Recent Comments

Prev  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  Next

Comments 51201 to 51250:

51201. dana1981 at 11:06 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Clyde @6 - again, read the link I posted @5, where I answered the questions you're asking. If you're not going to bother to read the links provided to you then there's not much point in continuing a one-way discussion.
51202. chriskoz at 08:35 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       I strongly object to the practice of insreting short and "naked" and pointless links as Clyde did @4. As I understand the comment policy, every link must be accompanied by a comment and explanation that suggests the commenter has read the link and ideally should help other readers to understand the science. Inserting two numbers and hand waiving as in Clyde@4, not only means nothing to me but annoys me and wastes my time. If I was Clyde, and I wanted to make his point, I'd at least check the articles (not too many, some 5-10 of them) in the posts linked and listed the source newspapers herein with my comment about the credibility/associations of each nwespaper. That would help the readers forming an opinion. But, with the "skeptic" background, Clyde is expressing here, the useless hand waving as seen @4 is the typical modus operandi.
51203. Kevin C at 08:16 AM on 2 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       So, on the basis of Bob’s comments, I’ve been looking at figure 13, shown below. Bob asked us to explain the features of the graph. The aim is to understand the features of the rest-of-the-world SST anomalies in terms of Nino34 and volcanoes. Now, as a starting point we don’t have a hypothesis for a mechanism. That means that we’re data mining. That’s OK, but it means we have to be very careful. If we already has a model we would be very constrained in testing fit to the data. With no model, we’re free to make up any sort of model, and as a result it is very easy to fool ourselves. This is a particular source of concern to me with your argument, since data mining has produced only two events, and as we will see the chances of making spurious connections as a result of artifacts of the method is rather high. So I started out by setting some rather stringent ground rules: 1. Any parameter added (including hidden parameters) must decrease the AIC of the model by at least 10. 2. Any parameter must be statistically significant at the 95% level after taking into account autocorrelation. (Preferably 99%, but I reduced that because it drew out something which may be of future interest.) I apologise that I haven’t had time to illustrate every step graphically, but I’m sure you can follow along with the analysis. So the first step was to fit the detrended rest-of-the-world SST data (henceforth Rest) with the Nino34 data, allowing a lag, a constant offset and a linear trend. Your eyeballed lag of about 30 weeks gives an R2 of ~10%, which is pretty poor. Surprisingly, you can get a rather better R2 with a lag of minus 30 weeks, which is of course nonsense, but highlights the problems of very poor models. The worse our model, the more noise we will have and the more easily we can be fooled by spurious features. The issue of course is that we’ve got a big nuisance variable - the volcanoes. So next I picked up tau_line.txt from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/, and calculated a term aod=0.4*NHem+0.6*SHem to take into account the proportion of ocean in each hemisphere. Including this makes a huge difference straight away, and makes the 30 week lag a clear winner over the nonsense one. Now - a physics aside: Lagging terms in a regression is a pretty unphysical thing to do. It requires a pretty funky mechanism to achieve, e.g. a delay line in electronics. A much more common mode of response to an input is an exponential decay, e.g. an RC network in electronics, the temperature response of a heat reservoir to energy input in physics, or a 1-box model in climate science. And indeed adding an exponential decay term to aod again dramatically improves the model. It looks like this:

       f(t) = exp(t/τ) {t<0} f(t) = 0 {t>0} g(t) = f(t) / Σ f(t) aodlag = aod ⊗ g

       where ⊗ denotes convolution. t is in years. τ = 0.85. (The sign of t may be reversed depending on your convolution convention, obviously the effect of the volcano must lag it’s cause.) So now the model (using R notation in which the coefficients are inferred) is: Rest ~ constant + trend + Nino34 + aodlag But we also need to take into account the the effect of Nino34 also need not be a simple lag. One of the things I try when attempting to understand a time series response to an input is feed in multiple lags simultaneously to the regression. That is a profligate use of parameters and can be misleading, but you can sometimes learn something from it. Often you see coefficients which decay over time, and you know to replace the multiple lags with an exponential response function as above. However in this case something more interesting occured. If you replace the 30 week lag with two lags of 15 and 45 weeks, you get a much better fit. So next I tried Gaussian and top hat smooths to cover the two lags and everything in between. Surprisingly, it gives a much worse model. In fact you can drop a 30 week lagged term in the middle, and it comes back weaker than the other two. The system really does seem to respond to Nino34 with two different lags. That’s really interesting, and a kick-off point for further study. With your knowledge of teleconnections and experience with the data I’m hoping you can use this as a kicking off point for some serious investigation, although I should stress that further work is required to ensure there is not a simpler explanation. I tried fitting three arbitrary lags, and got a best model with lags at 0, 9 and 46 weeks. The 0 week