Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 Next
Comments 56351 to 56400:
-
Daniel Bailey at 10:38 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Dubious, in only quoting a portion of Karoly's expansive reply you do him further injustice. The full quote:"McIntyre’s email to me did not mention legal action. However, a first part of legal action on defamation in Australia is often to send a request to the author of the material, requesting that they withdraw it and apologise. Hence, I felt that it was a reasonable assumption that McIntyre was starting a course of legal action."
Emphasis to the pertinent omitted text added. Thus, you distort his expression of his opinion. That you yourself have a different opinion has no bearing on this sad chapter, as you are not the individual in question. The fake-skeptics, as is their wont, have again much much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot, if you will. Be appropriately dubious about their agenda, for they lead many astray. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:28 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
"I think our coverage of Gillett et al. was quite appropriate and on the mark."
So, the Serial Deletion of Data (construed to be) Inconvenient to one's agenda is "appropriate and on the mark"? Methinks thou hoisteth by thy own petard, sirrah. -
dubious at 10:17 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
It is good to get some clarity from Dr Karoly. Personally I don't consider that a "threat of legal action". Even Dr Karoly cannot bring himself to repeat that expression, saying "I felt that it was a reasonable assumption that McIntyre was starting a course of legal action." For example, if a policeman tells me to "move along" it might be true that a consequence of me not moving along is that he would arrest me and perhaps the penalty could be a fine or even prison. Asking someone to "move along" is the first step to arresting someone for failing to move along. That doesn't mean that the policeman has threatened me with arrest, or with a fine, or with prison. He has simply asked (or even told) me to "move along". Personally I wouldn't then tell people I had been threatened with all these things - to me that would be an exaggeration - but I can imagine that some people might do. -
maximo at 10:06 AM on 19 July 2012It's the sun
(-Snip-) ... (-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Inflammatory snipped.
Sloganeering snipped.
-
skywatcher at 09:52 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
#182, I wonder if Gillett et al think the same about your coverage? I seriously doubt that. In the light of the observed instances of the work of others being changed in order to generate talking points, maybe I can offer some help. It is painfully evident that you and Pat Michaels seem to get the science wrong each time you talk about it! For some reason, it keeps happening even when this is pointed out to you. But that can be repaired with some learning :) Below are some resources, from which you could begin your climate education: John Mason's Two Centuries of Climate Science 10 indicators of a human fingerprint on climate A must-watch video from Richard Alley on why CO2 is the biggest control knob, really well worth an hour of your time. And that's all apart from all the evidence for those pesky signs of warming, such as observed worldwide glacier retreat, Arctic sea ice loss (on near-record levels again this year), shifting plant and animal habitats and increasing sea level rise. There are signs that weather extremes are increasing in a manner consistent with the observed enhanced hydrological cycle and a warming climate. And of course that big nasty, ocean acidification. You could pretend that all this isn't happening, but that wouldn't be very scientific. Or you could start with what the science actually says. Surely that's appealing to you, Chip? -
Tom Curtis at 08:49 AM on 19 July 2012It's the sun
maximo @995: First, the NASA video indicated that the extra energy in the thermosphere accumulated because of the solar storm dissipated in a few days. To dissipate that energy, the thermosphere had to radiate around 0.000002 W/m^2 (or less) over those few days. This has absolutely no bearing on how long it would take to dissipate the approximately 900 thousand times larger energy imbalance in the lower atmosphere due to anthropogenic effects, particularly as that energy imbalance is not a temporary (three day) storm, but an ongoing flux. Second, the graph you show only shows the density of three atmospheric gases, Molecular Oxygen (O2), Nitrogen (N2) and atomic Oxygen (O), along with the density of electrons. The atomic oxygen and electrons are formed by molecular oxygen being split by UV radiation, thereby absorbing the UV radiation. As can be seen, the relative densities of O2 and N2,ie, d(O2)/d(O2+N2) and likewise for N2, where d(x) is the density of x, are near constant in the mesosphere and below. Above the mesophere, the relative density of O2 + O, ie, d(O2 + 0)/d(O2 + O + N2), is also near constant and approximately equal to d(O2)/d(O2 + N2) in the mesosphere and below. In other words, what the graph shows is only that the relative density of O2 is reduced by the splitting of O2 into two oxygen ions by UV radiation. That has no bearing on the densities of CO2 and NO2 which are typically not split by UV radiation. Finally, I grow tired of having a discussion where I have to deduce your implied point, made with irrelevant data, and largely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. There is a name for posting claims containing no clear argument and serving only to identify that you disagree (or agree) with the OP, or subsequent discussion. It is called sloganeering, and is contrary to forum rules. Unless you begin to clearly state not only what evidence you think you are bringing, but how it relates to the thread topic and ongoing discussion, I suggest your posts simply be deleted as being in violation of the comments policy. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:21 AM on 19 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Atomant, can you explain what cumulative heat is? In my case the average high has started to drop although average lows and records highs stay flat for a while:
