Recent Comments

Prev  1603  1604  1605  1606  1607  1608  1609  1610  1611  1612  1613  1614  1615  1616  1617  1618  Next

Comments 80501 to 80550:

80501. Dikran Marsupial at 02:58 AM on 3 July 2011
       Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
       The best skeptic strategy for talking about global warming is what is known as "science" (i.e. leave out the politics and the conspiracy theory). If the science supports their view, they will make progress. I've often said that scentists should aim to push forward science is the way a good chess player plays chess. Instead of playing the move that maximises your advantage, you play the move that minimises your opponents maximum advantage (in other words, you choose your move assuming best play from your opponent, and don't assume he will blunder by not noticing the obvious counter to your strategy). In science this means not drawing the strongest conclusions you think can be supported by the evidence, but the strongest conclusion that cannot be refuted by the evidence (i.e. expect your scientific opponent to pick holes in your argument optimally). That way progress is slow, but it is almost always in a forward direction. This is merely self-skepticism, it is human nature to have a blind spot about your own opinions, and the difference between a good scientists and a bad scientist is the ability and desire to pick holes in their own arguments. How does this relate to the best strategy for the skeptic? Well in chess there is a thing called a zugzwang, which basically means that a player can be disadvantaged in many games by the fact he is forced to make a move. This isn't true for the true skeptic, he has the option of a null move by simply keeping quiet. In this case Glickstein appears to have voluntarily zugzwanged himself, and made a move that is easily refuted and as a result is in a worse intellectual position than he was before he made the presentation.
80502. Marco at 02:53 AM on 3 July 2011
       Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
       Actually thoughtful: I think Roger Pielke Sr once tried to educate the Wattsians on greenhouse gases (that wasn't a big success with the commenters), and there was a post on CO2 increase being due to anthropogenic sources that, I think, was reasonably accurate (this also did not gain much approval with certain commenters).
80503. actually thoughtful at 02:47 AM on 3 July 2011
       Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
       Dana1981, with all due respect (which is plenty), I think your likelihood of finding a rational, internally consistent, science based post on WUWT is fairly low. You may be looking in the wrong place if you are looking for a valid skeptic argument. tAV (the air vent) and the Blackboard are higher up on the valid skeptical argument food chain. I personally gave up on WUWT a long time ago. I realize it is a popular site, but I haven't found a lot of valid science there. Does anyone know of ANY WUWT post that is complete (ie not a cherry pick), scientifically valid and internally consistent?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] IIRC there was a good series of posts by Willis Eschenbach (sp?) about why the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements were reliable (may have had a few errors, but it was basically sound). It didn't go down well with the readership.
80504. BBD at 02:39 AM on 3 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       dana1981 A more constructive discussion of managing intermittency will probably occur if you can find 20 minutes to read MacKay's chapter on Fluctuations and Storage in Sustainable Energy. This provides insight into why I find the discussion of biofuel/gas-fired turbines as peak handling modules in a proposed baseload renewables plant troubling. What happens when you experience peaking demand during a prolonged lull or a period of intermittency sufficient to deplete whatever energetic storage you have in place? (Please recall that here in the UK at ~52N to62N in a maritime climate, solar is not a reliable alternative to wind, even during daylight hours). The answer is not 'import via grid interconnector'. One of the defining characteristics of all high-renewables energy mix projections is that they are barely capable of meeting peaking demand even with sophisticated and some would argue fairly aggressive demand-side management. All spare capacity is directed into local energetic storage as a hedge against local or regional intermittency/variability. With a conversion loss overhead of ca 30%, let's not forget. The point I am labouring towards is that there is no spare capacity elsewhere. An interconnector is not much help in a world where there is no true 'surplus' capacity. This important consideration is peculiarly absent from discussions of grid interconnectors and intermittency. It's another reason why you will find many in the energy industry privately sceptical - even scornful - of high-renewables scenarios.
80505. Mike_H at 02:37 AM on 3 July 2011
       Throwing Down The Gauntlet
       I have a modest suggestion. I believe we need to actively introduce climate change into the presidential primary debate. The news media considers it a “second tier” issue and will not do it. But in the early primary states of NH (my home), Iowa, and North Carolina, we have a unique opportunity. We can use the “retail” face-to-face forums in these states to confront the current primary field with intelligent questions about climate change. The problem we face, though, is that candidates are good at providing easy talking points and individuals do not have a chance to ask follow ups. This strategy, sometimes called “bird dogging” means have thoughtful and informed questioner’s at every “town hall”, debate, and rally. Asking follow up questions based on the candidate’s earlier responses. I have already asked Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann questions. The Romney query set off a huge amount of discussion and debate. Bachmann’s response, much less. But we need others to continue to the “discussion”. For that reason I have started a FB page to track the current candidates answers on climate change with the hope that others can ask follow up questions. Individuals can use this page to learn about prior positions, suggest possible questions, and post information about any coverage their question gets. I can also suggest a few strategies to increase the likelihood that you will be picked to ask a question. Stop by at the page and get involved.