term is interesting, because the coefficient is negative. It’s not huge - it fails to meet my 99% criterion, but is significant at the 95% level. It doesn’t make a visual impact on the model, but I’ve kept it in case it offers a further insight into mechanism. So the model is now: Rest ~ constant + trend + lag(Nino34,0) + lag(Nino34,9) + lag(Nino34,46) + aodlag So what do the model stats look like? Here they are: Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 9.130818 0.476369 19.168 <2e-16 *** sst$Nino34a -0.029659 0.003410 -8.699 <2e-16 *** sst$Nino34b 0.049365 0.003374 14.630 <2e-16 *** sst$Nino34c 0.034237 0.001911 17.920 <2e-16 *** sst$Year -0.004543 0.000238 -19.085 <2e-16 *** sst$aodlag -3.495310 0.095644 -36.545 <2e-16 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Residual standard error: 0.06831 on 1555 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.5086, Adjusted R-squared: 0.5071 F-statistic: 321.9 on 5 and 1555 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16 ν ≈ 11, so the t-values can be scaled down by a factor of 3.3, but they’re all hugely significant except lag(Nino34,0), which has a p-value of ~98%. R2 is now up to 0.5. That’s a model we can begin to draw conclusions from. What does it look like? See the following figure. Red is Rest, blue is the model, both with a 13 month smooth. We can still see a divergence around 1998-2001, although it doesn’t stand out like it did. However the 1989-1991 event has all but vanished. In eliminating the nuisance variables to obtain a better model whose parameters are therefore vastly more significant, one of the two events you identified has disappeared. That’s why I cautioned about the dangers of data-mining. When the model is poor it is far too easy to over-interpret the results. What about the 1998-2001 divergence which is still present? It’s magnitude is much reduced, but the ends are now very sharply defined. It could be down to a number of causes. It could be of genuine climatic significance. It could be noise - some more data would help. An observational issue is not impossible - we could look at other datasets to see if they show anything similar. It may be an artifact of the model - if we were doing real rather than blog science we’d either want to characterise the filter analytically (maybe some frequency domain analysis), or do extensive trials with synthetic data to see if it there is any possibility that the feature is an artifact of the method. (Note especially that nearby lags with opposite coefficients have a high pass filter effect.) Discussion: Improving the model to better fit the observations reduces the noise significantly. As a result the 1989-1991 feature largely disappears. The most convincing explanation for this feature is that it is an artifact of a poor model. The 1998-2001 feature is still present at much reduced magnitude, although the endpoints are now very clearly defined. However we now only have one event. You can’t fit a pattern to a single event. Also it gives us no grounds for determining the frequency or likely scales of such events. We really need more data. There are a number of issues requiring further study: 1. How unique is the 2 / 3 lag solution found here? Is there any less physically exotic model which would produce an equally good fit? 2. Is there any physical mechanism which can explain this behaviour? 3. Can we find similar events by extending the analysis further back in time? How unusual is the 1998 event in terms of size and shape? Do past events show any connection with surface temperature changes? 4. Is the same behaviour seen in other datasets?
51204. Doug Bostrom at 08:13 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Would a few cm lower sea level helped [Sandy] be less damaging? A few centimeters of water: More or less damaging than those same few centimeters less? Water is sort of a binary thing when it comes to it being inside homes; even the first centimeter of water inside a house makes a world of difference.
51205. John Hartz at 07:56 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       @Clyde #6: I highly recommend that you read the following two articles. The Science behind Superstorm Sandy’s Crippling Storm Surge by David Biello, Scientific Amterican, Nov 7, 2012 Sandy’s Storm Surge Explained and Why It Matters by Micael Lemonick, Climate Central, Oct 29, 2012 These articles will provide you with a basic understanding of the mechanisms of storm surges and why the height of the sea relative to the shoreline plays such a critical role.
51206. Clyde at 07:22 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       The other stories you reference that we linked to are just that - news stories, not letters by scientists advocating a position on climate mitigation. My point exactly. Those (OK some/most of those) new stories wasn't written scientists. Their non scientists advocating a position on climate mitigation. If not directly, then indirectly. Can anybody proof what Sandy would have been if GW was smaller? They can "speculate" that she wouldn't have been as damaging as she was. Would a few cm lower seal level helped her be less damaging? Would .06 degree cooler water made much of a difference?
51207. scaddenp at 07:01 AM on 2 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       Ranyl, a quick look through various items on your list all apply to thin-film - a rather specialty area in PV. Some of the information is dated as well. In the energy use concerns, what matter is energy yield (amount produced over lifetime cf to energy required to manufacture). For, say northern Europe, with a 20 year lifetime (by which time polycrystalline cells will have dropped to 80% output cf new), this could be as low as 4 (way less than wind), but still very much better than 1. Ratios are much better for say Australia, for CSP, and for new single-pass silicon processes.
