Recent Comments

Prev  1156  1157  1158  1159  1160  1161  1162  1163  1164  1165  1166  1167  1168  1169  1170  1171  Next

Comments 58151 to 58200:

58151. Peter42 at 12:18 PM on 1 June 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Tom Curtis “How reliable are climate models?” (# 527: 10.38 am 1 June 2012) To Tom Curtis: I’m seeking clarification here, so I hope these question does not fall into the category of “dogpiling” (a term I’m loathe to use, given its homophonic noun alternative). I note your criticism of David Evans’ chart overlaying Hansen’s 1988 predictions with NASA satellite data of global air temperatures, where you demonstrate that the current CO2 level corresponds closely to Hansen’s prediction for Scenario B. Is your main point in that part of your analysis, that Evans should have noted that Scenario B “actually occurred”? Or is there more that I have missed? I’m a bit confused by your paragraph “So, for every gas modeled, the actual 2011 concentration is greater than the projected scenario B concentration, often much greater. In two cases, even the scenario C projected concentration is greater than the actual concentration; yet Evans says that Scenario A emissions is what happened.” Does the four row table above that paragraph, show the 1988 figures used in Hansen’s modelling? My last question is whether there is any issue with the Evans chart of the actual NASA air temperatures – the black line? I’d appreciate your help. Thank you.
58152. Bob Lacatena at 12:12 PM on 1 June 2012
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
       Peter42,

       ...the alleviation of poverty through development for which inexpensive energy is essential.

       This is the latest denier credo, and one of which I've already grown tired, partly because it is so vacuous. No one in the 1st World is working to raise the 3rd World out of poverty by giving them cheap, easy energy. Quite to the contrary, 1st World societies are voracious for oil, while the supply is dwindling, thus continually raising the price and moving it further and further out of the reach of the poor. The cry of "we need cheap fossil fuel energy to help the poor" is garbage. It's just an excuse to conveniently ignore one problem by giving lip service to another, so our society can let people live their lives irresponsibly. This is a lame, lame argument for inaction.
58153. Peter Lang at 12:03 PM on 1 June 2012
       Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
       dana1981 - cumulative.
58154. dana1981 at 11:45 AM on 1 June 2012
       Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
       Peter, I don't see where you get $1345 billion from. In 2050, the biggest difference on chart 5:13 (between the medium global action and high price scenarios) is less than $200 billion.
58155. scaddenp at 11:44 AM on 1 June 2012
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
       "Your argument is then necessarily based on the presumption that humans are largely responsible for current global warming." Yes, because the evidence (as supposed to the misinformation campaign) is overwhelming. Obviously all the natural factors are at work as well, but current warming (post 1975) is human. To propose otherwise requires some evidence which is sorely lacking in the published science. As to cost, relative costs of renewable energy/nuclear power to FF vary enormously on the globe. Here, 75% of electricity is from wind/hydro/geothermal with no subsidies operating. While FF is subsidized, it is very hard to assess competitiveness. Removing all subsidies is the first and necessary step. Will that mean higher energy costs? yes, but lower taxes. Let the market sort it out. After that comes pricing carbon. This is trickier because the adaption costs for not limiting carbon are born not by the emitter but often elsewhere and by another generation. To suggest that someone else pay the true cost of your "cheap" fuel suggests a value to respect rights to me. Suggests for real solutions welcome.
58156. Peter42 at 10:45 AM on 1 June 2012
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
       To Scaddenp (10.46 am 31 May 2012): Thank you for your reflection about the developed nations bearing the costs of “de-carbonising” (which I hope doesn’t include vaporising you and me, given our personal carbon content), while others catch up, a proposal argued strongly on the international stage. It appears to me that you understand the point I was making, that cheap fossil fuels are lifesaving and poverty destroying for under-developed countries, at least for the present. In your first sentence you ask “how about the little problem that changing climate will likely adversely affect the poor in many places much more strongly than those who created the problem in the first place?” Very true, and (-Snip-) Climate change remains a threat, and many contributors to Skeptical Science are quite convinced that a major role is currently played by humans in exacerbating such change. Some others in the community at large, are not so convinced. (My language is deliberately temperate, as the polarisation that occurs through terms such as “deniers” and “alarmists”, inhibits if not prevents objective and constructive discussion.) Your argument is then necessarily based on the presumption that humans are largely responsible for current global warming. I’m not arguing here against that presumption – my main point is that we have a balancing act – and your suggestion about cost-sharing offers a constructive balancing. I have some questions about costs in my reply to CBDunkerson below. To CBDunkerson (22.45 pm 31 May 2012): I have gratefully used solar power for years (hot water systems), and have long thought we should capitalise on wind and sun and other renewable energies. I’ve spent only a little time looking at wind and solar scheme costs, but have been surprised at how much those technologies appear to be subsidised. Your argument is an interesting one, that we need higher costs for fossil-fuel energy, in order to achieve grid-parity with alternative sources. Evidently you share the same presumption as Scaddenp above. I had anticipated that research on solar energy and mass production would have brought costs down far more by now. Perhaps more time is needed in research and improved manufacturing (which must also be included in whole of life costing, as we know). Your second sentence “we do not have to choose between cheap energy and clean energy” does not seem applicable today, and in fact your further informative discussion supports that inapplicability. That is, renewable energy is both cheap and clean, only when the cost of fossil fuels rises to equivalent or greater levels. Am I misunderstanding you?
       Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped.
58157. Tom Curtis at 10:38 AM on 1 June 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Clyde @552 links to an atrocious analysis by David Evans, who by all accounts (particularly his own) is an expert in computer modeling. Evans criticizes two models which are supposedly representative of IPCC model predictions, the 1988 prediction by Hansen, and the projections by the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR). He says of them:

       "The climate models have been essentially the same for 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2 even while they got more detailed with more computer power."

