Recent Comments

Prev  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  Next

Comments 76301 to 76350:

76301. econ101lab at 07:17 AM on 29 August 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Thank you KR!
76302. KR at 07:04 AM on 29 August 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       econ101lab - Welcome to SkS! Regarding CERN, I would suggest taking a look at: * ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change * The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting… (RealClimate) Now, on Arctic temperatures: * DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase? Local temperatures vary a lot. However, the temperature anomaly, the change in temperature over time, season, climate changes, etc., that anomaly does not vary much over fairly large distances. Please look at some of the information on how these averages are done - on this site, that can be found at: * Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change * Part 1B. * Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think * Part 2B There's a lot of (dis)information out there, and it all sounds plausible at first glance. I would strongly encourage taking a look at how these temperatures are arrived at, and seeing why what gets posted on these 'skeptical' blogs is incorrect.
76303. AnotherBee at 07:03 AM on 29 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       "To be convincing, the arguments for climate change need to change from the one-sided consilience of evidence model to parallel evidence-based analyses of competing hypotheses." So, for example, we need parallel evidenced-based analyses of the following competing hypotheses:- 1. "The earth is warming" vs "The earth is not warming" 2. "It's CO2 forcing" vs "It's the sun" 3. "It's anthropogenic CO2" vs "It's volcanic CO2" and so on. Funny. I thought that had been done already.
76304. Chris G at 06:52 AM on 29 August 2011
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       To me, the most succinct observation for putting things into perspective was made by Gavin over at RealClimate, when he noted, "Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure). " The cycles of GCRs are just that, cycles; there is no long term trend. You can't manufacture a long term trend out of data that doesn't have one; at least, you can't with math that has any relationship to the real world. So, it may be that GCRs have an influence on climate, and it might not be. Whatever the case, they can not be used to explain the warming trend.
76305. KR at 06:48 AM on 29 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       I will note that there have indeed been functional (albeit not commercial) thorium reactors built and operated: for example the Molten-salt reactor experiment. India is hard at work on thorium cycle reactors, as is China. CANDU reactors are capable of running on thorium, although I don't know if any have done so. However, there have been no electricity producing thorium reactors up to this point in time, AFAIK. This makes thorium a promising, but not current, technology.
76306. Stephen Baines at 06:45 AM on 29 August 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       econ101lab @217 There is an entire post on the CERN results. No one is ignoring. You're just not looking hard enough. You could also read previous posts in this very thread touching on the very issues you mention in other posts. If you are just going to (re)post insinuation of fraud without basis, I don't see how you will add anything here.
76307. econ101lab at 06:29 AM on 29 August 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Any comment on the CERN results? Are you seriously saying you support the "science is settled" position? If so, this site just lost all credibility with me if you leave no room for new scientific evidence or serious scientific inquiry. Sorry to take up your time.
       Response:

       [DB] As someone new to SkS, you probably don't know how to best take advantage of all the resources this site has to offer.

       There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions.  That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.

       I also recommend watching this video on why CO₂ is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.

       Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is).  If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.

       Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.

       Participants who take the time to ensure a less incendiary tone will also find a great deal of positive and contributory dialogue with other, more knowledgeable participants here (some of whom are actual climate scientists).

76308. econ101lab at 06:23 AM on 29 August 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Re: 213 Can you point me to some of the data to which you refer regarding the data sets being checked? Not that I find what you say not credible, but I like to check things for myself. Thanks
       Response:

       [DB] "Not that I find what you say not credible, but I like to check things for myself."

       Then you would be the first skeptic to actually follow through and do the hard work.  However, I suggest you start here, with additional resources available here and here.

       Please be sure to report back your results to us.

76309. scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 29 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Camburn, that is preposterous. "Streamline???". What does that mean? Removing regulations? Which ones? Everything I have read about nuclear industry in the USA is that without government direct investment (ie to provide fuel for bomb industry), it is starved of investors. Try here for instance. Just googling "why doesnt US invest in nuclear" and I all I find is invest issues, not regulations. Please be specific.
76310. econ101lab at 06:13 AM on 29 August 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Actually it's from a Jim Lacy article in National Review online followed by: The graph below shows how damaging this smoothing is to the data record. Note the warming in the Arctic region. It seems like reason for concern, until one realizes that almost no actual data were used to create those dangerous-looking red zones. Instead, readings from almost 1,000 miles south of the polar regions were substituted for the missing data. How does such a substitution make sense unless one can convince oneself that it gets colder the closer one gets to the equator? The graph doesn't copy and paste. You can check out the whole piece here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275396/perry-and-global-warming-jim-lacey If true, it's not drivel. If false, I like to check around and see what other people have to say. Your affronted attitude I find odd. Why should I trust you any more than Lacy? I don't know either one of you. I like to read from a broad spectrum of opinions and then check around. I bring it here as there seems to be an attempt to use real data. Of course the same could be said from sites on the other side of the question. That being said, I recently read about the CERN results here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/ and here: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/20/cern-update-bombshell-in-the-cosmic-ray-data/ and here: http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/3699-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change.html Not being a scientist but an economist, I find the lack of certainty familiar (the "science" of economics is equally fraught with uncertainty) which makes me question the "settled science" position of one side of this arguement. I also find the proposed solutions by the AGW group absurd when looked at economically. In Michael Levitt's Superfreakonomics, there are proposed mitigation solutions (vs prevention) by a company called Intellectual Ventures headed by Nathan Myrvold (ex CTO of Microsoft) which would cause far less global economic disruption but achieve the same end result. SoSphaerica, pls keep you patronizing comments out of the thread.
       Response:

       [DB] Do you mean this graphic:

       

       You seem to frequent disinformation websites, where the focus is on conspiracy theories and not on the primary literature itself.

       No wonder you take the position you do.

76311. Eric (skeptic) at 05:37 AM on 29 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Hi scaddenp, my assertion about wasting fuel driving to "pointless" jobs needs an amendment. Most local jobs tend to be services and retail which are low paying (and often not carbon friendly like Walmart). But they are an easy fit, just apply with minimal skills and get the job. The better paying jobs are less local mostly because they are concentrated in "high tech" or manufacturing areas (zoning, tax incentives, planned industrial parks, etc). Also the higher paying jobs are less of an immediate fit to someone out of work, there are almost never openings in the area in which one lives due to the sporadic nature of those openings and specialized skills that are needed for each opening. The specific answers to your points about energy use in various sectors are that retail and offices are 37% of commercial and the rest seems hard to reduce (education, health, and others they don't list). The only way to reduce industry use (refining, chemical, paper, metal, other) is reducing the end uses of those products which includes transportation (i.e. some transportation is being counted as part of industry). As for transportation, 59% is cars and light trucks. My friend will be driving his light truck 50 miles each way to his new high-paying job (has the truck for home remodeling work and can't afford a new vehicle). The numbers of SUVs and light trucks in office parking lots is quite amazing. When I look at it I think that retail gasoline should be doubled in price, but I know there are other consequences that need to be addressed first. We may disagree on what you consider "effective". I was reading your head post question and looking for ways to make drastic energy reduction politically effective. In later comments you refer to a reduction of 200kWh/p/d to 60. It seems to me that there are ways to make even that drastic a cut politically effective, but it requires looking carefully at the motivations for the current wastes of energy and targeting those specifically. My flea and farmers market example may seem a bit superficial but the local governments are always trying to shut them down since they eat into tax revenue. One of my main proposals for politically effective solutions is eliminating arbitrary limits to efficiency. I have two good passive solar books and they both show how it possible to become nearly fossil fuel independent for heating and cooling almost anywhere in the U.S. Unfortunately many inefficient suburban dwellings have already been built. But many local zoning laws will require dwellings to face the street whether that is efficient or not. Many municipalities will extend their utilities as far as they can to try to pump up revenue whether it is efficient or not. The local governments are also in cahoots with large developers who will clear cut areas to squeeze in homes creating more tax revenue. They will also generally discourage small businesses in favor of the large retailers. Then our choices are limited to driving 10 miles to a strip mall to buy stuff trucked from some terminal and shipped there from China. We need to manufacture more the way we used to here which will be hard but not impossible. Textiles can still be profitably made in the U.S. (mostly speciality products). Electronics are harder, the entire supply chain is much cheaper in China. But general purpose electronics can be made there to be greatly enhanced here like my Mighty Mule gate opener (among countless examples). Local zoning is often in the way, I have plenty of stories of local authorities preventing or trying to prevent manufacturing facilities from opening up. There are really no limits to efficiency, only our self-imposed limits based on outdated code and customs and promoted by vested interests. It is easy to propose eliminating subsidies, nobody is going to argue with that. It is much more difficult to propose eliminating the hidden subsidies for inefficiency that supposedly limit our FF cutting options (e.g. transport or residential can only be reduced by some percentage above which is impossible). What is impossible is leaving the current consumption, employment and leisure systems the way they are and expect to get political support for the raising of FF prices to achieve the 200 to 60 reduction. Politically, that won't happen.
76312. muoncounter at 05:26 AM on 29 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       smulkey#5: "Deep introspection and self honesty is required of me." A fundamental point; one that should be required of every scientist, if not every human being. One must ask oneself 'how do I really know this?' or 'can I really support this?' and often 'is what I am about to say really that valuable?' Unfortunately the phenomenon of 'blog science' creates a virtual platform that is all too easy to abuse; unless tempered by these questions, the results are of little or no value. Curry's act of quoting her own blog comments in a published paper takes this to a new and potentially very harmful extreme. I vastly prefer the thinking of the grad student at the end of yesterday's Schneider Symposium who stated something to the effect of "Facebook and Twitter are terrible ways to communicate science."
76313. Bob Lacatena at 05:09 AM on 29 August 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       213, econ101lab, Your quote is from Climate Realists. The tone there is blatantly anti-science and conspiratorial, to the extent of being what I would label lunatic fringe. Other comments from that same page include:

       ...no shortage of warmists waiting to pounce... What is troubling, however, is that some of the other candidates for the Republican nomination still accept the theory of man-made warming. Worse, they are apparently prepared to act on their beliefs if elected president. The planet is warming. Well, it was until 1998, when the warming trend abruptly ceased. In truth, it has been warming since 1850, when the last mini–Ice Age ended. The scientists at Great Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) admit to using statistical sleights of hand to change the temperature record, so as to show more warming.