51208. dana1981 at 05:50 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Clyde @4, you might want to try reading the SkS Sandy post, which contains references to a ton of peer-reviewed studies. The other stories you reference that we linked to are just that - news stories, not letters by scientists advocating a position on climate mitigation.
51209. Tom Curtis at 05:39 AM on 2 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       vrooomie, I am unable to find either the Tamino article or the Atmoz article on the web, so the links appear to be permanently dead. The wayback machine is currently not loading for me, so I am unable to check there. Tamino's critique was widely discussed on the web at the time, including by by Greenfyre and deepclimate, and a similar critique was made by James Annan. Tamino has a later blog discussing some of the fallout. Most importantly, an expanded version of Tamino's crtitique later appeared in a peer reviewed paper of which he was the lead author (discussed here).
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] The Atmoz article is available here.

       The Tamino article is available here, via the Open Mind Archives.

       This link to the web archive is functional.

51210. Clyde at 05:33 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       For climate denialists, the preferred route by which to air their grievances about global warming is not via the scientific peer-review process, but rather through opinion letters published in the mainstream media. It would be foolish to be convinced by a letter published by a list of non-experts in a newspaper, full of false, long-debunked, and unsubstantiated assertions. The public deserve better from scientists. 1 2 To my knowledge no papers has been peer reviewed & published on Hurricane Sandy, yet it was OK for SKS to have multiple post (just 2 of the 5?) above with news stories claiming GW's effect on Sandy. Can't have it both ways & be credible IMO.
51211. dana1981 at 05:09 AM on 2 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       I found the source pages elsewhere - links fixed.
51212. vrooomie at 03:06 AM on 2 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       Mods, I *still get 403 and 404 errors when I click on the first two links under this thread....?
       Moderator Response: [JH] Exactly where are these two broken links located.
       
       [Sph] The links cannot be fixed, only removed, as the external source documents have been removed from the Internet (and we have no control over that).
51213. vrooomie at 02:51 AM on 2 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       "I agree coal is very likely to be worse than PV's but then I never said use coal as an alternative." Since the heart of any rational discussion is an exceedingly-fine understanding of the words and concepts contained therein, let it be clear: *I* never suggested coal as an alternative; I intended that PV be a alternative to coal, as far as it can be, which ain't too far, as of now. Clear now? Your own statement, "I always think well even if no else does anything at least I tried to do what I could.", perfectly illustrates why no one should impugn every individual's ability to impact their local situation--regardless of how "small" the effort would be--in whatever way they can. Edmund Burke said it better, but we all do what we can do, and that cascade of action will eventuate into larger and larger actions. The largest action any of us can make--at least in terms of getting the powers-that-be off their dead asse--is us lighting the fires underneath them. Environmentally benign fires, mind you....;)
51214. Composer99 at 00:18 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       If the pseudoskeptics had a real case, they'd be presenting it in the literature. Of course, they don't, but to cover that they have the ready-made excuse that we saw on the El Niño thread: "gatekeeping" allegedly keeping their papers from being published.
51215. shoyemore at 17:21 PM on 1 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Is this a worldwide phenomenon? I noticed a very effective rejoinder in yesterday's Irish Times to a letter from a faux-sceptic with many of the points made in the post. Irish Times Letter The rejoinder is authored by a physics lecturer at Waterford IT.
51216. bill4344 at 14:57 PM on 1 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Given the transparency - and increasing desperation - of their tactics I suspect pre-bunks (of bunkum!) are going to be with us for a while. The chart with the McLean prediction cracks me up every time!
51217. ranyl at 13:27 PM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       Vroomie, I agree coal is very likely to be worse than PV's but then I never said use coal as an alternative. All suggest is to consider the issues, consider the carbon cost per potential KWh without displacement savings, remember there is no carbon budget and decide what to spend whatever amount of additional carbon emissions you're prepared to risk on generating energy. The carbon budget is a debt already. So will the addiction to power per se blow the budget in trying to keep the lights on? Almost definately it would appear at present. However the way the weather's shaping up there will be a point of realisation that this is real. Then what? Well who knows lets just hope the budget isn't blown already as the Arctic melt is already very alarming. And fun was inappropriate your right, but it can be creative challenge with parto f that challenge making the lives of the 3 billion in hunger better for them, by accepting migration? Eating less so they can eat more? Stopping wasting food? Laernign how to synergise farming with high productivity into eco-systems such that biodiversity florishes. I always think well even if no else does anything at least I tried to do what I could. BTW the silicon used for solar PV is refiend silicon metal with is 99.9% and highly refiend in high energy intensive toxic substance using processes. Would you work in the factory? Look at the Chinese paper listed in the previous post from Standford, looks pretty industrialised to me.