       Oddly, in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) we read:

       "IPCC (1990) and the SAR used a radiative forcing of 4.37 Wm-2 for a doubling of CO2 calculated with a simplified expression. Since then several studies, including some using GCMs (Mitchell and Johns, 1997; Ramaswamy and Chen, 1997b; Hansen et al., 1998), have calculated a lower radiative forcing due to CO2 (Pinnock et al., 1995; Roehl et al., 1995; Myhre and Stordal, 1997; Myhre et al., 1998b; Jain et al., 2000). The newer estimates of radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 are between 3.5 and 4.1 Wm-2 with the relevant species and various overlaps between greenhouse gases included. The lower forcing in the cited newer studies is due to an accounting of the stratospheric temperature adjustment which was not properly taken into account in the simplified expression used in IPCC (1990) and the SAR (Myhre et al., 1998b). In Myhre et al. (1998b) and Jain et al. (2000), the short-wave forcing due to CO2 is also included, an effect not taken into account in the SAR. The short-wave effect results in a negative forcing contribution for the surface-troposphere system owing to the extra absorption due to CO2 in the stratosphere; however, this effect is relatively small compared to the total radiative forcing (< 5%). The new best estimate based on the published results for the radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Wm-2, which is a reduction of 15% compared to the SAR. The forcing since pre-industrial times in the SAR was estimated to be 1.56 Wm-2; this is now altered to 1.46 Wm-2 in accordance with the discussion above. The overall decrease of about 6% (from 1.56 to 1.46) accounts for the above effect and also accounts for the increase in CO2 concentration since the time period considered in the SAR (the latter effect, by itself, yields an increase in the forcing of about 10%)."

       (My emphasis) A 15% reduction in estimated climate sensitivity is not "roughly the same sensitivity". What is more, early climate models included very few forcings. Evan's comment on that in his video saying (falsely) that they only include CO2, and do not include natural forcings. However models used in the Third and Fourth Assessment reports most certainly used natural forcings, as well as a wide range of anthropogenic forcings. Therefore the claim that "[t]he climate models have been essentially the same for 30 years now" is simply false. More troubling is the graphic Evan's uses: First we have the label indicating the projections dependent on CO2 emissions as if CO2 was the only forcing modeled by Hansen. Indeed, in the video, Evans explicitly states just that, ie, that CO2 was the only modeled forcing. In fact Hansen included five different anthropogenic gases in each model run, so checking just CO2 emissions does not check how well reality conformed with any particular scenario. Far worse, he labels scenario A as "CO2 emissions as actually occurred". What actually occurred, and entirely unpredicted by Hansen, was that the Soviet Union collapsed resulting in a massive reduction of very polluting Soviet Block industry, with a consequent massive reduction of CO2 emissions from the Soviet Block: As a result, current CO2 levels (ignoring seasonal variation) are only 390.5 ppmv, which compares to the 391 ppmv projected by Hansen for 2011 in scenario B. In other words, Evans is claiming that CO2 emissions followed scenario A whereas in reality they have not yet caught up to scenario B. Here are the current concentrations of the other GHG used in Hansen's model: Gas | Actual__ | Hansen (Scenario) ___CH4 | 1810 ppb | 1920 (Scenario C) ___NO2 | _323 ppb | _330 (Scenario B) _CFC11 | _240 ppt | _275 (Scenario C) _CFC12 | _533 ppt | _961 (Scenario B) So, for every gas modeled, the actual 2011 concentration is greater than the projected scenario B concentration, often much greater. In two cases, even the scenario C projected concentration is greater than the actual concentration; yet Evans says that Scenario A emissions is what happened. Given the size of the discrepancies, there are only two possibilities. Either Evans did not bother looking up the data before making his assertion - an assertion he has made repeatedly while strongly emphasizing his expertise. Or he is flat out lying. Seeing Clyde introduced Evans' rubbish to this discussion, he now needs to answer several questions: Do experts make assertions about data which they have not bothered looking up? Do they lie? And why, given that they are supposedly so skeptical, have no fake "skeptics" picked up on these errors and criticized Evans for them? Finally, for a proper analysis of those predictions, I recommend the posts by Dana on Hansen's 1988 predictions, and on the predictions of the First Assessment Report. I don't think Dana claims to be an expert on climate modeling, but at least he treats the data with integrity.
       Moderator Response:

       TC: I again request that we avoid dogpiling. As Jim Eager has withdrawn, I ask that only Bob Loblaw and Skywatcher, as people with directly relevant experience to the topic make further responses to him. I ask that posters forgive my slight hypocrisy also responding, but I am sure you will understand my distaste for the introduction of Evans' effort in what hopes to be a conversation guided by evidence and aiming at truth. In the event, future responses to Clyde other than by Bob Loblaw or Skywatcher will be deleted as dogpiling, unless either withdraws, in which case Muoncounter can take up the cudgels.

