to peak or troth to troth. Or may be I should go out and start a fight with an oilman. Ftube,KIPP
David B. Benson // March 26, 2009 at 10:07 pm |
Saltator // March 26, 2009 at 4:42 am — There are tests of statistical significance; one has to have enough data to determine that the chosen model (say just CO2 forcing) passes these tests. A more complex model might actually require less data, but there are problems with complicated models and AIC, for example, downplays complexity, preferring simplicity, in model selestion. Typically more comples models require more data to be validated than simple models. In any case, WMO has, from a long time ago, set 30+ years as the minimum for several purposes, including climate.
While the solar cycle is pseudoperiodic, I assure you that the decadal scale ocean oscillations at best manage to be quasi-periodic. The bast one might do is to modify a global surface temperature product by the average variation over solar cycles of about 0.17 K (Tung & Cabin, 2008). Having done that I opine that ln(CO2), lagged by 11 years, will explain most of the remaining variance in the modified global surface temperature product except for the approximately 0.1 K variability from other decadal scale climate variations.
Hank Roberts // March 26, 2009 at 10:20 pm |
MattSeattle, you’re actually using faith-based climatology??
Kipp Alpert // March 26, 2009 at 10:34 pm |
Ray Ladbury or science nut!Why do they use a micrometer for infrared, and nanometer for wavelength.Nanometer is billions of a meter and micrometer a millionth of a meter.
Hank Roberts // March 26, 2009 at 10:35 pm |
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-clowns-grumpy-over-new-brochure
Ray Ladbury // March 26, 2009 at 10:40 pm |
Kipp, the greek letter mu also means “micro” or 1/1,000,000, so when you see um, it usually means “micrometer) or millionths of a meter. And rather than pressure determning height, it’s height–or rather the weight of the column above a given area that determines the pressure. Confusing, I know, but keep working. Have you heard of a book called “The Flying Circus of physics,” by Jearl Walker? It has a lot of things that bring out the fun in physics as you learn it.
Ray Ladbury // March 26, 2009 at 10:42 pm |
Matt asks: “I think there will be a mechanism found that we don’t yet understand that indeed shows it effectively closer to 0.5.
Is that so irrational?”
Hmm. So you are asking whether it is irrational to believe something for which you have zero evidence–which is indeed contra-indicated by the evidence? Do you know a better definition of irrational?
Dave A // March 26, 2009 at 11:05 pm |
t_p_hamilton’
“modelling work says we need to worry.”
Error 5! The models are not representative of the real world :-
“They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.”
Freeman Dyson.
Put your faith in these models t_p and you are doomed to failure yourself.
Dave A // March 26, 2009 at 11:14 pm |
BPL,
“. Ten years is not enough for any statistically significant trend.”
But I’m sure Gavin has said in the past that 10 years would be sufficient to show that temperatures had ceased to rise, :-)
[Response: I doubt it. In fact I believe he's posted exactly the opposite. Do you have a reference -- or did you just make it up?]
Kipp Alpert // March 26, 2009 at 11:49 pm |
Ray Ladbury: When you are talking about wavelengths you use the nanometer as it has a certain electromagnetic field. No energy in or out.
When you are doing equations that involve changes with infrared energy, you need a unit of energy that’s not a thing but a unit of measure, as a magnetic constant in a vacuum .
You need to describe principles in thermodynamics or other relationships with no other dynamical value of it’s own. But it does measure to be 1 millionth of a meter. Any closer.
Ray Ladbury // March 27, 2009 at 12:31 am |
Matt, Consensus is a slippery subject. In politics it may be established as a matter of convenience, of CYA or of doctrine. In science, it is a established de facto rather than de jure. One day you look up and you see nobody is publishing anything that doesn’t rely on a fact, method or model. By definition, when said element has become so essential for understanding, it becomes part of the consensus. There are >22 climate models out there. Not one assumes a sensitivity below 2 degrees per doubling of CO2. Even if the possible climate models out there were randomly distributed in terms of climate sensitivity, we could conclude with 90% confidence from this that fewer than 10% of all possible models have sensitivity >2 degrees per doubling. Moreover, it is bloody likely that a whole lot of effort has gone into looking for a low-sensitivity climate model that produces an Earth-like climate. It would be an interesting beast from a climatological view AND it would make the modeller famous! I think it’s pretty safe to conclude YOU are pretty far outside the consensus.
J // March 27, 2009 at 12:35 am |
Good lord. I thought Anthony Watts’s blog couldn’t get any stupider, but now it’s just taken stupid to whole new levels.
No longer content with mangling climate science, they’ve moved on to atmospheric chemistry, CFCs, and stratospheric ozone depletion.
The paper that’s got them all excited suggests that the Antarctic ozone hole results from the effects of galactic cosmic rays on CFCs. I have no idea whether this paper is correct (frankly, the uncritical mention of Svensmark and F-C raises alarm bells), but that’s irrelevant … because the proposed mechanism is STILL 100% DEPENDENT ON THE PRESENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC CFCs.
I don’t know whether or not Watts understands this. If he does, he seems perfectly content to stand by and watch while his deluded commenters gleefully seize on the conclusion that GCRs cause the ozone hole and the CFC theory was all a hoax.
Two commenters do appear to understand what the paper actually says, and try to point it out. But their voices are lost in WUWT’s standard chorus of right-wing paranoid conspiracy theories.
What’s up next for Watts’s blog? Vaccines cause autism? Fluoridation is a communist plot? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Barack Obama’s birth certificate was faked?
Since Watts does nothing to stop the flood of bizarre and wildly misinformed comments on his blog, I have to assume that either (a) he doesn’t understand things any better than his commenters, or (b) he’s happy to let people be misled. What a travesty.
[Response: RealClimate posted on the topic.]
David B. Benson // March 27, 2009 at 12:48 am |
MattInSeattle // March 26, 2009 at 4:05 pm — There are several different notions of climate sensitivity, depending upon time scale as well as other things. The fastest typically used is transient climate sensitivity which is about 60% of the more common Charney equilibrium sensitivity. Hansen et al. have suggested a still slower climate sensitivity to account for albedo changes when the globe warms enough to melt significant portions of Greenland and Antarctica; that value is about twice the Charney sensitivity.
Now in the last 159 years, the surface temperature has already gone up about 0.7–0.8 K, in good agreement with the typically used value of TCS of around 1.8 K
Saltator // March 27, 2009 at 1:07 am |
Ray,
“You can contend all you want. It don’t make it so. First, your “periodic” forcers are not truly periodic–only roughly so. Second, 30 years is really only sufficient for signals with characteristics quite different from the noise–e.g. a more-or-less steadily rising term like greenhouse forcing signal juxtaposed against quasi-periodic and random noise.”
Firstly. What is an “only roughly so” periodicity? A signal is either periodic or it isn’t.
[Response: It is *not* periodic.]
Secondly. If it takes a minimum of 30 years for a signal to appear from amongst noise, what does that tell us about the signal?
Surely, if the noise can be identified and eliminated from the signal-noise then and only then can the signal to noise ratio be improved. I stand by my argument that by ignoring short-term noise and relying on an elongated timeframe to sort the signal from noise only acts to reduce the signal to noise ratio not to improve it.
“A lot of smart cookies have looked at this problem. I rather doubt they are too far wrong.”
Could you please direct me to the actual scientific publications by these “smart cookies” that demonstrate in a scientific manner the necessity of using this long period to garnish the signal from the noise of the climate system? Is there actually a published scientific justification for it or do we have to trust the “smart cookie” brigade because “they know best”?
Phil Scadden // March 27, 2009 at 1:11 am |
MattinSeattle.
“I think there will be a mechanism found that we don’t yet understand that indeed shows it effectively closer to 0.5.”
On what possible data do you base that? Is there any basis for this other than wishful thinking?
Oh and for something more directly testable – what your estimate of world temp in the next El Nino – or is ESNO somehow going to be banished?
Saltator // March 27, 2009 at 1:20 am |
t_p_hamilton
“Error 1: Stating that PDO is entering a cool phase of X years, and hence there will be “cooling” for X years. Error 2: Taking the short term noisy signal and fitting anything long term like PDO is supposed to be. Error 3: Proclaim that there need be no concern about CO2 emissions based on an invalid analysis when a multitude of measurements and modelling work says we need to worry. Error 4: The attribution of recent cooling to PDO ignores the well known effect of LaNina effect.”
1. I made no comment about where the PDO is moving.
2. PDO is a periodic signal. An oscillation is periodic. There are actually two periodicities that make up the PDO. one from 15 to 25 years and the other from 50-75 years.
3. I made no comment about CO2 emissions.
4. I made no comment about attribution of cooling to PDO and ignoring La Nina (Which is part of the ENSO cycle).
Therefore, you FAIL. Purely on the basis that you brought in your own appeal to ridicule and failed to read my post.
[Response: PDO is not periodic. Not even close. The word "oscillation" is not used in the sense of a truly periodic phenomenon, and those "periods" you quote aren't periods, their just characteristic timescales. The authors of the paper which originally identified the phenomenon, and numerous follow-up works, have made this abundantly clear. If you'd read them...]
