Recent Comments

Prev  1145  1146  1147  1148  1149  1150  1151  1152  1153  1154  1155  1156  1157  1158  1159  1160  Next

Comments 57601 to 57650:

57601. Dave123 at 23:47 PM on 23 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       Ross McKittrick is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance Declaration: WHAT WE BELIEVE We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries. WHAT WE DENY We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty. We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression. Signature page I do not consider it an ad homenim attack when someone publicly declares that his mind is made up, and he cannot be confused by the facts. Why should any University accept any work by McKittrick as a serious work of scholarship, as opposed to theologically motivated propaganda?
57602. Dikran Marsupial at 22:30 PM on 23 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       @angusmac in your opinion, how close an agreement should we expect to see between a "good" projection and the observations? I ask this because the model projections are necessarily only a projection of the forced component of climate, whereas the observations are the results of both the forced component and an unforced component (i.e. "weather noise"). So even if the models project the forced component perfectly, the projection will still be expected to differ from the observations. In 1988, Hansen didn't have the computing power to also estimate the error bars on the projections, but assessment of model skill still needs to be dependent on the inherent uncertainties. My question is intended to determine whether your expectations of the projections are reasonable, and on what basis you decide whether a projection is good or bad.
57603. angusmac at 21:38 PM on 23 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Moderator@47 thank for the off-topic clarification. Dana@33 (also Tom Curtis@34 & Sphaerica@35) I am not missing the point regarding Scenario C being the best fit for actual temperatures – whether coincidental or not. Nevertheless, instead of using the "incorrect" Scenario C , I shall try to explain by using Dana's amendment to Scenario B, which I will call Scenario D. In Scenario D, Dana multiplies the Scenario B data by a factor of (0.9*3/4.2), which equates to temperature sensitivity of 2.7°C. I assume that the Scenario D multiplication factor is based on the approximation in Schmidt (2009). The resulting temperatures are compared with Hansen's projections in Figure 1 (see SkS for the Scenario D data and GISS for real-world temperatures). Figure 1: Hansen's 1988 Scenarios compared with Real-world Temperatures It is evident from Figure 1 that the differences between Scenarios A and B and the "correct" Scenario D are huge. They certainly are not small, nor are they of the order of 10% as stated in RealClimate (2011). I summarise the conclusions from the scenarios and the real-world data compared with Hansen (1988) as follows:
       • Temperature projections for 2019 have plummeted from 1.57°C in 1988 (Scenario A) to 0.69°C in 2011 (Scenario D).
       • Estimates of actual temperature (LOTI) for 2012 are in error by ≈ 60% for Scenario B and 127% for Scenario A.
       • Climate sensitivity has fallen from ≈ 4.2°C to ≈ 2.1-2.7°C, i.e., it has fallen to 50-64% of Hansen's 1988 estimates.
       The above errors do not represent pretty good estimates. They are actually pretty bad and I look forward to SkS's defence of these bad results.
57604. angusmac at 18:49 PM on 23 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Tom Curtis@34 & Sphaerica@35 I apologise if you find the term "SkS faithful" condescending but at least it is not abusive in the way that the term "denialist" is. Yet, "denialist" frequently populates SkS. Furthermore, if you check the synonyms for "faithful" from the Cambridge Dictionary here and shown below for ease of reference they suggest, "as-good-as-your-word, reliable, consistency". There is nothing condescending in the above synonyms for "faithful". To the contrary the term "denialist" is objectionable and insulting when applied to someone who has valid but contrary scientific views. It is most objectionable when applied to climate change sceptics because it conjures up the spectacle of a fanatic denying the Holocaust. To call someone who is sceptical about a theory, e.g., AGW, a "denialist" is an insult to the way that real science works. Notwithstanding the above, neither Tom nor Sphaerica called me a "denialist", although Sphaerica did suggest that I post on WUWT. No thanks Sphaerica. In my occasional posts, I prefer to try to advance rational scientific debate on this site.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] A common rhetorical device used by skeptics in the climate debate is to portray the mainstream view as a religion with followers blindly acting on faith rather than rationally. Thus talking of the "SkS faithfull" is likely to be inflamatory, as is "denialist" (as noted in the comments policy). Please let us all avoid the use of either term (or variants) in the interest of productive discussion of the science. Further discussion of the meanings of "faithful" and "denialist" are off-topic and will be deleted.