       [DB] Lest some think that this is moderation by fiat by TC, this action has the full support of the moderation staff of SkS. TC has merely implemented a jointly discussed and approved action.

58158. Martin A at 10:22 AM on 1 June 2012
       CO2 has a short residence time
       DM: Yes, thank you, you are right, nonlinearity is not required for (adjustment time)>(residence time) for your model. I guess that your model, though linear itself, approximates a nonlinear relation between the atmospheric CO2 concentration and rate of diffusion from atmosphere to environment better than the linear relation assumed in ES09. I think I should have said that for (adjustment time) > (residence time) then dC/dt cannot be directly proportional to C ie if you have dC/dt = const.V + F_i then you will get (adjustment time)=(residence time). I'm working on using the Mauna Loa data to reproduce your result and to get an understanding of why your model is a better representation of reality than ES09.
58159. Tony O at 09:28 AM on 1 June 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       Have you noticed how every business failure every decision to off shore production or services is blamed on the carbon tax. This seems particulary so in Sydney, not so bad in Perth.
58160. Peter Lang at 09:23 AM on 1 June 2012
       Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
       dana1981 - my apologies; my second link should have pointed readers to: the two comments on 4 May. Below is an expanded version. Benefit to cost ratio of the Australian CO2 pricing scheme to 2050 In an interesting exchange between Roger W. Cohen, William Happer and Richard Lindzen, and reply by William D. Nordhaus on “The New York Review of Books” here Professor William Nordhaus (hereafter WN) said: “The final part of the response of CHL comes back to the economics of climate change and public policy. They make two major points: that the difference between acting now and doing nothing for fifty years is “insignificant economically or climatologically,” and that the policy questions are dominated by major uncertainties. Is the difference between acting now and waiting fifty years indeed “insignificant economically”? Given the importance attached to this question, I recalculated this figure using the latest published model. When put in 2012 prices, the loss is calculated as $3.5 trillion, and the spreadsheet is available on the Web for those who would like to check the calculations themselves. If, indeed, the climate skeptics think this is an insignificant number, they should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.” Particularly note this bit:

       When put in 2012 prices, the loss is calculated as $3.5 trillion, …. If, indeed, the climate skeptics think this is an insignificant number, they should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.