Kipp Alpert // March 27, 2009 at 1:28 am |
Ray Ladbury,Ms.Illuminosity,Lazar or our ubiquitous leader Tamino.No deniers please because you don’t want to learn the science.You love your ex vicodin king, current boozer who smokes a cigar like a phallic symbol.Could you please help me.Please address the last two posts.The first was way off. I.m an Acorn in a field of people who should be sequestered because your IQ does not fit in with Walmart,junk food,gratuitous sex,violence, consumerism, or even American Idol,and the parody with Hugh Grant. Where philosophy ends Science is born.But you gotta like Hegel and Aristotle. Im in Jean Paul Sartre,s,NO EXIT!
Can you tell I have the Flu..
Kipp Alpert // March 27, 2009 at 1:38 am |
Lazar,I quoted your second argument at Accu Weather.You have a way of putting concepts and patterns together, than making them real and pertinent.You should write a small piece where you are not answering some hopeless ahuman wantabe.Just expand on your points.Very good work. Thanks,KIPP Thanks KIPP
Saltator // March 27, 2009 at 2:28 am |
BPL,
“It is not up to you to determine what is statistically significant and what is not. This is something that can be measured — and has been. Ten years is not enough for any statistically significant trend. You regress temperature anomaly on year and find the p value associated with the coefficient of the year term. You can do it in Excel. Let me know if you need further details.”
It was tested using a linear model. And the significance values are from the model summary not from my determination.
Please do not insult me by implying that I am unable to understand even basic statistics.
My argument is, that in the absence of published scientific justification otherwise, 10 years is sufficient.
[Response: I've tested the temperature time series myself, and the "cooling episode" is *not* significant. I suggest either you neglected to correct for autocorrelation at all, or you used an inappropriate error model. Using a "standard" linear regression assumes white noise, which it most definitely is not.]
Kipp Alpert // March 27, 2009 at 3:13 am |
MattusSeattle: Don’t talk about my pop that way. At least he had soul. Why do you need to get your passport stamped if your just crossing the Rio Grandee. No offense to real workers. It’s lazy little pencil sticks that avoid any draft for which you might have to role up your sleeves. Why do you mentally masturbate about what scenario you prefer to accept.A,B and C aren’t bad enough.Sustainable even nuclear is better than co2,dweeb. As this moron said on AccuWeather yesterday were all going to die sometime.Have you know loyalty to past greatness, and no faith in what could be. Your stuck like all the other girly men deniers who are so afraid of change, that you have stopped living.
Where in the Caymans is you headquarters. Have you noticed the weekly changes toward outlawing coal, saving oil freaks from destroying Colorado.How do you like it denier.WE won. You are wasting space, get off.
Wimp!
MattInSeattle // March 27, 2009 at 6:16 am |
Tamino: Yes, that’s SO irrational.
So, do you attack someone that believes a climate sensitivity of 8′C with the same ferocity and faux outrage that you attack me? We’re both at the outer limits of published research in the last decade. Heck, Wigley (2005) even dipped below my 0.5 number in one model.
MattInSeattle // March 27, 2009 at 6:33 am |
Phil Scadden: Scenario B is what we actually have.
Actually, scenario A forecasted continued exponential growth, scenario B assumed we (developed world) flat lined ~15 years ago, and scenario C said we had drastic reductions.
[Response: Scenario A assumed exponential growth in forcings, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards. Apparently you don't know what you're talking about.]
Lazar // March 27, 2009 at 1:04 pm |
Coral reefs may start dissolving when atmospheric CO2 doubles
Silverman et al.
Geophysical Research Letters, March 2009
doi:10.1029/2008GL036282
Lazar // March 27, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
Will evil naughty unempirical models be shown to be empirically correct, yet again…?
Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments
Titchner et al.
Journal of Climate, February 2009
DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI2419.1
Barton Paul Levenson // March 27, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
Matt in Seattle writes:
Here’s where I regressed temperature anomaly on ln CO2 and found a climate sensitivity of 3.25 K with 76% of variance accounted for:
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html
Can you find an error?
How could it be when just on pure radiation physics, without any feedbacks, you get 1.2 K? You’re contending that there’s some kind of intense negative feedback? If that’s true, how do you explain the ice ages?
Barton Paul Levenson // March 27, 2009 at 1:14 pm |
Oops! I did the math wrong! There’s my mistake right there!
The climate sensitivity for doubling with my regression equation is only 2.25 K, not 3.25 K. My bad!
P. Lewis // March 27, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
Test: 8 to 10 μm :-)
Petro // March 27, 2009 at 7:30 pm |
While Tamino focuses on activities in RL, Open thread turns to sitcom.
Now running 3rd Rock from the Sun starring
Dick Solomon – Tamino
Tommy – Hank Roberts
Sally – dhogaza
Harry – your denialist du jour
Mary Albright – Ray Ladbury
Don Orville – Gavin’s Pussycat
Mrs Dubcek – TCO
Big Giant Head – WUWT
Tamino, I miss your posts!
[Response: The workload has been unbelievable. I can only ask for further patience...]
Lazar // March 27, 2009 at 7:56 pm |
Sustainable…
Hein, L., Metzger, M.J., and R. Leemans
The local impacts of climate change in the Ferlo, Western Sahel
April 2009
Climatic Change
doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9500-3
David B. Benson // March 28, 2009 at 1:19 am |
Saltator // March 27, 2009 at 1:20 am — And you thoroughly embarassed yourself by not reading my comments, directed to you, before replying to t_p_hamilton.
Saltator // March 28, 2009 at 1:51 am |
Why has no one so far directed me to the published literature justifying the 30 year time frame for the climate change signal. Does it exist?
All you are arguing at the moment is semantics as to what constitutes periodicity.
Saltator // March 28, 2009 at 2:09 am |
Tamino:
“Response: I’ve tested the temperature time series myself, and the “cooling episode” is *not* significant. ”
Did I not say that? My comment was:
“Actually Ray, in the last three decades of satellite temperatures, only the 1990s had a significant warming trend. The regressions for the 1980s and 2000s are not significant.”
I will take your point about white noise on board and discuss it with my statistical adviser.
Saltator // March 28, 2009 at 2:20 am |
Response: PDO is not periodic. Not even close. The word “oscillation” is not used in the sense of a truly periodic phenomenon, and those “periods” you quote aren’t periods, their just characteristic timescales.
Then should it be called an “Oscillation” at all? Why not call it the Pacific Decadal Mode (PDM) or the Pacific Decadal Variation (PDV) or perhaps like in the Indian Ocean, it could be called the Pacific Ocean Dipole (POD)?
[Response: I don't know why it's called "oscillation," and frankly I don't like the use of the term to describe it, but the word is used to describe non-periodic phenomena in many contexts, and nobody consulted me about it.
But it is NOT periodic. Period.]
Kipp Alpert // March 28, 2009 at 2:24 am |
HEEEEEEEEEEELP!!!Lazar,Ray Ladbury,Barton P.Levinson,Tamino:
PLEASE HELP:When I look at the electromagnetic wavelength,everything is in Nanometers.A micrometer specifically is used for the infrared only.It has the greek signUM with that long line adjacent to the left of the U.It has been called the Magnetic constant,Magnetic permeability in a vacuum.I know it is one millionth of a meter.Isn’t there more to this UM, than just a measurement.Could it be useful in thermodynamic and energy equations or not. It is only used to measure infrared where the rest of the measurements are nanometers or billions.PLEASE HELP!!!!
[Response: The Greek letter mu is used to indicate one millionth part of (esp. a millionth part of a meter, i.e., a micron), and it's also used to represent the magnetic vacuum permeability, but those two uses have absolutely no relationship to one another. In statistics, mu often represents the mean value of a distribution of random variables -- but that has nothing at all to do with units of length or magnetic permeability of the vacuum. The fact that they're all denoted by "mu" doesn't mean there's any relationship between them -- it's just an accidental (and arbitrary) choice.]
David B. Benson // March 28, 2009 at 2:42 am |
Saltator // March 28, 2009 at 1:51 am — All I am able to do is point out that WMO states that climate is 30+ years of weather data.
It is important to distinguish varying degrees of periodictal behavior by the predicablity:
(1) periodic — very highly predictable. Orbital forcing is an example.
(2) pseudoperiodic — kinda predictable. Solar cycle is an example.
(3) quasiperiodic — low predictablity. PDO is an example.
Far better would be a measure of predictabilty, but I don’t know of one.
[Response: Strictly speaking, "quasiperiodic" means something altogether different. The nomenclature for phenomena that are somewhat like periodic but not strictly so, is poorly developed and each researcher may apply a different meaning to the use of descriptions like "pseudoperiodic" and "quasiperiodic." I think it's one of the shortcomings of time series analysis that these issues aren't settled.
