Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 Next
Comments 57851 to 57900:
-
tomgraywind2 at 04:28 AM on 24 June 2012Adding wind power saves CO2
Here is today's example of the crossover between climate change denial and wind detraction--an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by a Heartland Institute representative: The Anatomy of a WSJ Article on 'Europe's Green Energy Suicide'.--Tom Gray -
John Russell at 04:12 AM on 24 June 2012Ten Things I Learned in the Climate Lab
Some think that RCP 8.5 is not realistic, because humans won't let it become that bad. I guess that's true, in theory; however what concerns me is lag. Already we've got people like James Lovelock saying that it's all happening slower than expected. The big danger -- and I base this on the track record to date -- is that our scientifically-illiterate politicians (for, let's face it, that's what they tend to be), encouraged by the short-termism of economists and the masses, might set us unwittingly on a trajectory for 8.5 and not realise where we're headed until it's too late to do anything about it. To me that's the big worry. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:21 AM on 24 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
angusmac maybe needs to go back and read Hansen 1988 again. Hansen specifically states that even then the NAS had concluded climate sensitivity was likely around 3C. -
Albatross at 03:01 AM on 24 June 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Bernard @15, Interesting, but not entirely surprising. McKitrick clearly has strong confirmation bias and is not qualified to undertake research outside his field. Gavin Schmidt and Mosher have now identified glaring problems with McKitrick's paper. Ironically, the self-proclaimed auditor that the fake skeptics continually fawn over, and who is also McKitrick's close compadre, failed to identify any of the egregious errors in McKitrick's paper. What is laughable (yet tragic) is what Judith Curry had to say about the horrendous paper: "Congrats to Ross for getting his paper published in Climate Dynamics, which is a high impact mainstream climate journal. My main question is whether the lead authors of the relevant IPCC AR5 chapter will pay attention to these papers; they should (and the papers meet the publication deadline for inclusion in the AR5)." But why should they pay any attention to shoddy and seriously flawed work? Curry has once again exposed her severe bias and agenda. -
Albatross at 02:43 AM on 24 June 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Angusmac, We see this sort of post written by you often when the cherry picking , distortions and misrepresentations of fake skeptics are exposed. Instead of acknowledging and openly condemning the misrepresentations and errors made by Christy, the tactic seems to be to try and divert attention away from the many problems with the fake skeptic's reasoning/argument. So before this thread goes too far off topic by addressing your "suggestions", how about you please start a constructive dialogue by directly speaking to Christy's misrepresentations, cherry picking and fallacious claims outlined in the main post? Thanks. -
Bernard J. at 02:41 AM on 24 June 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
At the risk of drifting off-topic, but in response to the above reference to McKitrick, Steve Mosher has recently been putting the boot in to Ol' Ross over at Curry's. All one can do is to shake one's head... -
ranyl at 02:23 AM on 24 June 2012Ten Things I Learned in the Climate Lab
"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. " You may be right Chris but it isn't really a future in which humankind will actually survive beyond small pockets. Indeed 2oC isn't much rosier unless we start planning for it with an adaptation transformation process (i.e. Adaptation, mitigation, and societal and economic transformation) starting sort of nowish, remembering that 2oC by 2100 means getting to 350ppm by 2100 if the pliocene data is correct. But an adaptation transformation process involves stopping using fossil fuels basically within 5 years (and all that implies) and that is a very tight carbon budget (no room for spending thousands of tonnes of Co2e on renewables or nuclear) and that is seemingly impossible for it means using a lot less power and intermittent power for certain. Therefore I think you might right Chris and despite pre-knowledge it seems humankind at present would rather deny the possibility of what a global mass depopulation actually means in terms of process (i.e. war, starvation, disease and widespread death)and will keep burning fossil fuels, but lets hope not. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:49 AM on 24 June 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