57605. Riccardo at 18:37 PM on 23 June 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #24
       I've not much to say to someone who frame the discourse politically and then claim that science is held hostage. This is exactly what he's trying to do and what the scientists are fighting against.
57606. adamski5807 at 17:19 PM on 23 June 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #24
       Soundoff - I am sick of this line of attack. Garth Paltridge's puff piece shows how capitalists genuinely fear AGW, not because of the devastation that they KNOW is more and more likely to occur the more we pollute, but rather the changes in social relations, hierarchy, decision making and power. Challenging the current economic model is a challenge to neo-liberial laissez-faire capitalists like Paltridge where the principles and laws of science must be bypassed, ignored or even suspended to protect faith based beliefs. A post modernist claiming post modernist science?? Pathetic.
57607. Chris McGrath at 16:27 PM on 23 June 2012
       Ten Things I Learned in the Climate Lab
       As I understand RCP 8.5, it is based on burning pretty well all of the globes' recoverable fossil fuels. Speaking from an Australian perspective (I am in the State of Queensland which has a lot of coal and CSG), burning all our fossil fuels irrespective of whether CCS is ever viable is pretty well the accepted paradigm from government, industry and the community. We (i.e. the State of Queensland) have something like 150 years of coal at current production rates (of 200 Mt/yr) and some truly enormous new mines being proposed, plus enormous CSG development. We plan to dig it all up and allow it to be burnt here or overseas. Our national and state governments, not to mention the mining and CSG industries, are fully committed to this future. While we soon will have a small price on direct carbon emissions in Australia (although no price on emissions from coal and CSG exports) our main strategy seems to be to postpone any major reduction in emissions for decades (we have a target of an 80% reduction by 2050, which is punting it well down the track for future governments to deal with). With great sadness I think that, based on the current political discourse in Australia and looking at what is happening globally, at present RCP 8.5 is a realistic future.
57608. tomgraywind2 at 12:08 PM on 23 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       #18 SoundOff Yes, UWIG (whose name has been changed to Utility Wind Integration Group) is an excellent source for factual information, in as much detail as anyone could want, about utility integration of wind power. Readers should be sure to use www.uwig.org and not just uwig.org to access it, as for some odd reason the latter will not work. See especially the Variable Generation Integration Library in the left column of the page--it contains many high-quality technical papers on the topic.--Tom Gray
57609. tomgraywind2 at 12:02 PM on 23 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       #26 Lowcarbonkid It is also wind's misfortune to be the first major energy technology to come along after the advent of the Internet, which allows misinformation to spread at the speed of light, and everyone to become a publisher. Virtually every local anti-wind group in the world has a website that gathers and shares misinformation from all other anti-wind websites.--Tom Gray
57610. tomgraywind2 at 11:57 AM on 23 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       #9 MarkR Yes, wind technology has improved dramatically since the 1980s, and I agree this probably accounts for the difference in EROI. There is a significant advantage to larger scale--since A equals pi x r squared, a small addition to blade length means a large addition to rotor swept area--and today's larger machines take advantage of that. Also, taller turbines can harvest enough additional energy from the more energetic winds higher off the ground to more than pay for the extra tower cost. There have been many, many incremental technology improvements, but those are two of the big ones.--Tom Gray
57611. tomgraywind2 at 11:49 AM on 23 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       #8 Rob Honeycutt, I think your impression that there is a mismatch between established energy industries and emerging ones in terms of resources is correct. Not too long ago, I saw a brief report that said the advertising by a single large U.S. oil company for a quarter was larger than the advertising spending by all of the U.S. renewable energy industries put together for an entire year. It's hard to overstate the difficulties this poses, though I'm sure they are familiar to those working in the climate communications field.--Tom Gray
57612. tomgraywind2 at 11:44 AM on 23 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       I'm a consultant and do some work (in communications) for the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). In that capacity, I spend much of the time responding to, shall we say, "wind detractors"--many of them writing under the banner of the same groups and outlets that feature climate deniers. Quite a relief to come here and find a largely fact-based discussion, so thanks. EROI is not something that gets a ton of attention in the detractor-sphere, but wind's supposed inability to reduce emissions comes up fairly regularly. You can see AWEA's response to the Argonne study (the one that looks only at Illinois in isolation) here: Fact check: Coverage of Argonne wind and emissions study flawed, June 1, 2012.--Tom Gray
57613. climatehawk1 at 10:56 AM on 23 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       @6 Mark R, What the citation from ORNL actually says is that the thermal energy in a ton of coal is equivalent to 6,152 kWh. About two thirds of that thermal energy is lost during the generation of electricity--the actual output from coal-fired generation is roughly 2,000 kWh per ton (making it easy to remember).