PDO is no more periodic than la Nina/el Nino. The only reason its characteristic timescales were referred to as "periods" is that they were originally estimated using Fourier analysis. But we haven't directly observed a long enough time span to know whether they're even pseudoperiodic, and proxy reconstructions indicate that they aren't even that.
It astounds me how many people are eager to assign dominance of the climate system to the "periodic" nature of PDO, and make predictions on that basis, who don't even know its basic behavior.]
Kipp Alpert // March 28, 2009 at 2:42 am |
Ray LadburyHEEEEELP!thanks for your answer to height and pressure. I think you could assume that the higher up something is the more it must fall to earth, so the pressure would start at the top pushing down on everything else below it increasing the pressure downward. There is no pressure below to push a thing up.Is that right.I promise some day to take your portrait and publish it for free. Eisenstadt Style.B and W.For whatever book you going to write”Denialism for Dummies”or is this Title redundant. with my Hasselblad. KIPP
t_p_hamilton // March 28, 2009 at 3:06 am |
Saltator said:”“modelling work says we need to worry.”
Error 5! The models are not representative of the real world :-
“They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.”
Freeman Dyson.
Put your faith in these models t_p and you are doomed to failure yourself.”
Dyson’s criticism is irrelevant. The models do not claim to describe local effects, nor to have skill in describing regional phenomena. Regional phenomena actually emerge from the models, but the pattern differs between models. What does not differ between the models (and the observed record) is the conclusions about global temperature rise, and the pattern of warming (polar amplification).
Lazar // March 28, 2009 at 3:16 am |
Kipp,
Because CO2 is a well-mixed gas it exists in the same proportion (currently 387 parts per million) up to the homopause which is a height of about 95 km. Gravity changes the proportion at heights above the homopause, which is in the mesosphere, above the stratosphere and troposphere. As far as the greenhouse effect is concerned, anything above 40 km is irrelevant.
CO2 strongly absorbs and emits photons at infrared and solar shortwave wavelengths. The IR spectrum is wavelengths from 100 um (micrometers) down to 0.7 um. The solar shortwave spectrum is from 700 nm (nanometers) down to about 250 nm. Note that 0.7 um = 700 nm. Micrometers and nanometers are just units, they have no connection to magnetism. Using um for IR and nm for solar shortwave is a convention, it really doesn’t matter though if you use nm for IR, or indeed um for solar shortwave.
I’m not sure what the relevance of 8-10 km (or 8-10 um?) is… do you have a source?
t_p_hamilton // March 28, 2009 at 3:17 am |
Oops, make my previous post DaveA said, instead of Saltator said.
t_p_hamilton // March 28, 2009 at 4:34 am |
Saltator said:”Secondly. If it takes a minimum of 30 years for a signal to appear from amongst noise, what does that tell us about the signal?
Surely, if the noise can be identified and eliminated from the signal-noise then and only then can the signal to noise ratio be improved. I stand by my argument that by ignoring short-term noise and relying on an elongated timeframe to sort the signal from noise only acts to reduce the signal to noise ratio not to improve it.”
Your argument won’t work. The signal is a monotonically increasing term over time (CO2 induced warming) plus noise (aperiodic fluctuations about mean values , except quasiperiodic solar intensity with an 11-year period) as a function of time. The longer the time, the more the noise cancels (as the square root of time for white noise, I don’t know how autocorrelation affects this). There is potential for increased skill in physical modeling that predicts some of the oscillations – after all they are based on physics.
t_p_hamilton // March 28, 2009 at 4:52 am |
Matt:”Heck, Wigley (2005) even dipped below my 0.5 number in one model.”
You should not cite Wigley as support for your unfounded hope that a 0.5 degree sensitivity is a serious possibility. He has been quite clear that the IPCC ranges are the 90% confidence interval that should be used. This was 1.5-4.5, now AR4 has 1.5-6.0. Uh-oh!
8.0 is outside this range, as is 0.5 degrees. However, the risk is not equal just outside each end of the range.
t_p_hamilton // March 28, 2009 at 4:57 am |
Saltator said:”
Tamino:
“Response: I’ve tested the temperature time series myself, and the “cooling episode” is *not* significant. ”
Did I not say that? My comment was:
“Actually Ray, in the last three decades of satellite temperatures, only the 1990s had a significant warming trend. The regressions for the 1980s and 2000s are not significant.”
”
Actually, the comment that Tamino was responding to was “My argument is, that in the absence of published scientific justification otherwise, 10 years is sufficient.”, not what you quoted.
chriscolose // March 28, 2009 at 5:31 am |
Wow…I wish I could get 425 comments in a thread. Good going.
t_p_hamilton // March 28, 2009 at 5:45 am |
Saltator goes into great detail on what he doesn’t say:
“1. I made no comment about where the PDO is moving.”
So it is just coincidence that you mention PDO, talk about 10 year trends, and one of the topics in the denier-sphere is that PDO explains the recent “cooling” over the past 10 years, and will continue for 20 more, therefore climate models are crap that should be paid attention.
“2. PDO is a periodic signal. An oscillation is periodic. There are actually two periodicities that make up the PDO. one from 15 to 25 years and the other from 50-75 years.”
I repeat what you didn’t quote: These sources of noise have characteristic time scales but are not periodic. All one has to do is examine the ENSO indices.
“3. I made no comment about CO2 emissions.”
The purpose of questioning attributions of temperature trends to physical phenomena is to to imply doubt that CO2 is a real problem. The tobacco company strategy was to argue that the scientific evidence was not enough (doubt is our product). What are you doing that is any different?
We haven’t forgotten the little items that give you away: remember the time you repeated Spencer’s argument against anthropogenic increase in CO2, when it clearly comes out of tailpipes and smokestacks?
“4. I made no comment about attribution of cooling to PDO and ignoring La Nina (Which is part of the ENSO cycle).”
Here’s your chance to say something contrary to the deniers, if you aren’t one: _________________.
MattInSeattle // March 28, 2009 at 6:41 am |
Phil Scadden: On what possible data do you base that? Is there any basis for this other than wishful thinking?
I base that on the fact that it’s early in the play, and the actors all massively overestimated sensitivity in the first act when when they over simplified cloud parameterization.
When Hadley Centre was saying 2xco2 was 5.9′C in the mid 90’s, where you screaming they were wrong and that 3.0 was right? Or did you blindly accept that figure?
Is it possible that there could be another “understanding” that bumps the current ~3.0 figure down? Certainly.
MattInSeattle // March 28, 2009 at 7:28 am |
Tamino: Response: Scenario A assumed exponential growth in forcings, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards. Apparently you don’t know what you’re talking about
Good grief, for a man short on time you sure can be pedantic.
Forcings, GHG, CH4, NO2, CO2. Whatever you want to call it. It’s all the same.
Hansen’s scenario B was Annex 1 (developed) countries at 0%, and non Annex 1 countries at 2% growth in emissions.
Thus, what I said, which was “scenario B assumed we (developed world) flat lined ~15 years ago” is indeed correct.
Where Hansen missed is the non Annex1 countries. They exceeded A.
[Response: You are totally full of shit. Did you make this stuff up yourself, or are you repeating lies from other damned liars who tell them? There's nothing about Annex 1 or non-Annex 1 countries, and your entire characterization shows that you you're clueless.
Go read the paper then come back here and apologize, or go away and stop assaulting us.
From Hansen et al. 1988:
]
Hank Roberts // March 28, 2009 at 12:25 pm |
Matt’s Pony Might Possibly Be Here Somewhere
Back the truck up, dump the load, and insist the scientists are responsible to look at the contents to find the answer he wants to believe is there
Lacks citations, affirms faith.
You’re perhaps channeling some septic source comment about the late 1990s revision to the Hadley model? The one where they said it was beginning to agree with physical observations? http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=1jwv7cgm3j22c887&size=smaller
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/07/overview-of-probabilistic-climate.html
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html
I hope you’re clear on the difference between the short term sensitivity numbers and the final equilibrium numbers. Does “Charney” sensitivity describe what you think the pony will be like? Or are you arguing about the longer term number?
Deech56 // March 28, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
Tamino, we understand when real life intrudes on the blogging. Maybe we should chew on a guest post by (off the top of my head) Ray, Hank, Barton, David BB, Timothy, Gavin’s, Lazar etc., etc. (sorry to those worthies I have left off).
Ray Ladbury // March 28, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
Saltator, on the off chance that you actually read these posts: Have you heard of phenomena such as self-organized criticality? Such systems can exhibit a quasi-periodicity. Example:
Suppose you have a quasi-bistable system (for simplicity). If you perturb the system sufficiently, it flips state. Now if your perturbations are distributed so that ON AVERAGE, you get a sufficiently large perturbation to flip state once in a period, t, you will get a quasi-periodic behavior. The system will TEND to oscillate, but it is not a true periodicity. You see this a lot in nature. One phenomenon I’m familiar with is the “oscillation” of the heliomagnetic field giving rise to the “11-year cycle”, which has been seen to last anywhere from 8-14 years.
