Recent Comments

Prev  1170  1171  1172  1173  1174  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  1180  1181  1182  1183  1184  1185  Next

Comments 58851 to 58900:

58851. Composer99 at 11:05 AM on 18 May 2012
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Helena: The list you provide is nowhere to be found in the 2-page PDF scaddenp links to. The online database available at the IEA website (the database itself is here). The database appears to corroborate your list. That said, that the IEA does not provide detail on any major economies does not in fact mean that they do not subsidize their fossil fuel industries (suggesting the IEA estimate may be an underestimate) in at least some cases. For example, Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars links to an article documenting the effective tax rates and tax subsidies of the largest companies in major industries in the US. Of note, over the period 2008-2010 the "Utilities, Gas & Electric" category pays a mean effective tax rate of 3.7% (surely a subsidy in its own right) as well as receiving $31 billion in subsidies, and the "Oil, gas and pipelines" category pays a mean effective tax rate of 15.7% as well as receiving $24 billion in subsidies. (Those effective tax rates are contrasted with the nominal corporate tax rates all US corporations are expected to pay on profits of, as I understand it, 35%.)
58852. Helena at 10:17 AM on 18 May 2012
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Energy subsidy data
       Moderator Response: [DB] Considering that the majority of the globe in the linked source you provide has invalid data, the needed context to derive any substantive conclusion is entirely missing. And thus no weight should be given to it.
58853. skywatcher at 09:50 AM on 18 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       Dave, I see you still haven't gone away and read the links I suggested in #62, quite apart from the excellent information given to you here by many others. More critically, you still haven't gone and performed a statistical analysis of the data to determine whether there has been any significant change in the trend. Until you do such analysis, or point to a location where somebody has done such an analysis, including appropriate evaluations of uncertainty and statistical power, you have no leg to stand on. It is a constant failing of skeptics that they rarely go and do their own original work, complete with robust validation of the work, before they make unsupported assertions. If you simply let your eye be fooled, you'll keep thinking the world is flat.
58854. Helena at 09:43 AM on 18 May 2012
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       scaddenp77 : "Now tell me how killing those subsidies is costing the economy? " Have you even looked which where the countries subsidizing fossil fuels on the link you indicate ? 1. Kuwait 2. Iran 3. Saudi Arabia 4. Qatar 5. Venezuela 6. Lybia 7. UEA 8. El Salvador 9. Turkmenistan 10. Algeria and it goes on and on, with no OECD country. So are you saying we should ask those countries to stop subsidizing fossil fuels ? Why do you think they are subsidizing fossil fuels in the first place ?
       Moderator Response: [DB] Please provide a link to the source you used to derive the above list of countries as it does not appear in scaddenp's linked source.
58855. skywatcher at 09:41 AM on 18 May 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       Dave, the report is still based on much more substantive material than your opinion, which places its conclusions much higher up in the scale of credibility. As scaddenp suggests, stick to the science, and not rhetoric, as yet you have provided not one shred of evidence to support your assertions other than disliking a report's conclusions. Do you actually have evidence that polar bears will be fine? Or do you, like many skeptics, just continue to snipe at the hard work of others whose conclusions disagree with your unsubstantiated opinion?
58856. muoncounter at 09:14 AM on 18 May 2012
       Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
       Robinson and co. is not the only miscreant in this farce. We saw Soon and Balliunas had a hand in it here.
58857. Tom Curtis at 08:43 AM on 18 May 2012
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Martin A @118, while I commend your determination to understand the processes involved in the carbon cycle, I suggest you, as the saying goes, learn from other peoples mistakes, for you will not live long enough to make them all yourself. To that end, I recommend purchasing "Global Warming: understanding the forecast" which is the best general introduction to the science of the green house effect and carbon cycles available. It is doubly useful because it has an associated, free online course with associated video lectures and models. The model which will most interest you is the Geocarb model, described as "an on-line zero-dimensional descendent of the Berner & Kothavala (2001) GEOCARB III model".
58858. scaddenp at 07:14 AM on 18 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       Dave, I have responded to "trillions spent just in case" on a more appropriate thread. Please keep comment here to topic.
58859. scaddenp at 07:11 AM on 18 May 2012
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       "Trillions of dollars on things aimed only at reducing CO2 emissions, just in case?" So tell me what the cost of adaption will be if you are wrong and who will be pay for it? The polluters - or those affected? All the science says tells you it is happening. It is not "just in case". Desperately trying to find excuses for inaction is fooling yourself. Try a first step. The IEA analysis has revealed that fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $557 bn in 2008. Now tell me how killing those subsidies is costing the economy?
58860. scaddenp at 06:59 AM on 18 May 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       "How can we be focusing on Polar Bear longevity when 250,000 children die every year from lack of a clean water supply." What is this piece of rhetoric supposed to imply? The campaigns to reduce CO2 emissions are just about saving polar bears? Come on! Have a look at Dai 2010 and tell me whether not controlling emissions is going make things better for children needing drinking water. Stick to the science.
58861. Composer99 at 05:59 AM on 18 May 2012
       Two Centuries of Climate Science: part three - Manabe to the present day, 1966-2012
       I hope this feeds the debate in a positive way. Since you have provided absolutely no data or analysis to back up your assertions, instead relying on prima facie ridiculous claims of researchers helplessly reliant on government largesse: no, no positive debate-feeding. IMO your comment has baldly violated the Comments Policy and is best consigned to the rubbish bin (along with mine).
       Moderator Response: [DB] let us take the higher path, for now.
58862. Justin at 05:54 AM on 18 May 2012
       Two Centuries of Climate Science: part three - Manabe to the present day, 1966-2012
       In reply to the article by john Mason. (-Snip-)
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

       Inflammatory and off-topic snipped.