       I am surprised that WN says the $3.5 trillion is a significant number, given that it is cumulative to 2050 and is for the whole world. I am also surprised that WN says skeptics “should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.” I consider the Australian situation and calculate the costs to achieve the Australian share of the $3.5 trillion reduction in climate damages would be around nine times greater than Australia’s share of the estimated $3.5 trillion saving. Here is how I did my calculations. I converted the estimated $3.5 trillion world damages avoided to the Australian proportion on the basis of Australia’s share of world GDP, i.e. 1.17%. So Australia’s share of damages avoided is 1.17% x $3.5 trillion = $41 billion. That is the cumulative damages avoided by Australia to 2050. It assumes an optimal CO2 price, the whole world implements the CO2 price in unison, and an economically efficient system is implemented across the whole world. It also assumes Australia’s share of world GDP remains constant. The Australian Treasury estimated the loss of GDP that our legislated CO2 tax and ETS will cause. [ However, it seems they may have underestimated because they, apparently, have not estimated the compliance cost]. The cumulative loss of GDP to 2050 is $1,345 billion (undiscounted) (Chart 5:13), or $390 billion discounted at 4.34%, which I believe is the discount rate that is the default in RICE (2012) and gives the value of $3.5 trillion quoted by WN. If my calculations are correct, the benefit, to Australia, of the optimum CO2 tax rate (if the world implements an economically efficient CO2 pricing scheme in unison) would be $41 billion and the cost (reduced GDP) would be $390 billion. Therefore, the benefit to cost ratio is 0.11. [benefit/cost should be greater than 1 for the policy to be justified] . Therefore, I do not understand WN’s statement that “[sceptics] should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.” My calculations suggest we would spend nine times greater sums, not smaller sums, to achieve the benefits estimated by WN.
58161. skywatcher at 09:18 AM on 1 June 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Clyde, so far, your case is entirely evidence-free regarding: 1: what you regard as a specialist computer modeller? 2: what expertise such a person would have that it is impossible for a climate modeller to acquire? (who will spend most of their research life from at least PhD onwards writing code, usually beginning with a background in physics or earth/environmental science). 3: why somebody who has spent many years, perhaps even decades, coding climate models would not then be an expert in coding? Are there some secrets that they never let out of the computer science department? I've coded small climate models, and I've worked with a number of people who professionally code much more sophisticated ice sheet and climate models - you baselessly insult their intelligence and hard-won expertise. I've seen physicists attempting to code ice sheet models and making a pigs ear of it in the first instance because they didn't have the understanding of earth systems, glacier dynamics and climate to make such a thing realistic (they learned, gradually!). I've seen the reverse - the physics expertise is equally hard-won. I have not seen a computer scientist even have a go because they would need to get to grips with two major things: how a climate system works, and the mathematics of the thermodynamics/mechanics required to calculate components of the model. Quite how you think the pure coder who can write very tidy Fortran/C++/Python could do this better than the existing experts is remarkable. It is much easier to begin with an understanding of climate and physics, and graduate onto writing computer code, which is fundamentally not that difficult to do, than the alternative.
58162. Alex C at 08:53 AM on 1 June 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Bob Tisdale: I've been looking through the interwebs to see if I could find anything on the GISS Model ER simulations past 2003 to see whether or not the straight-line extrapolation is an accurate estimation of what the models actually said would happen. I came across a post at Troy's, you commented there so I think you might be familiar: http://troyca.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/giss-er-and-ocean-heat-content/ I think that, in the absence of a more formal showing of the model output (and since I don't see any reason to suspect Troy has done anything wrong in his plotting), this should serve as a useful tool for all of us to see how the models predicted the past decade. The straight-line extrapolation that you use (and RealClimate and others) appears to be a pretty accurate estimation of the model output over the last decade, so I don't see any reason to stand by the opinion that you're misrepresenting the model output. However, the model output starting after 2004 does not appear to actually be based on known data, but the A1B scenario specifications. To compare the model output to the observations makes the assumption that our climate system has seen comparable forcing to A1B, which isn't obvious is the case since again we had an increased aerosol effect, a prolonged solar minimum through 2008/2009, for instance. I can't see how the model's A1B output is any better than the linear extrapolation, because it is just as physically unrepresentative of the past decade. Feedback on this of course appreciated, from anyone that might have anything else to add on to this as well.
58163. Alex C at 07:37 AM on 1 June 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Bob Tisdale: Your graph of the tropical Pacific is not accurate, and I find it strange you would think anyone would think that two different datasets would have *identical* anomalies, even taking into account the guaranteed offset since the 0-2000m dataset must necessarily have higher OHC than 0-700m. Where are you getting your data? I have obtained it from the exact same source you referenced me to at WUWT, here: 700m: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ien3_ohc700_120-280E_-24-24N_n.dat 2000m: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ien3_ohc2000_120-280E_-24-24N_n.dat These are the two datasets plotted against each other over the time frame you have given. I zeroed both to a 1970-1995 baseline. http://i47.tinypic.com/2aflv0h.png 0-700 is in red, 0-2000 is in blue. They are not the same datasets, contrary to what you posted. You posted the exact same data overlaid, I'm curious why.
58164. muoncounter at 07:27 AM on 1 June 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Clyde#521: "I might have more trust in the models if i knew the scientist running them had expertise in computer modeling." How do you know they do not have such expertise - or do not have available those who do? It would appear you missed this model quality-check from the Intermediate version of this argument. If your argument with computer models is that 'scientists don't know how to program,' that song is old and tired. I suggest you look here or here. If your argument is 'you can't trust a computer model,' I suggest you look here to see how computer models impact medicine and here to see how pervasive computer models are. If you distrust modeling so much, be prepared to give up a lot of what we now take for granted as part of our 'quality of life.'
58165. scaddenp at 07:15 AM on 1 June 2012
       Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
       Past temperatures have to be derived from proxy data of various kinds. Historical (pre-thermometer) records are of much use for evaluating the significance of these proxies. ie is the temperature record in proxy consistent with historical accounts or is it too localised to be of use). See for example Ljungquist 2010 for proxies.
58166. Rob Painting at 06:08 AM on 1 June 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Alby @30 - Yes there is a great deal of difference between the Levitus and Lyman methodologies. This was discussed in one of Lyman's papers, and touched upon in Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011). Levitus infills missing data with the average, whereas Lyman interpolates from adjacent measurements. Levitus' method will tend to underestimate changes as the anomalies relax toward zero. AFAIK there is no agreement yet on which is the better approach.