80506. BBD at 02:08 AM on 3 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       I have just read your article co-author Dr Diesendorf's 2010 paper. If Dr Diesendorf thinks that including the phrase 'Renewable Energy Deniers' in the title adds to the credibility of what follows, he is deeply mistaken. This is exactly the sort of poisonously defensive rhetoric that hardens opposition. It certainly does not persuade. A note: here in the UK, we experience winter anti-cyclones lasting for days. The geographic extent is often the entire British Isles (as occurred during the extremely cold period in December 2010). Wind speed falls below the operating threshold for wind generation over the entire country. The entire of Northern Europe can experience very low wind speeds during anti-cyclonic conditions. This is not rare, nor is it unacknowledged. That's why there's talk of hollowing out mountains to build the level of pumped hydro backup required to manage intermittency and grid balancing when we have 30GW of installed wind capacity. The costing of the proposed massive expansion of wind in the UK energy mix does not include either the very considerable grid extensions necessary (including offshore connectors), nor the humblingly vast sums required to create a huge pumped hydro backup. In fact the whole proposal is viewed by many familiar with the deeply worrying detail as a policy disaster of unparalleled proportions. JMurphy at 84 asked why the UK government was 'cosying up to nuclear'. It's really very obvious if you know what's actually going on.
80507. michael sweet at 01:49 AM on 3 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Camburn, You claim "I know from 1st hand experience with costs that a carbon tax". What carbon tax do you currently pay to give you first hand experience? If you do not pay a carbon tax you do not have first hand experience and you are making false claims. The lead post gives DATA that supports their claim that a carbon tax is cost effective. You are merely saying what you think (but you claim what you think is fact). You have produced no evidence or data to support your wild claims, as usual. I dismiss your claim made with no supporting evidence.
80508. actually thoughtful at 01:47 AM on 3 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Camburn, Your point that the economy is becoming more fuel efficient (GDP/unit of fuel is going down) is true. However, the GDP is going up at a rate higher than the fuel intensity is going down. So your positions (Business As Usual) will lead to a catastrophic failure of human civilization through lack of food due to climate change (this is not a guaranteed outcome, however, it is likely enough that prudent people will take action). If we somehow avoid that, your position does GUARANTEE a trillion dollars plus is in new taxes to relocate most of the population centers on the East and West coast of the United States. Your avoidance of a minor bother now (a rational carbon tax) is forcing HUGE costs on the next generation. This is inter-generational theft at its finest. So please tell us why we should risk collective doom so your business enterprise can flourish (until we fall off the cliff)? Given that the carbon tax is fairly applied to everyone, it shouldn't have any direct impact on your business (unless, of course you are not as efficient as another producer, or the market decides your product is not worth having at the all-in fuel price. If that is the case, that is going to happen anyways, as you admit (fuel prices are already rising). If you product is important, it will not be price sensitive, and all your competition will be raising prices as well. The worst case under a carbon tax is a short term round of inflation. The worst case under BAU is the end of the earth's capacity to carry 7-9 billion humans. You are a businessman, you understand minimizing risk, which would you choose? Why? As for your changes so far - good for you. I assure you there is much, much more you can do. One example is to move your business to a state with more easily accessible renewable resources (I realize that is not a preferred option, but I don't want to hear your knee-jerk rejection of easier ones, like hosting a wind farm on your property (as you say, wind is big in your area) or putting up solar (which works in Canada, so it is hard to see why it doesn't work in your corner of the universe)). You do have options, and most of us support limiting your options to foul the nest, which seems to be your number one goal. I am against.
80509. BBD at 01:44 AM on 3 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       dana1981 How fast can they spin up? It would have to be near-instantaneous for peak. What about thermal stress on the plant? You seem to think you can go from cold shutdown to operating capacity at the flick of a switch. You can't. What is the mass/joules conversion ratio for the plant you have in mind? How many tons of biofuels will be required, per hour to deliver the specified capacity? We need to look at the numbers now. Thanks - D
80510. BBD at 01:41 AM on 3 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       CBDunkerson SEGS: - 1,600 acres of the Mohave - best insolation in US - Capacity 354MW - Claimed output (unverified) 75MWe - Load factor 21% See the problem? You aren't going to power the planet with solar. It's wishful thinking.