       How can you take such utter nonsense seriously? How can you even bother to ask about such drivel?
76314. econ101lab at 04:30 AM on 29 August 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Read this recently: ...data manipulation the GISS gets away with every day. You see, although the GISS receives temperature readings from thousands of global stations, it uses only a fraction of them. Unbelievably, the GISS still fills out the thousands of spreadsheet cells, using figures from other sources. So what does the GISS put in a cell that used to have actual data readings? Well, it is using a smoothing technique that allows it to use any temperature reading taken within 750 miles of the location the empty cell represents. For instance, rather than use a temperature reading from a mountaintop in Bolivia, the GISS can substitute a reading from the coast of Peru or from a steamy Brazilian jungle. Does no one in government see how a warming bias might, therefore, be baked into the global record? Accurate?
       Response:

       [DB] "Accurate?"

       Nope.  Not in the least.  The various datasets (not just GISS) have been checked & rechecked, both internally and independently.  Even amateur "scientists" have replicated the global rise in temperatures using as little as 10% of the station data because there is a global warming signal in the data.

       You are repeating memes long ago proven false.  Care to share where you heard this and why you bring it up here (meaning SkS; this is definitely an appropriate thread)?

76315. PrezMulkeyUnity at 03:35 AM on 29 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       I trust that this comment is not viewed as ad hominem, and I certainly do not mean for it to be taken as such. I have great respect for Dr. Curry and the others that I will mention as productive scientists and esteemed members of their profession. However, I believe that there is a valid point about the social and affective cognition of some of the more prominent and argumentative scientists. Dr. Curry is certainly one of them, as is Pielke, Jr., Pielke, Sr., John Christy, and others that I could name. There can be little doubt that all of these scientists have excellent minds, and there is little question that they have high standards of ethics. Their funding streams appear to be impeccable, and they do not seem to be motivated by vested outside interests. I have no knowledge of how their politics and religious views may or may not influence their conduct of science. To illustrate what I am talking about, take a look at the baroque reasoning about the IPCC definition of uncertainty that Curry uses in her recent submission to AMS. To be sure, her argument is internally consistent and rational, but it is my view an over interpretation of the IPCC process for gaining consensus. Similarly, her criticism of the models is nothing new, and I doubt that any of our mainstream climate modelers would take huge issue with many if not most of her concerns. All of this is beside the real issue here. The monster is NOT the uncertainty, but rather anthropogenic climate change itself. EOS and PNAS both recently published independent surveys of climate scientists and showed that a vastly overwhelming majority of these scientists do indeed consider the basic tenants of anthropogenic forcing of the atmosphere to be settled and agreed upon. For Dr. Curry or anyone to suggest or imply that all of these sharp, critically thinking individuals are misguided by inappropriate faith in certainty is simply too much to swallow whole. As a scientist, my ethical obligation is to falsify hypotheses as I develop my research program. The vast majority of climate scientists and scientists (myself included) would be delighted to falsify AGW. So why do these individuals push back on mainstream climate science so insistently and vehemently? It may be that they simply believe as scientists that we are all wrong, but I think that because we are social primates affective forces are in play. A recent example of this is a British television interview of Chris Field and Roger Pielke, Jr. It is very apparent in this interview that Roger's feelings are hurt and that he is harboring deep resentment. His behavior and arguments are affectively driven, although his language is intellectual. I have seen similar displays from Christy and certainly from Curry. I believe that there is evidence that their seeming crusades, which are presented as intellectual diligence, are in fact an affectively driven response to the criticisms that they have received from the academic community. This is unfortunate, and in this highly politicized environment, it does little to clarify the issues for the lay public. Note that this concern could be leveled at scientists on all sides of AGW. The fundamental reality is that the cost error with respect to AGW is enormous and possibly devastating to our species. I believe that it is not appropriate for any of us to publicly seek personal reparations through intellectual discourse. I am truly sorry if these individuals feel hurt, but the stakes are huge and we should all be focused like a laser on the big issues, not just the intellectual minutia of our respective niches. I question Dr. Curry to ask herself if she really thinks that her line of reasoning will result in the falsification of AGW. If so, then please carry on and work hard to enlighten us. If not, then maybe our world would be better served if you turn your considerable talent to something more productive for our kids and grand kids (e.g., your paper on logical fallacies is destined to be a classic). We all share an obligation to the future and we should be working together to build a better world for our kids. Obviously, the above is simply my opinion based on my observations of my colleagues and their behavior over the last decade. I could be wrong, but I know that It is rough out there, as I am sure Michael Mann would agree. I think that we should all take a deep breath and analyze our motives. I am routinely accused of bad motives and being a knee-jerk liberal, when in fact I work very hard to be a scholar of the literature and a critical thinker. Deep introspection and self honesty is required of me. The bloody tirades focused on Dr. Mann attest to the threatening professional environment of climate science. We should all be bigger than this kind of affectively motivated reasoning. Dr. Curry, in your case, I believe "winning" the argument could result in our children losing the biggest argument of all. Am I sure of this? Well...no, not 100%, but as reported in PNAS about your peers, perhaps I am 97% sure. Thanks for considering my thoughts. Stephen Mulkey, PhD President, Unity College
       Response:

       [DB] Thank you, Dr. Mulkey, for your insightful, measured and reasoned perspective.

76316. dhogaza at 02:44 AM on 29 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       "To be convincing, the arguments for climate change need to change from the one-sided consilience of evidence model to parallel evidence-based analyses of competing hypotheses." I guess this explains why she takes the iron sun types who comment on her blog seriously ... just wait until the moon's made of green cheese types find her blog!
76317. Bob Lacatena at 02:32 AM on 29 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       125, Camburn,

       I would streamline the regulatory process immediately. That is all it would take.

       The naivety demonstrated by this comment boggles the mind. Remove all regulation and the free market will solve all problems, instantly and painlessly? What a wonderful path to utopia. It has, after all, worked so often before in the course of human history. How could the rest of us be so blind?
76318. muoncounter at 02:26 AM on 29 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       Jeff T#2: That's a common enough problem; it can require a good deal of work (and skill) to see a trend in noisy data. But why populate the forest with scary 'monsters'?
76319. Jeff T at 02:16 AM on 29 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       The trees seem to prevent Dr. Curry from seeing the forest.
76320. muoncounter at 02:15 AM on 29 August 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Interesting that we're getting flack over Tamino's work on a sea level thread; his work on min sea ice extent for this year, from October 2010, seems like it will be spot on: I’ll do as I did before: fit a quadratic trend to the September average data from NSIDC, then use that trend to predict that next year’s September average from NSIDC, and next year’s JAXA minimum, will be 4.63 +/- 0.9 million km^2. After all, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior: the trend continues. Compare that to the guesstimates of the folks who hang out in Whatsup land: Joe Bastardi went early in for 5.5 Mkm^2. For what it matters, I will go with him. Aug 27: 4.99 million sq km. Like the man said, the trend continues ...
76321. michael sweet at 02:01 AM on 29 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Camburn: You have not replied to my question here about how many throium power plants have actually been built. BP has previously told us that no thorium power plants exist anywhere. At 63 you claim "By not agreeing to known tech". Since you have not produced evidence of a single thorium power plant in existence you obviously do not care about "known tech". It would take at least 15 years to prove the thorium technology, presuming that it actually works. It is quite possible that it will not work. This is not a solution that we can start to work on today with any hope of reducing CO2 in the next two decades. The local power company where I live has proposed a nuclear plant. It is only economically viable because of huge government loans and the fact that they are already billing for the nuclear power even though we will not receive any power for at least 10 years. How is it economic if they have to bill ten years in advance of finishing the plant?
76322. muoncounter at 01:54 AM on 29 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Camburn#125: "if I were elected President tomorrow:" In case you hadn't noticed, the President of the United States doesn't have the power to act unilaterally. Our government is dominated by entrenched corporate interests who have figured out that having congressmen (and women) in their pockets is the key. In the current debacle, the desired result of these corporate interests seems to be paralysis. And that includes this supposed thorium reactor panacea: When an existing industry such as nuclear power generation exists, dominated by only 1-2 manufacturers of equipment (such as GE) and a small number of very large, very entrenched producers, the utilities themselves, there is enormous resistance and active hostility to change. New technologies are not seen by the existing industry as opportunities. They are only threats. The immediate profit-maximizing “rational” action is to invest not in the new technology, but to in government lobbying efforts to block the development of the new technology. Since nuclear power is an established, well-regulated industry with big bucks behind it, it’s well positioned to stop the new technology, at least in the U.S. So your 'solution' would get bogged down in the legislative process, rewritten by lobbyists and die a slow death-by-committee.
76323. CompFedUp at 01:54 AM on 29 August 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       Seems to me that Curry has made this inapt (or is it inept) metaphor a foundation for her pronouncements on the state of climate science. All that somewhat clever verbiage for what basically amounts to "we don't know everything, so we cannot know or say anything", which is exactly what the rejectionists want to hear. I do agree that giving the commenters over at Climate Etc. a degree of credibility and influence is dangerous and odd; from my various visits there, many are merely using personal political dogma as a basis for their comments, with very little actual science or scientific thought applied to the subject. A more-appropriate venue for the commenters' "contributions" would be a journal in psychology or sociology, not BAMS.
76324. Tom Curtis at 00:20 AM on 29 August 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Steve Case @13, on the contrary, Tamino carries his data through to 2009, which considering that the data comes from a 2008 paper clearly shows a commitment to using all the available data. The first graph only goes to 1990 because it graphs from the indicated year to the present (2009). 1990 represents the most recent year on that basis for which the data supports a trend of at least 20 years. Short term trends, in climate science, are almost all noise and so of no interest.
76325. Camburn at 00:15 AM on 29 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       scaddenp: I did propose a solution. There is money available to build nuclear/thorium reactors. The hold up is the regulatory process. Ok....if I were elected President tomorrow: 1. I would streamline the regulatory process immediately. That is all it would take. There would be immediate lawsuits, but by the time they got through court the plants would be built. I would get a law passed that the 1st organization to develop a useable battery for transportation that had a range of 400 miles in a functional 5 passenger vehicle would recieve a 10 billion dollar reward. Takes care of most of the problem of co2 emissions in the USA with little government involvement but tremendous rewards for all.
76326. Daniel Bailey at 00:06 AM on 29 August 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       For those in denial of the ongoing demise of the Arctic Sea Ice cover, please take a look at the second graphic I posted in response to whsmith at 252 above. Upon examination you will note that the 16 M mark went extinct 13 years ago, and the 15 M mark, about 8 years ago (H/T to Andrew Xnn for pointing that out). Given the committed warming in the pipeline, many more levels of extent will follow in the coming years.
76327. Steve Case at 00:03 AM on 29 August 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Tamino did not address the totality of the data, he left off the last 20 years. He used 1880 to present for his calculations, but only graphed them up to 1990. Had he actually addressed the totality of the data in his graph it would have had a time line up to the present and the distortions would have been plainly obvious.
76328. Kevin C at 00:03 AM on 29 August 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
       Charlie: If you rescale figure 4 to be 712 pixels high and superpose it on figure 3, you'll see that the projections are identical. I presume therefore that the calculation here is just a simple rescaling to fit the current GHG levels, without redoing the whole calculation. As you've obviously realised, that's a very crude approximation, since it changes the hindcast values, and in reality the forecast values will also be slightly out because of the lagged effects of the rescaled earlier emissions. And I'm guessing you're already thinking about the following: If the forcings and projections are both available, then we can deduce the response function of the IPCC model and redo the calculation properly. That would be an interesting exercise. I see a problem however - the curves are not very featureful, and so the response function may be ill determined.
76329. Steve Case at 23:47 PM on 28 August 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       I posted the full satellite record.
       Response:

       [DB] In your desire to prosecute your agenda, you continue to cherry-pick by only using a small portion of the data available. 

       That is muoncounter & Tom Curtis' point, and the entire point of this post you are commenting on.

       If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to rectify that & address the totality of the data, as Tamino did.

76330. critical mass at 23:26 PM on 28 August 2011
       Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
       Badgersouth #5 If the current drought in the horn of Africa was attributable to climate change, would not any drought in the last 30 years of official human induced global warming also qualify? ENSO - La Nina cycles play large part in the drought/flood story on either side of the Pacific so also affecting world climate.
76331. Tom Curtis at 23:06 PM on 28 August 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Steve Case @9, congratulations. You have taken a curve bracketed by the Mount Pinatubo eruption at one end, a cluster of strong La Nina's a the other, and with a number of strong El Nino's in the middle. Unsurprisingly the rate of sea level rise from the Pinatubo low to the El Nino highs is slightly greater than the rate from the El Nino highs to the La Nina lows. If you take a longer data set, as Tamino did you find that sea level rise is accelerating, just as Tamino shows. Now you may insist that we should pay more attention to the shorter trend. However, the shorter trend shows a strong dependence between mean sea temperatures and sea level heights. That is not a comforting thought for the future.
76332. muoncounter at 22:47 PM on 28 August 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Steve Case#9: "add a second order polynomial Trend Line" Add all the higher orders you like, but be sure to check if they are statistically significant add-ons. That's exactly what was done by tamino; apparently you still have not read that post in full. That would be far more conducive to a rational discussion than any further announcements of your intent to ignore relevant critiques. In the quest for significance, you would do well to consider the work of Kemp et al 2011: Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. I'd suggest, as others threads already have, that long-term pattern is described accurately as 'accelerating.' And that does not even reflect the 3.2 mm/yr from the graph you posted above.
76333. Steve Case at 22:22 PM on 28 August 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Ok, if you want to discuss things that are not, the title of this discussion is: Is sea level rise accelerating? If you go to the CU Sea Level Research Group you will find this chart: and a link to the data: Raw data (ASCII) If you plot that data out in Excel with 60 day smoothing just like Colorado Research Group's chart and add a second order polynomial Trend Line instead of a linear trend, it will look like this: I would say that according to that sea level is not accelerating.
       Moderator Response: [mc] Reset image width to 450
76334. michael sweet at 21:58 PM on 28 August 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
       Ken, The link to the IPCC model description is highlighted in blue in the second paragraph of the lead post. In 1990 it was not the custom to post the algorithms and source code, but a detailed description of the models exists so that you can reproduce their data if you wish. Unfortunately, in the past 5 years once the algorithms were posted online skeptics have chosen not to examine them. The answers to your second post would be in the IPCC FAR report if you read it. Complaining that you do not understand how the data was graphed when you have not read the original report does not make a very convincing argument. Since the graph is of projections made in 1990 they are probably centered on the 1960-1990 time period, but they might be centered 1950-1980. The projection is below the measured line at the start of the graph because they do not perfectly model the data. Using my eyecrometer it seems that they are pretty close to the measured data. We are now seeing how well they projected into the future.
76335. Tom Curtis at 19:55 PM on 28 August 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Steve Case @7: 1) You say:

       "What about disputing the use of ever shorter trends as a means of establishing that change? That's what Tamino has done when he computed the linear trend rate for all possible starting years from 1880 to 1990, up to the present."

       That is not what Tamino has done. Tamino is testing a particular claim, ie, that the rate of change in global sea level has decelerated over the course of the twentieth century (or at least since 1930). Plotting the trend to end point for each year in succession will, as you suggest, exagerate the magnitude of more recent trends relative to older trends. It will show greater variability in the more recent trend. But it will not determine whether the recent trends are larger than the long term trend, or smaller. If in fact the rate of change of sea level was decelerating as is claimed by Houston and Dean, then the most recent trends would be smaller than the long term trends, and plotting a graph such as Tamino's third figure will show a steady line falling away towards zero at the end. So if that is your point, you have no point. You would do well to reread Tamino's post and pay attention to the other more important statistical techniques Tamino applies to determine the evolution of the rate of change of sea level over the 20th century. 2) If you want to introduce your chart as evidence, you need to defend its construction. If you don't want to defend its construction, you ought to withdraw it. As it stands, however, it appears you want to make use of a graph in which artifacts of the data will introduce a very large amount of noise. If you are simply trying to make a logical point about Tamino's analysis, I do not understand why you insist on the accuracy of your graph when you could make the same points using the graph provided by DB inline @1. You, however, insist on sticking with your graph, which makes me suspect some feature of that graph is important to the point you are trying to make. But to the extent that your graph differs from that supplied by DB, there is very good reason to think that the difference is due to noise introduced by your methods.
76336. Steve Case at 18:45 PM on 28 August 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       #6 Tom Curtis. Tom, Thank you for not disputing the use of twenty year trends as a means of establishing the change in global trends. What about disputing the use of ever shorter trends as a means of establishing that change? That's what Tamino has done when he computed the linear trend rate for all possible starting years from 1880 to 1990, up to the present. The resulting graphic effectively ignores any changes in global trends early in the century and magnifies more recent changes. Had the graphic included points derived in that manner since 1990 the magnification and distortion would been gross and apparent. The PSMSL data is arranged by coast line and geographic coordinates which allows the user to perform more than a simple mean. There are 167 coastlines reported. Coast lines have anywhere from one to 77 reporting stations. For each coast line for each year I took the average. The geographic coordinates allow an estimate of each coastline size and application of an appropriate weight for each. For each year I took the median of all 167 coast line averages. That's not to use your assessment, a simple average. I also applied the Peltier GIA adjustment to the GLOSS stations. I found out that it increases the slope by about 0.5 mm/yr but does not otherwise change the shape of the timeline. I would like to analyze the Domingues et al data of those around 500 tide gages. But as is the case in many data files, special programs are needed to unlock them. And so far they are unavailable to me. By the way, the PSMSL data is over 1200 tide gages. I intend to ignore any further critiques you have about the PSMSL data as it's not the issue. And the issue is method. Using unequal sample sizes as Tamino did that magnify recent changes and ignore earlier ones results in a gross distortion.
76337. dansat at 15:37 PM on 28 August 2011
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       Hansen and Sato's paper was excellent and Hansen writes in a very straight forward way with no need to impress. He uses technical terms only when they are appropriate and this makes his papers very readable. While the sceptics go crazy about the models, they tend to forget that the predictions of AGW are based more on the temperature response to delta CO2 in the past. To disprove climate change, you have to show why this is no longer valid in today's world. The only difference is the speed of the change which the models can be very helpful in deducing. In short, the physics says what the physics says.
76338. scaddenp at 15:04 PM on 28 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Camburn - no you didnt propose a solution. You mentioned one of the technologies that could be a solution, but you failed repeated requests to explain the political side of the equation that would result in nuclear being built instead of coal. "I would support" doesnt cut it. I would support a crimeless society too but first you actually have to explain how you get there. Stations are not built because someone in government thinks its a good idea. You have to explain how you break the barriers that currently restrict nuclear. If you were elected tomorrow, how would you do it? I cant take your idea seriously till you say that and address some of the questions that you have ignored in earlier posts.
76339. Bob Lacatena at 13:50 PM on 28 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       121, Camburn,

       I proposed a very effective solution. ... met with so much resistance. Mindless....and by doing so it makes any problem with co2 seem irrelevant.

