Recent Comments

Prev  1188  1189  1190  1191  1192  1193  1194  1195  1196  1197  1198  1199  1200  1201  1202  1203  Next

Comments 59751 to 59800:

59751. Bob Lacatena at 04:58 AM on 23 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       28, Uncle Ben, Your worshipful attitude towards Spencer is wholeheartedly unskeptical. Especially when the flaws are so obvious. Muoncounter has already quoted the single most important fact, from Tamino:

       He’s based his estimation of climate sensitivity on time spans which are so brief that feedback (in the usual sense) in the climate system doesn’t have time to operate! If you eliminate feedback (in the usual sense) from consideration, you’re not going to get a realistic estimate of climate sensitivity.

       That's it, right there. What Spencer has done is equivalent to proving that you aren't aging by demonstrating that you weren't more prone to illness after a week of elapsed time. It's meaningless. When you add to that the other problems with his report, the whole thing is a waste of time (have you read the criticism above? Why do you put so much effort into lauding him without addressing those criticisms?).
59752. KR at 04:36 AM on 23 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       bill - "...take time to savour what happens here [HVR* warning] to even one of the faithful where he dares point out that Salby's Emperor is, um, starkers!..." As someone else who participated in that discussion, noting the concentration adjustment time factors for CO2, I would have to once again quote Nietzsche: "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." Quite frankly, if the 'skeptics' had any actual points regarding the science - well, they would make better arguments.
59753. yarnoiser at 03:49 AM on 23 April 2012
       Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
       Its so frustrating. People in the blogosphere will keep cycling back to this quote about 'nature tricks' and 'hiding the decline'. They keep using it, even after you point out that it's about tree rings, not global temperatures. I'm not sure how to present the evidence to convince some people who seem to think that there HAS to be a massive conspiracy out there.
59754. John Hartz at 03:43 AM on 23 April 2012
       Climate Change Boosts Then Quickly Stunts Plants, Decade-long Study Shows
       Suggested reading: “Global warming: Alpine plants swiftly losing ground” by Bob Berwyn, Summit County Citizens Voice, Apr 22, 2012 http://www.skepticalscience.com/admin_author.php?Action=EditBlog
59755. Uncle Ben at 02:29 AM on 23 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       @muon counter I suspected that you are a physicists from your username. The Tamino reference is quite interesting. Thanks. He does not seem to accept that the slope on the dH/dt vs dT represents inverse sensitivity. I thought that was well accepted. He complains that a mere 8 years is too short a time to measure feedback. Doesn't that depend on how fast the feedback is? Feedback to the heating of the ocean, if any, is certainly quite slow. That is why what I have called the curly parts curly. Ocean currents are affected chaotically by many things on the way to equilibrium. But it is certainly helpful to have the usual (non-time-connected) plots recognized as showing points that are certainly not at equilibium, and in that case there is no reason to expect a proportionality between rate of heating and temperature. But the heating of air by warm water is quick. The ratio of specific heats of air and water is quite small. That is why the segments are straight. So the 8 years of data are plenty for the feedback of cloud effects. The parallel segments measure the (inverse) sensitivity at equilibrium between rate of heating by oceans of the atmosphere. Of course, the reason for using the brief span of satellite data is that we have the dH/dt data and the time of measurement. The temperature data inferred earlier is informative for temperature, but we cannot estimate the forcings that caused it. This makes it hard to infer sensitivity. Regarding ice ages and sensitivity, here we are talking about feedback of a different kind. Feedback to albedo is certainly strong and positive. @Tom Dayton Some decisions require statistics and some do not. If you measure each line slope, you can do the statistics and find the std. deviation. But some things are actually obvious. If you look at the plots in the Blunder book, you will see. In physics, the half-serious view of statistics is, if you need statistics to make your point, improve your experiment. That one has tongue in cheek, but there is some truth to it. I have taught statistics and have examples where they are needed.
59756. KeefeandAmanda at 02:11 AM on 23 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       Well, when all the causal possibilities except one have been pretty much falsified, by the process of elimination that's pretty darn well close to being sure. Here is what I mean: I like to simplify and generalize things as much as possible when talking to people about global warming, especially when they are fake skeptics. Here is what I say: To simplify and generalize things as much as possible, let's realize that apart from heat from the interior of the planet, there generally are only three possible ways to heat the planet's fluidic system (atmosphere and oceans taken together as a system - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics for an idea of what I mean): (1) More heat falling onto Earth from space (from the sun); (2) more of the heat falling onto Earth being absorbed - that is, decreased albedo or less reflected sunlight; (3) less of the absorbed heat radiating back out into space via increased greenhouse gas activity. (All talk of such things as cosmic rays, clouds, aerosols from volcanic activity or human pollution, etc. is covered by the general case of (2).) Atmospheric heating by either of general cases (1) and (2) alone or together implies that, globally: (A) the nighttime temperature rises slower than the daytime temperature; (B) the arctic temperature rises slower than the equatorial temperature; (C) the winter temperature rises slower than the summer temperature. Atmospheric heating by general case (3) implies that, globally: (D) the nighttime temperature rises faster than the daytime temperature; (E) the arctic temperature rises faster than the equatorial temperature; (C) the winter temperature rises faster than the summer temperature. Guess what has actually has been happening on average over the past several decades? Conditions (D), (E), and (F) happened, the opposite of (A), (B), and (C). Since (1) or (2) alone or taken together implies false conditions, the fake skeptic claim that only one or both of (1) or (2) has been causing the heating - that (3) has had nothing or essentially nothing to do with it - is falsified. By the process of elimination, there has to have been very significant involvement of (3) to result in the heating, an involvement much more significant than the fake skeptics are willing to admit to.
59757. John Russell at 02:07 AM on 23 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       Why am I sure I'm right? Well as of this moment I can be completely sure -- though that's not to say contrary evidence might one day make me change my mind (well; we can live in hope). But, if I look at all the various lines of evidence in thousands of papers produced by thousands of climate scientists and the thousands of explanatory blogs written by climate science supporters, then it all adds up to a coherent picture. A picture that's not completely formed and has a few missing pieces -- but is very much hanging together. On the other hand, if I read all the fake sceptic and denial literature I don't see a coherent picture: I see a mish-mash of cherry-picked, discrete examples of evidence, many of which contradict one another. What's more, when I see climate scientists and lay people discussing the evidence, sometimes disagreeing about detail I see that generally they learn from each other in an atmosphere of discovery. On the other hand, with fake sceptics and deniers, I see just people spreading denial memes and failing to argue with one another: if you're in climate denial and you're having a go at 'the team' then you're a good egg. So the answer to the first question is very clear to me.
59758. Tom Dayton at 01:42 AM on 23 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       Uncle Ben wrote:

       Then see if, among the scattered connection lines, it jumps out at you that half of them are all parallel. It doesn't take a linear regression to estimate their common slope as about 6.0 (dashed line).

       Uncle Ben, humans are very good at seeing patterns, because that's a crucial survival skill. It is such an important survival skill that humans are biased toward seeing patterns in samples of data even when those patterns do not exist in the population of data from which those samples are drawn. That was a good bias in our evolutionary history, where usually there was a low cost of acting on the basis of perceived patterns that are not really in the population, compared to the high cost of failing to act due to not recognizing patterns that really are in the population. For example, a shrub rustling could indicate a bear. Changing course to avoid that shrub has the slightly negative expected value of missing whatever food might be in that shrub (low probability of there being more food in that shrub than elsewhere, low value of food in that shrub versus elsewhere, even if it is in that shrub). In contrast, not changing course has a large negative expected value (fairly low probability of being killed by bear, but very expensive cost if true). The inferential statistics that you so casually dismissed are crucial tools for mitigating those biases in judgment based on visually detecting patterns. All that long ago was well established in the empirical science of judgment and decision making. For example, Tversky and Khaneman (1971) called it "belief in the Law of Small Numbers." They found it existed even among 84 scientific research psychologists all of whom had extensive training and experience to avoid that bias. So I'm not picking on you, I'm simply pointing out how difficult it is to counteract that bias. You can't really avoid that bias, because it's a core part of being human. Instead you must acknowledge the bias's existence and consciously override your instinct despite what your gut is telling you. There are some utterly reliable examples of judgment and decision problems whose correct answer violently disagrees with people's gut, to the extent that when I try to force my gut to match my head, I literally start to feel nauseous despite my years of training as a decision researcher. I find that fascinating. I suspect you, too, will find it fascinating, so here are some links to get you started; I suggest dipping in to the references on these pages, especially the peer-reviewed publications, instead of stopping after reading just these particular pages: the clustering illusion in the Skeptic's Dictionary, the clustering illusion in Wikipedia (remember, don't just trust Wikipedia--read the referenced papers), and apophenia in Wikipedia (I'm not at all suggesting you suffer from apophenia; I'm linking there because it has a wide range of references relevant to a particular judgment bias.) Being disciplined in doing that overriding of your gut is a big part of scientific training in fields that inherently have messy data. Perhaps the scientific field from which you are now retired had relatively tidy data and so does not require so much vigilance against that bias. But you need to recognize that your expertise in one narrow field of science does not transfer to all other areas of science.
59759. muoncounter at 01:37 AM on 23 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       Uncle Ben#25, While I appreciate the continued double-quoted shout-outs, I am not sure they contribute to productive discussion. If you are curious as to the origin of my login name here, I do indeed count muons (in my spare time). "You do understand that the technique displayed in Spencer's plots has not been seen before in this field." No. Others have tried to prove their misconceptions by looking at short term changes alone (notably, that year-to-year changes in atmospheric CO2 were supposed to show a natural source). Tamino did an excellent analysis of this type of mistake (which Spencer made as far back as 2008): He’s based his estimation of climate sensitivity on time spans which are so brief that feedback (in the usual sense) in the climate system doesn’t have time to operate! If you eliminate feedback (in the usual sense) from consideration, you’re not going to get a realistic estimate of climate sensitivity. After some searching, a graph similar to the one you describe as so revolutionary is shown here: -- source In this graph, many 'segments' are indeed parallel. But what does that signify? Rather than declare that 'Mother Nature is trying to tell us something,' look at the graph itself. In a plot of change in flux vs. change in temperature, we are looking at derivatives. What is the significance of the slope of a derivative in this context, except as a very effective means of removing the longer term trend? A derivative, after all, is a high-pass filter. And in climate contexts, high frequency equates to noise. Note: If this is not the type of graph you are describing, my apologies. There are numerous criticisms of Spencer's method, both on the source page for the graph above and on the RealClimate review of Spencer's blunder. At the minimum, Spencer somehow equates global radiation to ocean-only temperature change, presents (without saying so) a very short time span of data and emphasizes monthly variation (which of course, obscures the longer period terms). To make matters worse, Spencer's own words betray a certain lack of scientific objectivity: I find it difficult to believe that I am the first researcher to figure out what I describe in this book. Either I am smarter than the rest of the world’s climate scientists–which seems unlikely–or there are other scientists who also have evidence that global warming could be mostly natural, but have been hiding it. So let us lose the Galileo references, the 'witchhunt' fears and the appeal to 10 minute exercises. Let us lose the proclamations of Nobelity (which seem to be prevalent only on the pages of WUWT). I do agree that we must always be on the alert for hints of paradigm change. But this wasn't it.
59760. Daniel Bailey at 01:20 AM on 23 April 2012
       Climate Change Boosts Then Quickly Stunts Plants, Decade-long Study Shows
       So Steve reads part of a post, finds the parts which support his preconceptions and ignores the rest. How unsurprising.
59761. Kevin C at 00:49 AM on 23 April 2012
       Climate Change Boosts Then Quickly Stunts Plants, Decade-long Study Shows
       You've got the right quote but missed the important point: The encroaching species which overtook the transplanted species were less productive, and yet still managed to overtake the transplanted species. The effect of the simulated warming was a shift toward less productive species, and therefore a reduction in CO2 uptake. That is the part which was surprising.
59762. Steve Case at 00:14 AM on 23 April 2012
       Climate Change Boosts Then Quickly Stunts Plants, Decade-long Study Shows
       