Ray Ladbury // March 28, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
Kipp, Don’t get too hung up on the prefixes of units. We use nanometers (or Angstroms, a factor of 10 smaller than a nanometer) and micrometers for IR and microwaves because we’re lazy and don’t like to write down lots of zeros. Think about it: if you were asked your height, you might give it in cm, but if you were giving directions to a nearby town, you’d use km.
The symbols can be confusing. There are lots of phenomena to study and only so many latin and greek letters. Mathematicians have started using Hebrew letters. The Chinese would seem to have an advantage here, with all their characters, but the fact that each character has meaning in itself makes it hard to use them as symbols for other things.
Some nerd humor:
10^-9 goat=1 nanogoat
10^-18 boy=1 attoboy
10^6 phone=1 megaphone
10^12 bull=1 terabull
P. Lewis // March 28, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
The history/story behind the WMO’s use of 30 years:
Nathaniel Guttman, ‘Statistical indicators of climate’ Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 70 602.
Ray Ladbury // March 28, 2009 at 1:30 pm |
Matt, perhaps some of your confusion is due to the fact that forcing is not lenear in all of the ghg concentrations. It’s linear in CH4 concentration, but logarithmic in CO2.
As to your fantasy of finding a CO2 sensitivity of 0.5 degrees per doubling, for this to be credible, you have to entirely ignore the paleoclimate. Indeed, the hiatus in warming from 1945-~1975 is itself support for the 3 degree per doubling figure. One of the reasons some climate scientists were worried about cooling was because they were assuming too small a sensitivity.
In short, if I were your boss, I’d order you to take a urine test.
P. Lewis // March 28, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
Oops! Don’t know how I did that “indicators”.
The ref should have read Nathaniel Guttman, ‘Statistical descriptors of climate’ Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 70 (1989) 602.
cce // March 28, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
The forcings for Scenario B are the closest to reality.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg
Therefore, it is the only scenario that should be compared to reality.
A “Layman’s Guide” to Hansen’s ‘88 Scenarios:
http://cce.890m.com/hansens-88-scenarios
MattInSeattle // March 28, 2009 at 7:15 pm |
Tamino: Go read the paper then come back here and apologize, or go away and stop assaulting us.
I did read the paper. Many times. And I read the followup 1998 paper where Hansen explains the details (with developed/developing distinctions) underlying Scenario A, B and C. Those figures are what I reference above, and apparently seeing those figures caused you to get upset. Sorry for that. But they are from Hansen.
And as you see, the developing nations do indeed emit far in excess of scenario A. And our total CH4 emissions are far in excess of scenario A. Globally, we’re at about a 3% increase/yr in carbon emissions, which again puts us above scenario A.
Hansen summarizes them in Table 3.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
[Response: You really are full of shit. Look at figure 5 in that paper.]
Kipp Alpert // March 28, 2009 at 8:24 pm |
HEEEEEEEEEEELP!!!Lazar,Ray Ladbury,Barton P.Levinson,Tamino:
Thank you! Much ado about nothing.I also learned that the IR is not just absorbed at 15 micrometers but 2.7 and 4.3. The denialist argument is usually that there are only two bands, but as long as the as the frequency of the magnetic wavelength of the IR and vibrational mode of the CO2 is the same you get absorbtion.RIGHT? There are four vibrational modes. So it absorbs at these micrometers as well. That is just co2.Other gases have different energy states, like methane and cfc’s, NO4,
RIGHT Tamino or anyone.
Dave A // March 28, 2009 at 8:48 pm |
Tamino,
“or did you just make it up?”
It is something I’ve read in the past somewhere and I can’t give a reference. However, whilst I freely admit that there may be errors at times in my posts, I NEVER, NEVER, EVER make things up.
Ray Ladbury // March 28, 2009 at 9:39 pm |
Kipp, you are grasping it pretty well. You can just say “wavelength” rather than “magnetic wavelength”. Yes, it is an alternating magnet and electric field, but that is more complicated than you need to understand right now.
The thing to know is that atoms/molecules have different states with different energies. To make the molecule vibrate, you have to add energy–just like a spring doesn’t start vibrating all on its own. If the photon (light particle) has the right energy, it will bump the molecule into its higher-energy vibrational state. The wavelength determines the energy, which is just hc/l, where l is the wavelength, h is Planck’s constant and c is the speed of light.
Yes different molecules absorb different wavelengths of light. By the way, you can think of a photographic emulsion–the light changes the energy level of the silver, and so the light and dark in the film are proportional to the intensity of the light on the film. Same sort of thing, but with visible light.
Tom G // March 28, 2009 at 9:48 pm |
Dave A…
No reference means you made it up.
Ray Ladbury // March 28, 2009 at 9:51 pm |
Matt, I think your confusion is that you are mixing up the concepts of increase in forcing and increase in concentration. For CH4, the relationship is linear. For CO2 the forcing depends logarithmically on CO2 concentration. Is this in fact what you are assuming?
David B. Benson // March 28, 2009 at 10:05 pm |
t_p_hamilton // March 28, 2009 at 4:52 am — AR4 range is 2–4.5 K, revised from TAR range of 1.5—4.5 K for Charney sensitivity.
Michael Haubeer // March 28, 2009 at 10:17 pm |
Is it true that both:
Actual emissions by humans into the atmosphere have been closest to Hansen scenario A
Actual measurements of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have been closest to Hansen scanario B
If so then the reason why actual temperatures have not met scenario A is not because of faulty climate modelling.
It may be due to faulty carbon cycle modelling, in which case we’d hope to discover some reason why earth is absorbing carbon more efficiently than predicted.
Or it may be due to faulty accounting of emissions. Without having done any research into this issue, it wouldn’t suprise me that it would be rather difficult to measure how much Co2 is being emmitted into the atmosphere.
sidd // March 28, 2009 at 10:18 pm |
Re: Pollard paper in Nature.
1) The estimate quoted from ’simplified modelling’ comes from a reference to a model by Beckman and Goose which does not include iceberg calving from the shelf. In the case of ice shelf collapse as in Larsen B, or Wilkins, would this not be a large effect ?
2) Does the Pollard model explicitly display the Weertman instability ? I suppose this would involve running the model on an ice sheet whose bed did not deepen inland of the grounding line.
3) Bindschadler says in a comment on the subject at the DotEarth blog, that a 1000 year timescale for breakup should be taken as an upper limit. The Pollard analysis may reflect the timescales of the forcing in the past and not the internal timescales of the ice sheets themselves (as Hansen has noted), so the ice sheets could collapse much faster in response to stronger forcing.
MattInSeattle // March 28, 2009 at 10:41 pm |
Tamino: You really are full of shit. Look at figure 5 in that paper.
I see figure 5A. Same as 1988. Figure 5B is the first derivative. It doesn’t show we’ve stopped emitting, it shows we’ve slowed emitting. [edit]
[Response: It shows that climate forcing, and the growth rate of climate forcing, have been closer to scenario C than to either A or B. Your premise has been that the 1988 prediction was wrong because observation should be compared to the scenario A result. You're full of shit.]
Kipp Alpert // March 28, 2009 at 11:21 pm |
Ray Ladbury:Thanks.I think you could call infrared, light and ultraviolet, light as well. When see you see fluorescence 3100 Kelvin watts. photograph to green and need a magenta 10.20,30, kodak filter or, incandescence at 3200 kelvin watt,orange you need 81ablue filter
or when you use an amber filter for ultraviolet. I really appreciate your help,but you haven’t called any denier a food tube for a month so you must be eating your wheaties. Thanks KIPP
David B. Benson // March 29, 2009 at 12:08 am |
Michael Haubeer // March 28, 2009 at 10:17 pm — Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at ORNLhas all the data AFAIK.
It has been the case that a samll portion of the emissions has not been accounted for using just air, ocean and vegitation. A while back I noticed a paper claiming to demonstrate that most of the previously unknown sink was due to soil organisms. I find that highly likely, so I don’t think there is a mystery anymore except in the denialosphere.
Kipp Alpert // March 29, 2009 at 12:47 am |
Ray Ladbury:When you shoot at a beech you get a lot of scattering and refracted light. You have to close down your aperture 2 stops, or increase
your speed 2 increments, depending on what you want your depth of field to be, always the most important consideration. This extra light could be like dipole molecules where the nucleus
is stretched out absorbing heat by collisions, as well as other gases, by warming other molecules by thermal radiant energy.wawawawa KIPP
Kipp Alpert // March 29, 2009 at 12:48 am |
like a beach tree.
Lazar // March 29, 2009 at 12:54 am |
Two months ago, Matt wrote…
This time it’s 5.9 C…
When Matt raised the point two months ago, it was pointed out that…
and that…
as it clearly says in the abstract of the paper that Matt cited at the time…
Senior, C.A., and J.F.B. Mitchell
Carbon Dioxide and Climate. The Impact of Cloud Parameterization
Journal of Climate, March 1993
DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(1993)0062.0.CO;2
Kipp Alpert // March 29, 2009 at 4:32 am |
Ray Ladbury,Tamino,Lazar,The Morman Tabernacle Choir.HEEEEEEEEELP!Could you please read my last post and see if it holds up.Thanks.