58863. Martin A at 05:29 AM on 18 May 2012
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Thanks to all for taking the time to reply to my question. I think I should have made clearer what I am trying to understand. It is the basics where (according to this page), the average life of a CO2 molecule is different from the average time for the system to return to equilibrium following the injection of a mass of CO2 into the atmosphere. (If I have understood the SkS statement correctly. I think I have come across similar statements elswhere.) What I still want to find is a reference that explains it in detail, using mathematical analysis rather than verbal explanation. Below, I've tried to make clear the conundrum that I'm trying to resolve. Sorry it is long - I could not see how to make it shorter. KR: Thank you for the Bolin and Eriksson 1958 reference. The link does not lead to the paper itself and I did not manage to locate the paper. (I don't have access to library facilities.) I am aware of the Bern model but my query is related to understanding the fundamentals, not the details of the results used by the IPCC and predicted by the Bern model. Tom Curtis: I have not considered volcanic CO2. But, as I said above, at present I am trying to understand the basic principles, I am not attempting to produce realistic results. Dikran Marsupial: Thank you for the link to the abstract of your paper. I read the words which seem to reiterate the statement at the head of this page but, as I said before, my calculations seem to differ from this and I am trying to resolve the discrepancy. The SkS comment is: "Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean." My understanding is that this means that it takes much longer for the system to reach equilibrium than the residencetime of molecule. My calculations give the same average lifetime in the atmosphere for a CO2 molecule in an injected mass of CO2 as the average time for atmospheric CO2 to reach its new equilibrium following the injection. This differs from the SkS statement, if I have correctly understood the latter. Here is what I have done. I have taken a very simple case but I am simply trying to understand the basics, not produce realistic results. I have considered a case of two finite boxes, atmosphere and ocean (let's say). I have made assumptions as follows: 1. The rate of diffusion from atmosphere to ocean (Gt/yr) is proportional to the mass of CO2 (Gt) in the atmosphere and is independent of the mass of CO2 in the ocean. 2. The rate of diffusion from to ocean to atmosphere (Gt/yr) is proportional to the mass of CO2 (Gt) in the ocean and is independent of the mass of CO2 (Gt) in the atmosphere. Note: Assumptions 1 and 2 imply that the system is linear. 3. The system is initially in equilibrium, so that, initially, the rate of diffusion from atmosphere to ocean equals the rate of diffusion from ocean to atmosphere. 4. I assumed a significant total mass of CO2 (in ocean and atmosphere) and calculated the equilibrium mass of CO2 in atmosphere from the diffusion rate coefficients. 5. I then assumed that an additional mass M (Gt) of CO2 is injected into the atmosphere. I calculated: - the equilibrium mass in the atmosphere and in the ocean when the system once again reaches equilibrium, with the additional M Gt in the system. The equilibrium levels will have changed because I have not assumed the ocean is infinite. - I solved the 1st order differential equation giving the atmospheric CO2 as a function of time, to find the time constant with which the atmospheric CO2 reaches the new equilibrium in the presence of the ongoing equilibrium exchange. Then I repeated the calculation, but this time assuming that initially there was zero CO2 in the atmosphere and zero in the ocean. So, physically, the injected molecules of CO2 leaving the atmosphere cannot be being replaced by CO2 from the ocean - there was none in there. I solved the differential equation to find the average time for an injected mass of CO2 to reach the new equilibrium (for a system containing no other CO2), and it was the same as for the initial calculation of the average time to reach equilibrium (for a system with CO2 present in atmosphere and ocean much greater in mass than the injected CO2). This was not unexpected, as the differential equation is linear, so the response to an input (the injected mass) should be independent of the response to other inputs (such as the ongoing equilibrium interchange)simultaneously present. I hope the foregoing makes sense. What I am still hoping to find, is a paper that explains (using mathematics, rather than verbal reasoning) how it is that the average lifetime of an injected CO2 molecule differs greatly (or differs at all) from the average time it takes for the system overall to reach equilibrium following the injection of a mass of CO2. Thank you for any help you can give me.
       Moderator Response: [DB] KR's link itself had a further link to Bolin and Eriksson 1958.
58864. MarkR at 05:25 AM on 18 May 2012
       Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
       #1 70rn , this does appear to be a common way for 'skeptics' to analyse palaeoclimate stuff. I covered a different record here a while ago. I mentioned 3 'tricks' used to 'hide the incline' which are changing the temperature scale, ignoring/hiding/deleting recent measurements and picking one region and implying (or even just saying) that it's a global record. That's what a number of 'skeptics' did with Hubert Lamb's paper tracking UK temperatures up to the 1930s, and with the Sargasso Sea reconstruction it sems that they've added 'including made-up data' to their repertoire. Although I agree with Utahn, people make mistakes and confirmation bias is a more likely reason than just fabricating the data.
58865. Dennis at 03:42 AM on 18 May 2012
       Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
       For the non-scientist (and I count myself as one), this article is an excellent case study. You cover both the inner workings of the scientific review process (asking for clarifications) and the process of commenting on others work (I'm going to speak on your findings and thought I would give you a chance to comment). What's important for a site like this is we can see the attitude that the denier community plays when asked about the science: "It is too bad your employers could not find an objective scientist for this task. ... Do not waste your time with additional email. It will be shunted to the unopened file here." That, plus the fact that you're not welcome at their conference, speaks loudly to the anti-science slant so many legitimate scientists face when the offer serious, legitimate criticisms of scientific work that isn't intended to further scientific discovery. A legitimate scientist whould say why the question was off base, say why. These guys don;t have a leg to stand on.