80511. dana1981 at 01:28 AM on 3 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Camburn, the main thrust of the article is that strong investment in renewables and/or a carbon price (which can help fund that investment) accelerates the process of transitioning to renewables, thus benefitting the economy. The fact that the transition is happening doesn't mean it can't happen faster, and help the economy in the process.
80512. Tor B at 01:09 AM on 3 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Camburn (9 end) 20+ years ago my central New Hampshire (USA) home had a ~1 kWh/day photovoltaic system with marine battery storage and a propane generator back-up. We heated with wood and were frugal (e.g.: used outside cold for winter refrigeration; I walked a km to get to my employer's home and carpooled to work; kids walked 2 km to get to bus stop). The alternative would have been to pay 50% more up front to have electricity mains brought to the house AND pay rent on two utility poles in addition to paying for electricity used. The cost of photovoltaics is way down now; the cost of mains electricity isn't. I'm not saying your business could make this particular transition; of course the infrastructure is already in place. We all make choices and then rationalize them. I recall a high school classroom discussion on conservation when a fellow student considered the suggestion she walk (instead of drive) the full block from her home to school a ridiculous idea. Go Google! (at least as it relates to this blog's focus)
80513. Camburn at 01:04 AM on 3 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Michael: Yes, that is what they say. I am giving you the luxury of 1st hand business experience. I will take observed reactions to economically modeled reactions any day of the week and year. The wild, outrageous claims? Interesting perspective as my banker would completely disagree with you.
80514. michael sweet at 00:51 AM on 3 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Camburn, If you read the article we are commenting on, they say that if we put in a carbon tax that the economy will expand to more than cover the cost of the tax. Why don't you read the lead post? Please present data that suggests the tax will not be cost efective or stop making wild, outrageous claims. You post on this site a lot and very rarely link to data. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
80515. Camburn at 00:40 AM on 3 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Tom@18: Yes, the cost of energy is general. But because of that cost, business people are looking, evaluating, and implimenting to reduce the consumption of energy. So, on a per GDP basis, the amount of energy used declines. You indicate that renewables are more expensive(externalities excluded). At this point you are correct. The economic incentive is then to bring down the cost of renewables so that they can compete. That will happen for a host of reasons, but the most prevelant one is that the cost of fossil fuels is doing what ecnomics dictates and is going up. I have the luxury of living in a state that has abundant energy. Veryyyyyy abundant fossil fuel energy. Yet, even with that large reserve, there are exciting things happening on the renewable/alternative energy front, researched here. An ecnomical hydrogen fuel cell is not very far from reality. How do I know this? I know a person working on it. We have Bison Elec working on hydrogen production via wind energy. We have, as I have posted a link to, large elec wind farms with more going up. There are a lot of things happening that it seems few know about. As a business owner, I see every day the effect of rising energy costs. You talk about a carbon tax being good. I know from 1st hand experience with costs that a carbon tax will immediately stiffle production, and certainly drive up costs. Redistribute wealth....yep....take from me....as a large energy user.....give to someone who uses less. Yet, my energy consumption produces a product. So in order to stay in business the price of said product has to rise. What this incorporates is another tax on production......not consumption as my consumption has already declined on a per unit basis because of the improvements I have incorporated. To decide what person "A"s energy consumption is would have to incorporate what my energy consumption is as person "A" buys my product. That is already happening when they buy the product as the price is included. To add another layer is pound foolish, and economically destructive.
80516. Eric (skeptic) at 00:35 AM on 3 July 2011
       Throwing Down The Gauntlet
       Pete, interesting link, thanks. Here are a few more details: http://solarcooking.org/saussure.htmThere are lots of solar heater designs on the web that I loosely followed, but I made one error using acrylic instead of polycarbonate. I still need to replace that. Believe it or not, the black foundation doesn't look that bad from down the hill. Marcus, I would not mind at al having part of my yard flooded although some of my neighbors might. The key benefit is a more stable river level, right now a normal flood is 10 feet of rise and an extreme flood is 30 feet making it impossible to have any kind of dock and difficult to do the small scale hydro (it would have to be anchored and completely waterproof).
80517. Tom Curtis at 00:19 AM on 3 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Camburn @17, the problem with that scenario is that the rise in the price of energy is general. Consequently, while it does provide incentive to become more energy efficient, it does not provide significant incentive to switch energy sources. Indeed, such incentives that it does provide for switching encourages energy producers to switch away from the more expensive (externalities excluded) renewable sources to the less expensive (externalities excluded) carbon intensive fuels such as coal. In contrast, a price on carbon not only encourages consumers of energy to reduce their consumption; it also encourages producers to seek a competitive advantage by switching to low carbon and zero carbon energy sources.