57614. SoundOff at 10:24 AM on 23 June 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #24
       Here’s an article that ran today and that really raised my ire. Perhaps someone at SkS has the energy to respond to it. Science held hostage in climate debate – a Financial Review article by Garth Paltridge
57615. Bob Lacatena at 10:20 AM on 23 June 2012
       Ten Things I Learned in the Climate Lab
       It's nice to hear from the troops in the trenches! A lot of people could learn a lot from hearing about what it's like to actually work with climate models (as opposed to the vacuous, echo-chamber pseudo-understanding that most people have of climate models). I look forward to seeing more posts (with maybe more detail, and an anecdote or two) like this one.
57616. Bob Lacatena at 07:24 AM on 23 June 2012
       Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
       vroomie, And yet both Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer continue to pursue it. What does that tell you?
57617. vrooomie at 02:50 AM on 23 June 2012
       Ten Things I Learned in the Climate Lab
       It is indeed the permafrost "issue" that worries me the most: I've a few colleagues who study this and if the decomposition of permafrost, and chlathrates, continue and/or accelerate, my tummy begins to ache a bit too. I'm a scientist: Hope springs eternal.
57618. vrooomie at 02:32 AM on 23 June 2012
       Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
       As Spock would say, "Fascinating." I'm reading this article in June 2012, quite a while after the BEST study was published (*deliciously* funded by the uber-deniers, the Koch Bros) and as such, it all looks a bit....not sure of the word. Suffice it to say, the results of the BEST paper, coupled with its funding source, have essentially laid the UHI effect, at least as a proximate cause of all GW, to its deserved rest, rendering it useless as a viable "fact" for the deniers' pursuit of any small crumb thay can latch onto, to reject all of the published science on AGW. I love it when a plan comes together....;)
       Moderator Response: [DB] Hot-linked quote. :)
57619. dana1981 at 01:50 AM on 23 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Rob @41 - yes, climate contrarians only seem interested in concluding 'Hansen was wrong', hence the final two paragraphs of the above post. Of course he was 'wrong' because all models are 'wrong', but his results are also useful in telling us climate sensitivity is in the ballpark of 3°C. However, I'd describe the study as Hansen trying to model the global climate as best as he could at the time, and then seeing how his model would project future climate changes, temperature changes being the main focus of those projections. The fact that he projected too much warming is a result of the model sensitivity being too high, which is a result of the model being an imperfect representation of the climate. Models will of course always be imperfect, but they have also improved dramatically over the past nearly quarter century.
57620. Daniel Bailey at 21:41 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Indeed. My first computer of that era, a Commodore-64^®, had an available free RAM of just 37k. Despite this limitation, software engineers compiled very playable game code (for what other commercial purpose yields so much potential revenue?) for games still playable today (just today I learned that the old C-64 staple, Sword of Fargoal, is now available for the Iphone!).
57621. Eric (skeptic) at 21:30 PM on 22 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       My biggest problem is on a conservative forum that I have been on for 13 years. I pick the worst of the misunderstandings, often repeated by the same commentors, and try to chip away at those. The number one problem is debates on fundamentals (e.g. GHG physics) being presented as mainstream scientific controversy. The presence of fringe controversy is a fact and strength of science, but it is obviously being badly misused. Some of those posters are knowing disinformation trolls, but some are not. I don't assume anything, just try to post facts. I also post about what I believe to be legitimate scientific controversy such as some aspects that I have argued on this forum.
57622. Tom Curtis at 20:42 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       The unzipped source code, it turns out, is all of 284 kbs. Despite this small size, when run in 1983 it took up to much computer time to do a full repeat run when the memory was corrupted during one experiment (see the caption of fig 3 (PDF)). Remembering the limited computer capacity of those days is making me feel old.