(click for full size) -
dana1981 at 08:14 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
scaddenp @183 - leaving out the caveats and some very important data from the figures. 'Appropriate and on the mark' is not at all how I would describe that behavior. -
scaddenp at 08:06 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Um, leaving out the caveats so the work could be misconstrued is "appropriate and on the mark"? -
scaddenp at 08:00 AM on 19 July 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
You still beg the question of why would they waste time doing this rather than work on ModelE. It's excellent that you have code working yourself. Learn all you can, but will that advance science? Will anything you learn change your mind? Or given your posting history, will you simply start looking elsewhere for some other reason for inaction? -
Daniel Bailey at 07:44 AM on 19 July 2012It's the sun
maximo, rather than continuing to be cryptic, please concisely make whatever-it-is point you are trying (and failing) to make. Unless your goal is to waste the time of others. -
maximo at 07:03 AM on 19 July 2012It's the sun
Those observed facts from NASA show the atmosphere cools in a short period of time. What exactly is confusing or goes against what you believe?. Atmospheric gases are found high up into the atmosphere 600km and the greatest concentration of them is at 25km. The average density of gases in the atmosphere is log 10 cm -3. http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2010/07/15/thermosphere.jpg -
Chip Knappenberger at 06:46 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR, Thanks for the reminder of the Gillett thread. As pointed out on that thread, I think our coverage of Gillett et al. was quite appropriate and on the mark. -Chip -
KR at 05:32 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger - Additional discussion on Gillett can be found on this thread, on a discussion you took part in. The excerpt Michaels included was incomplete, and did not mention any of the authors caveats. Including only part of the work, while leaving out vital caveats from the authors, gives a deceptively misleading impression of the work. Much as removing data from the graphs does - a misrepresentation that cherry-picks support for your talking points while ignoring (or hiding) data that contradicts them. It's simply indefensible behavior. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:21 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I see no way whatsoever to interpret the misrepresentation of data outlined in the original post as anything other than an attempt to mislead and misdirect the reader. There is simply no other way to look at it. When a man is cheating on his wife, and tells her he's "working late," well, he is working, in a purely physical sense, and he is out late, so it's not really a lie, is it? He's just leaving out certain data to emphasize, simplify and clarify, or whatever, a particular point (i.e. one that lets him cheat on his wife while saving him the pain of an expensive divorce). Any arguments to the contrary by Michaels or allies must be viewed in the same light ("Trust me, I'm not lying this time."). -
Chip Knappenberger at 04:31 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR, I think you have lost sight of the original articles and our coverage of them. Our coverage of both the Gillett et al. article and the Schmittner et al. article included large excerpts from the papers’ abstracts (where the authors summarize their main results and conclusions). The figures we used illustrated those results. -Chip -
dana1981 at 03:50 AM on 19 July 2012Vision Prize Results
Good point about the "if and when" wording in Q3. I added a bit of text to the post noting that answers may have referred to TCR or ECS, depending on how they interpreted the question. I can't recall my answer, but I suspect I said 1-2°C based on the "if and when" wording. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 02:22 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Thank you for the follow up post, Dr Karoly. It is absurd that you had to write it, given your high standing in the science community and your reputation for utmost integrity. Another one in the eye for the pseudo-science blogs that make a habit of denigrating scientists - proving your original point. -
Andy Skuce at 02:05 AM on 19 July 2012Vision Prize Results
In many ways, the last question was a policy and economics question and was therefore beyond the expertise of most of the scientists involved It does show, though, that the scientists, without exception, do not believe in any existing technological silver bullet that will solve the climate crisis without government policy changes. That should at least give pause to the "rational optimists" out there who believe that we can muddle through this problem without involving government in a major way. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:49 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Thanks for piling some weighty information on the squishy balloon of speculation we'd built here, David. The balloon has gone quite flat, with a raspberry noise. -
Albatross at 00:57 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Dr. Karoly, Thank you for posting and for clarifying. Why am I not at all surprised that in trying to attack you again, Mr. McIntyre only succeeded in proving your point about him being amongst those who promulgate misinformation about climate scientists and their work. Additionally, for someone who claims to be an "auditor" is it laughable that Mr. McIntyre was unable to determine the true fate of your article. As I have noted before, you do not owe Mr. McIntyre an apology, in fact, he owes you an apology. I expect much squirming and hand waving and obfuscating and perhaps more misrepresentations to ensue at Mr. McIntyre's blog and by his apologists. Or maybe, just maybe, he will do the honourable thing and issue you a sincere and caveat free apology? I am not holding my breath though. To quote from a recent post here at SkS: "Nil Illegitimi Carborundum" [Don't let the bastards grind you down] -