       The team transplanted four grassland ecosystems from a higher to lower elevation to simulate a future warmer environment, and coupled the warming with the range of predicted changes in precipitation--more, the same, or less. The grasslands studied were typical of those found in northern Arizona along elevation gradients from the San Francisco Peaks down to the Great Basin Desert. The researchers found that long-term warming resulted in loss of native species and encroachment of species typical of warmer environments, ultimately pushing the plant community toward less productive species.
       So the team transplanted a climax ecosystem to a lower vegitation zone and were suprised that the climax ecosystem in that lower vegitation zone eventually prevailed.
59763. Uncle Ben at 00:08 AM on 23 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       @Skywatcher I appreciate your post. No, Crichton did not persuade me, but he did present some ideas that were new to me. The result was that I started digging deeper. Onl later was I persuaded that there was something going on here with the concensus that was not right. If you want to be wrong (which I understand completely) you should spend ten minutes on the exercise I just recommended to Delmar. (I am not offerring to buy everyone a book, but that is another matter.) Your scientific curiosity must be aroused by the hint of a new phenomenon. You do understand that the technique displayed in Spencer's plots has not been seen before in this field. He has, at least, shown that there is more information in the dH/dt vs dT plots than has previously been recognized. If "muon counter" considered it impossible, someone should be able to poke a hole into the claim that it has been done.
59764. skywatcher at 23:45 PM on 22 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       As an addendum to the last post, it should be noted that climate scientists, without exception among the many I have met along the way and without exception among those who are asked, want to be wrong! It's not a cheering thought that we're changing our climate faster than has ever happened in the palaeocliamtic record. It would be much more comforting if something magical was to come and cancel out the radiative effect of the excess CO2, add some alkalinity to the oceans, and stabilise the mass balance of the great ice sheets. Sadly, there is no evidence for this magic that I hope to read about every single day.
59765. skywatcher at 23:37 PM on 22 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       Uncle Ben, you sound like a potentially reasonable peron, but seriously, ask yourself the following questions, and ask them with an open mind: Does reading "The Da Vinci Code" shake to your foundations our understanding of the history of Christianity and reveal that Jesus' great-great-great granddaughter is living among us, or do you accept it is a work of fiction? Does reading "Jurassic Park" make you think that we can actually recreate dinosaurs from 65 million-year old DNA? Does reading "Congo" amke you think there are intelligent, sentient, trained gorillas living in the forests of Virunga National Park? Does reading "Twilight" (or "Dracula") make you think there are vampires living among us? Two of these four very readable works of fiction were written by Michael Crichton, a medical doctor with no more climate science expertise than I have of dentistry. Why should reading "State of Fear" make you think that climate skepticism has any sound foundation? Crichton was very good at his trade - but he was a successful writer of fictional stories that seemed almost believable. I'm sorry to think you might have been fooled by him. I don't think the recreated dinosaurs, climate skepticism, or dangerous sentient gorillas are plausible, given the current state of knowledge, and certainly Roy Spencer has not succeeded in presenting a case either. Go learn about the mountain of evidence that underpins our understanding of climate science (the links above contain a wealth of good references) - and you could do worse than start with Spencer Weart's excellent history of our understanding of the Greenhouse Effect, and also take an hour out with the great Richard Alley to learn why CO2 is the biggest control knob on climate. You have enough physics to understand the robustness of the basics of the theory, and I hope you have enough open-mindedness to realise that if there's a witch hunt (enter stage left Ken Cuccinelli and Sen Inhofe), it is against your former colleagues, the scientists, not with them.
59766. Eric (skeptic) at 22:33 PM on 22 April 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       Re: subsidies. One measurement of subsidies is how much the taxpayer pays versus how much the ratepayer pays. The Texas taxpayer pay very little in subsidies for wind power, and ratepayers pay a very low 11-12 cents per kWh for all sources. Part of the reason is that Texas wind picks up some Federal subsidies. It is all detailed in this report: http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/
59767. Realist at 22:28 PM on 22 April 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       Michael Sweet #40 As for the subsidy for wind being higher than FF, and you mentioned Texas... http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-WindEnergy-CEF-CEE.pdf "Subsidies for wind are one source of these costs. Although most energy sources receive some government subsidies, the subsidies for renewable energy sources are far higher on a per unit of production basis than traditional sources of energy. At $23.37 per MW hour, wind receives 100 times the federal money that natural gas generation receives. The federal government provides hundreds of billions for renewable energy projects, including grants for 35 percent of construction cost."
59768. Uncle Ben at 22:23 PM on 22 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       @Delmar Your rational response persuades me to break my promise not to post here anymore. I cannot provide a link as you request, but I can offer a ten-minute read that may or may not entice you into deeper investigation. Borrow or steal a copy of the Blunder book and look at p.98, fig. 22. This is a plot of the kind I have been describing. See the regression line of the points taken in the conventional way (solid line, slope 2.5). Then see if, among the scattered connection lines, it jumps out at you that half of them are all parallel. It doesn't take a linear regression to estimate their common slope as about 6.0 (dashed line). Ask yourself if this is not something new. Why should there be hidden in all the presumed "noise" of the satellite data so many connection lines all having the same slope. Is nature trying to tell you something? If $25 is an obstacle, I will buy you a copy of the book if you can somehow send me your address. You can find my email address on my profile in alt.globalwarming. Use a "reply to author" link on any of my posts. @Skywatcher Thanks for attempting to broaden my education. I have read Hansen and many articles on both sides. I am a retired physicist (Ph.D. Johns Hopkins) and many years of teaching and research, but in low temperature properties of metals, not in climate science. I have some 25 published experimental papers and a text on vector calculus, now out of print. I was a believer in global warming until Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear, shook me up a bit. Further reading on both sides led me to Spencer. I have observed witch hunts before, and the vehemence and violence of the attacks on him and the ignorance exhibited by even eminent authorities in the "concensus" persuaded me to study him deeper. Thank you for the serious post. I wish we could have some deep conversations. I came to Skeptical Science looking for a more serious exchange than I found possible on the alt.globalwarming newsgroup, populated largely by undisciplined children. With a few exceptions, the exchanges here have been closer to science than to the flaming in the newsgroup. I was shocked by the post of someone who said that SkS was devoted to one side, but the follow-up has been somewhat reassuring.
59769. Bob Lacatena at 22:07 PM on 22 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       141, William,