51218. ranyl at 13:08 PM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1765&context=ealr http://www.solar-facts-and-advice.com/cadmium-telluride.html http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/art_170.pdf http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2009/july/draft_resconcept/ito.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Solar_11.2.pdf http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp59.pdf http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/upload/Norwegian-Geotechnical-Institute-Study.pdf Recycling isn’t that easy it seems and is full of chemical and energy intensive processes, just like making the original panels was, so many things not accounted for. http://2011.solarteam.org/news/recycling-methods-for-used-photovoltaic-panels http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/1281 Doesn’t really bust any myths but does resort to comparison to nuclear and coal albeit without actual comparison and doesn’t say solar panels aren’t an environmental hazard just says that the risks are minimized in the production process although waste disposal and issues aren’t really addressed that well. http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/industries/pv-nf3-lifecycle-emissions-from-photovoltaics.aspx Company sponsored paper so will be biased to a degree. http://www2.avs.org/symposium2011/Papers/Paper_EN+TF-TuA7.html http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/thin-film-solar-market-to-grow-1-500-percent-by-2017_100004524/#axzz2DlT7sIK0 http://www.eere.energy.gov/basics/renewable_energy/types_silicon.html http://svtc.org/wp-content/uploads/Silicon_Valley_Toxics_Coalition_-_Toward_a_Just_and_Sust.pdf http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2008/03/13/materials-for-solar-photovoltaic-cells-i-silicon-v http://www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/oipp/docs/life-cyclehealthandsafetyconcerns.pdf
51219. scaddenp at 11:48 AM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       "For example PV panels are a toxic waste within 20-30 years, releases tri-nitrofloride to make (a very potent GHG), " hmm, I thought TNF was only used in manufacture of thin-film solar panels, and only very small quantities were emitted. Most PV around today is not thin-film, and if these somehow turn into toxic waste, I would like a reference please. I am also not aware of any rare chemicals in standard solar cells, and they can be made from lower grade silicon.
51220. Tom Dayton at 10:23 AM on 1 December 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Dang, Dana, I'm not going up against you at the whack-a-mole booth at the county fair. You're way too fast!
51221. Bernard J. at 10:21 AM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       Ranyl. Yes, yes, yes. But, like any group of addicts - whether addicted to nicotine, ethanol, other carbohydrates, triglycerides, opiates, adrenaline, caffeine, or any of the other pernicious drugs of dependence - breaking free is difficult, and never observed en masse. Policy makers in the carbon emissions context could do worse than to ackowledge the summary made a few years back by Doug Sellman. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02673.x
       Moderator Response: [DB] Hot-linked referenced paper.
51222. vrooomie at 10:16 AM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       ranyl@14... "Don't we need to come together, stop using so much excessive power and plan a sustainable informed, concerned and equitable future through an adaptive transformation away from fossil fuels, excess resource extraction, gross inequality, unnecessary wars, waste production, and creating toxic landscapes and show our descendants what humanity humankind is capable of or do just hope that the overwhelming evidence is somehow wrong or that some divine intervention is on the way?" Yes. And while you're up...I'd like a pony...;) Certainly what you say is correct but--and I'll reference you back to your earlier statement that small actions are essentially meaningless--nothing of your utopian agenda can, or will, come to pass until a couple things occur; know that this is coming from a man who has spent his life as optimistic about life and our chances as anyone could possibly be. Till he grew up and figured out human nature, that is. 1) There are too many humans, chasing too few resources, and occupying too small of a "spaceship" for the ship to trimtab its direction in a meaningful--fast, in your vernacular--rapid way. Nature, or us, *will* thin the herd, and until that is done, I see no way we'll attain the level of resource use you assert is needed. To turn a Churchillian phrase around, leave it to mankind to do all the wrong things, right up to the point it does the REALLY wrong thing, and snuffs out a good deal of itself. History is *rife* with such examples and, frankly, I see no turning that around this time, either. That said... 2) We--each and every one of of us who has some voice--has to, read again MUST exert pressure on the leaders to follow the people. None of what you wish to happen; "Leave the car in garage, stop flying, turn the thermostat down, wear more clothes, stop consuming, have a gift free Christmas (share friendship not gifts for everyone's sake?), eat locally and seasonally and be creative about it, to let this be the fun it can be," will or can be done in the vacuum of lax leadership. There are also, oh, I'd say at a guess, about 3 billion souls who do not even come CLOSE to thinking what you posit is, or will be "fun:" I sure don't. Needed? Likely. Easy to attain? Not on your life. Can we? Sandy got a few folks' attention--most notably those who were devastated by the storm's intensity--and even though we cannot say with a high degree Sandy was *caused* by AGW, we do have a pretty good idea that storms like her will become the new normal; when they do, more people will be affected drastically, and at ~that moment~, folks--singular, at-large, and unelected--will really push the pollies to help them do something that is needed. I go back to a position I've long espoused and is typified by the "100th monkey" meme (yes, I know it's been disproved as bunk, but it's as useful an allusion as the equally-debunked "ostrich" meme) and that is, every single person must do whatever little--or much--as they can do, to start that ball rolling. Finally, do you have a source for the assertions you've made, re: the toxicity of solar panels as they age? That's new to me. Even if true, I seriously doubt it's as bad an effect as what burning gigatons of coal does, and has done, to the commons of the atmosphere. we cannot wait for perfect safety.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Corrected spelling by request.