80518. hank at 00:02 AM on 3 July 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047553.shtml doi:10.1029/2011GL047553 Sudden increase in Antarctic sea ice: Fact or artifact? Three highly-cited data sets depict a sudden large increase in Antarctic sea ice This step-change is fake and is related to a switch in source data Recent sea ice trends are significantly exagerated becuase of this data problem (typos in the original) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047553.shtml
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Links activated
80519. pdjakow at 00:01 AM on 3 July 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
       Easterbrook false temperatures in 1999-2010: I think that time scale is also wrong.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] links and images added.
80520. WheelsOC at 23:58 PM on 2 July 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
       Speaking of non-climate scientists trying to use the past to predict the future mechanism-free, here's yesterday's guest post by J. Storrs Hall at WUWT. Take all the increased temperature spikes on a graph of GISP2, overlay those with the global instrumental temperature record, and voila! He ends the post by saying, "Prediction of the 21st century is left to the reader as an exercise," and right on cue many comments reflect exactly the conclusion he wants you to draw. Entertainingly enough, some are calling out the science-free nature of this approach while in the same post dismissing the climate modelling done by legit researchers.
80521. Dikran Marsupial at 23:37 PM on 2 July 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       Cheers Riccardo (good summary ;o). If it does get published, it would be good if a peer-reviewed response were submitted. Submitting it to the Journal of Forecast is a neat trick, they wouldn't be able to get it published in a climate journal because of the lack of physics, the reviewers at JoF are likely to be only able to review the stats, but not the significance of the findings to climatology. Obviously that won't stop some drawing firm conclusions about climate from it.
80522. Norman at 23:32 PM on 2 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Tom Curtis @ 203 My post at 195 was more for DB. He was asking that I would start doing some of my own statistical analysis. I was not doing an indepth analysis to make a point with this. I was just looking for raw data. After about 7 or 8 pages of searches the Perth Australia page came up with raw data. So I plugged the data into an excel spread sheet and made trend lines. It was more an exercise for DB to determine if I was on the right track with a small data set before I would work on a larger one. Entering lots of data on an excel spreadsheet is time consuming and one has to be very careful not to add a wrong data point (typing error). I enter it and check it over. If at least I was on the right track I could then tackle larger data sets. I have already been steered away from selecting one data point with my Omaha snowfall connection to temperature post. Now I am seeking regional areas and the longest data trends I can find. I think I would pale matched against your searching skills (a master at selecting the correct key words). I type in what I think will get me data and scroll 10 pages of the same material that has nothing to do with my search. You do have internet search skills I do not.
       Response:

       [DB] While I can appreciate wanting me to vette your methodolgy, I'm hardly a statistician (Dikran would be the person to ask on that).  But I do know enough about stats, having followed Tamino's Open Mind for the past 4 years and climate science (and science in general) for about 30, to know that a focus on a few data points out of a larger set is improper, as I noted previously.

       Depending on what level and scope of analysis you're trying to do will also determine the types of methodologies you need to follow to come to a proper conclusion.  As you're dealing with climate science data, the link I gave you earlier to D Kelly O'Day's site should be of a great profit to you, as you can easily see how someone well-versed in analysis in Excel and R does it (replete with actual workbooks).

       If you're going to do it, and I applaud the effort, do it right.  Perhaps Dikran can suggest a primer on time series analysis to help.  Dikran?

80523. Camburn at 23:31 PM on 2 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       actually thoughtful@13: How about this scenerio: Looking at costs, I see my cost per unit of production has risen because of the price of energy. 1. I do an energy audit on my building and find several areas of leakage. I do a cost/benifit analysis and the payback of insulating, adding new doors etc is 5 years. I do the improvements and have now lowered my costs to less than my compitition and reduced my energy consumption per unit produced. 2. I do an energy audit on my machinery that runs in said building. By installing invertors on my larger motors I have an energy and cost of maintainence payback of 3 years. I quickly invest in invertors. 3. I look at my fuel costs and identify ways to cut gallon/acre useage. I incorporate those improvements. I have not paid an energy tax. I have lowered my unit energy costs. I have been able to maintain a profitable business and enhanced my long term viability. This is what is happening all around. The idea of a carbon tax is to provide incentive. The reality of it is that increasing energy costs are doing this effectively because there is already an incentive. Micheal: Why add another 3% cost to anything? Why redistibute revenue at all? I present you with facts from a real world economic model. That is not gibberish, that is facts.