58866. Rob Honeycutt at 03:03 AM on 18 May 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       matzdj @ 58... "The above statements don't make me think there is significant data that this species is in trouble." If you are seriously interested in this topic you might want to take the time to engage someone who is actively involved in the research. I can pretty much guarantee you that everyone doing the research is going to tell you that the species is very much in danger. What is the polar bears' primary habitat? Sea ice. Specifically summer sea ice prior to the winter when they are feeding on ring seals in preparation for the coming winter. The sea ice is disappearing at an alarming rate. Within 20 years the Arctic sea will seasonally ice-free. Habitat gone. Does that mean every last polar bear will die? No. But it means that there will be a massive and rapid change in their numbers.
58867. Composer99 at 01:56 AM on 18 May 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       matzdj (or do you prefer going by Dave as per your signature?): Please provide either better data or better statistical analysis/projections to support your claim: I read their last full report and found that link between the data in this chart and the projections of extinction seem to be smoke and mirrors. You can say what you like but without data or superior analysis compared to the PBSG you cannot substantiate such a claim and hence your opinion is as valuable as mine.
58868. muoncounter at 01:50 AM on 18 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       matzdj: "there does appear to be a step change in the observed data" If you look long enough at the various temperature records, you will convince yourself of the existence of many past 'steps.' The problem is this: Climate science is not a stack of graphs. Climate science is applied physics, earth science, astronomy. These are where we find the causes for the data we see; they do not support 'steps'. No one claims that climate responds in a straight line fashion to a single forcing. Invoking 'temperature hasn't risen but CO2 keeps going up' is a good indication that you don't fully understand that the system is not just driven by CO2.
58869. Composer99 at 01:20 AM on 18 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       One often sees claims such as the below by matzdj made by pseudoskeptics: The most important data is the data that doesn't fit your models. If you can't explain it, you need to change your model to incorporate it. A little digging almost invariably finds that statements such as these are, by my estimation, unequivocally incorrect. For example, based on what we have known, for decades, about cyclical variation in solar radiation reaching the Earth and on the reflection of solar radiation by aerosol pollutants, we can predict that when we combine an extended trough in incoming solar radiation and extensive aerosol pollution, we expect to see cooling at a global scale. Further, based on what we have known, again for decades, of the physics of radiative transfer in IR-trapping atmospheric gases, we expect to see warming at a global scale when these gases are increasing in concentration. Based on the above understanding, periods where global temperatures or global heat content plateau or even decline slightly are expected to be the result of reduced solar radiation or increased reflection from aerosols outweighing the warming forcing from IR-trapping gases. (Global surface & atmospheric temperatures are, of course, vulnerable to large shifts in energy between these components and the oceans given the latter's much larger heat capacity.) As I have stated above, as far as I know this has been known for decades and is based on the interlocking support of physics theory, experiment (via lab or model), and empirical measurement. Bottom line for the TL;DR crowd: the current behaviour of the climate system is consistent with the present mainstream understanding of the factors driving the Earth's energy balance and its climate, contra claims to the contrary by self-identified climate skeptics.
58870. bath_ed at 00:19 AM on 18 May 2012
       Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
       h pierce @ 28 It appears to have escaped your attention that trains have been hauled by electric locomotives for many decades already, including some of the heaviest freight trains, if not the heaviest such as on the Sishen-Saldanha line that transports iron ore with a 50 kV system. Bern @ 33 Producing synthetic fuels from coal as SASOL does in South Africa is certainly more carbon-intensive than conventional oil, but the figure of 60% of South African emissions isn't credible. As essentially all of SASOL's production is consumed in South Africa it would mean that producing the synthetic fuel would produce more carbon dioxide than burning it. It would also be more than all of the emissions of South Africa's electricity generation and heavy industries, which are overwhelmingly coal-powered.
58871. matzdj at 00:13 AM on 18 May 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       Skywatcher, You may want to go back and check into those comment, too. Below are two examples of those comments about populations listed at "Very High Risk" of decline. "David Strait - New estimates of natural survival and current harvest suggest the population may begin to decline. Scientific and local knowledge suggest the population has significantly increased in the past." "Norwegian Bay-82% of PVA simulations resulted in population decline after 10 years; demographic data are 11 years old.Projections of decline are high also because of low sample size." Davis Strait is one of the larger populations and is listed as highly at risk of decline. This seems to say that we have some anecdotal data that the population used to be increasing, but our new estimates "suggest" the population "may" begin to DECLINE. The Norwegian Bay comment seems to say that they don't have any new data but we have a model (calculated from some very small sample that we do have) that says that if we had data, it could show us that there might be a decline. The above statements don't make me think there is significant data that this species is in trouble. I think PBSG should keep working and should get funding to understand what is happening. But we shouldn't be using their present results to say that Polar Bears have a global warming problem. There doesn't seem to be any data that supports that, based on their reports of increase or decrease in population. And yes, I do know there are programs going on to improve global water quality. But what I am concerned about is that we have limited resources - both the US and the rest of the world. There are lots of problems, both real and imagined. We need to prioritize how and where we spend those dollars based on real impact. [snip] Dave