angusmac wrote "Dana, I notice that you use Gavin Schmidt's RC data for you comparison instead of the official AR4 chart." If you mean figure 2, I should point out that the CMIP5 model runs are publicly available and it is straightforward to download them and recreate the plot and find that the conclusions are exactly as Gavin suggests. I know this because I have done so for a paper I am writing at the moment (with Dana). Now if you feel that the AR4 diagram tells a different story then there are two possibilities (i) The IPCC have made a serious error in analysing the output of their GCM runs or (ii) perhaps there is some subtlety that explains the apparent difference between the two diagrams that you do not understand. I would suggest that (ii) is more probably a-priori. I would suggest you start by investigating the error bars on the projections so that you know what the models actually say. I would also suggest that you look into the details of how baselining of observations and model output is performed. Then I would consider whether the choice of observational dataset makes a difference (note that Gavin uses more than one). I tell my students that science is best peformed the way a chess player plays chess, you don't play the move that maximises your immediate gain, you play the move that mimises your opponents maximum advantage. In this case, for example, if the IPCC are arguing that there will be warming the if they use the HADCRUT observations that show lower warming than GISSTEMP, then their choice is not easily criticised as being a cherry pick. Likewise if you want to argue that there is a discrepancy between models and observations then choosing the dataset that maximises the discrepancy is a questionable move. Yes I know that is the one that the IPCC uses, but that doesn't make it an equally good choice for your (or Christies) argument because of the assymetry I have just pointed out. This sort of thing lies at the heart of scientific skepticism - it much begin with self-skepticism. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about Figure 2, or at least my version of it (which is essentially identical). -
dana1981 at 01:34 AM on 24 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
angusmac - climate sensitivity did not fall, the sensitivity in Hansen's climate model "fell". Climate sensitivity has always been around 3°C. You still seem entirely focused on "Hansen was wrong", in which case I again refer you to the final section in the above post. -
dana1981 at 01:28 AM on 24 June 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
angusmac - I would suggest you go back and re-read the post, because you're making many of the same errors that Christy made. -
Tristan at 01:28 AM on 24 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
Forgot my addendum! *Note that my 'B)' is Hansen's 'Scenario C', lest there be any confusion. -
Tristan at 01:17 AM on 24 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
Consider Hansen 1988 as a piece of advice to policy makers and investors. The advice was that different emission regimes would result in different levels of warming over the next several decades. Importantly, he advised that the temperature difference between A) Continued exponential GHG growth and B*) An emissions plateau by 2000, could be as much as 0.8C by 2019. Was this bad advice? No. Although following his advice would have resulted in a carbon price that was too high, it would have been a lot more accurate than its actual price in 1988, which was $0.00. -
dhogaza at 00:40 AM on 24 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
"... 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." But no one is defending 4.2C as being an accurate figure for sensitivity, so what's your point? In addition, to quote from another SkS article: "Hansen's model correctly projected amplified warming in the Arctic, as well as hot spots in northern and southern Africa, west Antarctica, more pronounced warming over the land masses of the northern hemisphere, etc. The spatial distribution of the warming is very close to his projections." So given a reasonable value for sensitivity, spatial distribution and the overall trend would've been very good. The model was and is remarkably sound for having been published in 1988. It strengthens the argument that sensitivity is around 3C (his model did not account for the decade-long solar minimum we've just experienced, either, doing so would lead to a higher sensitivity than 2.7C showing a much better fit than did 4.2C). -
angusmac at 00:35 AM on 24 June 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Dana, I notice that you use Gavin Schmidt's RC data for you comparison instead of the official AR4 chart. I am quite surprised that you do not use AR4 to criticise Christy. Therefore, I include the AR4 TS.26 chart below in order to compare Gavin's diagram with actual global temperatures and the discrepancy highlighted by Christy.
Figure 1: Model Projections of Global Mean Warming Compared with Observed Warming. (after AR4 Figure TS.26)
The following points should be noted about Figure 1 and AR4 Figure TS.26:
- I have deleted the FAR, SAR and TAR graphic from Figure TS.26 in Figure 1 because they make the diagram more difficult to understand and because they are already presented elsewhere in AR4.
- The temperature data shown in AR4 Figure 1.1 does not correspond to that shown in Figure TS.26. The Figure 1.1 data appear to be approximately 0.026 °C higher than the corresponding data in Figure TS.26. I have assumed that this is a typographical error in AR4. Nevertheless, I have used the same 0.026 °C adjustment to the HadCRUT3 data in required for AR4 Figure 1.1 for Figure TS.26. My adjusted HadCRUT3 data points are typically higher than those presented in AR4 Figure TS.26.