80524. adelady at 23:25 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       batvette "It comes down to people don't drive their kids to Disneyland." Why wouldn't they if they had an electric vehicle and there were recharge/replace facilities along the highways instead of servos? Or they could choose high speed rail powered by electricity (from renewable sources). You're confusing conservation with efficiency. Conservation is about using less of something in order not to waste it. Efficiency is about using the best resource for the task. For transport, using fuel that doesn't have to be mined, transported and burned is much more efficient.
80525. Riccardo at 22:40 PM on 2 July 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       The paper was submitted to Journal of Forecast but hasn't been published, not there at least. The statistics leave much to be desired, physics is absent; but even if they were sound, they discovered that the climate in Australia is sensitive to no less than the nearby ocean! How could they come to global conclusion and even make projections remains a mistery.
80526. Dikran Marsupial at 22:27 PM on 2 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       P. M. Williams, "Modelling Seasonality and Trends in Daily Rainfall Data" (available here) will be of interest to those interested in extreme precipitation (it is more concerned with the statistical methodology than the data, but an empirical study based on this method would be really interesting). Essentially it alows you to model the probability of rainfall and the parameters of a Gamma distribution describing the plausible amount of rainfall as a function of time. This allows you to see how the distribution of rainfall has changed, see e.g. fig 2, which show that the probability of rainfall, the mean rainfall and also ranfall variability at Pomarico have all declined since the 1950s, especially the variability (as measured by the standard deviation). Integrating the upper or lower tails of this distribution gives an indication of the kinds of extreme events we might expect to see in the future. In the case of Pomarico, it seems likely that droughts are becoming a little more likely, but that heavy rainfall is becoming less likely (the Gamma distribution is skewed, so that if the standard deviation is reduced, the upper tail will come in more than the lower tail). IMHO this paper ought to be much better cited than it is.
80527. Tom Curtis at 22:25 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       batvette @49, the review board was not from the same faculty as Michael Mann, and hence independent. As to the "other flaws", we have been through this before @29, 35, and 37 above. There we established that: 1) You just make up "facts" because they suit your argument; and 2) The allegations against Michael Mann where reviewed using the standard procedures as laid down by their by-laws for Penn State, procedures which are in line with those typically required in US and Australian universities. You had nothing of substance to say then, and the mere passage of time adds nothing to your attempts to beat up an issue where none exists.
80528. michael sweet at 22:06 PM on 2 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Camburn, There you go with your wild, unsubstainted claims again. It is well known from Social Security that the government can collect a tax and redistribute it for less than 3% of the total revenues. Please provide data to support your gibberish that revenue cannot be redistributed. It is tiresome to have these deniers come in again and again with their gibberish and have to discuss it with them as if it were facts.
80529. kdkd at 22:02 PM on 2 July 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       Yes I've come across this Stockwell and Cox paper before. Aside from the dubious affiliation (I mean has anything scientifically worthwhile come out of the Institute of Public Affairs?), it just seemed to me like a bunch of statistical description with a very limited attempt to place the data in the context of a credible physical model.
80530. Tom Curtis at 21:57 PM on 2 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Norman @195, the increase in severe weather events expected from global warming at the moment is slight, and the occurrence of severe weather events sporadic. Consequently the noise is very large compared to the signal. So, if you choose just one, or a few locations it is unlikely that there will be a statistically significant trend, and whatever trend there is may be in either direction. That is the nature of noisy data when you do not have a lot of data to work with. In contrast, if you look at a lot of data, as for example, as done by Munich Re, a signal can be detected. Or you could look at the trend in the length of warm spells Australia wide: You will then see that the trends you find in the Perth heatwave data are in fact artifacts of the noisy data. You can also check parallel information, such as the general trend in Perth temperatures, which would have shown you the same thing: Frankly, I should not have to chase down this auxiliary data for you. If you were what you purport to be, you would be doing it yourself instead of seizing on any little piece of data you think could undermine the position you oppose and rushing in a post which shows no significant thought on the topic.