Tristan at 00:47 AM on 19 July 2012Vision Prize Results
I think Q3 was a curveball. On top of the 'how much of the 550ppm warming was already realised by 2000 dilemma', TCR assumes the doubling is a result of a steady rate of CO2 increase (1%p.a.) over ~70 years. 275 - 550 will have taken longer than 70 years wont it? That'd imply that 275-550 would be slightly higher than TCR. Furthermore, TCR is not simply the surface temp anomaly relative to 70 years prior. This is only true if all other variables are held equal. The size of the anomaly vs -70yrs is heavily influenced by what level of sulfates we're still emitting by that point. If we've cleaned up our act, the 550ppm anomaly will be likely higher than the TCR. If we're still dirty, likely lower. I don't think many people would be able to give a numerical estimate to Q3 with much confidence, but 1-2C seems by far the most likely answer according to the current state of climate science. -
dkaroly at 00:41 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
I have decided to make an additional post, although I am not sure this is wise. I will try to respond to some but not all of the many issues raised since my original post @3 nearly a week ago. 1. I received an email from Steve McIntyre claiming that I had made an “untrue and defamatory statement” about him in a book review I had written that was published in the Australian Book Review July edition. He requested that I “withdraw the allegation with an apology”. I have not replied to him. 2. As far as I can tell, the McIntyre post at CA includes an accurate copy of the email he sent me. It contains misinformation, some of which I describe below. 3. McIntyre’s email to me did not mention legal action. However, a first part of legal action on defamation in Australia is often to send a request to the author of the material, requesting that they withdraw it and apologise. Hence, I felt that it was a reasonable assumption that McIntyre was starting a course of legal action. 4. As has been noted in several responses, McIntyre’s statement in his post is wrong that a successful defamation action in Australia needs to show that “the plaintiff should have suffered actual financial damages” from the publication of the defamatory material. It is much more common that a successful defamation action shows that the published material “lowers the person's reputation in the eyes of members of the community, … or injures the person's professional reputation”. Of course, running a legal action on defamation is expensive, as is defending one. 1st example of misinformation. 5. It is much harder to prove defamation if the person making the claim publishes the material themselves. If they actually believed that the published material damaged their reputation, then they would not be distributing it. I guessed that McIntyre could not resist the temptation of published the so-called defamatory material on CA, and I guessed right. If he is to proceed with legal action against me for defamation, it will be much harder now. 6. 2nd example of misinformation. On his post, McIntyre states that I removed the article. I did no such thing. The Editor of Australian Book Review moved the online copy of my review behind the paywall at their web site, where it remains available online. Apparently, this is their common practice for a review that attracts interest. The review is also available in the print version. It has not been withdrawn. 7. Two examples of misinformation from McIntyre in one post. This appears to support what I wrote in my review. I am confident that an SkS reader will alert McIntyre to this post and that he will respond on CA. -
Bernard J. at 00:20 AM on 19 July 2012Vision Prize Results
By "refinement" I mean that future surveys might explicitly ask questions about participants' understanding of climate response, and not merely provide more categories with which third parties might attempt to infer the understanding of the respondents! -
KR at 00:16 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger - "If you (or me, or Pat) had the data available, you (or me, or Pat) could plot it up however desired along with any appropriate commentary. You (or me, or Pat) wouldn't have to alter the original figure in order to emphasize, simplify, clarify, or whatever, a particular point...having the data available to do so, would make doing so a lot easier..." (emphasis added) This is a very interesting statement, given that the data presented in papers is intended to be sufficient to show the conclusions the authors have made based on their work. If you "emphasize, simplify, clarify, or whatever" in such a fashion as to draw diametrically opposed conclusions from those authors, essentially quoting them out of context, the appropriate term would be cherry-picking. And given the reference to the originals, an implication that those authors agree with the (mis?)conclusions drawn from cherry-picked portions of their data. If you disagree with someones results, papers, conclusions, etc, then do the work. Start from your own data, do a complete paper - don't cherry-pick subsets of other folks data or white-out sections of their graphs to support conclusions that those authors do not agree with. Quoting out of context is a fallacious argument - so is presenting an edited graph that removes the conclusions of the original authors. -
Bernard J. at 00:13 AM on 19 July 2012Vision Prize Results
"I suspect, however, that most respondents would not have known the distinction between TCR and ECR; and that consequently the answer does represent the expected ECR. A significant number of respondents are, however, likely to have known the difference. The probability is that a significant portion of respondents did understand the question. If a significant number of respondents took the question to be about the TCR, that would introduce a significant low bias to the results."