58167. DSL at 05:46 AM on 1 June 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Clyde, your (now deleted) Arctic comment has been responded to on a more appropriate thread.
58168. DSL at 05:42 AM on 1 June 2012
       Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
       I'd invite Clyde to Neven's site, where such issues are the meat of daily discussion and where offering one's personal models is encouraged. The daily graphs page is a good bookmark as well. You're right, though: you'll get hammered for not addressing the carefully measured data and instead relying on a relative handful of newspaper reports, many that report from small areas of the Arctic. Note that Zwally said "at this rate," and if he was thinking of the drop from 2006 to 2007 that's certainly true: a drop of 1.5 million sq km in minimum extent per year would definitely have the summer free of ice by 2012. However, "at this rate" is the simplest model, and I'm sure that Zwally would never bet on it--not in 2007. As extreme as the 2007 extent was, it's been beat by 2011, and 2012, after a bizarre spring, is now racing down at a rate that may be unprecedented over the last 30 years. Volume set a record low in 2011 as well, and 2012 is tracking almost dead on top of 2011.
58169. Jim Eager at 05:37 AM on 1 June 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Well, since Clyde refuses to acknowledge all the things that climate models have gotten right, and that they are useful for understanding how climate behaves in the present and will behave in the future, or that scientists can even be competent climate modelers, and is now directing people to Jo Nova's site to support his argument, as per the moderator's request I hereby defer my right of reply to anyone else wishing to waste their time continuing the discussion with him.
58170. Rob Painting at 05:25 AM on 1 June 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Bob Tisdale@ 28 - No I did not miss either of those points, in fact upcoming posts make those issues very explicit because they help elucidate the observations. The most significant effect human pollution aerosols have is their influence on cloud formation processes. And yes, I fully expect the global brightening trend over the 1990's played a part in the faster rate of ocean warming over that interval. It seems to be consistent with both the observations and our physics-based understanding. For instance, how does one explain the near-linear trend in sea level rise over the last two decades? The contribution of meltwater from both the Greenland and Antarctic icesheets has accelerated yet sea level rise hasn't - this implies the thermal component (ocean warming) has slowed when compared to the decade prior to 2003. I, for one, do have reservations about the ocean models, but it's for other reasons. They are after all imperfect, but useful, approximations of the real world.
58171. Clyde at 05:21 AM on 1 June 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Sorry about the post above. More evidence the computer models are not good at predicting future climate change. One minor "type O" & things come out wrong.
58172. Clyde at 05:09 AM on 1 June 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Jim Eager 516 I guessing if you had a peer reviewed paper you would give credit to all who helped in writing of the paper IE any folks who had been computer modelers by trade. My definition of a computer modeler would be somebody who's primary job was making computer models. I might have more trust in the models if i knew the scientist running them had expertise in computer modeling. So yes i would prefer the scientist give the data they want modeled to somebody who's primary job is computer modelling. No i wouldn't bet my life on computer model predictions. My using the betting of life is not a good thing to do IMO. My apologies to all. (-Snip-)
       Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped.
58173. Clyde at 05:04 AM on 1 June 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Bob Loblaw 512 I have no idea if Pielke Sr is right or wrong when he issued the challenge. All i know is if anybody has taken him up on it he hasn't posted it..at least not yet. The link below is not the challenge (I'll try to find it later) but has several peer reviewed papers casting doubt on predicting future climate based on computer models. Read more here. I've read articles that Kevin Trenberth has a theory where the "missing heat" went. Another example of the models not being very accurate. How can you just a model[s] that missed 10 years of heat? My first try with the hyperlink deal. Hoping this works.
58174. Clyde at 05:01 AM on 1 June 2012
       Models are unreliable
       I appreciate all the help everybody is giving. I can't reply to everybody. Thanks to the moderator who has ask the "dogpiling" be kept down. Bob Loblaw 510 Which is harder/more complicated - Writing code for GCM or writing HTML codes for a website?
58175. Albatross at 03:54 AM on 1 June 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Daniel, Thank you very much! I'm almost too scared to ask how you did that ;)
58176. Albatross at 03:53 AM on 1 June 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Hi Rob @25, To continue from where the post went missing: ....and that is ignoring for the moment the dicey practise of making sweeping generalizations (as certain contrarians are doing) based on the analysis of less than 10 years of data when we are dealing with an inherently noisy system. Even though the model output after 2003 has not been using the most up to date forcings, the descrepancies are actually not nearly as large as claimed by some. The amount of disagreement also depends on the depth range being considered, and which analysis one is using whether it be the method of Lyman et al. (2010), Levitus et al. (2012) or Hamon et al. (2012). Yet, the "skeptics" choose to take one analysis product as "truth". Regardless, this strawman argument that have been getting some people so excited may very likely be moot once the models are run using the latest forcings for CMIP5 (i.e., the model runs for the next IPCC asessment report). Not only that, but it seems that this red herring that "skeptics" are floating is to try and distract people from the fact that the climate system is continuing to accumulate heat. I am also very curious why contrarians are so reluctant to use the 0-2000 m data from Levitus et al. (2012) [which incorporates the ARGO data] when they are freely available on the web, [Source]
       Moderator Response: [DB] I was able to restore your missing portion of your previous comment.
58177. Tom Smerling at 02:56 AM on 1 June 2012
       Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
       Moving right along.... These EOM clips starring Richard Alley are real gems. This is the "state of the art" for climate communication. Nobody says it better. Bloggers: Upon request, this week EOM enabled copying of the embed codes from their YouTube page. So now you can copy the embed code for any of EOM's 67 short clips from EOM's YoutTube channel, and simply paste the code directly into your blog post.
58178. Albatross at 02:50 AM on 1 June 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Rob @25, Gavin Schmidt did show those model data through 2010 in a presentation, but those model output data after 2003 were not generated using the updated forcings. Note how well the GISS-EH model does for most of the record (up until 2003), but that is when it was run using the best estimates of the actual forcings for 1880-2003. So the model output after 2003 did not take into consideration the recent extended and deep solar minimum, nor did it take into account the significant increase in aerosol loading, for example. And that is ignoring for the moment the dicey practise of making sweeping generalizations (as certain contrarians are doing) based on the analysis of
       Moderator Response:

       [Albatross] Somehow the second half of my post disappeared. I'll do my best to reproduce the original.

       [DB] Text and graphic restored. And don't ask how. ;)

58179. Bob Tisdale at 02:44 AM on 1 June 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Sphaerica: Thanks for the link. Rob Painting: Thanks for suggesting I look into Hatzianastassiou et al (2012). Somehow you missed the fact that the aerosol contribution to surface solar radiation (the SSR in the graphs you posted) was considered by the authors to be secondary to clouds. And you also missed the fact that the authors concluded it was a two way street, with the increase in surface solar radiation during the 1990s contributing to the warming then.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Somehow you missed the link to the Updated Comments Policy, with its strictures against inflammatory tone being especially relevant.

       Note that dialogue here is best-considered a two-way street, with an observance of the Comments Policy being given more than a passing nod.

58180. dana1981 at 02:08 AM on 1 June 2012
       Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
       Peter Lang - I see no sources for your numbers. If you wish to be taken seriously, you have to provide sources for your figures which can be back-checked.
58181. Bob Lacatena at 02:05 AM on 1 June 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Bob, See here (correct name is N. Hatzianastassiou)
58182. Bob Tisdale at 00:00 AM on 1 June 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Rob Painting: Regarding your 22:59 PM on 31 May, 2012 comment, Glenn Tamblyn’s comment at WUWT reflects his lack of understanding of the subject at hand. My reply to him is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/30/dana-nuticellis-skeptical-science-ohc-grapple-down-for-the-count/#comment-997765 It reads: Glenn Tamblyn says: “When in fact you have no idea what the GISS model predicts for 2004-2012. They haven’t modelled it. you are simply assuming that if they were run for that latter period they would predict exactly the same trend as they did for the previous decade.” Of course they have modeled it as part of the models they submitted to the CMIP3 archive. Gavin simply elects not to include it in his presentation at RealClimate. Why? His answer from this post: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/ There he writes, “Another figure worth updating is the comparison of the ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the models compared to the latest data from NODC. Unfortunately, I don’t have the post-2003 model output handy, but the comparison between the 3-monthly data (to the end of Sep) and annual data versus the model output is still useful.” And he continues, “(Note, that I’m not quite sure how this comparison should be baselined. The models are simply the difference from the control, while the observations are ‘as is’ from NOAA). I have linearly extended the ensemble mean model values for the post 2003 period (using a regression from 1993-2002) to get a rough sense of where those runs could have gone.” And what does the GISS Model-ER mean look like through 2010? It looks like a trend extrapolated from 1993-2003: http://i52.tinypic.com/3536rsm.jpg Refer to the discussion of Figure 3 in my post here: http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/giss-ohc-model-trends-one-question-answered-another-uncovered/ Rob, with respect to the graphs you provided, do you have a link to the paper? Google provides zero returns for the name Hatzianastissou.
58183. Rob Painting at 22:59 PM on 31 May 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Bob, Glenn Tamblyn has pointed out perhaps the most egregious flaw in your posts. You complain that the models don't match reality over the period in question, and yet you present no evidence of the GISS simulations over that period. Consider for a moment the global aerosol trend for much of that interval, from Hatzianastissou (2011): A large dimming is apparent in the Southern Hemisphere, which of course is predominately ocean. If these aerosol estimates are the basis for GISS modeling over the period in question, we'd expect a noticeably slower rate of ocean warming in the upper 700 metres in the model runs. Thus far you seem to be arguing a strawman.
58184. CBDunkerson at 22:45 PM on 31 May 2012
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
       Peter42, unfortunately the situation you describe is a false dilemma. That is, we do not have to choose between cheap energy and clean energy. The dramatic drop in solar power costs during the brief window while it looked like the age of cheap fossil fuel power was ending proves that energy which is cheap and clean is entirely possible. We could have had current solar technology decades ago if R&D had been adequately funded... but there was no political will to do so because a cheap alternative already existed. The problem now is that we've gone from a situation where global 'grid parity' for solar power seemed inevitable before the end of the current decade to one where we again have an abundant cheap alternative and thus could potentially stop pursuing further improvements in solar power. On the up side there are some places where solar grid parity has already been achieved and which cheap shale gas won't impact. Hawaii, for example, has historically gotten most of its electricity from oil because coal and natural gas are too expensive to ship over the ocean. Using oil for electricity generation is fairly expensive and Hawaii is a sunny place... so solar power dropped below grid prices in Hawaii a couple of years ago. A new boom in shale gas won't change that. So Hawaii and various other places where solar is already below grid parity will likely continue transitioning over to solar power. Hopefully that ongoing local development will be enough to continue driving down costs to the point that solar costs become cheaper than fossil fuels globally.
58185. Bob Tisdale at 20:55 PM on 31 May 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Tom Curtis says at 09:16 AM on 31 May, 2012: “The graph was produced by Bob Tisdale, whose analysis is normally massively flawed, so I am not providing a link.” You presented obsolete NODC OHC data from a 3-year-old May 13, 2009 post. The NODC has updated their dataset twice since then. Is there any reason you presented obsolete data? Also, my website requests that you provide a link to the post when using a graph. You failed to do that. (snipped link to graphs no longer displayed) Your claim that my “analysis is normally massively flawed” is baseless. And you’ve expressed your misunderstandings in the rest of your comment. The variations in tropical Pacific OHC are in fact a function of ENSO, but there is no difference in tropical Pacific OHC for depths of 0-700m and 0-2000m: http://i46.tinypic.com/dbi51j.jpg The data contradicts your claim of “greater conduction of water to the depths, and hence an overall cooling of the surface waters (0-700 meters).” BTW, 0-700 meters is not the surface. And did you mean subducted? Also, you must not have looked very hard for a paper that discusses the additional variability of the North Atlantic OHC. Lozier et al (2008) “The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic” identifies the NAO as the driver of decadal North Atlantic OHC variability. Link: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5864/800?rss=1 Have a nice day!
