Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 Next
Comments 60001 to 60050:
-
Uncle Ben at 08:00 AM on 23 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
@Sphaerica 29 and Les 30. (Complaint about only 8 years of data) Friends, you would not say this if you had been able to read my response to muon counter at 28. (1) Three seconds is enough time to measure audio feedback in an auditorium. (2) One month is enough time to measure temperature feedback from ocean currents to the lower atmosphere. (3) One year is surely not enough time to achieve equilibrium to the solar heating of the top layer of ocean. @Tom Yes, this is kind of plot I have been talking about. I have been reluctant to post copies of the plots for fear of copyright violations. My motives were fear, not craftiness. :-) (How we suspect each others motives! But the answer to suspicion is openness. I have nothing to gain by trying to fool anyone. My personal interest is in chasing skirts.) This plot is a little harder to recognize than the one Tamino published, but you can still distinguish the straight parts from the curly parts. -
grypo at 07:48 AM on 23 April 2012Weird Winter - March Madness
Eric, I'll get to your individual complaints on the papers in due time. But, I'd politely ask that you please keep the editorial nonsense out of the thread. By that I mean, phrases like "Their poorly worded paper" and "The people who wrote these papers need to go back and reread their references". Just allow your comments to stand on their own, as I'm sure you can defend them without the unjustified commentary. It doesn't help your case. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 07:38 AM on 23 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #16
Happy Earth Day? Earth Day means nothing if We Don’t Limit Carbon Emissions. -
actually thoughtful at 07:37 AM on 23 April 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1
The question really drives at what is science? How do we know anything? What we DO know - we know from science. Science tells us AGW is by far the most likely theory. When science tell us a different theory explains AGW (and the chances of this are less than 1%) - then I will "know" that is right. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:13 AM on 23 April 2012Weird Winter - March Madness
The title of the fourth paper "Winter Northern Hemisphere weather patterns remember summer Arctic sea-ice extent" is provocative considering that weather is a short term function of conditions and conditions are not the same thing as anomalies (weather doesn't care if a condition is normal or not). I looked through the paper for explanations of the lag between summer ice extent and winter weather. The authors says "the pattern in the north Atlantic is reminiscent of the North Atlantic Oscillation [Hurrell, 1995]..." As with the third paper, the SLP anomaly is not "reminiscent" of negative NAO, it "is" negative NAO. The connection between low ice and negative NAO, as with the third paper, is coincidence, they both decrease in the interval studied but showed no correlation previously. Hurrell 1995 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/science1995/sci.html lends no support to the memory or lag between ice extent and NAO. The best explanation is persistence. The NAO and AO reflect patterns that will determine summer ice extent (from clouds, temperature, wind). The NAO and AO are somewhat seasonal but also persist, Thus summer ice extent can correlate with NAO the following winter. The fifth paper "warm Arctic—cold continents" doesn't explain much. Might as well quote the whole meat of it:Attribution for the cold mid-latitude winter is difficult given the largely chaotic nature of atmospheric circulation. Since 2002, warmer lower tropospheric temperatures are associated with thin sea ice in marginal Arctic seas (Fig. 5) preceding the autumn period (Schweiger et al. 2008; Serreze et al. 2008). Model studies (Singarayer et al. 2006; Sokolova et al. 2007; Seierstad & Bader 2008; Honda et al. 2009) show a relation between years with minimum sea-ice cover and the negative phase of the AO (weaker zonal wind), although regional details are complicated by storm track and atmospheric long-wave/low frequency dynamic processes. They further suggest that the regions of high and low geopotential heights form a pattern of atmospheric teleconnections with length scales between relative high and low centres of 700–1000 km (Francis et al. 2009). The Arctic 850 mb temperature anomalies and geopotential height fields in December 2009 and 2010 (Fig. 8b, g), may have partially contributed to the resultant meridional hemispheric wind pattern
Looking at Singarayer http://www.cpom.org/research/jlb-jc19.pdf I see that that there is no correlation between extremes in NAO (highly negative or positive) and the models. More importantly there does not seem to be any support for negative NAO or declining NAO with lower sea ice in that reference. I obviously don't need to go any further with this. The people who wrote these papers need to go back and reread their references. Frankly I am astonished at how poorly this hypothesis is supported. -
william5331 at 07:13 AM on 23 April 2012Weird Winter - March Madness
Great video They talk about the Jet Stream weakening. Jet streams occur where Hadley cells meet, Each hemisphere has three Hadley cells and It is likely that the polar jet stream will simply disappear. This will occur if the Arctic, when it becomes ice free and hence a giant solar collector, becomes an area of rising air rather than as at present an area of sinking air. This would likely give rise to a two cell system rather than the present three cell system with a jet stream at about 45 degrees north where the two cells meet. Of more interest, this will shift the wheat growing areas of the northern hemisphere with obvious results. We only have, at best, two months of food reserves worldwide. The replacement of Lodge Pole pines by Poplars in the High Chilcoten and in Washington State is an indicator that this process may already be underway. -
Tom Curtis at 07:01 AM on 23 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Uncle Ben, you did not explicitly confirm or deny that the graph shown by muoncounter above @26 is the type of graph to which you refer. Could you please do so. Could you also do the same for the following graph:
Quite frankly, your discussion to date has been essentially meaningless because you have not provided an example of the graph which is central to your case. Without your explicitly providing such a graph, or explicitly acknowledging some example, you give the impression of intentionally keeping the center piece of your discussion carefully hidden to avoid criticism.
