Recent Comments

Prev  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  1704  Next

Comments 84801 to 84850:

84801. les at 22:07 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       71 C4All "If the IPCC is saying their models are not reliable, and the only way to prove them wrong is proving their claims is false, that pretty much sums it all for CAGW believers." Where do they say their models are "not reliable"? Models are what they are - approximations to reality (see this post. But, sure, if something can be proven false; it's false. Much like many of Happers claims. Be that as it may, what I asked was for you to explain this statement: "the IPCC bases their theories on falsifiability law" theories can be based on physics, chemistry etc. etc. the Rule (not law) you posted is a comment of methodology - of how one tests statements; not how theories are developed. Also you said "you can be afforded the same luxury" - what does that mean? I would prefer, next time you try to answer a question.. that you answer it.
84802. skywatcher at 22:06 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       #70: Strange post, Climate4All. The first paragraph is not an 'IPCC claim'. It's a fundamental principle of science. The IPCC position is based on over a century of physical data and thoroughly tested theory, as well as the models that are constantly verified against data. A different method / explanation may exist, but so far all methods that people have proposed have not survived contact with the data. If an alternate explanation comes along that successfully explains all the data, from the radiative physics of the CO2 molecule, through palaeoclimate to instrumental observations at multiple wavebands and layers in the atmosphere, the proposer of the alternate explanation will be lauded. Though given how well-tested the current theories are, the explanation is likely to have to be pretty exotic... There is plenty of information on the current science both at the IPCC website and in numerous excellent articles here, all supported by reference to the core peer-reviewed science. To turn your advice on yourself - go look the evidence up, from the many links here, or Spencer Weart's history of CO2, or from the IPCC reports. Avoid disinformation sites if you can, and look at the world with a truly sceptical eye, as climate scientists have done since Tyndall... a scientific one.
84803. _Flin_ at 21:52 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       On a side note, Prof. Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute.
84804. Climate4All at 21:49 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       "Falsifiability Rule : Science today recognizes that there is no way to prove the absolute truth of any hypothesis or model, since it is always possible that a different explanation might account for the same observations. In this sense, even the most well established physical laws are “conditional”. Hence, with scientific methodology it is never possible to prove conclusively that a hypothesis is true, it is only possible to prove that it is false." Thats straight from the I.P.C.C. Thats the IPCC claim. Its like playing cats and dogs. Catch me if you can. If the IPCC is saying their models are not reliable, and the only way to prove them wrong is proving their claims is false, that pretty much sums it all for CAGW believers. Correct? If a different method, other than the ones the IPCC uses, it's considered trash. Of course, it has to be. /sarc If any information , fact, or evidence provides a clear disagreement with IPCC methods,then their claims become false. While MSM continues doing what Chris Colose claims Happer is doing, we can continue on the merry-go-round of disinformation. But whose disinforming? Time will tell. End of class gentlemen, I prefer the next time you don't know something, go look it up, because taking information for granted, is a terrible way to believe.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I suggest you read about the idea of falsifiability; you will find it is not the IPCC's invention, but a basic component of modern scientific method. The strength of the IPCC's position is revealed by the fact that they are willing to make testable predictions that would allow their theory to be refuted. The skeptics on the other hand are not willing to do likewise. No scientific prediction regarding future events can be proven, why should the IPCCs projections be an exception? Please take time to familiarise yourself with the comments policy and dial back the tone of your posts.
84805. Marcus at 21:36 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Andy S. I am familiar with this paper, & I find its arguments to be fundamentally flawed. That said, there are amendments to the Act which are going to be made, such as adding greater incentives for energy efficiency measures & phasing out feed-in tariffs for existing power sources, in order to encourage the development of new technologies. Like most Acts of Parliament, the EEG was far from perfect-especially as it was one of the first such Acts ever introduced-but this is why it is being subjected to new scrutiny & amendment-its an *organic* process. This fact, & how ultimately successful Germany's adoption of renewable energy has been, does give me grounds for optimism.
84806. Marcus at 21:30 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Quokka, I got my figures from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany According to this, in 2009 they were getting around 94,000GWh of electricity from renewable energy, & this has apparently risen to over 100,000GWh in 2010.
84807. Icarus at 21:27 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       What I find remarkable is that even the smartest and most academic people who dispute global warming can *only* do so by being thoroughly dishonest. Happer does it, Muller does it, Lindzen does it, Christy does it, Carter does it... the list goes on. That tells me that there really isn't any plausible argument against the consensus view of the 97% of climate scientists who think anthropogenic global warming is real and dangerous, because if there was any science behind the deniers' arguments, they wouldn't need to rely on long-debunked lies and myths and misprepresentations and political attacks. I think we really need to find a way of taking these people to a court of law where the penalty for knowingly lying to the court is a prison sentence. They will be less inclined to be dishonest when they have a very personal and serious stake in telling the truth. Case in point: John Christy, who frequently appears on video rubbishing climate science and dismissing anthropogenic warming, but when in court had to agree that "most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". The judge in that case said: "There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen's testimony. Plaintiffs' own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC's assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet's surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10." "Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation's effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate." "Christy criticized the Hadley and Canadian models, suggesting that they were extreme and were downscaled unreliably. Tr. vol. 14-A, 121:13-122:4 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Although Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3. In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists; his view is that models are, in general, 'scientifically crude at best,' although they are used regularly by most climate scientists and he himself used the compiled results of a variety of climate models in preparing his report and testimony in this case." ------- Get these people in court where the threat of imprisonment will concentrate their minds and keep them honest.
84808. Kevin C at 21:19 PM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Charlie #19: I just caught up with your post on the other thread here where you show your own simple model hindcast. You describe it as a 'a simple linear + 1 lag model' - do I infer correctly from that that you are using two terms: one exponential lag and one which is a direct feed-through of the forcing (i.e. a delta-function response)? If so, that would answer my objection to the 1-box model. The additional linear term counting as the second box, for which the time constant is certainly very short and could probably just as well be a delta function. Kevin Postscripts: Charlie: Thank you for your persistence in engaging with my posts. We may be on different sides of the debate, but you consistently take the trouble to read and give interesting and useful pointers in response. I'm learning a lot. Moderators: I know some of my questions and explorations have been rather tangential to the articles concerned. I'm learning climate science as fast as I can and need to ask questions, and often an active article sparks a question. I'll try and take discussions to a relevant post in future, although my experience is that it posting to an old article is not a good way to get discussion.
       Response:

       [DB] You will find moderation here at SkS provides an atmosphere conducive to learning.  Some off-topic dialogue is permitted where it is evident that individuals are trying to learn.  That being said, when the discussion endures, it is advisable to take the discussion to a more appropriate thread at some point.

       There are no dead or closed threads at SkS, only temporarily dormant ones.  Regular commenters follow the Recent Comments thread and will see anything posted there, regardless of the thread it is posted on.

84809. Eric the Red at 21:09 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       There seems to be a lot of talk about CO2 not being beneficial to plant growth. While some studies have shown that for certain plants under certain conditions, the added CO2 will not be beneficial, the overall pattern is one of increased plant growth. Plants growth is limited by whatever is in the shortest supply; in a desert, that is water, in rocky soil, it is nutrients, etc. The "all other conditions being equal" statement would mean in the case where all other factors are plentiful, and CO2 is the limiting factor. The example given was a greenhouse: the temperature is optimal, water is plentiful, and CO2 is pumped in to levels ~1000 ppm. These are all done to promote plant growth. To say that elevated CO2 levels does not promote plant growth is absurd. The few examples of plants which have adapted to lower levels of CO2 is akin to the camel in the desert. It can survive on short supplies of water, but additional water is not harmful. Since most predictions of global warming indicate increased precipitation, this is doubly beneficial to most plant life. Think prehistoric times when vegetation flourished under warmer temperatures, increased rainfall, and higher CO2.
       Response:

       [DB] This has already been thoroughly discussed many times on other threads; as such, it is off-topic here.  Your comment belongs on the http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-is-plant-food-too-simple.html thread.  Anyone responding to this, do so their with a pointer back here.