Saltator // March 29, 2009 at 6:37 am |
David B Benson:
“In any case, WMO has, from a long time ago, set 30+ years as the minimum for several purposes, including climate.”
Where is the published justification for that minimum?
Saltator // March 29, 2009 at 7:02 am |
DBB,
The 30 years is for climate averages, not climate.
see:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/
However, in that web page they state that 30 years was CHOSEN (my emphasis).
Chosen but no reference as to how or a justification of the choice.
Phil Scadden // March 29, 2009 at 7:06 am |
Thanks Lazar for comments re: the 5.9 sensitivity. I am still left with a “what the…” feeling. How could the number be understood in isolation? So MattInSeattle – did you find this yourself or is this kind of interpretation re: AOGCM and Hansen 1988 coming from elsewhere? Better analysis of the paper and its success and shortcomings at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections
Matt J. // March 29, 2009 at 7:15 am |
Ray Ladbury on March 10, 2009 at 3:51 pm writes:
1)What the hell does a “general” statement of the 2nd law have to do with climate science? What the hell do they even mean by “general”?
dS>=0 in a closed system?
To which I reply: potentially, it has a lot to do with it, since the “toy models” tend to confuse people into thinking they assume violations of it.
As for the most general form, according to the Pauli Lectures on Thermodynamics, the absolutely most general form is:
“dS = (d’Q)/T is an exact differential”, where I have substituted Kubo’s notation of “d’” for the curly delta used to represent virtual variations in Pauli.
Now the peculiar thing is that I have not found exactly this formulation in other Thermodynamics texts. Instead, what I find is that the above rule holds for reversible processes, but that for irreversible, they only say dS must increase. Or something like that.
Now what I DO find in other texts is that Caratheodory’s form of the 2nd Law really is the most general: that in the thermodynamic state space of a thermally homogeneous system, near any equilibrium point, there exists another arbitrarily close point (representing another state), which cannot be reached by a continuous path representing an adiabatic process.
Obviously Pauli’s form is simpler — but did he really mean to say it was the most general? Other texts have dS>=d’Q/T for irreversible processes.
Ray Ladbury // March 29, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
Kipp, the thing with Beech trees is that the bark is very reflective, so they tend to saturate the film and everthing gets washed out. When a vibrational mode is excited by absorption of light (yes, be it, IR, microwave, visible or x rays, it’s all light), it can wind up sharing that energy when it collides with another molecule. So you get absorption of a photon followed by collision that accelerates another molecule and the originally vibrating molecule is back in its ground state. This is the dominant relaxation process when the air is cooler than the surface.
Hank Roberts // March 29, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
Nice catch here:
> Lazar // March 29, 2009 at 12:54 am
> Two months ago, Matt wrote…
Tamino, you need two awards:
Box of Hammers
and
Box of Rocks
Some are tools, some serve only as ballast.
dhogaza // March 29, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
Actually the problem is that dumb camera meters are calibrated to assume that the light falling on it is reflected as though the scene were an 18% gray card. If you use an incident meter to measure the light falling onto the tree, rather than reflected from it, and expose accordingly, white beech will lie with the range of B&W and color negative film, no problem. Might have a problem with chrome, which has a dynamic range of about five stops (Velvia).
In other words, it’s not the bark’s reflectivity that’s the problem, it’s people not understanding the basics of exposure that’s the problem :)
You can pull out about 11 stops dynamic range from the raw files generated by modern DSLR sensors, one of many reasons I’ve embraced the digital photo age and haven’t shot film in years. You have to really screw up your exposure badly to be unable to pull out the seven or so stops dynamic range that you get with photo or high-quality inkjet paper (less when printed by a press, i.e. magazine).
The hard thing about the beech scene is that the dynamic range is typically beyond paper’s ability to reproduce (not to mention slide film), even though it lies within the range B&W film and digital sensors can capture. That’s another nice thing about digital – you can easily “squish” the dynamic range of the data from the sensor so it “fits” on paper, preserving some detail in both the beech bark and the shadowy bits.
It’s a lot harder with traditional photographic processes. Solving dynamic range issues using nothing but chemistry, an enlarger, and burning and dodging tools was one of the things that made Ansel Adams famous.
Enough photography, something I actually know something about …
michel // March 29, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
Meanwhile, for the “let them eat toast in the UK” persuasion, we have:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5992864.ece
Which merits careful reading from any who think the UK can achieve its targets without either profound lifestyle changes or coal powered power stations. Or both.
What we need to put an end to once and for all is the crazed and irrational idea that life can carry on the same if we all just drive hybrids and install a few windmills and shop some more.
This is probably the most damaging and threatening idea there is, far more damaging than a few so called denialists, and its being put about by the mainstream of the AGW movement!
Former Skeptic // March 29, 2009 at 7:02 pm |
Saltator:
The 30 years is for climate averages, not climate.
And what is the difference between climate and climate averages? You do know what climate averages are, don’t you?
http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/climate_info_e.html
TCO // March 29, 2009 at 8:48 pm |
Any general comment on the data parsing and trial emulation (and variation) work going on wrt Steig on CA? Just wonder if you think it is all out to lunch, onto something, or balls in the air?
Phil Scadden // March 29, 2009 at 10:10 pm |
Michel, I cant comment on “mainstream of the AGW movement” , but I can only urge you to look at http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c27/page_203.shtml and tell me what you think of his 5 energy plans for UK. Healthy realism if pretty discomforting. Really same message as you – life has got a change a whole lot.
Kipp Alpert // March 29, 2009 at 11:28 pm |
Dhogaza:Thanks but I know that.What you do is go to the Beach which is what I meant to say,take an incident light reading from what your going to take the picture of, face the light meter back to your camera,than use a gossen luna pro,take an incident reading, than use a nuetrel density filter to cut the light down. Also you can shoot at a beach if you have a subject using a strobe around 7 p.m., when the light is down,if you want that shot to look like it’s dark out.That’s a trick I used to do for the New York Time full page add for Hallston.I was talking to Ray abouth wavelengths not photography. By the way I would never shoot people at a beach during the day because people squint especially if they have blue and or worse green eyes. There is to much light for good color saturation, and too much refracted light. An overcast day is the best or when the sun comes up or is going down. Any open field or beach is the worst place to take a portrait. What I did with Lee Trevino, was to find an area at the TPC s Sawgrass, go between two hills use a stong fill in flash, slow, 80 asa film, and use the backscattering as backlight. It worked but the background was still haze.. The Portrait is on his book.personally like Annie Liborwitz and I like tranparancies best, but you have be spot on. The thing I don’t like about digital, is that you have superficial sensors to replicate real light, pixels are not an Issue but sensors are. You need to capture the darkest darks to the lightest blues. Never use a meter from a camera,use a seperate meter, for face tones, than adjust around that and depth of field first. Always use filters on the lens, for better color balance. Take a reflected reading of just the skin,an incidnent reading from the face to the camera, and divide by two.That is you proper exposure. Thanks,KIPP
Here is something about me and my Photography.
http://kippalpert1.wordpress.com/
David B. Benson // March 29, 2009 at 11:38 pm |
Saltator // March 29, 2009 at 6:37 am — Other than the link to the Canadian site given by Former Skeptic, I vaguely recall an earlier comment on this thread which provided a reference to a paper determining statistical significance for 30 year periods.
dhogaza // March 30, 2009 at 12:20 am |
Yeah, I shot for publication for years, but only on a part-time basis.
Not people, animal people.
Something not quite so off-topic …
Looks like maybe we’re finally past the winter maximum ice extent up north.
dhogaza // March 30, 2009 at 12:21 am |
Oh, that photo link is bogus, just as well, we’re far adrift from the subject matter of this blog.
Saltator // March 30, 2009 at 5:17 am |
Dhogaza,
“It’s a lot harder with traditional photographic processes. Solving dynamic range issues using nothing but chemistry, an enlarger, and burning and dodging tools was one of the things that made Ansel Adams famous.”
You can confine the dynamic range by using the zone system (co-invented by Ansel Adams and Minor White).
My best piece of advice is to do away with the camera light meter and use a handheld meter. When you zone properly, there is no impediment to using film when compared with digital. And you can zone with digital as well (although you do have to change method and expose for the highlights as opposed to negarive film where you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights).
And nothing, but nothing beats a darkroom print when done well.
Deech56 // March 30, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
Shimkus/Monckton http://tinyurl.com/c2tfaa
The blind leading the blind. TSIB.
p.s. Watch both videos as well as the reactions of the female staffer and the man to Monckton’s right.
Now, where are those hammers?
Barton Paul Levenson // March 30, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
Kipp,
If you can, see if you can get ahold of Grant W. Petty’s 2006 “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation.” Some of the math is very tough, but you don’t have to do all of it, since the book covers several topics. He has a really good explanation of the electromagnetic spectrum and how scientists break it down for practical reasons.
The sun, effective temperature 5778 K, puts out peak radiation at 0.501 microns. 99% of its radiation is emitted below 4 microns. It breaks down to about 9% ultraviolet, 45% visual light and 46% near-infrared.