I'm pleased to see this point raised immediately after the original post. My first thought on reading it was whether the figure to which Tom refers demonstrates a vaguely positive skew, which would suggest a bias toward a low estimate for ECR, and although there is a slight possibility of such the coarseness of the histogram makes fraught any reasonable non-null conclusion. Another option would be if there'd been a bimodal distribution, but again the coarseness of the categorisation makes it impossible to detect. It suggests refinement for any future survey. -
Atomant at 22:53 PM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
"Not only are we past summer's half way point, " Actually, in terms of cumulative heat we're not half way through the summer yet. -
Tom Curtis at 21:55 PM on 18 July 2012Vision Prize Results
"Remember that in 2000 we had already experienced ~0.8°C surface warming, so these answers are equivalent to 70+% of participants answering that equilibrium climate sensitivity is ~2-4°C for doubled CO2, and only about 8% answering that it's lower than ~2°C, with a further ~20% answering that sensitivity is higher than ~4°C."
Actually, the question posed was regarding the expected temperature if and when the CO2 concentration reached 550 ppmv. Technically, the temperature achieved when the atmosphere reaches a certain concentration would be the Transient Climate Response rather than the Equilibrium Climate Response. As such, the natural interpretation of a TCR of 1.8 to 3.8 C per doubling of CO2 is truly remarkable. I suspect, however, that most respondents would not have known the distinction between TCR and ECR; and that consequently the answer does represent the expected ECR. A significant number of respondents are, however, likely to have known the difference. The probability is that a significant portion of respondents did understand the question. If a significant number of respondents took the question to be about the TCR, that would introduce a significant low bias to the results. -
Tom Curtis at 21:29 PM on 18 July 2012It's the sun
maximo @993, are you still trying to beat your confusion up into an argument against global warming? Consider first your 992: The thermosphere is not "where the greenhouse gases are located". With some exceptions (Ozone, water vapour), greenhouse gases are distributed approximately equally throughout the atmosphere. That happens to mean there are some greenhouse gases (CO2 and NO2) in the thermosphere where they are too thin to have any appreciable effect on the greenhouse effect. However, because the can radiate in the InfraRed spectrum, they are the primary means of radiating away the heat absorbed in the thermosphere by collisions with solar particles. On to 993: Actually about 70% of solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth, lower atmosphere (troposphere) and stratosphere. Virtually none is absorbed by the thermosphere. However, the energy from the solar storms is largely absorbed by the thermosphere, from which 95% is radiated to space, and only 5% radiated towards the surface according to the NASA video you linked to. -
maximo at 21:15 PM on 18 July 2012It's the sun
Solar radiation is not limited to the thermosphere, about half the solar radiation is absorbed by the Earths surface and warms it. -
cynicus at 20:35 PM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
The choice for the baseline of 1951-1980 is simple. James Hansen and GISS are in-business a long time and 1951-1980 is the first climatological period before their first product. They always use the same baseline because it's useful as you can directly compare results from different studies when they all use the same baseline. Finally, the choice of baseline period has no impact on the conclusions. If they would have used the last 30 years as baseline the result would be that the 50's were much colder then today, which is the same result as saying that now is much warmer then the 50's. Or, in Hansen's own words: "The GISS analysis uses 1951–1980 as the base period. The United States National Weather Service uses a 3 decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. When we began our global temperature analyses and comparisons with climate models, that climatology period was 1951–1980. There is considerable merit in keeping the base period fixed, including the fact that many graphs have been published with that choice for climatology. Besides, a different base period only alters the zero point for anomalies, without changing the magnitude of the temperature change over any given period. Note also that many of today’s adults grew up during that period, so they can remember what climate was like then. Finally, the data for a base period must have good global coverage, which eliminates periods prior to the 1950s." -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:16 PM on 18 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