57623. Tom Curtis at 20:29 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       For anyone who actually wants to run the GISS model II, the source code is still available online here.
57624. JimmyB at 19:45 PM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       (inflammatory snipped; link without discussion snipped)
       Moderator Response: TC: Compliance with the comments policy is not optional for anyone. Please read it and comply to avoid future moderation. Please note that links (and URL's) should be accompanied by discussion which provides an indication of the contents of the link; and that inflammatory language is not permitted.
57625. Paul D at 17:36 PM on 22 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       Lowcarbonkid, can you post a link to that Grantham Inst study?
57626. scaddenp at 15:22 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       iphone - dunno. You have to get Fortran working. (GCM Model 2 I think). I think Android and gfortran would be easier. On the other hand, its "maintained" on OS X, intel compiler. I should admit right away that I dont even own a smart phone and have never seriously looked at developing on one. On the other hand, the specs for computer in 1988 compared to smart phone are pretty good.
57627. Rob Honeycutt at 15:11 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       I've been arguing with someone about Hansen's paper over on Peter Sinclair's YT channel for days now. The only thing I can get is that the only point they want to make is that Hansen was wrong. Whatever it takes, he was wrong. And he was wrong... in using 4.2C for climate sensitivity. After that his model works pretty well. It seems lost on people that Hansen was not trying to model CS. He was modeling temperature, so adjusting the CS to see how the model is performing is reasonable.
57628. Rob Honeycutt at 15:00 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Ooooh, scaddenp! Now there is an iPhone app I'd like to have!
57629. scaddenp at 14:37 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       I find it hard to really comprehend what they are getting at. Are they saying that they favour Hansen's 4.2 sensitivity and thus arguing forcing must be Scenario C (when clearly they are not). Or simply arguing that Hansen had sensitivity too high (which you could see without Scenario C being there) which is generally agreed. Or arguing that the issues with Hansen's 1988 model (which they could probably run on their phone these days) conclusively disprove climate science for all time and we go back to putting more coal on the fire.
57630. Rob Honeycutt at 14:25 PM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Dana @ 33... I think you're exactly right about scenario C. It's a big distraction because nothing close to that happened in terms of forcing. It would be reasonable to just pretend it's not even there. It's well accepted that scenario B is the closest to Hansen's forcing projections. That leaves you with a GISS temperature trend that is below scenario B at Hansen's 4.2C for CS. And even in Hansen's paper he mentions the fact that the NAS had estimated CS at 3C. So, it seems pretty darn logical to adjust Hansen's model for 3C, because it's not the forcing we're trying to rationalize, it's Hansen's model. Do that and you get a close match between GISS and Hansen's projections. I really fail to see why this is so hard for skeptics to comprehend.
57631. DSL at 12:39 PM on 22 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       Various news site threads attached to articles on GW. It's like trench warfare in cyberspace. Yet it's also an opportunity to model a better way of communicating that draws a mighty contrast to the mass of condemnatory one-liners filled with beautiful frankenwords like "libtard." I'm professionally interested in how misinformation spreads--how it changes, the rapidity of the spread of a meme, how entrenched the beliefs are, etc. Comment streams are a rich source of information, even when trolled by the apparatchiks of opinion-making organizations. It's kind of a game for me, even though there are real-world implications. I pick a few commenters who seem badly misinformed and belligerent, and I work them patiently, evenly-keeled, until I get them to start asking questions and admit that neither of us has a handle on absolute truth, but that a blanket condemnation is clearly a bad idea. One common starting point presents itself when people say things like "the climate has been changing for millions of years." I ask, "how do you know that?" And that, of course, presents a lovely paradox for them. Some never respond. Some crack open their can of critical thinking just a little and admit the situation is not as simple as "all climate scientists are liberal commies and frauds (climategate proves it!)."
57632. Tom Curtis at 11:05 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       dana @36, you are correct. I mistakenly reported the trends from 1958-2011. Correcting to report the trends from 1979-2010 to make them directly comparable with Foster and Rahmstorf, they are: A - 0.32 C/decade B - 0.27 C/decade C - 0.22 C/decade which shows the point I made in the final paragraph of my preceding post to be completely incorrect. Thank you for correcting my error.