       I think that the seesaw effects are primarily caused by ocean currents. The ocean is a domanant player in all of this. ... The Oceans work as a giant, nonlinear capacitors.

       Any paragraph that begins with "I think" is a huge red flag to me, especially when the tone quickly transitions from "I think" to speaking as if your conjecture is absolute fact. Please note that your entire following statement is pure conjecture, completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Even its foundation is a mere thought experiment of the overly simplistic "it seems to me" variety. You presume that because oceans are large and mysterious, and water has a high heat capacity, that therefore oceans govern climate. This further allows you in all probability to dismiss the importance of known, quantifiable factors like greenhouse gases. It is akin to stone age man believing that the sun is a god, because it is high in the sky, and hot, and man cannot touch it. Please stick to science and supportable theories which are based on evidence. Conjecture, especially when based only on "common sense," and especially when presented as firm belief or even fact, is of utterly no value whatsoever.
59770. jzk at 21:59 PM on 22 April 2012
       Polar bear numbers are increasing
       Is the PBSG report cited in the OP peer reviewed?
59771. Realist at 21:50 PM on 22 April 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       Michael Sweet #40 Its difficult to find an electricity project that isnt subsidised somehow. $1BN for the nuclear plant. Lets Google Florida... Ahh Florida electricity is about 10 cents per kwh. Wow thats about the cheapest in the world. For a comparison, Germany is 23 cents per kwh, partially because of all the solar, and Austrialia is 21 cents. No wonder no company wants to build an electricity plant in Florida without huge subsidies. The alternative is to allow shortages of electricity to push up the price of electricity until it is viable to build a power plant without subsidies. As for if Texas gets wind subsidies, you betcha! A very quick Google search found the following. Note $1.3BN from 2009 to 2010, unlike the one-off $1BN for your nuclear plant, the wind guys in Texas want this level of subsidy every year... http://energyandenvironmentblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/12/wind-industry-says-3000-texas.html "Wind industry says 3,000 Texas jobs could be lost if key subsidy isn't renewed" 11:51 AM on Wed., Dec. 8, 2010 "The wind industry says it's mobilized to lobby Congress to extend a key subsidy that kept the business going during the recession. Despite having White House support, the program was left out of an agreement announced this week that would extend the Bush tax cuts, unemployment insurance, and a host of other incentives. It has sent more than $1.3 billion to wind-energy projects in Texas since 2009."
59772. Michael Whittemore at 21:20 PM on 22 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       Let’s just try and show how lost Williams truly is, as you can see in his 143 comment it would seem he is talking about “2,500 years following the LGM”. From figure 1 above the LGM is during 22-19 (kry), so this means that Williams must be talking about 19-16.5 (kry)? He then says “During this time 7% of the warm up occurred” but the paper says 7% of the warming happened during 22-17.5(kry) which is 4500 years? But clearly if he thinks he is talking about the 7% increase we must assume he means the time 22-17.5 (kry). The facts are when CO2 concentrations increased, the whole planet warmed. During the initial 7% warming, there was no added CO2 so the warming was simply a regional energy imbalance. The most senile thing about replying to comments in a numerical order, is you know you are wrong but continue to rant.
59773. michael sweet at 20:56 PM on 22 April 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       Realist, The project that I linked to alone has received over $1 Billion in subsidies and has not delivered a single watt. It is unlikely to ever generate any power. Nuclear in Florida received much more in subsidies on any basis than renewables. This is a concrete example of nuclear power that is not economic at any price. In Texas they are building a lot of wind. I doubt Texas is subsidizing wind. If you want to argue that renewables are subsidized more than renewables you must give a concrete example against the one I have produced. Hand waving and saying "probably in Florida too." is not an argument.
59774. Tom Curtis at 19:54 PM on 22 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       William Haas @143, the initial water vapour feedback during the glacial-interglacial transition was strictly regional in nature, and confined to the upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. From 20 kyr, to the "onset of the seesaw" (19 kyr, see fig 4) absolute humidity would have risen with increasing temperatures north of 60 degrees North, but fallen from 30 to 60 degrees North (a much larger area), and remained fairly constant elsewhere. With the onset of the seesaw, absolute humidity would have risen with temperature in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere, but fallen in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere. The net effect is that mean global surface temperature did not rise until 18.5 kyr (see graph d in my 138). That is 1.5 thousand years after the onset of Arctic warming, and 500 years after the onset of the seesaw. Global mean water vapour feedback probably tracked temperatures fairly closely, but may have risen or fallen slightly in that period. Given the distribution of the worlds oceans, and the relative importance of the water vapour feedback in the tropics and the poles, it is more probable that it fell in the first 1.5 kya of the glacial/interglacial transition than that it rose. That is irrelevant because it was strong regionally, reinforcing the high summer insolation in the NH and triggering the transition. Therefore it is acceptable to treat the increased NH water vapour feedback as a globally averaged increase as a first approximation - but only if you recognize that it is an approximation, not a literal description. There is no evidence that you do recognize it is an approximation, and if you treat it as a literal reality it will lead you to erroneous conclusions.
59775. William Haas at 19:15 PM on 22 April 2012
       Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