The Earth, effective temperature 288 K, puts out peak radiation at 10.6 microns. 99% of its radiation is emitted above 4 microns, and it is all pretty solidly in the “thermal infrared.”
Climatologists usually sum up the Sun’s 0-4 micron radiation as “shortwave” and the Earth’s as “longwave.”
Greenhouse gases have narrow absorption bands at specific wavelengths (e.g. 14.99 microns is one of the strongest CO2 lines), but the lines tend to bunch together in bands, and you can usually treat radiative transfer fairly accurately by assigning a flat absorption coefficient to a band of several microns or decimicrons (e.g. there might be one figure for the 13-17 micron CO2 “band”).
dhogaza // March 30, 2009 at 3:46 pm |
Yes, I know, which involves among other things the control of dynamic range via choice of developing chemistry, length of time of development, etc which is why my earlier post reads the way it does. The Zone System involves control of dynamic range at every step of the process, in other words … exposure … development … printing (including choice of paper and development of the printed image).
I realize many photographers learn or are taught a much simpler version based on exposure alone …
dhogaza // March 30, 2009 at 3:49 pm |
Ah, I did say “only” in my earlier post. I should’ve stated “solving POST-EXPOSURE dynamic range problems …”
Of course Adams stressed the importance of nailing one’s exposure in the first place.
Tom G // March 30, 2009 at 4:43 pm |
Deech56…
Has anybody bothered to ask Shimkus where he got the goofy idea that the world is going to be destroyed by a flood?
If every little bit of ice on this planet melted, Illinois would still be a very long way from the ocean shore.
Millions of other people on the coasts would have to retreat from the advancing water, but people in the midwest wouldn’t have to build an ark…
michael // March 30, 2009 at 7:07 pm |
Anyone have any rebuttals for Christopher Booker’s latest on sea level rise?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html#postComment
dhogaza // March 30, 2009 at 7:51 pm |
That fight’s been over for color prints for some time now. How about B&W?
Since the whitest white is just a measurement of the paper itself, dynamic range is determined by Dmax, which is why photographers have been fanatic about this measurement for many decades.
As you can see, some modern inkjets already surpass silver based paper in dynamic range …
I had about 25 years of darkroom experience, B&W and color, before switching, so am not unfamiliar with the pleasures – and frustrations – of that print-making technology.
dhogaza // March 30, 2009 at 9:14 pm |
Who to believe, michael? An editorial in The Telegraph which cites someone who believes in dowsing, or
accurate satellite data.
I know which I believe.
I daresay I know which you believe, too.
Kipp Alpert // March 30, 2009 at 11:07 pm |
dhogaza:Have you ever used the zone system. Every step from film to exposure to developer to enlarging and printing and paper.Did you ever get to use ektalure x Kodak.The good old days.Remember microdol developer.Or rodinal.
We used to use developer and excelerator separately.AKA Ansel adams and White School.
KIPP
t_p_hamilton // March 30, 2009 at 11:07 pm |
“Anyone have any rebuttals for Christopher Booker’s latest on sea level rise?”
Google scholar sea level rise. That is all that is needed.
Kipp Alpert // March 30, 2009 at 11:11 pm |
dhogaza:When they hired me to shoot Akio Morita in N.Y., I went to their headquaters, sset up my lights,Mr. Morita walked in and told me what exposure I had my Hasselblad on and what
speed I was shooting at and he was right. Blew my mind. KIPP
Kipp Alpert // March 30, 2009 at 11:18 pm |
dhogaza:Did you say my photolink was bogus.I don’t have pictures up yet, but I did everything there and much more. KIPP
http://kippalpert1.wordpress.com/
Kipp Alpert // March 30, 2009 at 11:22 pm |
Ray Ladbury:Thanks for your help. I will start off again and get deeper into this mess.
Kipp Alpert // March 30, 2009 at 11:25 pm |
Barton Paul Levenson:Thanks for that stuff. I will copy it and put it with all other remarks when I understand them. Look up book too.
Phil Scadden // March 30, 2009 at 11:33 pm |
Michael – someone at RealClimate posted this link on Morner.
http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html
I would say good luck on getting his “finding” published.
Oh and.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
for the data: tidal and satellite. Cant see any wriggle room here.
michael // March 30, 2009 at 11:47 pm |
I’m just a novice and it is easy to google sea level rise, learn, understand and be convinced by the preponderance of evidence.
I was referring more specifically to his claims that no sea level rise experts are included in the IPCC panel of experts or that one tidal gauge is used to raise the global average. It’s obvious BS but I take personal delight in exposing it to the denialists in my particular corner of the web.
I do ,as Obama said, like to know what I’m talking about so I come to the experts. Any help is appreciated.
dhogaza // March 31, 2009 at 12:10 am |
Kipp – I said the link I gave to one of my photos was bogus (my browser inserted a local network IP rather than the domain there, because I was browsing from within my local network).
Your link worked fine.
No, but I read about and understood the principles well enough to apply them to some degree in the darkroom. Just understanding where they were coming from helps you be a better printer, IMO, even if you’re not prepared to devote the effort into implementing the full zone system process.
Like back when the paper had lots of silver? All the papers back then, even the RC multigrade papers, had more silver and better Dmax. I used to dabble with many of Kodak’s high-end fiber papers, but shooting has always interested me more than printing.
Oh yes. And more recently, actually just before I gave up film, used to enjoy shooting in the dark with TMax P3200 at 1600 developed in some Ilford developer that led to huge grain but very, very sharp. Still have some prints from a shoot in the dimly-lit bowels of a liberty ship that I like a lot.
Your Morita story’s a nice one, I love it. And it brings to mind one thing Ansel Adams, as a landscape shooter, ignored:
Controlling light.
Studio shooters know that if you control your lighting precisely, the rest of the process is trivial :)
It’s funny how people active in different kinds of shooting look at the world. An incident meter at the face of a model makes proper exposure a snap. On the other hand, I shoot wildlife, trying to walk up to a bird with an incident meter will cause it to fly away. Try holding an incident meter to a lion’s face, and it might eat it – and the hand holding it! :)
Deech56 // March 31, 2009 at 12:32 am |
Kipp, I think dhogaza was writing about his own “animal people” link.
dhogaza // March 31, 2009 at 1:12 am |
First off, Michael, I mistook you for Michel, who, unlike you, deserves to be treated rudely …
This is a dead giveaway that you’re not our arch-denialist Michel :)
So I apologize for my slightly snarky earlier response.
You could ask your local denialists how one tidal gauge in Hong Kong causes the satellite data to show a statistically significant rising trend in sea level…
How they answer that question will help you understand just how deluded/misinformed they are.
Because the satellite data is 100% independent of tidal gauge data.
dhogaza // March 31, 2009 at 1:23 am |
Michael, here’s a quote from an interview with the source of the claim:
So he’s suggesting, in essence, that the IPCC has based the claim of sea level rise on a single tidal gauge station, and the supposed rise is due to subsidence (i.e. the harbor has been sinking).
However, here we have an abstract from a paper:
Which shows that the claim that scientists working in the area are ignoring subsistence is false.
When someone is caught lying when they’ve claimed to have proven scientific fraud, I adopt the view that their other claims are also quite likely lies.
dhogaza // March 31, 2009 at 1:33 am |
subsidence, not subsistence :)
dhogaza // March 31, 2009 at 2:00 am |
Another Mörner lie, Michael:
What does he think all those weather satellites are observing? Ground temp stations? Radiosondes?
What was Lonnie Thompson doing working out in the field taking all those ice cores if not “field work”?
The list is pretty much endless. Climate science is every bit as much observation-based as is geology.
Mörner’s claim is a flat-out lie, and not a very impressive one, either.
Kipp Alpert // March 31, 2009 at 2:28 am |
Thanks Deech.
Kipp Alpert // March 31, 2009 at 3:14 am |
Dhogaza.I have an Idea.If you are using a 35mm camera, Take out your zoom,or i prefer fixed lenses to 130mm. Take a reading of your tiger from where you are gong to take the picture. I assume you use a meter through the lens. Then Go to a place which is the same lighting as your tiger.Turn your camera around and face it to where you are going to actually shoot the picture and take that reading.Whatever reading is lower use that one. 2. I am both indoors or outside when I have to shoot. There are many different ways to light something. As I’m sure you have heard the expression that lighting is everything.Inside or out that’s a fact. Some of thebest pictures, Albert schweitzer’s portrait comes to mind. The Famous portrait looks like a natural picture taken out in a tent somewhere in Africa. But the photgrapher slipped in a baby flood light on the groung facing up on Schweitzers face as he was looking down.Pretty cool. The secret to good lighting is that you don’t notice the lighting but notice the subject,and say well that looks great. When you look at those sports illustrated Models they are conveniently well lit. They never let you see there lighting,by the way,as they would never let you see the rehearsals for American Idol,which they probably have more for than a tv drama.