51223. dana1981 at 09:50 AM on 1 December 2012
       Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections, Find Sea Level Rise Underestimated
       Agnostic @6 - they have so far.
51224. dana1981 at 09:49 AM on 1 December 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Tom @ 95 - just posted a mole whacking response. We aim to please!
51225. Riduna at 09:13 AM on 1 December 2012
       Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections, Find Sea Level Rise Underestimated
       The IPCC Has Accurately Projected Global Surface Warming … Really? It seems unlikely that the IPCC or Rahmstorf have done any such thing beyond the year 2010, certainly not up to the year 2100 - unless they have accurately predicted the effects of slow feedbacks arising from cryosphere ice loss particularly in the Arctic. The latter is a very difficult task though good approximations can be made.
51226. Tom Dayton at 09:11 AM on 1 December 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Oh, goodie, another round of the game of whack-a-mole! A bunch of the usual deniers published an "Open Climate Letter" to the Sec-Gen of the UN in the Financial Post yesterday.
51227. ranyl at 08:28 AM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       "Here's what I meant: Yes, today's situation looks pretty grim, but compared to the grimness which appears to be in store for our crandchildren and beyond, looks VERY grim indeed." Fair enough vroomie it is just an ever common theme that the time of change is tomorrow. Only grim if we don't act now and appropriately to the actual scale of the problem. 350ppm is a metaphorical 1000 miles away and still means basically 2C if the climate sensitivty paper in nature is anything go by, considering we are actualy at 460ppm already (CO2e) and we have been shaded by SO2 for the last 50 years, and the unbrella is the same size now as it was 1980. Don't we need to come together, stop using so much excessive power and plan a sustainable informed, concerned and equitable future through an adaptive transformation away from fossil fuels, excess resource extraction, gross inequality, unnecessary wars, waste production, and creating toxic landscapes and show our decendants what humanity humankind is capable of or do just hope that the overwhelming evidence is somehow wrong or that some divine intervention is on the way? For at the current time these very early signs of climatic change are very alarming and much worse than expected or predicted, and therefore all solutions put forward so far are off the table and the stakes seem to rise with every study published. We have no more carbon to risk safely (I say that loudly and with concerned conviction) and therefore every ounce extra has to be wisely spent and very carefully considered and only spent for essential needs. We also have no room to stress the world's eco-systems further, (everything else humanity is doing has induced a mass extinction already), indeed more than that the earth's eco-system need intensive care (and we are capable of this) and global warming a known previous killer has only just started albeit at rate that is unprecedented and it is the rate that counts. Don't we need to take this with the gravity it deserves and stop using fossil fuels asap? (I do live a low carbon lifstyle but I could do better) Isn't the quickest way to do this, is to just stop using them? Leave the car in garage, stop flying, turn the thermostat down, wear more clothes, stop consuming, have a gift free christmas (share friendship not gifts for everyone's sake?), eat locally and sesonally and be creative about it, to let this be the fun it can be. However we also need to assess every solution objectively, is something called green always actually environmental enhancing? For example PV panels are a toxic waste within 20-30 years, releases tri-nitrofloride to make (a very potent GHG), are highly energy intensive to manufacture requiring high grade silicon, need rare chemicals that are toxic to make and need mining and extensive processing to get, are highly inefficient, are black if placed in the desert (albedo), and are not very effective in wet cloudy climates were lots are found, so are they a sensible solution or a mal-adaptation? Tropical dams and probably higher latitudes ones release massive amounts of methane (ongoing) and disrupt whole eco-systems for ages (look at the Nile delta), silt up, require huge amount so of materials to make, large maintainence rquirements and overall and are more GHG intensive and eco-system disrupting than fossil fuels!(not advocating fossil fuls by saying that, just seing large scale hydro power for what it is) With no carbon to spend and eco-systems on the brink don't we need the lowest carbon solutions that provide longer term sustainability,(even if that means much much less and even intermittent power or using sail ships built with today's understanding for sea trading) and that also enhance the environments eco-systems arround us, rather than being an eventual toxin to them as we need our eco-systesm to become larger carbon sinks despite the nitrogen fertilization that has occured in the last 50years being taken away!!? The diagnosis is grim if we do nothing or the wrong thing without proepr assessments, yet the treatment however is simple, come together in purpose and stop ignoring the truth of the situation. No one has a get out of jail free card in this game, it really is all together or no all at all. We need to relocate New York. Greenland?