- Despite items (1) and (2) above, there is very good agreement between the smoothed data in TS.26 and the adjusted HadCRUT3 data presented in Figure 1, particularly for the 1995-2005 period.
- It should be noted that AR4 uses a 13-point filter to smooth the data whereas HadCRUT uses a 21-point filter but these filters are stated by AR4 to give similar results.
- There is a huge discrepancy between the projected temperature and real-world temperature.
- Real-world temperature (smoothed HadCRUT3) is tracking below the lower estimates for the Commitment emissions scenario., i.e., emissions-held-at-year-2000 level in the AR4 chart. There is no commitment scenario in the RC chart to allow this comparison.
- The smoothed curve is significantly below the estimates for the A2, A1B and B1 emissions scenarios. Furthermore, this curve is below the error bars for these scenarios, yet Gavin shows this data to be well within his error bands.
- The emissions scenarios and their corresponding temperature outcomes are clearly shown in the AR4 chart. Scenarios A2, A1B and B1 are included in the AR4 chart – scenario A1B is the business-as-usual scenario. None of these scenarios are shown in the RC chart.
- The RC chart shows real world temperatures compared with predictions from models that are an "ensemble of opportunity". Consequently, Gavin Schmidt states, "Thus while they do span a large range of possible situations, the average of these simulations is not 'truth" [My emphasis].
Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please restrict the width of the images in your posts (I have restricted this one to 450 pixels) -
Dave123 at 23:47 PM on 23 June 2012Christy 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? -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:30 PM on 23 June 2012Simply 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. -
angusmac at 21:38 PM on 23 June 2012Simply 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.
-
angusmac at 18:49 PM on 23 June 2012Simply 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. -
Riccardo at 18:37 PM on 23 June 20122012 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. -
adamski5807 at 17:19 PM on 23 June 20122012 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. -
Chris McGrath at 16:27 PM on 23 June 2012Ten 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. -
tomgraywind2 at 12:08 PM on 23 June 2012Adding 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 -
tomgraywind2 at 12:02 PM on 23 June 2012Adding 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 -
tomgraywind2 at 11:57 AM on 23 June 2012Adding 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 -
tomgraywind2 at 11:49 AM on 23 June 2012Adding 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 -
tomgraywind2 at 11:44 AM on 23 June 2012Adding 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 -
climatehawk1 at 10:56 AM on 23 June 2012Adding 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). -
SoundOff at 10:24 AM on 23 June 20122012 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 -
Bob Lacatena at 10:20 AM on 23 June 2012Ten 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:24 AM on 23 June 2012Urban 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? -
vrooomie at 02:50 AM on 23 June 2012Ten 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. -
vrooomie at 02:32 AM on 23 June 2012Urban 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. :) -
dana1981 at 01:50 AM on 23 June 2012Simply 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. -
Daniel Bailey at 21:41 PM on 22 June 2012Simply 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!). -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:30 PM on 22 June 2012Glimmer 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. -
Tom Curtis at 20:42 PM on 22 June 2012Simply 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. -
Tom Curtis at 20:29 PM on 22 June 2012Simply 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. -
JimmyB at 19:45 PM on 22 June 2012Christy 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. -
Paul D at 17:36 PM on 22 June 2012Adding wind power saves CO2
Lowcarbonkid, can you post a link to that Grantham Inst study? -
scaddenp at 15:22 PM on 22 June 2012Simply 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. -
Rob Honeycutt at 15:11 PM on 22 June 2012Simply 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. -
Rob Honeycutt at 15:00 PM on 22 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
Ooooh, scaddenp! Now there is an iPhone app I'd like to have! -
scaddenp at 14:37 PM on 22 June 2012Simply 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. -
Rob Honeycutt at 14:25 PM on 22 June 2012Simply 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. -
DSL at 12:39 PM on 22 June 2012Glimmer 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!)." -
Tom Curtis at 11:05 AM on 22 June 2012Simply 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. -
dana1981 at 10:21 AM on 22 June 2012Simply 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. -
Tom Smerling at 10:04 AM on 22 June 2012Glimmer 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:37 AM on 22 June 2012Simply 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. -
Tom Curtis at 08:03 AM on 22 June 2012Simply 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:
Prev 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 Next