So lighting is important.The most important thing as you are now the professional is depth of field. Subject is number one,background is number two, depth of field three and lighting must be good. It’s all important. With digital, if and you have photo shop you don’t even need a lense. But if you are shooting it depends on your circumstances. Whatever you can control, control it.As they say you never take a picture you make a picture. Study rembrandt’s pictures.
he used the lack of light best.Imagine painting your whole picture black, than subtracting light, as you could to reveal more. Than stop. Too much light is the first big mistake.Less light is better.I would never take a picture of osmething with the light on it like the sun.Use the sun for you backlight and fill the front in with flash.I have a small fillflash on my hasselblad. Than I take a little stronger flash on a stand with a peanut or slave strobe, shooting into an umbella for a secondary 30 degree light. less light better picks. Now back to Atmospheric radiation. If you have any questions please ask. PeaceKIPP
dhogaza // March 31, 2009 at 5:41 am |
Stephen Goddard’s an ass.
It’s an open thread, so it’s OK to suggest piling on?
I’ve mostly ignored WUWT, but they seem to be letting comments through, unlike Uncommon Descent (gack), so flooding with rationality might be an interesting hobby for some?
Unlike Anthony, Stephen Goddard responds, and digs himself deeper and deeper …
dhogaza // March 31, 2009 at 5:53 am |
More fun at WUWT (bored tonight) …
Responded to a guest post by Lindzen by pointing out that he rejects the scientific consensus regarding the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer.
The WUWT moderator’s response to having deleted my post:
“[snip - juvenile rant]“
dhogaza // March 31, 2009 at 6:00 am |
Ah now they’ve pulled the Uncommon Descent trick on me, deleting my posts which ask simple questions regarding Lindzen’s claims regarding smoking.
Hilarious.
dhogaza // March 31, 2009 at 6:03 am |
Ah, now I’m on some auto-delete list. Oh well.
Watts is really all about science, no doubt.
dhogaza // March 31, 2009 at 6:08 am |
And, of course, my banning there includes the obligatory outing of my first name, as though Watts imagines he’s the first person smart enough to go to google and type “dhogaza”.
WUWT is the UD of climate science, no doubt.
bluegrue // March 31, 2009 at 10:14 am |
michael:
The following is no rebuttal, but instructive nonetheless. That commission sure has an impressive title. Prestigious commissions ought to have a long paper trail, right?
Let’s have some fun with google.
As of now “International Commission on Sea Level Change” yields 463 hits. Now let us exclude pages, which include either:
- “chairman” – 7 hits remain
- “2009″ – 3 hits remain
- “Mörner” – 9 hits, 4 of which misspell the name and another four cite the Telegraph article
From the above it is obvious, that the much vaunted commission never left a footprint on the web prior to December 2008. Except for a few hits that you can count on two hands, all of the hits are from late March 2009. Media campaign, badly done at that.
bluegrue // March 31, 2009 at 11:48 am |
michael, one more
Booker:
IPCC TAR (2001), chapter 11.3.2.3:
Shooting fish in a barrel.
Curious // March 31, 2009 at 12:04 pm |
If possible, I’d be very interested in reading your comments about a recent paper by Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf
(or please let me know whether it is the same commented on here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/spencers-folly/)
They seem to be prepareng some continuation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/03/set-phasers-on-stun/
Thanks for your dedication.
t_p_hamilton // March 31, 2009 at 1:21 pm |
michel said:”I was referring more specifically to his claims that no sea level rise experts are included in the IPCC panel”
John Church, CSIRO in Hobart, Tasmania. All it takes is one. Morner’s credibility: zero.
As far as one gauge determining global sea levels, ask for the cite to the paper that does this, and relax in the ensuing silence.
bluegrue // March 31, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
The German edition of wikpedia offers further information and Little Green Footballs has an especially nice collection on Mörner (Kook Lies About ‘Lies’). Both point to a 2004 letter by Prof. John J. Clague, President of INQUA, to Academician Yuri Osipov, President of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Finally, here’s the homepage of INQUA. I doubt deniers are going to cite their about page
Gavin's Pussycat // March 31, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
… Anny Cazenave, Stefan Rahmstorf, … not even trying.
Fish in a barrel.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 31, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
> And, of course, my banning there includes the obligatory outing of my
> first name,
But for Watts, that’s a feat!
Of course we all know that this pen-name thingy is only just a thinly veiled dummy filter.
I know your real name, Tamino’s, and Eli’s (and I’m sure you could figure out mine). No big deal, and not meant to boast. But then I am minimally competent with the Intertubes.
Deech56 // March 31, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
dhogaza, shame on you for making me go to that thread.
Dave A // March 31, 2009 at 9:43 pm |
Tom G
“No reference means you made it up.”
Do you go through your life referencing everything you read? What piffle!
Jim Eager // April 1, 2009 at 12:49 am |
Kipp asked: “Have you ever used the zone system.”
Yep. Never used Ektalure, though, I always used Agfa Brovira, then switched to Ilford.
You want oldies, how ’bout sitting in the dark minding a Kodak Model 11 color print drum processor and having the hose work free:
http://glennview.com/jpgs/dkrm2/processing/kodak/big_1.jpg
I didn’t mind the passing of those ‘good old’ days. ;^)
Kipp Alpert // April 1, 2009 at 2:20 am |
Accuweather has finally reached it’s bottom.Here is a quote from a Dr.Richard Lindzen:
“Isn’t this amazing, as the temperature goes up, negative feedback goes up. As the temperature goes down, the feedback starts going positive”.
Has anyone heard of this jerk. A feedback mechanism is an effect of a positive Forcing. It creates a feedback loop.Like as there is less Ice in the arctic,less reflectivity. More absorption,water warms. This guy has to be some kind of nut. I can’t believe that AccuWeather would post this bullshit.
Saltator // April 1, 2009 at 3:02 am |
Dhogaza,
This is Watts had to say:
“[ snip - Let me make this clear, we are not going to talk about smoking and cancer on this thread, call me what you want, complain all you like here or to your buddies over at Tammy or RC, but it is not going to happen. If you have something to say about the science presented here you are welcome to say it. - Anthony]”
It would seem to me that you are not banned if you stay on topic. Watts implies that you are welcome to criticise Lindzen’s article on negative climate feedbacks.
Are you being totally honest here. A person’s views on one matter does not negate the validity of their views on another different matter. And I would suggest the Lindzen is far more qualified to speak on matters of climate than on the science of smoking related illness.
Hank Roberts // April 1, 2009 at 3:02 am |
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/open-thread-11/#comment-29905
Saltator // April 1, 2009 at 3:09 am |
Dhogaza,
I have just had a look at your web site. Some nice photos there but your web site could do with a facelift. I would be happy to do that for you (I do a bit of that stuff).
I don’t think you would like my photography though (not enough golden hour). You can check it out at zone4photo.com.au
Kipp Alpert // April 1, 2009 at 3:12 am |
If you took this thread it would wrap aound the Earth 356 times. Thank You
Hank Roberts // April 1, 2009 at 3:18 am |
He may be channeling Cricklewood, who inferred something like that — incorrectly– and persistently attributed it to Gavin recently over here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/with-all-due-respect/#comment-116339
Saltator // April 1, 2009 at 3:18 am |
Some others at: http://photo.net/photos/rsteckis
Not much good though.
Tom G // April 1, 2009 at 4:48 am |
Referencing everything I read?
Well now that depends which part of the library or book store that I happen to pick up a volume.
If it’s a novel, of course not.
But something scientific you bet your ass.
Speaking of which…still no reference Dave?
Hank Roberts // April 1, 2009 at 2:36 pm |
> Spencer
Prob’ly ought to wait til he gets it accepted by a scientific journal, if that happens.
Of course if Spencer is right we then have to switch to solving the global cloudiness problem, before it causes us to overheat.
Let’s see, what kind of particles cause increasing clouds …. hmmmm … ah! Coal smoke! Diesel exhaust! That should be easier to fix than … oh, wait ….
Barton Paul Levenson // April 1, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
Curious,
I’ve just look at Spencer and Braswell’s paper. They introduce an unknown top-of-atmosphere forcing, N, and then say it could affect climate feedbacks.
Well, sure. Aliens playing with the sun could affect Earth’s climate, too. Do they have any empirical evidence whatsoever that their “N” exists?
Lazar // April 1, 2009 at 9:39 pm |
Not all bad news all the time…
The coastal winds off western subtropical South America in future climate scenarios
R.D. Garreaud and M. Falvey
International Journal of Climatology
March 2009
DOI:10.1002/joc.1716
Ray Ladbury // April 1, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
Saltator says, “A person’s views on one matter does not negate the validity of their views on another different matter. ”
Actually, I tend to disagree. If one cannot see that Intelligent Design is not science, that doesn’t speak well of one’s understanding of science is. If one is willing to overlook the overwhelming evidence that smoking causes cancer, it indicates an elastic attitude toward evidence at the very least. Anti-science is anti-science.
Kipp Alpert // April 1, 2009 at 10:44 pm |
Saltador: Like your dog portrait. Cropped in a little tighter. But I’m a Portrait Photgrapher. Nice colors.