80531. Dikran Marsupial at 21:46 PM on 2 July 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       Having skimmed the paper, it looks to me like another case of someone thinking stats trumps physics; they are wrong, it is the other way round (I am a statistician, and I greatly prefer a model with a strong physical explanation than merely statistical support). The Chow test is not reliable in this case, as it is based on sum-of-squares errors, which implicitly assumes a Gaussaan noise process. However the noise process for climate data is non-gaussian; it has a quasi periodic cyclic component, due to ocean circulation such as ENSO. Now if they were to find a step change in the data after it had been adjusted for the effects of ENSO (i.e. look at the resudials of a regression of temperatures on MEI, as has been done frequently), that would be a different matter entirely. I very much doubt that the Chow test would identify a step change in that case, which would mean that surface temperatures are affected by ENSO, something we have known for decades. The reason that Easterling and Wehner find periods of low warming or cooling is exactly that - internal climate variability. Secondly, it is obviously cherry picking to start a trend at a conspicuous maximum. This is true even if you include statistical significance becuase if you optimise the start date to bias the result in a particular direction (e.g. by choosing to start at a maxima) then it invalidates the significance test anyway. Essentially you are performing many simultaneous significance tests, one for each start point. Each test has a probability of a false-positive or a false-negative. If you pick and choose the test to make the argument you want, you vastly increase the overall chance of a false-positive or false-negative, and hence it is cherry picking. In stats this is the "multiple hypothesis testing problem". Lastly, using the start point of the dataset is not cherry picking, it doesn't mean the results are robust to the choice of start point. It is not reasonable to expect a linear trend in temperatures on a centennial scale; climate forcings have changes in many ways over that period - solar forcing explains much of the waming in the first half of the 20th century, aerosol cooling explains a mid-century plateau and CO2 radiative forcing has become dominant from the late sixties. So the Chow test is a bit of a straw man. It is always going to find a break point, simply because the linear trend is known to be wrong. That doesn't mean that it is a step change though, that is just the only alternative offered to the straw man of a linear centennial scale trend. I suspect that if they had started in say 1960 (giving a period where CO2 radiative forcing is asserted to be dominant according to e.g. the IPCC), I suspect the Chow test would no longer identify a step change because a linear trend over that period is more plausible. The paper shows a lack of self-skepticism. Has the paper been published in a peer reviewed journal? If so, I'll give it more than just a skim, but as (essentially) a statistican, I am not impressed by it.
80532. les at 21:34 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       I can't be bothered to "define" smart consumption for you. You've don't it twice for your self I don't suppose anything I have to say will make any impact. And, yes, I can see you're lost; but as you say, you're not the subject of this thread so I'll leave that there.
80533. Dikran Marsupial at 21:14 PM on 2 July 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       The abstract of Stockwell and Cox suggests a rather poor grasp of multiple hypothesis testing and the nature of cherry picking. Finding a statistically significant result does not refute the possibility of cherry picking. If you look at 100 independent events (e.g. trends at different site), at the 95% level you would expect to see five statistically significant events even if all trends were due to random chance. Cherry picking is about searching for events that make your argument, in contradiction to the broader picture; this is still possible if you restrict yourself to "statistically significant" events. Also it is rather unsurprising that there is a change in the datasets around 1997. In 1998 there was an extremely strong El-Nino event. It is difficult to detect the difference in a noisy dataset between a step change and a linear trend with a quasi cyclical variability (ENSO). Physics provides an answer, the linear trend model has a plausible physical explanation, can the same be said of the step change model? I'll comment again when I have read the rest of the paper. This is just my impression from the abstract.
80534. Marco at 20:58 PM on 2 July 2011
       Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
       Ecoeng, thanks. I do note it is a regional reconstruction. Also note that it does discuss possible reasons for the observations, including several that have little to do with expansion/contraction.
80535. batvette at 20:55 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       Les, now you've lost me. Is what I'm doing transparant or am I employing cheap tricks? Seems to me it's one or the other, not both at the same time. But WTH, I'm not the topic here, at least I hope not. So I'm curious, can you define "smart consumption" for me? While we would all believe this means stopping for groceries on the way home from work, not going home and the light bulb turns on and think "oh yeah I think I need groceries" and making a seperate trip, fact is high gas prices already drive this and the rest of us aren't as dumb as you'd like to think. It's not as simple as "let's cut out all that needless, wasteful energy use that we can easily eliminate by just being smart, because leaving that porch light on all night didn't employ anyone!" It comes down to people don't drive their kids to Disneyland. They stay home and watch a Disney movie on pay per view. People don't drive to the beach. They watch Baywatch on pay per view. (okay I ran out of analogies here) There really is no denying here that the overall message is "we need to consume less because it's been harming the planet" and there is truth to that but why would anyone enter a discussion on it by denying if people listened to that it would harm a consumer based economy?