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] off-topic, all caps etc. snipped. Please familiarise yourself with the comments policy.
58872. Utahn at 00:13 AM on 18 May 2012
       Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
       A very interesting and convincing history of the evolution of a false talking point, and the "telephone game" of increasing distortion that comes along. I am extremely impressed with the diligence and rigor with which you have sorted this out. One possible grammatical nit: I might be mistaken, but would a comma after Heartland in the title be the more correct way to address a statement to them? When I first read the title I thought of it like a newspaper article where the colon would indicate Heartland was saying the statement that followed (though obviously not a direct quote). Lastly, as a part time tone troll, I would submit that it is actually pretty rare for people to intentionally fabricate data (though this does occur), despite what the WUWT crowd might say. I'm also pretty sure the email quoted above to Willie and Noah asserting fabrication wouldn't have been the best way to get an answer as to why the 2006 point was plotted where it was, even if it had been an "honest mistake." I would wager that there is an alternative, confirmation-biasy, or slipshod-type explanation for the 2006 misplot, and that this might have been discovered with a "softer approach". No less horrible for our future, no less important to uncover, but possibly a bit less evil... Now don't get me wrong, an honest broker would print a retraction about the error once pointed out, and of course not use it again. Since it doesn't seem like such a retraction is forthcoming I would not consider Heartland or NIPCC honest brokers. I also cannot overstate how impressed I am at your heroic efforts to nip a distortion in the bud. I just wish we knew the definite real-life-human answer to why that 2006 point was a degree off, hence my tone trolling, for which I fully apologize. I also fully admit there could have been someone such as Noah who sat down and said "ooh, that 2006 point doesn't look good there, let me just move it down." But I bet he did something more subtle, human, and interesting than that, and figuring that out to me, holds greater hope for getting us out of the mess we are in...
58873. Dikran Marsupial at 00:08 AM on 18 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       matzdj You need to read the responses to your posts more carefully, I said very clearly that there is no real evidence for a step change in the observations and that it is very likely just the eye being fooled by the 1998 ENSO related peak. Neither hyperbole about the sky falling in nor failure to pay attention to the responses to your posts are likely to encourage people to respond to your posts any further. Here at SkS we are interested in the science. If you want to continue with your point then I suggest you perform a proper statistical analysis of the observations and present the calculations here.
58874. matzdj at 23:33 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       In these posts, am I hearing Dikran say that there does appear to be a step change in the observed data, but it has not extended for long enough for us to statistically verify that it is not within the existing model? I'l buy that. But doesn't that suggest that maybe we should wait a bit longer to see what is going to happen before suggesting that the sky is falling and planning to spend Trillions of dollars on things aimed only at reducing CO2 emissions, just in case? {snip} Dave
       Moderator Response: TC: Of topic ramblings snipped. Dave, you are welcome to comment here, but you are not welcome to ignore the comments policy. Read it carefully and comply. Failure to do so will result in moderation, and if you consistently fail to comply, moderators will take the easiest method of moderating your posts (deleting). In this particular case, just because one part of a post in on topic does not mean all are. Future of topic ramblings (Gish gallops) will result in the simple deletion of the offending post.
58875. Eric (skeptic) at 23:09 PM on 17 May 2012
       Climate Change Consequences - Often Unexpected
       Here's a well written brochure with some cost data on page 16: http://v3.mmsd.com/AssetsClient/Documents/sustainability/SustainBookletweb1209.pdf Deep tunnel cost is $2.42 per gallon. Green roofs are double that cost but have other benefits. Rain gardens cost more too, but with benefits. However lots of other solutions are much cheaper.
58876. Eric (skeptic) at 22:46 PM on 17 May 2012
       Climate Change Consequences - Often Unexpected
       It is much simpler for bureaucrats to design a giant expensive system and not coincidentally the Cloaca Maxima was built by the last King of Rome and most projects like the State Tunnel Project in RI are mostly federally funded. They are not cost effective. The RI project contains 1.5 inches of storm water at a cost of $359 million. If the same amount of water were impounded in 1/100 of the land area it would be 150 inches deep. But in reality the depth and surface area would be much less with straightforward and practical measures described here http://www.csdu.it/il_sito/Pubblicazioni/altre_pubbl/S'A_RelazioniGenerali/F-Relazione_Mem_Marsalek.pdf In a suburb, every impervious area should have an associated holding area with 1.5 inch capacity without runoff. That's obviously more difficult in the city, but hardly stretches the imagination in Providence which has more than enough elevation to build runoff channels for excess storm water. These solutions are an example of the failure of centralized authority (EPA mandates) and local government run amok.
58877. chrisd3 at 22:23 PM on 17 May 2012
       An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature
       There's another factor at work here: As temperature rises, CO2 sinks become less and less effective, so the relationship between total CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration is exponential over a scale of decades to centuries. This exponential relationship between emissions and concentration essentially cancels the logarithmic relationship between concentration and warming, so that the relationship between total emissions and warming is more or less linear. See Matthews et al 2009: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/abs/nature08047.html and more discussion at ClimateSight: http://climatesight.org/2012/05/16/cumulative-emissions-and-climate-models/
58878. bath_ed at 21:49 PM on 17 May 2012
       Climate Change Consequences - Often Unexpected