       I again apoligize for the delay in my responses. Yes I am reading all of the posts but I am responding to applicable posts in numerical order. 98 Michael Whittemore I am talking about the 2,500 years following the LGM. According to the article, CO2 did not increase during this time. I am assuming that the article is correct. During this time 7% of the warmup occoured so on a global basis temperatures increased. I am again assuming that the article is correct. I do not care what happened to specific local areas. It does not matter. If global average temperatures increased then global average water vapor levels increased. According to green house gas theory, if there is more green house gas in the atmosphere more heat will be trapped and hence temperatures will increase even further. All of this increase happened within the 7% warmup. Green house gasses did not account for more heating than was observed.
59776. bill4344 at 18:40 PM on 22 April 2012
       Climate Change Boosts Then Quickly Stunts Plants, Decade-long Study Shows
       But, but...: CO2 is plant food! ;-) (I suspect we'll be told, a priori, that that will overwhelm any negative effect from the rise in temperatures. It's hard to see how you could test it in such a field study.) Thanks for the article. That's a pretty ingenious method. I will note, though, that 30cm diameter cores are rather small - very much all edge-effect - and even when measuring against the controls transplanted at the original altitude (and assuming associated transplant shock is equal - unlikely, surely?) I can't help but think that they're at a significant disadvantage relative to the locals in the new, warmer territory. Any discussion of this is behind the paywall, however... The duration of study warning is duly noted.
59777. Delmar at 18:38 PM on 22 April 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       #38 No I don't think there will be royalties on most non-ff energy sources. I don't think for instance that there will be a royalty to the government for wind or solar, perhaps something like geothermal might if there is a prime plot it land for the highest bidder. As for tax, well that is after depreciation and the depreciation will wipe out taxable profit for a long time. But that results in a massive black hole for the revenue of many countries eg Nigeria, libya, venuzela, the middle east and USA.
59778. jyyh at 16:51 PM on 22 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? Well, we can't be absolutely sure we're right but the people who have survived the attack of the Auditors of Reality as has been described in the Book of Blind Io have told us the Roundworld really exists and that life on the Disc is really annoying to them because of the Majjik exerted on it makes the calculations of entropy, entalphy and in fact the all alternative theories of GHE really complicated. Just a presence of one wizzard on an area may increase the heating potential of Swamp Dragons by 10-fold, specially so if they're being chased by trolls, it's lots easier to calculate this with methane and carbon dioxide, they say. I might do this more seriously sometime.
       Moderator Response: [DB] [GT] New addition to the SkS Moderation Policy. References to Terry Pratchett are ALWAYS Omn Topic.
59779. skywatcher at 16:42 PM on 22 April 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       #37, my comment was in response to part of #35 and related to #34, neither post by you, and hardly unrelated to the conversation? Petroleum royalties are a cash cow - because they are the dominant form of energy we presently use. Do you think that energy, when supplied entirely from non-FF sources, will be untaxed?
59780. Delmar at 16:13 PM on 22 April 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       @36 Well Exxon doesnt build power stations so your post is not related to the conversation at the time of my comment. But if you want to complain about resource company profits then blame legislators who haven't negotiated sufficient royalties, and ahem, the voters who put them there! Remember petroleum royalties are an absolute cash cow for many governments and keep some countries afloat. So a transition to renewables will need alternative income sources for many governments and countries, which to date has not been widely discussed.
59781. bill4344 at 14:23 PM on 22 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       dikran, caerbannog, Connoiseurs of the true train-wreck should really take time to savour what happens here [HVR* warning] to even one of the faithful where he dares point out that Salby's Emperor is, um, starkers!... *Head-Vice Required.
59782. skywatcher at 14:20 PM on 22 April 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       #35: How does "without a contribution the project may not be viable without charging more for their product, and most governments try to keep utility prices down" square with some of the largest corporate profits on the planet. It's not as if Exxon is going to go bust even if it reduced it's profits by the GDP of several small African countries...
59783. Realist at 13:50 PM on 22 April 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       @33 Interesting how of the nine lines I wrote you only responded on one. You asked on what premise electricity infrastructure is subsidised? The answer was in my previous post:- "Having said that, it is not uncommon for governments to make contributions to all sorts of large projects, because without a contribution the project may not be viable without charging more for their product, and most governments try to keep utility prices down." You need to consider subsidies in conjunction with the royalties. With oil gas and coal the subsidies are insignificant compared to the royalties and taxes paid. Governments know that any subsidy paid they will get back many times over. Of course the companies run it as if it was private even if they received a subsidy, the same way someone who gets a first home buyers grant considers the house is their own and not the governments. Thats just a red herring. "Private companies that specialise in mind manipulation" Huh? Could you please back up your claim with the names of some of these companies?
59784. grypo at 12:30 PM on 22 April 2012
       Weird Winter - March Madness