       This is false. First, you didn't propose an effective solution, you proposed one single technological option -- Thorium reactors. That this one, single solution can't possibly work all by itself doesn't seem to matter to you. But beyond this, you were asked for further aspects of this... how do you implement this? The government does it and raises taxes to cover it? You just suggest it be done? How does this translate into vehicles? What do you do about the nuclear waste? Is the technology absolutely proven? Or is more research (and therefore delay) required? Your last statement... which basically amounts to the feeling that since people don't agree with you, it therefore means their concern about CO2 is disingenuous... is insulting and offensive. Or did I misunderstand what you meant by that?
76340. adelady at 13:17 PM on 28 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Camburn "...because of the resistance of numerous groups that only want wind/solar/thermal to be used for energy..." I'm not a group, not even a member of a group, but my 'resistance' may be very similar to others. I see fast, anywhere & everywhere rollout of renewables as the 'low-hanging fruit' of getting emissions down as quickly and as cheaply as possible. If we do it as fast as possible, that's an incentive for entrepreneurs to get in on the act and help drive costs down even faster with their own innovations. Like others I believe that it's possible to go entirely renewable across the world. But I also think it's worth keeping nuclear development going at the same time - to slot into the system in countries/areas where renewables are difficult to build or it's way too expensive to transmit renewable power generated elsewhere. (And it's worth keeping the peace at home with a man obsessed by the wondrous possibilities of salt-cooled thorium reactors.)
76341. RW1 at 12:49 PM on 28 August 2011
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       DB, "It is rather simplistic thinking to compare the Arctic, a maritime region largely comprised of ocean, with the Antarctic, a glaciated plateau, and expect them to react similarly to this early phase of AGW." Sorry, I mean Antarctic sea ice extent.
       Response:

       [DB]

       Try Is Antarctica gaining or losing ice? for a discussion on Antarctic sea ice changes and the causes of the same.

       BTW, Antarctic Sea Ice now (when it should be at maximum) is currently at a low point:

       

       [Source]

       Let us get back to the topic of this thread, Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?.

76342. muoncounter at 12:49 PM on 28 August 2011
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       RW1#8: "calculate the increase in absorbed solar energy" You might consider a different strategy on this question this time around. Rather than your calculation-based approach -- which is, in all reality, just a model with its own simplifying assumptions -- take a look at what has actually happened. Perovich et al 2008 There was an extraordinarily large amount of ice bottom melting in the Beaufort Sea region in the summer of 2007. Solar radiation absorbed in the upper ocean provided more than adequate heat for this melting. An increase in the open water fraction resulted in a 500% positive anomaly in solar heat input to the upper ocean, triggering an ice–albedo feedback and contributing to the accelerating ice retreat. The melting in the Beaufort Sea has elements of a classic ice–albedo feedback signature: more open water leads to more solar heat absorbed, which results in more melting and more open water. The positive ice–albedo feedback can accelerate the observed reduction in Arctic sea ice. This is what is happening: No models needed. The feedback is there; a baseline sensitivity already exists. Have a good long listen to Denning's video: Arguing about a few decimals of sensitivity almost seems silly at this point.
76343. Camburn at 12:37 PM on 28 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       I proposed a very effective solution. However, because of the resistance of numerous groups that only want wind/solar/thermal to be used for energy, it may not be possible. Such a simple solution met with so much resistance. Mindless....and by doing so it makes any problem with co2 seem irrelevant.
76344. RW1 at 12:28 PM on 28 August 2011
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       DB, "Tell that to the Arctic Sea Ice, which has lost more than 50% of its thickness in the past decade alone, or to the GIS which continues to lose mass at an accelerating rate." OK, calculate the increase in absorbed solar energy from the melting Artic ice that has occurred and explain how the 'feedback' caused this much melting occur, and then show how this effect is proportional to that which occurs when the planet leaves maximum ice. You should also explain why the 'feedback' hasn't caused any melting in Antarctica.
       Response:

       [DB] It is rather simplistic thinking to compare the Arctic, a maritime region largely comprised of ocean, with the Antarctic, a glaciated plateau, and expect them to react similarly to this early phase of AGW.  And you wrong in implying that Antarctica is losing ice (hint: both the WAIS and the EAIS are losing mass).

       So for starters, try reading these: Ice isn't melting and What causes Arctic amplification?

       An attitude of actually trying to learn about things and asking questions instead of speaking negatively about subjects that it is apparent you lack full understanding about will get better results.  But that would imply that you are here to learn, which is something that you have already stated that you are not here to do...