       I think the value of this post is in pointing out the unexpected, undramatic impacts of warming the Earth, which will end up being costly to solve. I don't believe predictions that half the population of Los Angeles is going to die from lack of water within the space of two weeks in the next few decades - that is really alarmist and I don't think it helps the task of convincing people that climate change is a serious issue. As for peak oil, it may well have already happened, and we'll only know for certain once it's behind us. The fact that oil producers haven't been able to increase their production in response to dramatic price increases, even in a world economic crisis which one expects to dampen demand, points to an inability to pump more oil. I've read several conflicting studies on the issue. Some suggest that the increasing cost of fossil fuels will prompt a switch to renewable and low-carbon energy sources whatever our climate policy. Others have a gloomy scenario in which we switch to non-conventional oil sources such as the Athabasca tar sands in Canada, Venezuela's Orinoco Belt tar sands, coal-to-liquids technology as used by SASOL in South Africa to produce synthetic diesel etc, which would combine catastrophic warming with economic depression brought on by trying to continue an economic model based on cheap oil in an era of expensive synthetic oil.
58879. les at 20:29 PM on 17 May 2012
       Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
       A fabulous look at the AstroTurf manufacturing process.
58880. dorlomin at 19:52 PM on 17 May 2012
       Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
       Would it be churlish of me to point out there is a self anointed pseudo auditor who has taken it upon themself to examine all the paleo misrepresentations, yet seems to have missed this one?
58881. Dikran Marsupial at 19:38 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       Helena, the point is that saying that the climate exhibits hysteresis is no more informative than saying that it exhibits step changes, it is a statement about the observations, it isn't an explanation for thos observations. However, as I said, there is little evidence that there has actually been a step change that needs explaining!
58882. Helena at 19:12 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       DM : I do not have any idea on what exactly would cause the climate system to exhibit this exact hysteresis properties. I am merely responding to "muon" statement by saying that hysteresis property (and therefore step changes)and metastable states are not uncommon in complex systems ; in the climate system, there are many places where you can store heat or cold.
58883. Dikran Marsupial at 17:35 PM on 17 May 2012
       2011 Sea Ice Minimum
       I've updated my model with data up to Sept 2011 and the revised prediction for Sept 2012 is 4.584938 +/- 1.031588 M km^2. As before, this is not a serious attempt to predict this years September average sea ice extent, just experimenting with the GPML toolkit, as Roy Spencer would say "for entertainment purposes". Having said which I'd be surprised if the actual extent lay outside the 95% credible interval, very happy if it were above, (much) less so if below.
58884. Dikran Marsupial at 17:14 PM on 17 May 2012
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Martin A I wrote a peer-reviewed response to the paper by Robert Essenhigh on the residence time argument, you can find the abstract etc. here. I use a one-box model (similar to that used by Essenhigh) and get a short residence time of about 4 years and an adjustment time of about 74 years. However, you can't get a good quantative estimate of the true life time of an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere from simple one- or two-box models. The reason for this is that such models only model the fast takeup of CO2 into the thermocline. The full response of the ocean needs to include the slower transport of CO2 into the deep ocean, for which you need a model that includes a layered ocean (and other additions), such as the Bern model. If you get an adjustment time of 50-200 years, then you are in the right ball park for the uptake into the thermocline and are unlikely to do any better with such a simple model. HTH
58885. Dikran Marsupial at 17:04 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       matzdj wrote "The most important data is the data that doesn't fit your models. If you can't explain it, you need to change your model to incorporate it." I think the problem here is that you clearly don't know what the models actually say. I think it is incumbent upon you at this point to do some research before making such bold statements.
58886. Dikran Marsupial at 17:01 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       helena@65 "Hysteresis" is not an explanation, as Tom rightly points out. Now if you could give a physical explanation why the climate should exhibit hysteresis, then that might be an explanation. However, before trying to explain the reason for there being a step change, you first need to show that there is evidence that a step change has actually ocurred, rather than a long term trend with noise. The analysis has been done more than once, and the statistical evidence for a step change is very small.
58887. Dikran Marsupial at 16:56 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       matzdj wrote "I try not to use short term trends, but I also try to not to ignore the short term trend that doesn't fit the model, unless I can find a cause that was not in the model." I can't let this pass. It has already been explained to you that short term trends are essentially meaningless as the magnitude of the long term trend is small compared to the noise (i.e. internal climate variability). Thus you are in no position to say that the short term trend doesn't fit the model. If you look at the error bars on the model, then the current observations fit within them as well as might reasonably be expected. Essentially you need to learn what the model actually says. Here is an example of model output from RealClimate, the black line is the most likely outcome, but anything in the 95% range is in line with expectations. Note that even with the recent "levelling off" the observations are well within the error bars (in fact they are only just over one standard deviation from the mean). "By any chance has anyone done a Student-t analysis of the data from 1979-1996 versus the population from 2002-2012 to see whether they appear to be data from the same population?" Yes, and I said so in my previous post (although the proper test isn't as simple as a t-test because the populations would be different whether there was a step change or a linear trend). I even set a break-point analysis of this data as an assignment for my MSc class in Bayesian statistics. The 2002-2012 period is just too short to determine reliably whether there is a trend or not. The image is an animated GIF, I didn't create it, but there are software packages that can create them in the public domain. If you are worried about manipulating the data, then the key is not to have a pre-concieved view on what the outcome should be (bear in mind the famous quote "he uses statistics in the same way that a drunk uses a lamp-post - more for support than illumination" ;o). The next most important thing is to perform a statistical hypothesis test to see if the statistics back up your subjective interpretation.