       "Masters and the others should try to solidify their new theories of lower sea ice causing a weaker and more undulating jet before they present it as settled science in such a video." This isn't really a problem. The sea ice loss is just an amplifying effect of heat at any given time and the real issue is the difference in temperature between the arctic and lower latitude. This is what causes the slowing of the Rossby waves. The harder problem isn't the known physics, its the statistical issues of attribution, discerning through the noise, etc. This is where the science is on its bleeding edge. For this, we need models and observation. Luckily, scientists are working on this. Full papers Evidence Linking Arctic Amplification to Extreme Weather in Mid-Latitudes A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall Winter Northern Hemisphere weather patterns remember summer Arctic sea-ice extent Warm Arctic—cold continents: climate impacts of the newly open Arctic Sea Impact of sea ice cover changes on the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric winter circulation Abstract only Impact of 2007 and 2008 Arctic ice anomalies on the atmospheric circulation: Implications for long-range predictions Is extreme Arctic sea ice anomaly in 2007 a key contributor to severe January 2008 snowstorm in China? Eric also makes a few points that he seems to have great confidence in, such as that solar a low solar minimum caused the weaker jet that last two years - also - I'm unsure what his point is about the AO. Does he think that this is the dominant signal when looking at sea ice anomalies? More than atmospheric forcing? Since this site wants to get it right, I would invite Eric to back up his assertions with more detail, considering the confidence he has in them. Thanks. The video itself does not show this as 'settled science', as Eric puts it. In fact, Masters says sea ice loss "could" be causing some dramatic effects. The narrator says, it "may" be changing patterns of weather.
59785. empirical_bayes at 12:15 PM on 22 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       Because the question and the phenomena cannot be argued with the weak devices of words and verbal logic. It demands mathematics.
59786. Delmar at 12:12 PM on 22 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       Uncle Ben I understand that all science must stand up to scrutiny and am not afraid to read contrary views. Is there a link with a concise representation of the satellite data that I can then objectively read?
59787. Philippe Chantreau at 11:17 AM on 22 April 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       "Virtually all electicity infrastructure is subsidised somehow, not just nuclear" And that applies to hydro, coal and natural gas as well. Yet the companies running it do so as if it was entirely their own and the taxpayers who made them possible in the first place have a say in prices that amounts to, what exactly? Wind and solar need and deserve subsidies, their renewable character alone earns them that. Coal, oil and gas get subsidies based on what premise? That they're too expensive to be set up by a purely private venture? That they'll have a hard time to make profits? And then they're run as if they were private once built. Please. The belly aching about subsidies is just the weakest argument one can possibly make in this debate. I'll pay attention to that argument once all subsidies for oil, coal and gas are killed. Politics being what they are, that's not happening any time soon. Yes people voted for the guys who signed the contracts, after having their minds thoroughly manipulated by, guess what, private companies that specialize in mind manipulation. And considering the citical thinking abilities and Dunning-Kruger effect we get to see at work just on this site, these companies have their work cut out for them. The representative republic principles met their limits long ago, as human duplicity knows no bound. Now the circus has taken over. Enjoy.
59788. skywatcher at 10:54 AM on 22 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       Uncle Ben, you appear, from your writing here, to be someone who has based their entire opinion of this subject on your reading of a single, non-peer-reviewed, book. A book within which Spencer was free to publish whatever he liked, including the accusations of supression, heck he would have been free to attribute global warming to pink leprechauns were he in the mood! While books can indeed be informative, there is great freedom in writing a book to publish unsubstantiated or erroneous claims, a freedom that is generally restricted by the scientific peer-review process. Indeed, that is the purpose of peer review. Peer review does not eliminate all the bad science, but it weeds out the most obviously wrong/unsupported claims. It is a small step to go from Spencer's book to Gavin Menzies, who annoyed historians by publishing wild, unsupported claims about the Middle Ages exploits of the Chinese, and only a small further step to pure fiction a la Dan Brown. As such, your writings here stand as a cautionary tale for those who would base their understanding of a sunbject on a single source (Spencer) or single line of enquiry (tropical cloud models). Fortunately, our understanding of climate science is based on a great breadth of empirical data of human fingerprints on climate, including empirical evidence of positive feedbacks. This evidence comes from a whole range of branches of science, including but not limited to physics, chemistry, palaeoclimate, oceanography and atmospheric science. It provides a coherent picture, without gaping holes in our understanding, such as demonstrated above with glacial-interglacial cycles. A picture supported by, but not dependent upon, the models, and a picture largely avoided by Spencer.
59789. empirical_bayes at 10:32 AM on 22 April 2012
       The human fingerprint in global warming
       @Bob Close, from #29, regarding: "Where is the verified experimental or actual measurements to support this strange assumption, or its corollary that ongoing atmospheric increases in CO2 above 400-500ppm will automatically create a tip over effect into runaway spiraling catastrophic warming? This critical data is now urgently required because without it one can only conclude that it is wishful thinking or worse to blame fossil fuel generated CO2 for most of the current global warming and its supposed undesirable effects. Lets get the science more exact and in perspective." Regarding the first part, do you really want to do the experiment? Well, we're doing it? Regarding the second part, yes, I agree, and that should logically be the basis for a massive increase in funding for climate science to get to the bottom of the question. There are two problems with that: First, the physics can already explain what's happening, and the mathematics say the changes *might* be catastrophic non-linear bifurcations. Second, even if that were not believed, the funding is not forthcoming. Indeed, the tendency from They Who Must Be Obeyed is to reduce funding. Pardon me if I consider the proposal a red herring.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] All-caps converted to bold. Please, no all-caps.