@angusmac, I am always amazed at some peoples ability to misconstrue scientific data. Yes, we could indeed have used a density based plot, however it only requires common sense and a basic understanding of what a GCM actually does to realise that the grey area doesn't imply uniform denisty. The funny thing is that the figure from AR4 that you prefer is far less easily understood. For a start the error bars are not error bars on where we should reasonably expect to see the observations, just an indication of the plausible range for the linear trend. have pointed this out to you, but you have not responded to that at any point. However, on the other thread, you have repeatedly ignored a key issue relating to the uncertainty of the predictions, so it seems to me that your continued quibbling about this diagram is merely a distraction. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:01 PM on 18 July 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
@angusmac If you write "Your response that, "Hansen's projections do a pretty good job," probably illustrates the difference between a scientist and an engineer." can only be sensibly parsed as implying that you think I am a scientist. However, as it happens, my point stands, a good engineer and a good scientist would both make sure they fully understood the key issues before making pronouncements and neither would rely on a rule of thumb when a proper statistical analysis were possible. In your posts you continue to fail to apply the science. You are still failing to engage with the point that we only have one realisation of a chaotic process, from which it is not possible to adequately characterise the reasonable level of uncertainty of the model projections. There is little point in discussing this with you further as you obviously are not listening. BTW your 1.64 standard deviation test suggests a rather biased view. You talk about wastage of scarse resources, but fail to mention the costs should the model under-predict the observations. A good engineer would choose a test that balanced both. You are aware that in 1998 the observations were closer to the upper 2 sigma boundary than they are now to the lower one? Why weren't the skeptics complaining about the inaccuracy of the models then, I wonder?... -
garethman at 19:58 PM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
@John #19 Thanks John, I took your advice last year and built a polytunnel, but the outside crops except for Brassicas and potatoes have been pretty grim. Farmers in the UK are pointing out that huge amounts of crops are being written off due to the cold wet weather which will have an inevitable effect on price and supply. Good to hear the jet stream is shifting back to it’s normal situation, however climate change has not stopped and expect it to return to it southerly route and drop us once more into wet and below normal temps. I have read that as the Arctic melts this is one of the effects we can expect, this is climate change in action for us in the North East Atlantic, but not the effect many had expected. -
Tom Curtis at 19:41 PM on 18 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
angusmac @29, before making such absurd statements about Hansen 88, you should read the paper. In particular you should read section 5.1 of the paper (reproduced below, for a larger copy, click on the image):
You will note that Hansen explicitly states that "Interpretation of [the graph of the projections for scenarios A, B, and C] requires quantification of the magnitude of natural variability in both the model and observations and the uncertainty in the measurements."
This represents a categorical rejection of any interpretation of the model projections as "statements of certainty". The only reasonable way in which you could be this wrong is if you have simply failed to read the paper you are misinterpreting.
As it happens, Hansen finds that the standard deviation of natural variability is 0.13 C, while that of the measurements is 0.05 C. For our purposes, that means the 2 sigma error bars for the model projections is +/- 0.27 C. This does not mean the projections are those graphed, plus or minus 0.27 C. Because each projection represents a single model run, there is no reason to think the projection follows the model mean. At any point, it may be 0.22 C [edited: two standard deviations] of model variability) above or below the model mean, and indeed, one twentieth of the time will be even further from the mean. That means the model is not falsified if any band of temperatures 0.54 C wide and including 19/20 values in a projection also includes the actual temperatures. This, I would agree, is an unsatisfactory test, but that is the limitation imposed by limited computational power and single model runs. As it happens, it is borderline as to whether scenario A fails that test, and certainly neither Scenario B or C fail it at present. Given the known flaws in the model, that is remarkable.