58888. 70rn at 16:28 PM on 17 May 2012
       Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
       It isn't the first this specific form of distortion has been documented here. I recall essentially identical treatment of greenland temperature (last year?), right down to the 1-2 punch combo of 'make-local-global'/'make-past-present', in an attempt to floor that most pernicious of opponents, accuracy. I'm very grateful to the continued dissection of these types of presentations. Particuarly in regards to the methodology of such paleotemperature studies. It's pretty incredible that modern thermometer data is sieved so finely, month by month, when 50 year average data slabs containing noise from Churchill's childhood is accepted verbatim...
58889. Helena at 15:45 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       Tom, do we agree that hysteresis is a possible class of explanation for step changes, especially in a complex system ? I'm not saying that's what's happening (i actually do not think that is is what we are seeing), but such phenomena do exist.
58890. Tom Curtis at 15:42 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       Helena @63, "hysteresis" is not an explanation. It is merely the name for a class of explanations. Saying "What about hysteresis" contributes no more to explaining the event than a scholastic saying that opium induces sleep because of its " dormitive virtue". It is sloganeering, not discussion.
58891. Helena at 15:24 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       muoncounter55 : "Your proposed 'step change' has been discussed here before. The problem is that there is no physical mechanism that can make that happen." What about hysteresis ?
58892. skywatcher at 15:17 PM on 17 May 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       Dave, did you read the 'comment' links next to each statement? There is a justification for each of their evaluations, and it's certainly based on a lot more than a photo of a polar bear cub. Do you really believe the world is "focusing on Polar Bear longevity when 250,000 children die every year from lack of a clean water supply"? Do you not think the world is trying to solve both problems?
58893. matzdj at 14:45 PM on 17 May 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       Below is the Polar Bear Population, by colony, from the Polar Bear Study Group site http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html. Third column from the right is the Status. 5 groups are Reduced, 4 are Not Reduced, and 10 are Data Deficient. But based on that and on assumptions about what will happen if there is major glacier melt, They identify 8 will be trending down, 3 will be stable, and one will increase. But the estimate of risk says 6 are at very high risk, 1 is High Risk, 1 is a Moderate Risk, and 2 are at low Risk. Note that in the Chukchi Sea, they claim to not know how many bears there are, but they report them as trending down. In the Norwegian Bay, the Status is Data Deficient but they are listed as being at high risk of future decline. I read their last full report and found that link between the data in this chart and the projections of extinction seem to be smoke and mirrors. In the 1950's the population was about 5000. Today the population is 20,000-25,000. How can we be focusing on Polar Bear longevity when 250,000 children die every year from lack of a clean water supply. Our concern about polar bear extinction, now that hunting is under control, seems to be totally misplaced because of a photo of a polar bear cub sitting on a tiny piece of sea ice. Dave
58894. skywatcher at 14:20 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       Dave #61: Heat content is a property, like many in the climate system, that has a variation (noise) about a trend of some magnitude. Some may be actual variation, some may be measurement errors, of a value not shown on the plot. These contribute to the fact that the heat content graph you show is not rising monotonically (though you might see that the 0-2000m heat content at NOAA does appear to be rising pretty smoothly). Consequently, it is not straightforward to determine whether the rising trend from about 1983 on your chart has actually abated in any way. You certainly cannot do it by eye, as your eye will be all-too-easily drawn to illusory patterns. Plot your NOAA data from 1983-2006, add a trend, determine if it is significant, examine the residuals, then add in the last five years of data. Are they close to the rising trend? Is there any evidence in that plot that what you are seeing is anything but noise about the rising trend? Have we departed from the trend? You can do the same with temperature data, as in Tamino's excellent Riddle Me This post. Plateaux are very frequently illusions - as Richard Alley and SkS' own Escalator show, you're always on a plateau if you allow yourself to be fooled into thinking that noise is signal. So far, from the evidence of that plot alone, I don't see anything that is unexplainable.
58895. matzdj at 13:35 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       DB, My apologies for that last long post. i won't do that again. It was all in response to comments made about my earlier post. All one subject - trying to understand the link between CO2 and Global Temperature that transcends observed correlation. I've seen some of the posts on the global heat content. The bar chart I showed: is from NOAA. Do you dispute their report? In the last 10 years, how is global heat content change consistent with any steadily increasing parameter - like atmospheric CO2. Yes it has increased. Yes it is higher now than it has been for the recent 30+ years. Doesn't it look like there is a flattening? Why is anything that doesn't meet the belief, always blown off as short term or anomalous or bad data or funded by big oil. If the experiment was good and the data reduction unbiased, it is unscientific to not consider it. Dave How long would this data have to not increase before there would be an acceptance that it is not increasing? The most important data is the data that doesn't fit your models. If you can't explain it, you need to change your model to incorporate it. Dave
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "Doesn't it look like there is a flattening?"