       Moderator Response: TC: Link snipped as the graphs have been removed and the link is no longer required for copyright reasons.
58186. curiousd at 18:42 PM on 31 May 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       Thank you for the comment, Michael Sweet. In my college class on elementary Physics of the Environment, I have the students read articles on the politics of power transmission and have them write little essays. If you want to read something that would make you tear your hair, you might try: "Debate on Clean Energy Leads to Regional Divide" by M. Wald in the New York Times, July 13, 2009. To avoid depressing the young students unduly I focus on some environmental progress outside the U.S.
58187. Peter Lang at 17:44 PM on 31 May 2012
       Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money
       Nordhaus (2008) has made it clear that climate mitigation strategies can only be successful when and if the world acts in unison. The assumptions are that the world implements an economically efficient CO2 pricing system in unison. ‘Economically efficient’ means: negligible leakage, negligible fraud, negligible compliance cost and all emissions sources are included in the pricing. Clearly that is impracticable and not realistic. It is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Nordhaus estimates that if the countries that contribute half the emissions participate in an economically efficient scheme, the cost penalty would be 250%. Firstly, the economically efficient part is practically impossible. Secondly, even if an economically efficient scheme was possible (it is not) countries are not going to participate given they would have to pay a 250% premium to carry the free loaders. The situation for Australia with its Clean Energy Future legislation (i.e. CO2 tax transitioning to an ETS) is estimated to be as follows: Cost = $1,345 billion (undiscounted) or $390 billion (discounted at 4.35% pa) cumulative to 2050 based on Treasury estimates. (However, the Treasury estimates do not include the full compliance cost of the scheme that will be required, so the cost is probably an underestimate). Benefit = $41 billion (discounted at 4.35% pa) cumulative to 2050 if Australia is part of an economically efficient international scheme where the whole world acts in unison. In this case, the costs are about nine times more than the benefits Benefit = ~$0 if Australia’s system is not part of a coordinated international scheme. In this case the costs are $390 billion (probably much more) and the benefits are effectively zero.
58188. chriskoz at 17:42 PM on 31 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #21
       A very on topic to this thread (this weekend) news: Half of Germany Was Running on Solar Power. It's directed to USA, and I guess it wants to be an "eye-opener" for people in USA with the numbers in the blue bar. Anyone wants to comment about those numbers? Especially what do they count as by solar subsidies & fossil fuel subsidies how do they arrive at the outcome that solar energy would have been cheaper than "grid power*" if subsidies were equal?
58189. Peter42 at 16:57 PM on 31 May 2012
       Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
       Mark Boslough's forensic paper is very interesting, as are the charts he discusses, which include in their timescales the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period. These periods are often noted in discussions about today's land temperatures in particular. We do have historical accounts, but what data do we currently have that can provide more information about the temperatures of those times for various locations? How can we quantify those historical accounts?
58190. macoles at 16:29 PM on 31 May 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       The section "Misrepresentation of the Australian Carbon Pricing System" applies not just to Plimer, but to nearly all the Liberal aligned commentators I've seen in the Australian media. An examination of the Clean Energy Bill (Securing a Clean Energy Future - Appendix C: Fiscal tables) shows the following budget for the fixed price "Carbon Tax" period (first 3 years): Forward estimates (Total to 2014-15 period, rounded numbers) Total Revenue = $27.3 Billion Total Spending = $31.2 Billion Spending breakdown: Household assistance measures = $15.4 Billion Support for jobs (Industry assistance including free permits) = $10.3 Billion Energy security and transformation = $3 Billion Land and biodiversity measures = $1.2 Billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation = $0.9 Billion Governance = $0.4 Billion So unless the government cancels other existing "green" schemes (because of real or perceived duplication) then the CEF package actually costs the government $3.9 Billion over three years. The only plausible criticism of the CEF package is that low incomes earners will be overcompensated via the "Household assistance measures", and that could be seen as vote buying.
58191. Mark Boslough at 11:59 AM on 31 May 2012
       Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
       Sorry for my slow response. To CoalGeologist: Very good observation. The station "S" data that Lloyd Keigwin plotted in his 1996 paper was averaged in a different way than the data that Willie Soon sent me (which is what the Robinsons had). The hydrographic data were obtained every two weeks, but there are a lot of dropouts, especially in the '50s (and I think there was a funding lapse in the '70s with a long dropout). In one case each measurement anomaly was given equal weight, which is not really a proper way to do a time average. In another case the anomaly was calculated for each calendar month, and then the months were averaged. Still not a very good way to do it. But that's the data that was given to the Robinsons. I obtained the raw data (individual measurements) and did a time-weighted anomaly average just to see what it would look like. That reduces the scatter a lot, but there is still a similar increasing trend. It is worth noting that using calendar years is arbitrary. If we used climatological year, or some season-based year, we'd get different annual anomalies but the long-term trend would be the same. With regard to the 7th diagram, the "stated method" was “A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.” But if you look at the 1975 temperature (the value that the Robinson's had) you can see that this is not what they actually plotted. To oldfueler: I didn't bother to analyze the solar irradiance graph. As my friend David Morrison once said, “Pseudoscience is like spoiled food; you don't have to eat it all to know something is badly wrong. Just a few bites will do."
58192. scaddenp at 11:28 AM on 31 May 2012
       In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