Hansen knew the limitations of his experiment, and so developed a test which was not restricted by the fact that he could not do sufficient model runs. He calculated that a temperature increase of 0.4 C would exceed the 1951-1980 mean by three standard deviations, thereby representing a statistically significant test or warming. He predicted that test would be satisfied in the 1990s, which indeed it was.
Finally, skywatcher @30 has exposed the extent of your out of context quotation from Hansen (2005). I have a very low opinion of those who deliberately quote out of context - so low that I cannot describe it withing the confines of the comments policy. Suffice to say that if the out of context quotation is deliberate, I will no longer trust you, even should you say the sky is blue. If, however, it was inadvertent, I will expect your apology for accidentally deceiving us immediately.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:53 PM on 18 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #28
curiousd, probably the most effective way you could direct your money for that purpose at the moment is towards solar cookers in India. One possible route for such donations is PRINCE. However, I found their website by a google search,and cannot guarantee their bona fides. Alternatively, contact any major charitable organization which assists with developmental aid, such as World Vision. Ask them what options they have in this regard. If you wish to do the research on available options, giving some guide to the reliability of the charity, and what portion of charitable donations go on administration costs, I very certain SkS would be happy to host the resulting article. -
curiousd at 18:11 PM on 18 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #28
I have an idea I would like to discuss, about how to fund renewable energy sources in a new way. Is there anyplace here I can appropriately discuss this, without being deleted? If not, where to go? Basically I want to contribute to a particular kind of charity that would help reduce CO2 emissions but no such charity exists and I would like to find out why. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:09 PM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Tlitb1, all I can really offer to your points is that CSLDF organization is presently an all-volunteer outfit numbering only three part-time workers; without meaning to sound snide, if some of us in the wider world strongly believe some improvements can be made then it seems incumbent on us to volunteer either by making suggestions or offering labor. There's a contact page on CSLDF's site and that would probably be the best place to start. That, or contribute money to help CSLDF hire some staff support! -
curiousd at 18:04 PM on 18 July 2012Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
Regarding Glenn Tamblyn 14; "What to do?" Comments desired on the following: 1. U.S. citizens pay out about $1,000 per capita per year for various charities. 2. All over the place I see well meaning folks straining conditions in , say, New England, to make their own self sustaining home..say online solar plus geothermal. But as for me 3. Why is there no charity I can contribute to for constructing soneone else a renewable energy source where it would do the most good? I can envision some variant of Habitat for Humanity focussed on installing solar in Arizona or people banding together to sponsor a windmill in the Gobi desert. Starting small, this could become big time....hundreds of billions of dollars. Then people living in Chicago high rises could donate money for renewables that are impractical for Chicago high rises? Why is there no such charity? Why? -
tlitb1 at 16:55 PM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
doug_bostrom at 09:42 AM on 18 July, 2012I don't see a problem, other than the "Campaigns" description might do equally well in the About Us page. I probably should have included all of this in the original article. Sorry about that.
No need to apologise I had no problem finding my way to the CSLDF page via your link and read all I could. As I said found it be rather sparse. In fact you reminded me of another part of interest in CSLDF. When I first asked whether other litigants were being supported by CDSL, I quoted the key section in the campaigns page you quoted:Currently several climate scientists have litigation in the courts.
I asked since the association with CSLDF of those several litigants seemed passively worded to me on that page. You replied:Regarding people directly benefiting from CSLDF assistance, so far the roster includes Mann, Hayhoe, Dessler.
I would suggest a further detailing of these other ongoing cases would be an ideal addition to lend more information. Currently the "Press" page currently only has 9 old references which refer to Cuccinelli's pursuit of the inquiry into grant money used by Michael Mann. Back in September 2011 Scott Mandia is quoted in one of those press cuttings (thinkprogress) as saying:All funds that are in excess of those currently needed for Dr. Mann will be placed into this entity for future use defending other scientists.