Kipp Alpert // April 1, 2009 at 11:06 pm |
Saltador:Is that your picture through the fence of Smoke stack against Yellow Amber fascade.Tis beautiful.
Kipp Alpert // April 1, 2009 at 11:11 pm |
Dhogaza:Where are your pics?
Hank Roberts // April 1, 2009 at 11:50 pm |
This 500 million years of news, just in:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/nature07809.html
Modelling West Antarctic ice sheet growth and collapse through the past five million years
Letter
Nature 458, 329-332 (19 March 2009) doi:10.1038/nature07809
“… Our simulation is in good agreement with a new sediment record (ANDRILL AND-1B) recovered from the western Ross Sea11, indicating a long-term trend from more frequently collapsed to more glaciated states, dominant 40-kyr cyclicity in the Pliocene, and major retreats at marine isotope stage 31 (approx1.07 Myr ago) and other super-interglacials.”
Some discussion here, excerpt follows:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1656672/climatologists_gain_insight_from_massive_west_antarctic_melt/
“The researchers compared their model’s output with the sediment core record from ANDRILL. In these cores, coarse pebbly glacial till represent the glacial periods, while intervals filled with the shells of tiny ocean-living diatoms represent the nonglacial periods. One way the ANDRILL researchers date the layers is using existing datable volcanic layers within the core.
“Our modeling extends the reach of the drilling data to justify that the data represent the entire West Antarctic area and not just the spot where they drilled,” said Pollard.
Researchers warn that in the past, carbon dioxide levels were about 400 parts per million, in the early part of the ANDRILL record. West Antarctic ice sheet collapses were much more frequent.
“We are a little below 400 parts per million now and heading higher,” said Pollard.
“One of the next steps is to determine if human activity will make it warm enough to start the collapse.”
Hank Roberts // April 1, 2009 at 11:51 pm |
Typo in first line of prior post, should read
5 million
not
500 million
Kipp Alpert // April 2, 2009 at 12:17 am |
KIPPS TIPS.
1.Never let a person know how tall you are, by the pictures you take. What is the place to best photograph your pic. On a step ladder,on the ground.
2.Subject two thirds,background one third.
3.Depth of field doesn’t mean death of field.
Sometimes try two third out of focus background, or try one half out of focus bacground to capture a sense of the background, to enhance subject. Especially with complimentary colored background.
4.To much background takes from subject.
5.A pretty flower looks nicer huge as background takes second prority.
6.one third foreground two third background.
7.Look for good flower2.make sure background is just as good.Knock backgroud out one third.It is a part of the picture so lets know what it is.matching the two adds another reinforcement of principal subject.Usually don’t ever obliterate background. Just get a better backgound.One half out of focus background creates those circles of confusion, people like to see. People should not need to guess what background was.
Imagination of a simple subject is always enhanced and seperates the subject and the background.Bot both subject and it’s background are important.
Hank Roberts // April 2, 2009 at 12:19 am |
The ‘ground truth’ along with the modeling is from Andrill Here’s where they’re hoping to go next:
http://www.andrill.org/science/ch
“Proposed drill sites are located on a seismic profile completed at the front of the Ross Ice Shelf ice shelf in 2003, that has since been covered by the advancing ice shelf that is moving north at ~740 m/year. The stratigraphic record here would extend the Miocene and younger data obtained from ANDRILL sites MIS and SMS and recover underlying sediments representing the Early Tertiary greenhouse world. Technical challenges include drilling into the seabed while the ice is moving north at more than 2 m per day and maintaining an open hole through the nearly 250 m-thick ice shelf. Drilling is anticipated to begin in the 2012-2013 season. “
Kipp Alpert // April 2, 2009 at 12:25 am |
4.Never waste space. Always crop tight to target.
Look at Magazines, and there is never anything there that wasn’t intended to be there.First sign of a professional.Take a bunch of pictures that are too tight, crop in camera, and you will suprise yourself.It’s the opposite of what you are used to and you will discoverve the whole other side of cropping.Try it.KIPP
Ray Ladbury // April 2, 2009 at 12:26 am |
Barton,
So, does Spencer give any insight into how said nebulous forcing warms the troposphere, but cools the stratosphere? That’d be a neat trick.
Kipp Alpert // April 2, 2009 at 3:07 am |
Ray Ladbury:
Saltator says, “A person’s views on one matter does not negate the validity of their views on another different matter. ”
That is an ivalid asumption. If the”matter” is Science, than you either know science or you don’t. Intellegent design is not a Science, but a belief that Science is part of Creation not evolution. That is against Science, as Science understands evolution and accepts it.
Philippe Chantreau // April 2, 2009 at 5:26 am |
Looks like Tamino has been quite busy. I found this funny graph from a no less funny site that was linked in the April fool’s thread at RC. Interestingly, the first 3 graphs feature a trend line, whereas the following 3 (used to argue that the trends of the first 3 are wrong) do not. I am no statistician but just eyeballing I am ready to bet that all of these graphs would show a negative trend, although the first one may not be statistically significant. Anyone versed enough in stats (with nothing better to do) to take a look?
http://www.sustainableoregon.com/nwsnow.html
Richard Steckis // April 2, 2009 at 5:29 am |
Kipp,
“Saltador:Is that your picture through the fence of Smoke stack against Yellow Amber fascade.Tis beautiful.”
Thanks for the compliment. It is a montage of about five images compiled in photoshop. The amber sky portion is a photoshop altered image of a dirty wall.
Ray Ladbury // April 2, 2009 at 12:44 pm |
Kipp, You are preaching to the choir, there. I have no problem with believers in any faith as long as they don’t try to mix it into science.
I have long contended that you can show mathematically that Creationism/Intelligent Design are not science. In effect, because every development in Creationism/ID is contingent on the will of the creator/designer (even a decision NOT to intervene), these “theories” essentially assume an indefinite number of parameters. As a result, it is impossible for them to make predictions, and by definition they cannot be scientific. This is why they have to emphasize things they claim (incorrectly) evolution cannot explain. At least Michael Behe admits that ID isn’t science. Spencer does not, and that makes me wonder how well he really understands science.
dhogaza // April 2, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
I see Steckis uses photo.net. I was one of the original moderators there, but haven’t been involved in years. I still have an interesting domain though …
These are all old, I’ve not been maintaining the site referenced below (note the 1996-ish lack of style, just plain old out-of-the-box HTML).
Cheap $0.90 Kodak Photo CD machine scans, so exposures are sometimes off a bit etc.
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/h/b14.jpg
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/a/b78.jpg – I crop it from the right to fit it on standard paper sizes.
Grab shots while hanging out in Monterey, CA about a decade ago:
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/l/b9.jpg
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/f/b77.jpg
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/f/b76.jpg
The last two need a little tightening up.
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/d/b37.jpg
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/a/b33.jpg
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/a/b29.jpg
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/e/b72.jpg
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/g/b66.jpg
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/c/b16.jpg
http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/c/b92.jpg
One thing perhaps we can all agree on – TIME FOR A ROAD TRIP!
dhogaza // April 2, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
Hmmm I posted a bunch of links to photos, as requested by Kipp, but it appears to have disappeared into a black hole.
Maybe too many URLs?
[Response: That's probably why it went to the spam queue -- but it has now been posted.]
luminous beauty // April 2, 2009 at 6:59 pm |
Extreme photography:
http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/
Kipp Alpert // April 2, 2009 at 9:29 pm |
Dhogaza:Wow.Talk to on our new thread
David B. Benson // April 2, 2009 at 9:47 pm |
Hank Roberts // April 1, 2009 at 11:51 pm — That is interesting. While I would like to use it to obtain a more precise date for the closure of the Isthmus of Panama, about 4 +- 1 million years ago:
http://www.geologytimes.com/Research/Isthmus_of_Panama_formed_as_result_of_plate_tectonics.asp
I haven’t the time just now. The point is that modern climate commenced with this closure, changing ocean circulation.
Care to give it a try?
Rainman86 // April 2, 2009 at 10:10 pm |
dhog:
I may disagree with you in a number of areas, but I must compliment you on your photography skills.
Kipp Alpert // April 3, 2009 at 2:05 am |
Luminosity:Beautiful in it’s own terror.Wow!
Timothy Chase // April 3, 2009 at 7:29 am |
Ray Ladbury wrote:
Personally, I belong to the Quasi- branch of Spinozism, but I generally have considerable respect for other faiths and denominations.
Ray Ladbury wrote:
I’ve made similar arguments at different times. For example,
New Lenny Flank Essay at Talk Reason
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/newflank.cfm
Religion and Science
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/ReligionAndScience
I am proudest of the latter, though.
Timothy Chase // April 3, 2009 at 8:05 am |
PS This might also be of interest…
Thoughts on the Intelligent Design Inference
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/ThoughtsOnTheIntelligentDesignInference
Timothy Chase // April 3, 2009 at 8:09 am |
Ray Ladbury wrote:
Something involving a tiny demon, I believe…