57633. dana1981 at 10:21 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Tom @36 - the Scenario B trend is closer to 0.27°C/decade. Account for the forcing being 16% higher than reality and the sensitivity being about 40% higher than the current best estimate, and you get the observed 0.17°C/decade.
57634. Tom Smerling at 10:04 AM on 22 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       I find many of the comments here refreshing, and am eager to hear more from thoughtful conservatives/libertarians on this topic. DSL@28 Where are the other threads "around the nets" you mention?. BTW, in addition to Adler, Wehner, Fumento, et al, theres' a list (with links) of libertarian's who take climate seriously at bullet #5 at "Toward a Productive Libertarian View on Climate...etc." and some interesting links in the Wikipedia entry for "Green Libertarianism" -- a phrase I just heard for the first time. Of course, there are also several related threads right here on SkS.
57635. Bob Lacatena at 09:37 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       angusmac, Like Fred, you completely miss the point and oversimplify the issue, then you fail to understand the distinctions when they are pointed out to you (as evidenced by the thread to which you pointed), and then you accuse everyone else of duplicity because you can't seem to understand the nuances. Stop oversimplifying things. Read and understand the posts. As an aside, phrases like "the SkS faithful," while otherwise not endearing you to anyone who disagrees with you (if you want to speak like that, go post with the WUWT your brethren on WUWT) also skirts close to the edge of the comments policy.
57636. Tom Curtis at 08:03 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Angusmac @31, as one of the "SkS faithful" (a condescending term I object to) I note that you actually wrote:

       "Illuminating post Dana but you neglect to mention that Hansen's Scenario C actually gives the best fit to the GISS temperature data, not Scenario B."

       (My emphasis) I responded by showing that Dana had shown that temperatures tracked Scenario C best (contrary to your claim), but that if the predictions where scaled based on the ratio between the climate sensitivity of Hansen's original model and the mean of modern accepted values, temperatures track Scenario B - a point you do not acknowledge. That is an interesting point. What is neglected by deniers in their continuous attacks on Hansen 88 is that modern estimates of climate sensitivity have already been adjusted down relative to that model. Indeed, they where adjusted down in 1998 when temperatures where tracking well above scenario B even though forcings at that time where tracking below scenario C. That is because climate scientists look at the full range of data, and do not restrict themselves to try and falsify the whole theory based on the performance of an obsolete model from twenty five years ago. Interestingly, that obsolete model is still doing much better than it is given credit for. Currently GHG forcings are tracking almost exactly half way between Scenario C and Scenario B (see OP). The Scenario C prediction has a linear trend of 0.15 C/decade. The Scenario B prediction has a linear trend of 0.19 C/decade. Based on the ratio of forcings, therefore, we would expect temperatures to be tracking at about 0.17 C per decade. It turns out, once you correct for ENSO and the declining insolation over the last 30 years (not included in Hansen's forcings), that is exactly where the temperature is tracking:
57637. shoyemore at 07:18 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       I read the U of Guelph press release on the McKittrick paper, and I have to say it made me laugh. An economist claiming that his "simple economic model" made better predictions that a physical model... alarms bells ring straight away. It screams "cherry picking!". Just look at how succesful "simple sconomic models" have been in predicting what they are supposed to predict - the economy.
57638. cynicus at 06:07 AM on 22 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       @16 Paul D, yes, the cited paper was his PhD thesis, he has quite a list of publications but only few after having received his PhD. Afaik Bart currently works in offshore engineering at Siemens Wind Power A/S.
57639. Bob Lacatena at 04:38 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       I'm curious... who owns the UAH computer code? I understand that a university would not want to step on a researcher's toes in that regard, but could UAH step in and make the satellite interpretation code available, if necessary against Christy's and Spencer's wishes?
57640. dana1981 at 04:25 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Fred Staples and angusmac - you're being distracted by curve C. Scenario C did not come to fruition, so focusing on that scenario becomes a red herring. It's true that coincidentally, temperatures have risen at a rate similar to Scenario C so far. But you're drawing the wrong conclusions from that. The main reason temperatures are following C is that Hansen's model was probably too sensitive to CO2 changes. If his model had a sensitivity of around 3°C, Scenario B would have accurately reflected the observed temperature change (or more precisely, a trend 16% lower than Scenario B, since the actual forcing has been 16% lower). By focusing on the coincidence that temps happen to have risen at a similar rate as Scenario C thus far, you're completely missing the point and failing to actually learn anything from Hansen 1988, as noted in the final section of the above post.