80536. Mark Harrigan at 20:50 PM on 2 July 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       I would like to ask if anyone is aware if there have been any refutations of this paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf by Stockwell and Cox? I have been following the climate debate for some time - especially on Drum. I really have no truck with Cox as I find his approach to be dishonest and dissembling. But I have to say I find this paper to be pretty sound? I really hate to give Mr Cox any credence or airtime at all if it's not justified. But I also believe in maintaining an open mind. My own approach to AGW was one of a genuine sceptic. When I first encountered suggestions of AGW back in the late 80's as a newly minted PhD in physics I was fairly dismissive - I felt in particular that the heat capacity of the ocean and solar irradiance variations would be much more powerful forces. But in the early "noughties" as the issue gained more attention I did my own secondary research (the wonders of the internet) and one by one my doubts were addressed by the evidence. Actually your site with the neat little thermometer down the side is a fairly apposite reflection of my own doubts that have been addressed. I am now convinced of the realities of AGW and have been since about 2003. Those who deny the science really upset me for their ignorance and blindness bias but I always try and maintain an open mind. I confess I've sometimes been fairly "direct" and forceful in some of my comments posted on the Drum. Over the years I've checked on many so called "refutations" of AGW in the "literature" - always to find that either the publication is highly suspect (such as "Energy & Environment" or anything published by Bentham Science ) or if the journal is good the paper gets comprehensively refuted - such as the case with G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364 - I'm AMAZED that even got published - complete piffle but I guess the technical "density" (pun intended) of it proves that "bullshit baffles brains". I'd like to think my "science bullshit" detectors are pretty acute but this paper by Stockwell and Cox actually seems sound to me. The journal is reputable. The Chow test is very valid, and whilst it was developed I believe for econometric data it can really be applied to any time series analysis. Also, looking at the temperature data one can reasobaly conlude that there do appear to be step changes and therefore it's not an "invalid" basis for forecasting. IF they are right it doesn't suggest AGW isn't real - only that the size and scope of the problem is much lower than we feared and most scientists have suggested. I can't see that they've made the usual "error" of cherry picking their data points (a la Carter) Given that this issue - how far/how fast will we warm - is I think the one genuine area where there is room for scientific uncertainty then I must, out of intellectual honesty, pay attention to their findings. Of course Stockwell and Cox don't explore what mechanisms might be at work that may have mitigated warming lately - they are only interested in creating doubt not genuine physics. I might even speculate that the recently reported grand solar minima may be at play, not to mention that aerosol effects may indeed be more than we had thought - but at this point have not been able to find any papers that have really examined that hypothesis - namely that warming may be temporarily in a reprieve due to such effects. I have found on New Scientist articles that suggests the solar minima phenomenon may at most mitigate things by 0.3 degrees - but I'm not a subscriber so can't access the full article Anyway - love this site. But in the genuine spirit of open minded sceptical inquiry I would really like to know if anyone is aware of any rebuttals of the paper above or can suggest any ideas?
80537. batvette at 20:37 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       @48 How was this review board "independent"? There are other flawss in that reply, but I'd love to see how you can explain how they were independent from the institution. Also please review the comments guidelines regarding use of the term "deniers".
80538. batvette at 20:26 PM on 2 July 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       actaully thoughtful... You took the subway everywhere because the streets were jammed with cars and there was nowhere to park when you got there anyway- additionally you had surface mass transit to complete the route to your destination. I've lived in the SF Bay Area and other parts of California, rail transit is not simply a matter of "if we want it to, it can work". It only works in areas of extreme population density where other factors work toward making people want to use it, like "why drive when youy have to spend an hour looking for a parking place and it's $5 an hour to park?". Furthermore having the surface transportation to transfer to is the deal breaker. San Diego has been implementing light rail with its Metro Trolley system since the '80', and it works okay if you live AND work AND only travel to destinations along its lines, which don't cover the city that well. Problem is providing the surface transit coverage for enough hours and distance to make trolley line travel appeal to people, has the city running a LOT of empty or near empty buses. Pollution aside, the city looks at this and cuts their bus coverage down by both times and routes. Now people get back in their cars.... In the end, hey you have the NY Subway System. Whoopee! Now how about the rest of us....
80539. Tom Curtis at 20:09 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       batvette @43, that statement is false. It is correct to say that: "Michael Mann's conduct was reviewed by an independent review board established by his employer, and entity whose reputation would not have been damaged by finding him guilty of impropriety, but whose reputation would be severely damaged by finding him not guilty when he was in fact guilty." I am aware that deniers will not accept any panel reviewing Mann's actions as being properly constituted unless it is chaired by McIntyre and recruited from the regulars a WUWT. I know also that if such a panel were to find Mann innocent, it would be promptly repudiated. That deniers have earned that reputation should be very concerning to you.
80540. batvette at 20:08 PM on 2 July 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Adelady, "fine in theory and patchy in practice" is a rather nonchalant and casual attitude to take considering this is the only "cure" for the patient implemented, the only type up for the future, and yet the patient's symptoms are ever worsening. So what were the failures in Kyoto's implementatation that were not in its underlying plan, which is providing restrictions against industrialized nations, little or none in "non-annex 1" nations, which invites industrial development and capital flow to third world countries which increases their GGE?