-
les at 06:24 AM on 23 April 2012Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
28 - Uncle Ben A couple of things. In tamino's post he exactly equates sensitivity as the inverse of the slope and derives, via the method, and says; "estimated climate sensitivity is 1/1.553 = 0.644 K/(W/m^2), very close to the true value 0.667 K/(W/m^2)." What's the problem with that? Did you read the article? If not, shame, because his commentery on Spencer's error relates closely to your insight: "the half-serious view of statistics is, if you need statistics to make your point, improve your experiment". As you clearly know, that is said because statistics is only important if your are dominated by statistical or systematic errors. A better experiment could reduce the former (more data) or the latter (less measurement errors). Now, as I read it, it is exactly Tamino's point that if you look to closely (to short a time scale) you will be dominated by the systems internal dynamics. as he says "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!" I'm pretty sure if you read Taminos post as a statistician (indeed, as one statistician to another!) rather as attacker/defender of some bit of work; you will see his insight. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:20 AM on 23 April 2012Weird Winter - March Madness
The reader will note that TOP has a history of asserting falsehoods in drive-by fashion, such as noted here. The credibility of denial is always zero. -
scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 23 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
Note also that is has to backed by some arithmetic - warming of surface needs to be accounted for in joules leaving ocean. -
scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 23 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
Well subsidies are a dirty word here, on anything. Wind power gets built without it. Coal, not so much. Electricity generation at 75% renewable and well on track for 80% by 2020. -
michael sweet at 05:52 AM on 23 April 2012Weird Winter - March Madness
TOP, Your comment about winter in April is simply false. The deniers are claiming that normal April temperatures are unusual. see these graphs that show April temperatures are normal. As Dr. Masters pointed out in March, one of the problems with a warm March is that normal April temperatures freeze the plants that came out in leaf early. Please provide some sort of reference to support your hand waving claim that April was cold in the USA. Use some skepticism when you read these wild denier claims. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:48 AM on 23 April 2012Weird Winter - March Madness
TOP, since I live in an area forecasted to get a little snow tonight, allow me to clarify the situation. The current weather disturbance is simply weather, nothing more nothing less. It is not a function of low sea ice, or other global warming effect. However our mild Match was a direct result of two things: a natural pattern (the rest of the globe was more or less average) and a mild winter. The mild winter was a direct result of two things (I am simplifying to keep it simple). First the La Nina pattern, and second, global warming which added to the warmth. Thus, it is safe to say that the current "winter in April", although natural, is worse than it would be without CO2 warming over the past 6 months (and obviously decades before that). -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:43 AM on 23 April 2012Weird Winter - March Madness
grypo, thanks for the reply and references. First let me clarify that we are talking about winter only, as is the second video (I haven't watched the first but assume it is the same topic). The first paper in post 3 notes a trend in lower latitudinal temperature gradient mainly in fall due to lower sea ice and an associated increase in blocking (slower propagation of Rossby waves). However the trend does not extend into winter. Their poorly worded paper e.g. "further exacerbates the increased probability of slow-moving weather patterns" also seems to be poorly researched as one of their references http://weather.missouri.edu/gcc/barriopedro2006etal.pdf shows clearly that blocking is decreasing through 2002 in sectors where sea ice loss is greatest, namely the Atlantic sector. Like the video the second paper improperly places cause and effect in a single direction. Low Barents sea ice is both a cause and an effect of weather patterns, but seems to be more effect than cause. It is a better paper and a better study as they systematically vary the Barents sea ice in their model. Two things are noteworthy in their model, first that the atmospheric response to Barents ice anomaly is highly nonlinear, for example comparing fig 4a to 4b and 4b to 4c. Second, a related phenomenon is the weakening of the westerlies going from 80% to 40% ice coverage switches to a strengthening going from 40% to 1%. Also this model is for winter so it is applicable to the OP. The third paper is speculative and somewhat confused. The correlation that they point out between the Arctic SLP and low sea ice may be part coincidence. The high pressure Arctic & low pressure outside does not "resemble" negative AO, it "is" negative AO. They have worked the problem backwards ignoring other more obvious causes of negative AO. They show a snippet of declining AO from the late 80's ignoring the secular rise before that. Their references are heavy on sea ice but thin on atmospheric response papers. Their hypothesis is supported by the one I read through: http://esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/michael.alexander/alexander.etal.jclim_04.pdf which simulated higher Arctic heights with diminished ice. I'll read the other papers next. -