76345. grypo at 12:10 PM on 28 August 2011
       Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
       daisey "There's no connection between Al Gore, climate science, and morality/ethics (except in the minds of propagandists and the naive)." I don't understand your logic. Upon what "connection" would you need? Gore was the first to get people in the wider community discussing climate change as an ethics issue. Anybody can discuss the ethics of climate or the science. Could you please make your argument follow logically before accusing many people of being "propagandists"?
76346. Ken at 12:05 PM on 28 August 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
       In Figure 5, why is the IPCC projection linear with slope changes in 2000 and around 2008? Also, why does the IPCC projection after 1880 have two sharp linear slope changes when actual data in this time period was nowhere as complete or accurate as today? How did the IPCC have data to use energy balance/upwelling diffusion ocean models to make projections in this time period? For scientific accuracy, I believe all these charts should show the key years when data collection methods and quality of data changed. After all, science is supposed to be about the data and vetting that data, not who is stating conclusions about the data. In Figure 4, how can a projection be below the actual at the starting point of the projection? There has to be a known starting point where both values were equal.
76347. RW1 at 11:32 AM on 28 August 2011
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       "Model estimates come with large error bars that have proven difficult to reduce as climate models have become more realistic over the decades, because modeling all the positive and negative feedbacks is so complicated. However, the paleoclimate record allows us to circumvent that problem, as past climate changes obviously included all existing feedbacks." I really doesn't, as I've illustrated in comment #6.
       Response:

       [DB] "I really doesn't, as I've illustrated in comment #6."

       Not hardly.

76348. RW1 at 11:23 AM on 28 August 2011
       Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
       With regard to the glacial to interglacial sensitivity, one can’t equate the positive feedback effect of melting ice from that of leaving maximum ice to that of minimum ice where the climate is now. There just isn’t much ice left, and what is left would be very hard to melt, as most of is located at high latitudes around the poles which are mostly dark 6 months out the year with way below freezing temperatures. A lot of the ice is thousands of feet above sea level too where the air is significantly colder too. Unless you wait a few 10s of millions of years for plate tectonics to move Antarctica and Greenland to lower latitudes (if they are even moving in that direction), no significant amount of ice is going to melt from just a 1 C rise in temperature. Furthermore, the high sensitivity from glacial to interglacial is largely driven by the change in the orbit relative to the Sun, which changes the angle of the incident energy into the system quite dramatically. This combined with positive feedback effect of melting surface ice is enough to overcome the strong net negative feedback and cause the 5-6 C rise. But we are very nearing the end of this interglacial period, so if anything the orbit has already flipped back in the direction of glaciation and cooling.
       Response:

       [DB] "There just isn’t much ice left, and what is left would be very hard to melt, as most of is located at high latitudes around the poles which are mostly dark 6 months out the year with way below freezing temperatures."

       Tell that to the Arctic Sea Ice, which has lost more than 50% of its thickness in the past decade alone, or to the GIS which continues to lose mass at an accelerating rate.

       "But we are very nearing the end of this interglacial period, so if anything the orbit has already flipped back in the direction of glaciation and cooling."

       Unsupported assertion (prove it).  By all means, show us where in the past where there has been a CO2 excursion such as mankind has introduced into the carbon cycle in the past 150 years (at a rate 10 times higher than occurred during the PETM).

       Furthermore, evidence is already accumulating that we not only have already skipped the next glacial cycle, but will soon have managed to prevent the next 5 glacial cycles.

       So much for the "cooling" direction.

76349. adelady at 11:08 AM on 28 August 2011
       Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
       daisym "The Bad News: Because immorality IS sustainable, it will forever be with us." And so will intelligence, cooperation, foresight, common sense, organisation, kindness, curiosity, generosity, selfishness, foolishness ...... Just because we're not perfect doesn't mean we can't meet a challenge. Someone I know had very good advice for his employees ... "It doesn't have to be perfect. It does have to be done." Same goes for our response to the challenge of climate change. We have to do it. If we make mistakes along the way, we acknowledge it and get on with it anyway.
76350. Tom Curtis at 11:03 AM on 28 August 2011
       Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
       daisym @8 makes an impassioned plea against deficit spending. I have no problem with that, by why is she fixated on monetary deficits. Money is after all just a marker for the real elements of the economy, productive work, resources and goods. A long term deficit in any of these will have long term adverse impacts in the future. So, if we rip iron out of the Earth and sell it, unless the resultant economic growth in assets compensates for the value of the Iron, we are deficit spending. Without that increase in economic assets, our descendants will be in the same position we are, but without the iron to sell. That is, they will be poorer because we have payed for our consumption with long term assets. The same problem arises with environmental issues. A farmer who raises a crop with practices that result in his fields being contaminated with salt is deficit spending. It does not matter if he makes a temporary monetary profit, his assets are eroded and his long term financial prospects are bleak. And if we, by emissions of GHG destroy acidify the oceans, destroy the great tropical rain forests, and make large areas of the Earth seasonally uninhabitable, we are deficit spending - like it or not. What puzzles me is, why does Daisym think we can't afford to tackle the real deficits based on her monetary fetish?

Prev  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  Next