57641. KR at 04:25 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       pixelDust - I believe McKitrick's major misstep is more than sufficiently described by Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate, where he commented:

       "He makes the same conceptual error here as he made in McKitrick and Nierenberg, McKitrick and Vogel and McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman. The basic issue is that for short time scales (in this case 1979-2000), grid point temperature trends are not a strong function of the forcings - rather they are a function of the (unique realisation of) internal variability and are thus strongly stochastic. ... He knows this is an error since it has been pointed out to him before ... There are other issues, but his basic conceptual error is big one from which all other stem. - gavin"

       [Emphasis added]
57642. Composer99 at 03:26 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       angusmac: There is rather a large difference between what dana1981 wrote in the OP and what you assert he wrote. He followed up the statement you quoted with: but actual emissions have been closer to Scenario B. This tells us that Hansen's model was "wrong" in that it was too sensitive to greenhouse gas changes. However, it was not wrong by 150%, as Solheim claims. Compared to the actual radiative forcing change, Hansen's model over-projected the 1984-2011 surface warming by about 40%, meaning its sensitivity (4.2°C for doubled CO2) was about 40% too high. which is rather different from what you were going on about on page 2 of this comment thread. I find it interesting that you have omitted reference to this comment thread (which fleshes out the SkS response to your claims) in your complaint about DB's moderator add-on just as you have omitted the rest of dana1981's statement in the OP.
57643. angusmac at 02:57 AM on 22 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Dana, would you please let me know how you do it? You state in the post that, "The observed temperature change has been closest to Scenario C", and not a peep from the SkS faithful. I stated that, "Hansen's Scenario C actually gives the best fit to the GISS temperature data, not Scenario B" in SkS Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen here. However, I was castigated by the Moderator (DB) and by the SkS faithful. You weren't. A typical comment against me was (by DB), " Repeating a misunderstanding does not unmake it as a misunderstanding ." Dana, I do not see any material difference between my statement and your statement. DB, is Dana repeating a misunderstanding? It just goes to show that it's not what you say but who says it.
57644. Lowcarbonkid at 02:32 AM on 22 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       Also, a very recent policy brief from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, which is chaired by Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the 2006 Stern Review and located at the London School of Economics, looked at the "back-up need" issue for wind turbines and found it to be a myth. In fact, they found that wind turbines are not too unreliable or expensive to contribute significantly to Britain's electricity generation mix, and that it is wrong to think that gas is a useful relatively low carbon fuel. There are three myths commonly repeated in anti-windfarm rhetoric: Myth 1: that there is a requirement for gas-powered backup to counter the unreliability of wind power. “This is plainly untrue," said Bob Ward. “Only 1% of carbon savings are wiped out, because there are many ways of managing both demand and supply due to the intermittency of the wind." The report says: "The cost penalty and grid system challenges of intermittency are often exaggerated. There are several other ways of compensating for the variability, such as bulk storage of electricity, greater interconnection, and a more diversified mix of renewable sources, as well as measures to manage demand, like smart grids and improved load management.” Myth 2: that onshore wind is expensive. “We found that it is the cheapest of all low carbon forms of electricity generation," said Bob Ward. The report says: “A key attraction of onshore wind over other low-carbon forms of electricity generation is cost. In terms of levelised cost – an economic measure which takes into account all of the costs of a technology over its lifetime – onshore wind is currently the cheapest renewable technology in the UK. The choice between more affordable electricity (which would favour onshore wind) and local environmental protection (which may favour other low-carbon technologies) is ultimately a political one." Myth 3: that using gas power generation is low carbon and will help us meet our climate commitments. “This is only true if we stop using gas in 2020," said Bob Ward, because at that point emissions need to drop further than relying on gas can permit. The report concludes: "It is clear that the further decarbonisation required in the 2020s cannot be achieved by heavily relaying on unabated gas power stations. Rational policy-makers need to anticipate this and avoid locking in high-carbon electricity generation.” “The thing is," continued Bob Ward, whom I interviewed on the topic, “those who have an agenda against wind farms then seek to find proof to back it up. They twist the evidence to make it fit." He says he finds the same misinformation cropping up again and again in anti-windfarm rhetoric. It gains credence by being repeated so often, for instance by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the new Welsh group No To Wind and in the letters written by a hundred Tory MPs recently to George Osborne.