If it is the case and the excess funds are now being used to support other scientists then, regarding suggestions for improvements or updates to the CSLDF site, I would suggest this fact should be made evident to help show some progress of the organisation since September last year. -
angusmac at 16:23 PM on 18 July 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
Dikran Marsupial @82 (or should I say Gavin). I have been aware of your qualifications since my post @76. My comment regarding the difference between an engineer and scientist should not be construed as personal. It was meant to illustrate the difference between scientists (who carry out research and derive physical laws) and engineers (who use these physical laws to build things). In other words, engineers are involved in the appliance of science. Regarding good or bad engineering, let's assume that the temperature chart is analogous to wind speed. Now, engineers design structures for the 95-percentile (1.64σ) value to prevent collapse under loading, e.g. 50-year wind loading. This loading is derived from the existing wind climate records. However, these records may not apply to the next 50 or 100 years. Consequently, engineers would need to design structures for the projected (mean + 1.64σ) values determined by climate models. However, actual values are skirting the projected (mean - 2σ) levels and, if this trend continued, engineers could safely. design for the projected mean alone, i.e., approximately actual (mean + 1.64σ) values. This would result in huge savings in construction materials (circa 60%). I suggest that designing to the lower actual (mean + 1.64σ) level would be good engineering practice. I, for one, cannot condone the wastage of scarce resources which would be incurred by designing to the higher projected (mean + 1.64σ) level but, until the models become more accurate, this is what engineers will be forced to do. Regarding your penultimate paragraph "hubris". I don't think that I was being hubristic (having lost contact with reality or being overconfidently arrogant) when l stated that the parameterisations (rules of thumb) should be reassessed. Some models cannot even agree on the sign of these rules of thumb, e.g. cloud feedback. I am glad to hear that modellers are constantly revisiting the physics and I look forward to the day when there is much closer agreement between the models - presumably due to fewer differences in the individual models' rules of thumb (parameterisations). -
skywatcher at 15:57 PM on 18 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
#29, I was motivated to actually check the source of one of your fragmentary statements. This is what I found. Hansen, making a model-observation check in 2005:Curiously, the scenario that we described as most realistic is so far turning out to be almost dead on the money. Such close agreement is fortuitous. For example, the model used in 1988 had a sensitivity of 4.2°C for doubled CO2, but our best estimate for true climate sensitivity[2] is closer to 3°C for doubled CO2. There are various other uncertain factors that can make the warming larger or smaller[3]. But it is becoming clear that our prediction was in the right ballpark.
In 2005, the observed temperature was, as it had been doing for the preceding six years, following Scenario B closely (Figure 1 in Hansen's piece). In 2005, it was ever so slightly above the B scenario; 2004 a little below, and 2003 almost exactly on the same value. These observations did not require elucidation of errors, they were a comparison of observations to a specific model, and the observations at that time merited "almost dead on the money. Hansen also goes on to say that was lucky in this, as his sensitivity was too high and other factors weren't included. But the 2005 'dead on the money' quote, when placed into context is correct. Its context is 2005, not 2012, where the fortuitous circumstances that allowed Hansen to make the above statement no longer apply. -
angusmac at 15:27 PM on 18 July 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
scaddenp @79 and Dikran Marsupial @80 May I summarise your responses as GISS had a lack of time to re-run Model II and I respond as follows:- I have downloaded Model II and the EdGCM version.
- Mark Chandler and his team should be congratulated for providing an excellent user-friendly interface to Model II. Only experienced FORTRAN programmers will understand the original Model II source code.
- A typical simulation run from 1958 to 2020 takes approximately 3-4 hours on my laptop but, more importantly, the simulation works in the background and therefore you can work normally whilst the GCM is running.
-
angusmac at 15:01 PM on 18 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Tom Curtis @26 & 27 Could you please elucidate regarding Hansen and the 2-sigma levels. I have already shown in SkS here @78 that the Hansen 1988 projections were statements of certainty. No mention of error bars in Hansen (2005) "almost dead on the money" or Schmidt (2011) "10% high". Your comments would be appreciated. Furthermore, my Figure 1 shows real-world temperatures are at the low end of the AR4 Commitment Scenario. Your comments would also be appreciated. -
angusmac at 14:59 PM on 18 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Dikran Marsupial @24 & 25 When I said that the grey hides the 2-sigma trend in Figure 2 perhaps I should have been more explicit. The uniform grey shading implies a uniform probability of occurrence but what I should have stated is that a contour diagram similar to that below shows the probability distribution much better.