       Please note that the comment your are replying to was from 2010, not 2012.

59790. Delmar at 10:31 AM on 22 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       @17 Linear Regression is not a model, it is a statistical method for analyzing data and to represent that data as an equation. Whether that equation is or isnt then used in a model, is an entirely different question, but linear regression in itself is not a model.
59791. Uncle Ben at 10:25 AM on 22 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       My final post. @muon counter "Linear regression is a model" To me a model is an attempt to build a system that will re-create the temperature record albeit with some adjustable parameters. A linear regression is just a calculation. Yes, I was aware that the basis for the "Advanced" discussion was owed to Trenberth. Yet he and Bickmore both center their attack on what I consider a footnote -- a simple model whose purpose is to show how even a simple model using the right sensitivity can accomplish a lot. Its simplicity is a virtue, not a handicap. In their defense, I acknowledge that the Spencer and Braswell paper was much harder to follow than the argument in his book. The book plainly shows the time-sensitive plots, which I find so mind-bending. If the "little model" had been completely left out of Spencer's writings, he may have avoided a distraction. The main point of the book is to show how to disambiguate periods in which the sun is the stronger forcing from periods when ocean currents (ENSO and PDO effects) are forcing strongly by means of cloud variability. I am astonished at how little attention has been directed at this novel contribution. To me, that is worth a Nobel Prize. It is method of analyzing data that "muon counter" considered as impossible. Anyone who plots the satellite data points connecting them in order of measurement will be blown away by what he sees. It has been illuminating exchanging views with all of you. It has shown me how hard it is to change the paradigm. We will all come together someday. Peace.
59792. Realist at 10:09 AM on 22 April 2012
       Renewables can't provide baseload power
       Michael Sweet No its not a surprise that the governments have political friends, but someone must have voted for these guys who signed the bad contract? Virtually all electicity infrastructure is subsidised somehow, not just nuclear. Wind and solar presently get very high subsidies in many parts of the world and probably in Florida too. Comparing subsidies on the basis of MW.hr per year generated (not installed eg include availability), then hundreds of millions dollars for what is probably a 1000 MW plant is much lower than wbhat I have seen as typical wind and solar subsidies eg in Germany and in Australia.
59793. muoncounter at 09:44 AM on 22 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       Uncle Ben#15: "Models are not needed when direct measurement is possible." I'm sorry, we must have a vastly different understanding of the words you've used: Your #1: "A linear regression of the former vs the latter yields a slope that has been interpreted as... " A linear regression is a model. Any interpretation based on slope is a model. "The basis for this method is the assumption that... " Assumptions are part of the modeling process, necessary to develop a simplification that may then yield to analysis. "Spencer's little model is not intended to ... " That is a direct contradiction to your "It was not to defend any model" claim in #15. "The cardinals who hassled Galileo... " Ah, the Galileo gambit. There is no necessary link between being perceived as wrong and actually being correct; usually if people perceive you to be wrong, you are wrong. ... They really do forget the part where they have to prove themselves right in order to be like Galileo. And still no answer to skywatcher's very relevant question. I learned somewhere that when an assumption leads to an untenable conclusion, the assumption is usually incorrect.
59794. skywatcher at 09:43 AM on 22 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       Uncle Ben, your comment "Will any warmist check Spencer's method?" really is rather funny. Perhaps you didn't note who wrote the "advanced" rebuttal on this theread, one Kevin Trenberth. The same Trenberth from Trenberth et al 2010, which rebuts one of Spencer's core arguments. The post is essentially a reporoduction of the post by Trenberth and Fasullo at RealClimate (Mods - should that connection be highlighted or am I not seeing the link?). Barry Bickmore has also deconstructed Spencer's models here, and also the modelling in his book here (more on Spencer's book here) These issues have been repeatedly looked at by those professionally competent to do so, and every time Spencer's little models have been found desperately wanting. Spencer's in the same position as you are, having no clue how to generate the ice ages "... it is reasonable to suspect that the ice ages and the interglacial periods of warmth were caused by some as yet undiscovered forcing mechanism. (p. 69)" In the real world, they are rather less of a mystery. Claims of publication supression are perennially comical - if so, how did Spencer and Braswell get published? Lindzen and Choi? The laughable, lamentable McLean et al? Bad papers get published, even in good journals, quite regularly - and for papers that are even worse, there's always Energy & Environment. And funny how claims of supression come from those who are demonstrably doing bad science (not just contrary science, but demonstrably bad). I'm not sure what you're on about in regard to Mount Pinatubo. "Laboriously removed"? (source?). It's actually been used to estimate climate sensitivity too (e.g. Bender et al 2010)!
59795. Uncle Ben at 09:11 AM on 22 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       @muon counter "[T]this is a modeling thread and you came in defending the merits of Spencer's 'little model.'" I thought this was a thread about Spencer's proof that climate sensitivity has been incorrectly estimated and how to fix that. He doesn't need any models. He measures sensitivity directly. I came in here to talk about how Spencer did that. It was not to defend any model. Models are not needed when direct measurement is possible. "Does Spencer use, in any way whatsoever, the satellite temperature record? If so, he is using a model that converts microwave transmission to atmospheric temperature. Hence, no such isolation is possible." You have missed something. This is the good news. Isolation is possible. You missed the part where I explained that. He plots the dH/dt vs dT points connecting them in the order of time of measurement. This coverts points into trajectories. Examination of the trajectories shows plainly that they consist of segments alternating between curly parts and very straight parts. The curly parts indicate a slow process, such as the gradual warming of the ocean by the sun; the straight parts indicate a quick process, such as warming the lower atmosphere by ocean currents, not the sun. The difference in speed occurs because of the 20:1 ratio of heat capacities. It is an observable phenomenon that in all these plots, the slopes of the straight lines are the same. They imply a sensitivity to doubling of CO2 of only 0.5 deg C. They also show that the satellite measurements contain hardly any noise. What has been thought to be noise is the contribution of the curly parts. The straight parts are very straight. @Michael Brewster (-Conspiracy theory claims snipped-). Anyone can reproduce these claims if they have access to the satellite data including the times of measurement. (-Off-topic snipped-). (-Inflammatory tone snipped-). We will see. (-Conspiracy theory claims snipped-). (-Trolling snipped-).
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please familiarize yourself thoroughly with the Comments Policy of this website. Future comments constructed such as this one will be deleted in their entirety.

       "He doesn't need any models."

       That is right up there with this.