57645. Lowcarbonkid at 02:25 AM on 22 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       I, too, am very surprised by the figures on solar thermal and PV. The US Department of Energy (DoE)10 calculates that the energy payback for polycrystalline modules is four years for systems using recent technology and two years for anticipated technology. However, of course it very much depends where they are installed. Sunnier climates like North Africa will pay back their energy sooner than northern Europe. The DoE adds that on average amorphous silicon takes one to two years to generate the energy needed to make it, and three years including the frame and support structure for a roof-mounted, grid-connected system. For off-grid systems, the payback will be much longer. The DoE refers to findings by Dones and Frischknecht that PV-systems fabrication and fossil-fuel energy production have similar energy payback periods (including costs for mining, transportation, refining and construction). Assuming a system life expectancy of 30 years and that fossil-fuel-based energy was used in manufacture, 87–97 per cent of the energy that PV systems generate will be pollution-free. These figures were from 2004 or earlier, and so it is likely that they are shorter now. I quote it in my book, Solar Technology, where I also outline the other environmental hazards of PV. Thanks for the post, it is very interesting.
57646. pixelDust at 01:42 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       Thanks Composer. The entire paper is accessible for me using that link, though I now realize it's because I'm accessing the URL from a university (so anyone else in an academic setting should be able to access it as well; it appears to auto-detect if your IP is from a subscriber institution). I don't have a background in statistics, but I'm sure someone who does (and can access the full paper) can easily find any flaws, trickery, and obfuscation therein.
57647. Kevin C at 01:34 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       The first place I would look is the sign of the socio-economic influence on local temperature. If more growth leads to lower temperatures, then he may have discovered that aerosol emissions have a local impact, but are (AFAIK) modelled as a global term in climate models. In which case, it's something we knew all along. But he may have inadvertently come up with a way of improving climate model inputs. And bears not much relation to the press releases.
57648. Bob Lacatena at 01:26 AM on 22 June 2012
       Newcomers, Start Here
       220, Brent, The key point you should take is probably that which Dan Bailey gave you, that CO2 levels are now at a point which has not been reached in 800,000 years, and the climate that went with higher CO2 levels was frightening. If you are taken to task on that, I'd point you towards my own post, (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm for a few different perspectives on just what 451 ppm of CO2 could mean. If you are taken to task for the source of CO2 in the atmosphere (your last post implied as much, even though your original post did not suggest it), that is the easiest thing in the world to refute, and anyone who clings to that position is in absolute, complete denial. CO2 Increase is Natural [There are lots and lots of other links on that, but I think that one gives the best overall summary of all of the various lines that put a nail in any idea that CO2 could come from anywhere but fossil fuels (and if it were... where the heck did the 337 gigatons of fossil fuel CO2 go to?).]
57649. Composer99 at 01:17 AM on 22 June 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       pixelDust: I can't access the full paper (behind a paywall), but the language in the press release appears to be a lot stronger than the language in the paper abstract. So I suspect in the first place that McKitrick is pulling a "Forbes" and overstating the findings of the paper in the press release. Second, if McKitrick's assertion is that climatologists do not account for land-use changes in either modelling or teasing out different forcings from the empirical data, it appears he is incorrect: from this rebuttal on Skeptical Science we are linked to NASA GISS summary of radiative forcings which quite obviously takes land-use changes into account. To be fair, it doesn't follow that newer GCMs do a great, or even a good, job of accounting for land-use changes. However statements such as McKitrick's: “A lot of the current thinking about the causes of climate change relies on the assumption that the effects of land surface modification due to economic growth patterns have been filtered out of temperature data sets. But this assumption is not true.” (in the press release) appear to be incorrect when the information from NASA GISS is considered. If memory serves the IPCC also has a summary table of radiative forcings, including land-use changes. I'm sure better rebuttals can be made, but that's just what sprang to mind for me.
57650. vrooomie at 01:12 AM on 22 June 2012
       Adding wind power saves CO2
       ModComm@14...I *resemble* that comment!!!! >;-)

Prev  1145  1146  1147  1148  1149  1150  1151  1152  1153  1154  1155  1156  1157  1158  1159  1160  Next