       You rely on the fallible eyecrometer when in-depth analysis sheds a more accurate, and different, light on the matter. This has been studied thoroughly and is fully documented on this site.

       For starters, a select few may be found here, here, here, here and here.

       It is not a question of belief; the data is what it is and show the warming to be irrefutable. To maintain otherwise displays innocent ignorance or denial.

58896. Helena at 13:11 PM on 17 May 2012
       IPCC graph showing accelerating trends is misleading
       (-Snip-)
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Moderation complaints snipped. Please construct comments to adhere to this site's Comments Policy.

       Please note that simply disagreeing without then providing a foundation based in the science/literature is construed as sloganeering. As you have consistently been doing this it also constitutes excessive repetition.

       If you have something of substance to support your position then your are welcome to provide it. However, as it stands your position has been completely refuted on this thread.

58897. matzdj at 12:34 PM on 17 May 2012
       Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
       Repost 1 Gee Whiz! I'm glad that I got so many comment on my post. I haven't had time to go through them all yet yet, but I promise I will. Here are some of my comments so far: Sphaerica, I didn't said that there is no "global warming'. What I'm trying to understand is how you build a causal relationship between a steadily increasing parameter like atmospheric CO2 concentration over this last 40 years and what appears to be a step change in average temperature level. I've read the first two articles you suggested but the key thing that I gained from them was a set of temperature rise data that was quite different than my starting point, which as you know came from Roy Spencer. I recognize that there are lots of questions about some of this proposals and theories and analyses, but is there any argument about the data reduction he shows from the NOAA GISS data? (I'm just talking about the data points and not the curve fits of the 13 month averages). The original post in this thread started with that curve, using it without question. Is there an argument that the blue dots on this curve are not valid? http://home.comcast.net/~matzdj/SkepticalScienceNote051412/UAHRaw.jpg If it's considered good data and a proper reduction of that data to average monthly global temperature, my argument still stands. Global temperature is higher now than it was in 1979. We all know that there is more C02 in the atmosphere now than in 1979. But, if you think about it, there are also many more microchips in use today than in 1979. Which causal relationship would you like to draw? [You mentioned inappropriate data presentation. I've read the book 'Cheating with Graphs". I try to look past the curve fit and don't see any axis stretching on this chart. ] I am convinced that you you have to look at the data, not just statistically analyze it. Even something as simple as averages can be very deceiving. I went hunting last week. I fired at a duck and mssed by 6 in front. Then I took a second shot and missed by 6 inches behind. On the average, the duck is dead. You comment that a 10 year analysis is too short for climate. I agree. But the lack of temperature increase over the period 2002-2012 when there was accelerating CO2 emissions certainly doesn't do anything to confirm the CO2 vs T relationship. Is there any expermental result that would convince you that the theory of CO2 relationship with global warming was incorrect? Has anyone identified an experiment that could possibly show that? Is there anyone running experiments that could say the theory is wrong? It seems to me that the anthropogenic believers don't waste their time looking. It's not science any longer. It's now a belief and almost a theology. The post about Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 looks interesting, but I need to get the original article and try to understand it a lot better. From the "moving" curve posted by Dikran Marsupial. it appears their starting data was very similar to the UAH curve I started with, but they extracted out all the other effects. I hadn't seen this article and it looks interesting. As a general comment, it is very interesting that when Temperature was rising, it was used as the evidence of global warming, but now that it looks like that trend has flattened, all of a sudden, we need to find a new way to prove that our original theory still holds. You're not supposed to start with the answer and then search for some data that matches the answer. As I said in my post, I was intrigued by the thought that heat content is probably a better way to look at global warming. However the NOAA chart I showed in my post seems to say that it's recent trend has also flattened . You commented a) Don't use short trends. b) Don't assume that because the simple observations are noisy that you can't extract a clearer signal from the data. c) When you do look at the signal, and you also consider the complexity and other factors in the system, everything makes sense. d) Read and learn more before you adopt a position. I try not to use short term trends, but I also try to not to ignore the short term trend that doesn't fit the model, unless I can find a cause that was not in the model. Then I try to fix the model to include that effect. Why is there no global temperature or global heat content response to increasing CO2 over the last 10 years. Who in the IPCC is trying to answer that question? I can accept noisy data. What I can't accept is a 15 year set of data that is cyclical, but around a relatively stable mid-point demonstrating the low end and another similar set at a high mid-point being considered the high end and then having straight line being drawn between them. That is not good data interpretation. The correlation coefficient of a linear fit from 1979 to 2012 can't be very good - even if you ignore the El