80541. les at 19:54 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       46/47 My observation is that you use framing and nit facts to make and bias your arguments. It's transparent. That's what I mean by "cheap tricks" and what skywatcher means by "no evidence".
80542. batvette at 19:35 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       Les... @45: He accused me of purveying disinformation. I'd like to see his reply.
80543. batvette at 19:32 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       Les: "Smart consumption" I guess that's what you would call a "cheap trick" way of saying people are staying home watching TV instead of driving to movie theatres? Thanks for making my "common sense" argument for me.
80544. les at 19:32 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       43 - how about this statement: "Michael Mann's conduct was examined by an internal, review board of the entity which employed him and is seen to be completely credible in the absences of evidence to the contrary."
80545. batvette at 19:17 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       JMurphy, is this statement disinformation or false? "Michael Mann's conduct was examined by an internal, not independent, review board of the entity which employed him and stood to lose credibility if it were revealed he acted improperly." This is what I've been saying, it's all that I'm saying, (on that matter) and if you are going to accuse me of "purveying disinformation" please specify what about it is.
80546. batvette at 19:11 PM on 2 July 2011
       Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
       "If people lose their livelihoods because we are transitioning to a more sustainable mode, should we not blame ourselves for allowing the unsustainable mode to support the growth of a long-term unsupportable population?" Thank you for (unintentionally) supporting my position and providing the only rebuttal necessary. I believe the words of one Maurice Strong convey the sentiments of those who would obviously never publicly admit them: "If we don't change, our species will not survive... ...frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."
80547. les at 18:38 PM on 2 July 2011
       The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
       54 - Michele "Thus, the alarmists’ claims about the GW caused by CO2 seem to be physically unfounded" I'm seeing the physics words but not the physics. Do you have a link to a paper or proper analysis demonstrating your claims? There are plenty of links on this site showing how "greenhouse" gasses produce warming (e.g. the ScienceOfDoom pists) are well founded. So, equally, could you show where the errors (and thay must be very big and obvious) are?
80548. Rob Painting at 18:08 PM on 2 July 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: May 2011
       Great round-up, thanks Mike!
80549. Rob Painting at 18:02 PM on 2 July 2011
       Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
       Ecoeng - "If I am correct, this can surely only mean that the heat content of the oceans themselves has varied considerably in the recent past, on centennial to millenial timescales, thus producing sea level change of the order of up to 1.5 m due to expansion and contraction effects alone" Well either that or most of the sea level rise came from ice loss in the northern hemisphere during the period of increased solar heating there (the Holocene Climatic Optimum). The reduced gravitational attraction adjacent to the ice sheets in the northern hemisphere would have lowered sea level there, but caused greater sea level rise in the southern hemisphere, so it was not a globally uniform phenomenon. Ocean siphoning then would have lowered sea levels again, as too would the regrowth of northern hemisphere ice, as the solar heating in the northern hemisphere cooled. See the work of Jerry Mitrovica on this topic. It's hard going though - perhaps an easier explanation is here: Why sea level is not level I briefly touched on the mid-Holocene sea level highstand in the Pacific in this post: Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
80550. Michele at 17:36 PM on 2 July 2011
       The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
       It is the case of pointing up some consequences that follow to the preceding simulation of the atmosphere. The CO2 affects heavily the behavior of the atmosphere but not in the way commonly claimed. It produces the arising within the Earth’s atmosphere of the tropopause and mesopause heat sinks where are collected all the forms of wasted energy which are sent to space once converted to EM radiative energy. Then the CO2 makes the atmosphere able to emit the heat which else would be continuously accumulated within it, thus producing a runaway warming. The atmosphere without CO2 would be very hot (I think it would be thermally vanished). The cooling effect occurs within the isothermal sinks because the conversion heat->EM radiation, in effect, is a phase transition because the excitation/disexcitation takes place as change of the internal molecular energy which doesn’t affect the translational molecular KE ant thus the temperature. The most important result is that the emission power is simply proportional to T^4, i.e., it is a purely intensive property, as moreover is explicitly stated by the Einstein’s relation F=1/(M0/M1-1) claiming that the photonic density is not an extensive property. We can assume whatever value for M=M0+M1, in this case the amount of CO2 present within the atmosphere, and M0/M1 will remain constant. This is also shown by the Earth’s and Venus’ temperature profiles. That means that even increasing about 4e5 times the atmospheric CO2 we don’t have any serious effect on the atmospheric temperature profile. Thus, the alarmists’ claims about the GW caused by CO2 seem to be physically unfounded and this matter would be totally upset.

Prev  1603  1604  1605  1606  1607  1608  1609  1610  1611  1612  1613  1614  1615  1616  1617  1618  Next