       Wombat. :-) Maybe DM should have said Mass change. Reminds me of modelling team crossing the Scottish border and looking out the window at a black cow. Engineer: "Look, cows in Scotland are black". Physicist: "No, we can only ascertain that there is at least one black cow in Scotland". Mathematician: "No, you can only ascertain that there is at least one cow in Scotland who has at least one side that is black".
58193. scaddenp at 10:46 AM on 31 May 2012
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
       If you are concerned about alleviating poverty then how about the little problem that changing climate will likely adversely affect the poor in many places much more strongly than those who created the problem in the first place? A fairer solution is let underdeveloped places advance with cheaper energy while the developed economies (which are responsible for most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere see here for detail) rapidly re-carbonise and develop the new technologies for energy.
58194. scaddenp at 10:35 AM on 31 May 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       It should also be noted that rising CO2 isnt the only thing going on. There are also changes in solar and aerosols.
58195. Sceptical Wombat at 10:30 AM on 31 May 2012
       In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
       GRACE imagery found mass losses of -264 mm/a for the 2003-2009 period (Matsuo and Heki, 2010) We wombats (especially those of us with mathematics degrees) are a literal bunch of marsupials. To me a negative mass loss means a gain. Is that what you are saying? If so why not just call it a gain. If not it would be helpful if you removed the minus sign. Thanks
58196. Tom Curtis at 09:16 AM on 31 May 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       BMAONE23 @20, the following graph is from the OHC data from Levitus 2009: (snip) The graph was produced by Bob Tisdale, whose analysis is normally massively flawed, so I am not providing a link. However, SFAIK he does not misrepresent data. Looking at the graph, it is very clear that the hiatus in 0-700 meter OHC (Ocean Heat Content) is a result of events in the Pacific, which as been declining since 2002, and the Atlantic, which has been declining rapidly since 2003. The decline in the Pacific is, I believe, fairly well understood. The Peak and decline around 1998 give the clue that the decrease in surface OHC is related to ENSO. Basically, in the tropical Pacific, trade winds blow cold water brought to the tropics by the Humboldt Current across the surface of the Pacific. If the trade winds are particularly strong, they are pushed over warm water from the Pacific Warm Pool, forcing those waters to depths of up to 300 meters. Because warm water is much deeper, there is a much stronger temperature gradient between that water and the depths, resulting in much greater conduction of water to the depths, and hence an overall cooling of the surface waters (0-700 meters). Other members of SkS have read up on this more carefully than me, and so no doubt they can supplement or correct my details, but that is the basic story. The situation in the Altantic is quite different, and I am not aware of any peer reviewed discussion of the mechanism as yet. Never-the-less, I think the reason is readily apparent. Specifically, the large reduction surface OHC is much stronger in the far north Atlantic: (snip) Again the explanation seems ready to hand. Specifically, fresh water is not as dense as sea water, and has its peak density at 4 degrees C (which is the reason ice floats): Given this, an increased ice melt from Greenland would result in a pool of very cold nearly fresh water on the surface of the North Atlantic. The result would be that the warmer, but very salty water flowing north would sink earlier than it had, resulting in warmer water being taken to the abyss by the Meridional Overturning Circulation, while the surface and near surface water would have remained colder. This analysis is consistent with observational reports that the North Atlantic Drift has accelerated; but contrary to analyses that suggest large melt water pools would have the opposite effect. Further, no study has examined correlation between surface OHC and Greenland ice melts. So while this seems like an obvious explanation, I cannot be entirely confident that it is correct. I would certainly be interested if anybody else has better information.
       Moderator Response: TC: Tisdale graphs removed as he apparently objects to the free use of graphs he made from free data.
58197. dana1981 at 08:37 AM on 31 May 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       BMAONE23 - the fact that more heat is being stored in the deeper ocean layers, particularly 700-2000m. Notice the 0-2000m OHC data has not flattened.
58198. Peter42 at 08:22 AM on 31 May 2012
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
       CBDunkerson (#9 31 May) is understandably concerned about the increased chance of delay by "political leadership" in taking action over emissions, because of fossil fuels (specifically, shale gas) continuing to be cheap. There is of course a broader picture as well, the alleviation of poverty through development for which inexpensive energy is essential. For many of the world's poor, James Hansen's "rivers of death" have actually been "rivers of life", literally, for perhaps a billion people. This is not to decry the concern CBDunkerson genuinely expresses, but it seems to me that as so often in life, we have a balancing act to perform.
58199. Tom Curtis at 08:08 AM on 31 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #21
       Chookmustard @7, Skeptical Science has previously discussed this general theory here, which is where you should respond to this post. The new paper differs from previous papers on this topic by: 1) Only calculating a correlation with NH, and particularly European temperatures; and 2) Calculating a correlation between temperature and the solar cycle length lagged by one solar cycle. The reason for the lag is entirely unexplained in terms of physics and seems like a device to avoid refutation. Likewise the use of NH only temperatures, which is tantamount to an assumption that Northern Hemisphere, but not Southern Hemisphere, temperatures are influenced by the Sun. By making these two unphysical assumptions, it seems the authors are indulging in pure curve fitting. We might just as well believe that global temperatures are controlled by 11 year lagged hem length: Finally, there is an unaccounted for discrepancy between solar cycle lengths as reported in earlier papers, notably Thejll and Lassen, 1999 (PDF), and that reported in the most recent paper.
58200. BMAONE23 at 07:43 AM on 31 May 2012
       Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
       Please help me to understand something about this. If CO2 is the Heating Culprit, and CO2 is still rising, what exactly is causing the 0-700m layer to flatten out like it has since 2003? As showin in Tom's post above

Prev  1156  1157  1158  1159  1160  1161  1162  1163  1164  1165  1166  1167  1168  1169  1170  1171  Next