Nino and Mt Pinatubo anomalies. I can accept that the complexity of the system makes it hard to interpret. I will seriously try to understand Foster and Rahmstorf , but I would much prefer to add all those exogenous effects into the model rather than trying to extract out the trend I was looking for to find an underlying trend. Data manipulation can lead the most sincere analyzer to put his biases into the manipulation. Finally (to Sphaerica) I am trying to learn as much as I can before adopting a position. My present position is that I don't have one because when I look I can't find "settled science". i'm not saying that there is no relationship. I'm saying that I can't see it in the data that I can find. To michael sweet, I agree with you that an eyeball fit is certainly not as precise as a good statistical fit. I got lazy. I can't disagree with you that the data might have a slight upward drift. But all the statistics in this world would not show the data from 1979 thru 1996 having a trend that would lead to a midpoint that is 0.3°C higher by the 2002 until 2012 period. If I have the time, I'll try to extract the data and verify how good my eyeball is, but I can't believe that it will lead to a different conclusion. You can only get a different conclusion by including the latter data and trying to fit these two totally separate data sets with a single line. Has anyone tried checking to statistically see whether these two sets of data (1979-1996 and 2002-2012) are likely to be from two totally separate data sets? To muoncounter and DSL Just because you don't know the physical mechanism, doesn't mean there wasn't one. If Einstein had looked at his data that way, he would never have come up with Relativity. Keplar 's would have been happy with the "known' model and never come up with ellipses for the planetary orbits. Since we know it's hotter and we know that CO2 is increasing and we know that CO2 is a global warming gas, we seem to have a definitive causal relationship. It seems to me that the AGW folks are using the the classical, " If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." I refused to go to the graduate school that had the Philosophy that no experimental result was confirmed until you have a theory. That's nonsense. If the experiment is unbiased and data reduction is done without bias, then you cannot honestly discard the conclusions it leads to just because you don't understand the physics of might have happened. I agree that CO2 is a global warming gas, as are water vapor and methane and others. And clouds act as global coolers. The physics response of doubling CO2 calculated to about 1°C global temperature rise. It is only because of the projection models, with their assumed feedbacks, that leads to gloom and doom of 6° increases. How is the data we are discussing here consistent with that? Do any of these model predict what we have seen from 2002-2012? To Dana I need to spend a lot more time with the post that you described, but a quick glance seemed to once again be rationalizing how this result could occur, even if the answer that was posed was still correct. I can't buy continual rationalization. There was also a comment that the poster didnt' t like a lot of the data sets used that discussed the potential of a step change in Temperature. Well....what is the data set that everyone is willing to accept? Is there one? I've been following the UAH data for the last 10 years. When I started, I didn't notice the flat period from 1979-1996 and only saw the higher levels in the post-1998 period. Since then, temperature has been higher, at an apparently fixed level (with cyclical variations around it). What I want to know is, " how is that consistent with steadily increasing levels of CO2 causing increases in global temperature?" To Dikran Marsupial, Your curve without the El Nino anomoly makes an interesting point. I blocked out that region when I did my visual analysis in an attempt to not bias my eye. By any chance has anyone done a Student-t analysis of the data from 1979-1996 versus the population from 2002-2012 to see whether they appear to be data from the same population? Finally, Dikran, how did you have the two sets of curves flip up and back on your post. That's a great tool. Is this from the analysis of Foster and Rahmstorf ? I'm concerned about manipulating the heck out of data before trying to interpret it, but it is a worthwhile venture to try to find an underlying trend. I would be very interested in trying to understand what the causes of cooling were that masked the steady increase in temperature caused by CO2. Thank you all for you inputs, I will stay on my search Dave
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "Why is there no global temperature or global heat content response to increasing CO2 over the last 10 years."

       Incorrect. Numerous posts exist on this website debunking this meme (this site's search function will reveal many). Multiple datasets covering your timespan all show no statistically significant deviation from the well-established long-term warming trend.

       Participants, Dave has posted a very long comment with multiple areas of focus that are better covered on other threads. Please take those individual discussions to those more appropriate threads lest we deal with a dogpiling response to a gish gallop. Thank you in advance.

58898. Composer99 at 12:12 PM on 17 May 2012
       Richard Alley's Escalator
       As usual, Dr Alley does a great job.
58899. skywatcher at 10:50 AM on 17 May 2012
       Medieval project gone wrong
       #56, afraid I'm choosing to remain anonymous for the time being, for my own reasons, but my example is hardly unique amongst the papers on CO2science.
58900. PT_Goodman at 10:24 AM on 17 May 2012
       Medieval project gone wrong
       50, skywatcher I'm interested in which paper of yours is described, with results misrepresented, at CO2 Science. TIA

Prev  1170  1171  1172  1173  1174  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  1180  1181  1182  1183  1184  1185  Next