51228. KR at 08:22 AM on 1 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       Tom Curtis - Quite correct, my error, I clearly was thinking about NINO3.4 while typing... the SOI is from Darwin vs. Tahiti air pressure. While more complex, and with a shorter history, the MEI is IMO a good measure as it encompasses a great many of ENSO variables. However, given the high correspondence between the MEI, the ONI, and the SOI, I believe all of the three are reasonable indices to use when examining ENSO effects. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 ran their regression analysis with both MEI and SOI - they did not find significant differences.
51229. ramiram at 07:14 AM on 1 December 2012
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Can anyone please put all this in context, please? (only the third e-mail is from climategate 1.0, the others are from climatgate 2.0). I know I'm asking for a lot but I really need your help in order to get rid of an annoying friend... (stolen correspondence snipped) Thank you.
       Moderator Response: [Sph] Nice try. Skeptical Science does not exist to allow you to disseminate nonsense by pretending to ask for help.
51230. Tom Curtis at 05:47 AM on 1 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       KR @124, The ENSO Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is calculated from the pressure differences between Tahiti and Darwin (in Northern Australia) by the formula:

       SOI= 10*[Pdiff-Pdiffav]/SD(Pdiff) where Pdiff = (average Tahiti MSLP for the month) - (average Darwin MSLP for the month), Pdiffav = long term average of Pdiff for the month in question, and SD(Pdiff) = long term standard deviation of Pdiff for the month in question.

       (Source) IMO the SOI is a superior measure of ENSO activity to purely temperature based measures such as Nino 3.4 (and Nino 3, Nino 4, etc) in that it measures the cause of the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the pressure differences across western Pacific, rather than the consequences. It also has the advantage of having a direct instrumental record going back to the 19th century.
51231. vrooomie at 04:21 AM on 1 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       To the mods: The links below, "Atmoz compares SOI to temperature, comparing correlations" ...brings up a 404 error: is it me, or is the link broken? In addition the next one: "Debunking of McLean/Carter paper by Tamino" ...brings me a "not found" error on Tamino's blog. Thanks!
51232. vrooomie at 04:14 AM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       villabolo, here are a few references...I tried to read them for the info you requested, but my eyes glazed over...;) http://tinyurl.com/cg86zu3 http://tinyurl.com/brn4s2u
       Moderator Response: [DB] Hot-linked referenced papers.
51233. mike roddy at 03:34 AM on 1 December 2012
       SkS at the AGU 2012 Fall Meeting
       John- I'll be at AGU, going to private meetings in nearby hotels, since I'm not a member. If you want to meet, please let me know at my regular email address, or this one: mike.greenframe@gmail.com I will be at a lunch meeting on Monday that maybe you could join us for. Alternatively, I am arriving early Sunday, and if you're in town then that could be a good day.
51234. KR at 03:27 AM on 1 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       A note for clarity regarding ENSO measures: * The oft-referenced NINA3.4 is from the temperature of the central tropical Pacific, and is used (with a 3-month running average anomaly calculation) to define the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI). * The ONI closely tracks the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), computed from sea-level pressure, zonal and meridional components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, and total cloudiness fraction of the sky. This is a very comprehensive measure in terms of variables tracked. * The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is computed from air pressure differences between the NINO3.4 and Tahiti regions. It is rather noisier than and defined as reversed in sense (upside down graphically) from the MEI and ONI measures. All of these measures correspond well to one another - they are all measures of wind-driven heat distribution and resulting cloudiness effects. These are the defined and accepted indexes of ENSO variations. They also, with several month lags dependent on the dataset, have been shown to correspond extremely well with variations in global temperature anomalies, as in Foster & Rahmstorf 2011. [Lag time differences in that analysis are likely due to the differing spatial coverages of GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, and the satellite sets] --- Bob Tisdale - You have asserted (as far as I can see) that recent global warming is due to asymmetric effects between La Nina and El Nino. Several questions have been asked on this thread, which I don't believe have been addressed yet. I'll try here to pose them more clearly: * If as you say La Nina's absorb more heat (due perhaps to changes in cloudiness or other effects) than El Nino releases, how can this have driven warming since the 1970's? There has been a preponderance of El Nino events over that period (fewer than average La Nina events to raise total climate energy, esp. late 1970's-1998), and El Nino events release heat to the atmosphere (and hence to space). By your argument ocean heat content (OHC) should have dropped over that period as atmospheric temperatures rose - instead OHC has steadily risen over that time (down to 2000 meters). * Why now? What has changed? The ENSO has been an existent pattern for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Why would it suddenly change behavior in recent years, when it hasn't in the past? I will note that any hypothetic asymmetry between the two phases of the ENSO would simply be a forcing - if an ENSO asymmetry has existed for any significant period of time the climate would have long since come to equilibrium with that forcing. Only a recent change in ENSO behavior could force a change in temperature now. * Finally, what about the greenhouse effect? All atmospheric evidence, including top of atmosphere (TOA) changes such as those measured by Harries 2001 show greenhouse gas changes more than sufficient to account for observed warming without any ENSO influence other than short term variations. Without that GHG influence, any ENSO warming would soon vanish due to increased outgoing infrared radiation. The question here is given the observed and sufficient GHG forcing for warming, what place is there for additional ENSO warming?