TOP at 05:42 AM on 23 April 2012Weird Winter - March Madness
They spend a lot of time mentioning the Summer In March, but don't mention the Winter in April. It is the Winter in April that is doing bad things to the fruit crops in Jeff Master's stomping grounds. -
Riccardo at 05:21 AM on 23 April 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Looking at the graph linked above by Sky Osawa I find surprising that methane anomalies in the northern and southern emispheres go together. -
michael sweet at 05:15 AM on 23 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
Realist: Your citation for the supposed $1.3BN for wind does not list how the money is paid out. As I recall, those are production tax credits. The coal and oil industries get massive tax credits that you have not mentioned. Citing incomplete, right wing propaganda in newspapers does not make a believable argument. Provide a specific example against my $1Bn nuclear example. The nuclear plant has not yet started construction. -
michael sweet at 05:08 AM on 23 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
Realist: "The federal government provides hundreds of billions for renewable energy projects," This is obviously a false statement. The federal government does not provide hundreds of billions of dollars for all renewables combined. Provide a reliable source for this absurd claim. Please provide data from a peer reviewed source, not a right wing think tank. Find a single renewable project that has received $1 billion dollars of subsidy. I have provided an example of such a nuclear facility. They have received $1 billion dollars of subsidy and it has not even started construction yet! You cite right wing propaganda against my specific example. -
Sky Osawa at 05:02 AM on 23 April 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Apologies for the links above, but they do work ... just copy/paste. -
Sky Osawa at 04:59 AM on 23 April 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Here is a recent Methane Satellite Chart from March 2012: ftp://asl.umbc.edu/pub/yurganov/methane/MAPS/NH/ARCTpolar2012.03._AIRS_CH4_400.jpg Graph Chart - March 2012: ftp://asl.umbc.edu/pub/yurganov/methane/AIRS%20CH4%20%202002-2012.jpg -
Bob Lacatena at 04:58 AM on 23 April 2012Roy 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?). -
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. -
yarnoiser at 03:49 AM on 23 April 2012Scientists 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. -
John Hartz at 03:43 AM on 23 April 2012Climate 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 -
Uncle Ben at 02:29 AM on 23 April 2012Roy 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. -
KeefeandAmanda at 02:11 AM on 23 April 2012Why 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. -
John Russell at 02:07 AM on 23 April 2012Why 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. -
Tom Dayton at 01:42 AM on 23 April 2012Roy 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. -
muoncounter at 01:37 AM on 23 April 2012Roy 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.
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:20 AM on 23 April 2012Climate 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. -
Kevin C at 00:49 AM on 23 April 2012Climate 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. -
Steve Case at 00:14 AM on 23 April 2012Climate 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.
-
Uncle Ben at 00:08 AM on 23 April 2012Roy 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. -
skywatcher at 23:45 PM on 22 April 2012Roy 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. -
skywatcher at 23:37 PM on 22 April 2012Roy 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. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:33 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables 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/ -
Realist at 22:28 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables 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." -
Uncle Ben at 22:23 PM on 22 April 2012Roy 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:07 PM on 22 April 2012Shakun 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. -
jzk at 21:59 PM on 22 April 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
Is the PBSG report cited in the OP peer reviewed? -
Realist at 21:50 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables 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." -
Michael Whittemore at 21:20 PM on 22 April 2012Shakun 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. -
michael sweet at 20:56 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables 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. -
Tom Curtis at 19:54 PM on 22 April 2012Shakun 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. -
William Haas at 19:15 PM on 22 April 2012Shakun 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. -
bill4344 at 18:40 PM on 22 April 2012Climate 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. -
Delmar at 18:38 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables 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. -
jyyh at 16:51 PM on 22 April 2012Why 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. -
skywatcher at 16:42 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables 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? -
Delmar at 16:13 PM on 22 April 2012Renewables 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.
Prev 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 Next