Source: AR4 Figure 6.10c (IPCC, 2007)
If Figure 2 had used percentile contours (as in the above diagram) then it would be evident that the 2-sigma values would be the lines at the extremities of the diagram and that most of the model runs would be near to the mean.
-
skywatcher at 13:41 PM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Eric #30, to me, it crucially depends on the question. If the question is: "How does variability in 1955, 1965 and 1975 compare to variability in the 1981-2010 period?", then Hansen's Figure 3 is your friend, and is the correct use of standard deviation (1981-2010); I agree with Hansen's consistent use of 1951-1980 as a fixed baseline period from which to compare more recent changes. Alternatively, for: "How does variability in 2006-2011 compare to variability in the 1951-1980 period?", then Hansen's Figure 6 is your friend. Here, the 'base' variability is 1951-1980, and we see how recent years fare on that scale. Both are (slightly) different, and both perfectly valid, depending on the question. I suspect Figure 6 is land-only as they consider the 1951-1980 marine data not as good for baselining as the 1981-2010 period (from text bottom of p7). For the land areas, we can actually see the difference the sd's make by comparing Figure 3 and Figure 6. We may well agree quite a lot, but only, I think, if you'll agree (in contrast to your earlier statements), that there is excellent global-scale evidence for heatwaves to have increased both in frequency and in intensity. The evidence is pretty plain in Figures 1 and 5 of the Hansen paper. -
CRV9 at 13:10 PM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
@23.Paul D at 04:42 AM on 18 July, 2012 I don't know what do you mean but I think it works like this. Refrigirant takes heat/heat exchange, like water evaporation, from the inside of a fridge. And it carrys to out side in the back of the fridge then releases the heat/heat transfer, like water vapor becoming rain. Electrocity is used to run a pump to circulate the refrigirant and the electric pump gets hot when it is running. So if you leave the fridge door open on a hot summer day, cool air inside cancels out hot air in the back of the fridge. And heat from the electric motor pump would warm up your room, I think. I don't think it is quite same as "a gradual increase in energy in the climate system, from green house gases.", though. -
JohnMashey at 12:41 PM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
The point is: 1) ATI seems to exist to litigate. 2) Cuccinelli&Ruseell seem to exist to litigate. 3) But for CSLDF, it may be necessary, but it's not the primary purpose. -
michael sweet at 12:18 PM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Eric (skeptic), It is good that you have dropped your false standard of the 1950's being "cold". Your suggestion for moving the baseline is completely incorrect. Hansen is comparing temperature distributions from 1950 to the current distribution. Hanson has used a 1950-80 baseline for comparison ever since 1980. Why should he change to a period where the temperatures have gone up an additional .4C? The data I linked shows that in 1950 the temperature had already risen by about 0.5C from 1880. Your suggestion to continually raise the baseline artificially hides the increase in temperatures. Why would you use the hottest temperatures in the past 2,000 years as your baseline for measuring an increase??? I noticed a recent post at WUWT that used a baseline of 1980-2010 to hide the increase in temperatures in this way. Have you complained to them about their misuse of the baseline? Suggesting "the old climate normal of 1971-2000" is simply uninformed. This is only "normal" on skeptic sites who are trying to fool people who do not understand the data. Perhaps you should change your handle to Eric (credulous) since you believe anything you see on the "skeptic" sites without any supporting data. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:17 PM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
skywatcher, you are right about the baseline not mattering when depicting plain old anomalies. But Hansen et al show anomalies in fig 3 using the 1981-2010 std deviations as units, not simply temperature anomalies. In fig 6 they used the 1951-80 standard deviations. I am really not sure which depiction if any shown is most valid. I would have depicted the broadest baseline and standard deviations from that. My dilemma may be resolved by fig 4 which shows my preferred distributions in the right hand column. When using standard deviations, the baseline period does matter. I think you and I may agree on weather more than you suspect. I was trying to point out that the reason there are more extremes is that AGW creates them from existing patterns. What would have otherwise been a heat wave becomes an extreme heat wave. There is no resolution yet on pattern changes from AGW. The flattening distribution is evidence in that direction but not conclusive. sauerj, I'm not sure about the article, but I claimed above that El Nino will shift the jet stream south and bring relief to the continental US (at first only some parts). The El Nino will also raise global temperatures next year if it continues, but may or may not raise US summer temperatures (really strong -> yes, not strong -> no).
Prev 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 Next