51235. John Hartz at 02:53 AM on 1 December 2012
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       @ejo60 #150: Does the information on the Greenland ice melt presented in in your Science paper take into account the findings of the also just-published PNAS paper, Mapping Greenland's mass loss in space and time?
51236. John Hartz at 02:39 AM on 1 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       @Bob Tisdale: You have stated that you disagree with the following statement. “Naturally occurring climate variability due to phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña impact on temperatures and precipitation on a seasonal to annual scale. But they do not alter the underlying long-term trend of rising temperatures due to climate change as a result of human activities,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.* Please explain in one or two succinct paragraphs why you do not agree with the above statement. *Source: 2012: Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt, Multiple Extremes and High Temperatures, WMO Press Release No 966, Nov 28, 2012
51237. vrooomie at 02:23 AM on 1 December 2012
       SkS at the AGU 2012 Fall Meeting
       John, I've put out an "APB' to USGS folks who plan to attend AGU, to come and see your presentation. I hope you will get to meet some.
51238. dana1981 at 02:16 AM on 1 December 2012
       Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections, Find Sea Level Rise Underestimated
       chriskoz @ 3 - IPCC TAR model simulations begin in 1990, and AR4 begin in 2000. Figure 5 simply shows whatever rate of sea level rise is simulated in the models.
51239. vrooomie at 02:12 AM on 1 December 2012
       SkS at the AGU 2012 Fall Meeting
       A good number of my colleagues will be there, and I'll tell them to contact you! Have a grreat time in SanFran, and wish I coud attend..maybe in '13! For those new to SF, do NOT miss Grotto No. 9. Lombard St's fine and dandy, but ya can't *eat* it! [;=P
51240. michael sweet at 01:59 AM on 1 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       Bob, I was confused by your constant referring to the Nino3.4 and not the entire East Pacific. It is not clear to me what exactly you are claiming. My point is still valid, you must compare to the range of estimates, not the average. There is a lot of noise that you have to account for. A superficial examination indicates that random variation over the time period you specify could explain the entire difference. You must show that noise cannot account for your claims. Many other data sets exist that expand the time period of your analysis. It has been shown by others in this thread that you cherry picked the data set you used. You are responsible for finding the appropriate data. Limiting your choice to a short data set is cherry picking.
       Moderator Response: [Sph] Please back off of accusations of dishonesty (a violation of the comments policy) and stick to the science-based arguments. Future violations will be snipped as necessary.
51241. Alexandre at 01:53 AM on 1 December 2012
       SkS at the AGU 2012 Fall Meeting
       Please let us know if any of this gets recorded and available in a mp3 or streaming video link somewhere!
51242. John Hartz at 01:24 AM on 1 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       @Bob Tisdale: Do you believe the following graph to be a valid representation of Jan-Oct global land & and surface temperature anomalies with respect to the 1961-1990 base period for calendar years 1950 through 2012? Source: 2012: Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt, Multiple Extremes and High Temperatures, WMO Press Release No 966, Nov 28, 2012
51243. IanC at 01:00 AM on 1 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       Bob, Seriously, do you see yourself being wrong on the issue? do you see a possibility that your analyses are wrong?
51244. Composer99 at 00:45 AM on 1 December 2012
       SkS at the AGU 2012 Fall Meeting
       Looks fascinating. Wish I had the $$ and time to go (even though I'd be a fish out of water for most of the conference).
51245. Mark-US at 00:20 AM on 1 December 2012
       Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections, Find Sea Level Rise Underestimated
       Great work as always, but you left out two critical words: _so far_. As you know, not even the upcoming IPCC AR5 models include the upcoming permafrost outgassing, and so over the longer future term, are believed to be an UNDERESTIMATE. So when we say they have done a good job, we need to be clear what we mean is that they have done a good job.... SO FAR. See www.unep.org/pdf/permafrost.pdf, Exec Summary pg iv
51246. Composer99 at 23:51 PM on 30 November 2012
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       ejo60: Congrats on the publication, even if it isn't exactly good news (Greenland ice mass loss in particular is alarming).
51247. Composer99 at 23:47 PM on 30 November 2012
       It's El Niño
       Further to Sphaerica's inline moderator comment I shall end my contribution to this thread; I suspect it's played out.