59796. kampmannpeine at 09:00 AM on 22 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       Thanks for those nice comments ... I will use the ideas in my lectures ...
59797. kampmannpeine at 08:59 AM on 22 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       A simple thing as regards theories and "truth": Einstein said: when I have various choices for a theory then I choose the most simple. Apply that to the problem of Keplerian equations versus Ptolemaeus ... Kepler's equation are elegant an simple compared to the epicycle stuff of the old Greeks ..
59798. muoncounter at 07:37 AM on 22 April 2012
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       Uncle Ben#12: "You (and many others) seem to think that models are the only business of climate science." Ah, an assertion without any evidence to back it up. If you review the archives, you will note I hardly ever offer opinions pro or con about models. However, this is a modeling thread and you came in defending the merits of Spencer's 'little model.' I merely pointed out the contradiction inherent in your position. That contradiction still stands. One cannot hold two sides of an argument - simple model is good v. 'climate is complex' - if one wishes to stand on scientific principle. Unless one's address is in Deniersville, that is. "But climate science has another tool: direct measurement." Yes, that is indeed the business of many climate scientists. If I recall correctly, that is to a degree Spencer's business as well. Of course, no one can be sure, as he claimed to be a lobbyist... and now has books to sell. So much for objectivity. "...consequently implies a high sensitivity to the solar forcing. This is an error." Are you now suggesting (or saying that Spencer suggests) that climate does not have high sensitivity to solar forcing? That is very interesting, as it flies in the face of the stipulations of the solar-modulated cosmic ray crowd. "... he has found a way to isolate the inputs to warming and calculate sensitivity without models." --all caps removed Does Spencer use, in any way whatsoever, the satellite temperature record? If so, he is using a model that converts microwave transmission to atmospheric temperature. Hence, no such isolation is possible.
59799. Killian at 07:26 AM on 22 April 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
       How do we know we are right? What, exactly, tells us we aren't? Answer: Nothing. This is literal. There is not a single study out there that in any way invalidates any of the core knowledge of climate science leading to the conclusion - let alone the observable changes! - that anthropogenic climate change is in process, and more advanced than many (publicly) acknowledge. But let us play this game. As pointed out above, we'd have to invalidate great chunks of basic science to deny the research and observations. A corollary of that is, what other areas of science of so-called skeptics deny? None. Only those that blow up their economic desires (climate, peak resources) and their religious beliefs (evolution) get challenged. Why are all other areas of science believable, but not these two? The scientific method is what it is, and is applied with variance in techniques, to all areas of science, but it's invalid in just those areas that are socio-politically conservative? Things that make you go, "Hmmm...!" But, hey, let's just toss out the scientific method. How else do we know? The scenarios created forty years ago (Limits to Growth), and thirty years ago (Hansen, et al. '81-ish), 24 years ago (Hansen, et al, '88-ish) and ever since are indicating, then being validated by, the physical world. if anything, the scenarios have tended strongly to underestimating change than overestimating despite the bleating idiocy that allows some to call this falsification of the scenarios! Now, I'm not a scientist, but consider myself fairly good at analysis, particularly of patterns. While scientists mostly constrain themselves to what they can prove or demonstrate with high **scientific** confidence,individuals such as myself can go straight to risk assessment and call this what it is: a massively dangerous change for humanity and all the rest of the biota on the planet. And,we non-scientists can also step beyond scenarios and talk predictions. I have been saying since 2006-7 that the changes were coming far faster than scientists were saying. That's six years of calling imminent large changes in weather and climate, and being right. This isn't hard. It's all about understanding systems, connections, complexity and bifurcations... along with other stuff, but at the core, that's really all it is. I had an e-mail conversation with a scientist about the clathrates after the 2007 work by Walter, et al., came out about thermokarst lakes. The patterns we were seeing even then made it clear the decomposition of the Arctic had to be far, far faster than thought at the time. It, again, wasn't rocket science, it was merely looking at what was supposed to be happening, then looking at what *was* happening, adding in the background of how non-linear and chaotic systems behave, the speed of change, tipping points, etc., and it was plainly obvious. Yet, the scientist i was e-mailing with, the guys at RealClimate, etc., all held to the decades/centuries standard response. I was scared to death to have a paper published that saw it as I did, but when the projections came out of 80 melt of Arctic Sea ice between 2013 and 2020 came out, I was also elated: Finally! The science was catching up! I'm confident because what is being predicted is coming true, let alone the scenarios being accurate. And, really, all you have to do is open your eyes. Pretty simple. And remember: it's the extremes that will get us, not the averages. We will continue to see massively disruptive events, and they will get far worse long before we reach an average of +2C. This Spring's reverse "Indian Summer" and the subsequent crop losses (95% of grape crop in SW Michigan, e.g.) are just a taste. Let this become (more) normal and food is going to become a big issue in a very short period of time. When the Arctic Sea Ice really does hit as low as 80% mass/area/extent loss it will likely be game over. At that point, only a massive, global shift to localization and sustainability will have any hope of cooling he oceans quickly enough to prevent a clathrate bomb. The fuse is already lit. Reforestation: Can equal 100% of current CO2 emissions. Regenerative Farming/Gardening: Can equal up to 40% of current emissions. So, just two simple changes can get us moving backwards with carbon within five years. Hmmm... The solutions are out there, they are simple, they are doable. They are not tech, they are not greater complexity. They are simple, rich, organic, local. We DO know what is happening, we DO know where we are headed, we DO know the risk assessment. We can keep letting false equivalence and scientific reticence keep us from speaking and acting, or we can bring ourselves back from the brink. Up to you.
59800. Kevin C at 07:10 AM on 22 April 2012
       First Look at HadCRUT4
       I suspect that they have analysed it, and what they found didn't fit their narrative. I'm waiting for the hadsst3 data to 2010. HadCRUT4 contained one surprise for me, but ideally I need the rest of the SST data before I can write it up.

Prev  1188  1189  1190  1191  1192  1193  1194  1195  1196  1197  1198  1199  1200  1201  1202  1203  Next