51248. ejo60 at 22:45 PM on 30 November 2012
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Please read our latest article on the polar ice mass loss problem, it appeared today in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.abstract
51249. Bob Tisdale at 22:13 PM on 30 November 2012
       It's El Niño
       Let me start at the bottom and work my way up: michael sweet says at 115: “This relates to Tisdale's claim that a small section (smaller than North America) of the Pacific basin is not warming as much as expected.” North America covers an area of about 24.7 million square kilometers. On the other hand, the East Pacific Ocean (90S-90N, 180-80W) covers about 119.2 million square kilometers. How is the East Pacific “smaller than North America”, michael? michael sweet says at 115: “Or it may just be that the start date is cherry picked.” The Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data starts at November 1981. There’s no cherry-picking involved on my part. Tom Curtis at 114: Thanks for your assistance. IanC says at 111: “I already said the issues you raised on the PDO index is a red herring, why are you repeating it again?” And I illustrated for you in the graph at comment 103 that there was no relationship between the PDO and the sea surface temperature anomalies of the East Pacific: http://i49.tinypic.com/slhb8y.jpg The PDO is the red herring. IanC says at 111: “There is actually another question that is crucial to us answering your first question. As Tom noticed, the warming rate depends on the starting date. To make that more precise, I've taken the SSTA of the E Pacific (as you defined it) HADISST, and applied a 10 year low pass filter (this gives the same result as a 121 month running filter). Here's the plot…” And here’s a comparison graph of the Reynolds OI.v2 data and the HADISST data for the East Pacific. They have the same linear trend: http://i47.tinypic.com/5b75dz.jpg IanC says at 111: “So here's the second question. Where is the evidence of a lack of warming in the east pacific ? It appears that your question is invalid in the first place.” The HADISST dataset, as illustrated above, has the same lack of warming over the past 30 years. The discussion is satellite-era sea surface temperatures. Why aren’t we looking at the sea surface temperature data prior to the satellite era? Because there’s little source data south of 30-45S. Here’s a map that illustrates the ICOADS sampling locations six months before the start of the Reynolds OI.v2 dataset: http://i47.tinypic.com/k2g6bs.jpg Same map for June 1975: http://i49.tinypic.com/73040z.jpg And it doesn’t get better as you go back in time. Here’s June 1943: http://i49.tinypic.com/2eb8sb8.jpg As I noted in my earlier reply to Tom Curtis… …why not simply remove the ENSO and volcano signals from the East Pacific data? The primary assumption behind Foster and Rahmstorf and Rahmstorf et al 2012 is that you can remove those signals to provide a better CO2-driven global warming signal. In fact, the East Pacific is the only sea surface temperature subset where you could hope to remove the ENSO signal without leaving significant ENSO residuals. You can’t remove the ENSO signal from the Rest-of-the-World data (90S-90N, 80W-180) without something very obvious occurring? Try it for both datasets, the East Pacific and the Rest-of-the-World. See how it changes your results and opinions. Kevin C says at 110: “Will post graphs and code tomorrow” Looking forward to it. Please provide lags for the AOD and NINO3.4 data in months and the scaling factors you determine. Thanks. Tom Dayton at 109 refers to Kevin C at 108. Kevin C says: “Do you agree, or disagree with the following statement?” Disagree. Composer99 at 107 says: “Shifting burden of proof.” I didn’t shift the burden of proof. That was one of my opening questions to you all. Well, that’s it for now. I’ll await Kevin C’s analysis on the Rest-of-the-World data.
       Moderator Response: [Sph] FYI, the reason the third page of comments temporarily disappeared, and the reason that your comment numbers no longer match the comments to which they refer, is that three comments were, for various reasons, deleted from the thread, so that for a short while there were less than 100 comments (3 pages worth) when there previously had been more. This will happen from time to time.
51250. chriskoz at 20:23 PM on 30 November 2012
       Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections, Find Sea Level Rise Underestimated
       I'm curious about those "low bundles" of IPCC predictions of SLRR on fig5 (light blue & green). The text says the predictions are from AR4 2007, but it looks like they start around 2000 so perhaps they are from TAR 2001... My question is: why do those bundles start lower (as low as 1.5mma-1) than the then available tide/sat data? Only highest (dark blue) bundle actually starts at reality. Did they seriously think back then, that available tide/sat SLRR data was biased high and decided to lower it? RFC12 has shown very convincingly the underestimation but seems not to say enough about the reasons and what lesson is to learn from it. I don't think the underestimation is solely due to lack of icesheet melt component: something is wrong with their model and their estimation does not match the obesrvations from the very start. It's like in case of sea ice melt: they know they've underestimated it but did they issue any correction? I guess AR5 will be the opportunity to correct both but will they do it?

Prev  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  Next