84810. skywatcher at 20:40 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       What are Princeton's policies on making statements like these when using their name as authority? It is one thing for Happer to make this gish gallop of verifiable lies and unscientific disinformation when writing personally, but it is something else when writing in his professional capacity, or using his position at Princeton as 'authority'. Especially when he is not an actively publishing member of the field of science that he is dismissing and insulting. This 'false appeal to authority' is quite common among climate skeptics, where their apparent posession of a Ph.D. is misinterpreted by those who don't know better as a passport to understanding of every topic. I have a relevant Ph.D. to the subject here, highly respectable institution, have published etc., but it is immaterial to the content of what I have to say - that must be judged on content, not 'authority'. But crucially, I am extremely careful about the content of any statement when it concerns a field outwith my professional expertise. I won't for hypothetical example, tell medical researchers where to shove their vaccine research, and then use my qualifications to back it up! That would be dishonest, and is what Happer is doing here.
84811. CBDunkerson at 20:37 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Climate4All wrote: "He is entitled to his opinion" His own opinion yes. His own 'facts' no. Many of the things Happer said were demonstrably false. At which point it ceased to be an 'opinion piece' and became false propaganda.
84812. les at 20:31 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       65 - Climate4All Happer gave much the same 'evidence' to congress... actually the chairwoman though it was pretty funny; never the less that has impact somewhat above the normal level of 'opinion'. You will find SkS does provide counter claims. Finally, I have absolutely no idea what "theories on falsifiability law" means. However the IPCC has no theories. It's a panel which takes data, theories, responses etc. in and generates consensus reports. Still, I would really like to understand what " I suppose if the IPCC bases their theories on falsifiability law, you can be afforded the same luxury." actually means. Could you, maybe, rephrase that in proper English and elaborate a little?
84813. Climate4All at 19:55 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       "much of what they say on the internet is done precisely because it would never get accepted into a journal document." When a handful of men have the opportunity to decide what gets published and what doesn't get published, well, people will find a way to get their message out. But seeing as how Happer's post is an opinion piece and not a scientific thesis, don't you think your judging a bit too harshly? He is entitled to his opinion, much the same way you are. But 'they' use straw man tactics. But not you. 'They' don't get papers published. But you do. 'They' make accusations that are misleading. But you don't. You seem to be quick to judge a man over an opinion piece, rather than settle it with counter claims. Instead you criticize by saying, "uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing", "throws in a few classical straw man attacks", "can't resist throwing in a few outdated one-liners", "Happer's reasoning is well out of line" But, I suppose if the IPCC bases their theories on falsifiability law, you can be afforded the same luxury. Good Day !
       Moderator Response:

       Welcome to Skeptical Science! 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.

       "When a handful of men have the opportunity to decide what gets published and what doesn't get published, well, people will find a way to get their message out."

       At Skeptical Science we focus on science-based dialogue, not conspiracy theories. Please do get back to us with more clarity regarding "theories on falsifiability law" Thanks!

84814. les at 19:11 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Here's another field in which Happer is an 'expert': How about the politics of science?. Now a book like this is hugely suspect. First and foremost you look at the Editor. Sociologist? Political Scientists (yes, I know, oxymoron)? Philosopher or Economist, even? No: A Biologist. The publisher - Oxford? I.B. Torus? Harvard? No: an NGO, the George C. Marshall Institute. So, the normal academic checks and balances that are normally found in the social sciences / humanities are absent. In in Happers chapter he focuses on about how he was sacked by Gore and how that's almost like being in the Soviet Union - a key MoD trope - but no historical context. That isn't research; it's opinion. The book isn't analysis, it's data.
84815. Philip Shehan at 18:49 PM on 26 May 2011
       It's cosmic rays
       Thanks Riccardo
84816. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:58 PM on 26 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       Last few days I analyzed available sources. ... and the all comment bbickmore - I can be (fully) agree with one sentence: “ Instead of trying to work on his idea until it’s in good enough shape to pass peer review, he posts it on a blog ...” That's true. Methodological errors in the analysis of Spencer seem to be obvious. But is it important? 1. At the beginning: a simple model (even simpler “than is possible”) for determining the impact of climate on the sensitivity of OHC - are often ( to investigate a specific range of data )better than complicated . Here should not be no doubt. According to the researchers in Australia:“Simple climate models can be used to estimate the global temperature response to increasing greenhouse gases. Changes in the energy balance of the global climate system are represented by equations that necessitate the use of uncertain parameters.”( Utilising temperature differences as constraints for estimating parameters in a simple climate model , Bodman, Karoly and Enting, 2011.) 2. “... and many of these methods are based on paleoclimate data, rather than model output ...” What does not change the fact that the range of this - just determined the sensitivity - it is very big. ... a 1,3 st. Spencer (even treated: not as a "transient sensitivity"- and as a "finished - all” global sensitivity to a doubling) compared to 1.5 - that is, within the error limits to the range of the IPCC. ... so that Spencer truly „... actually agreed with mainstream climate science ...”, because - as noted above - according to the IPCC: “... could be consistent within their uncertainties but might indicate a tendency of climate models to overestimate ocean heat uptake.” 3. bbickmore of criticism is here not only the model but Spencer and - in a way obvious (though not literally) - the "overarching" results (“...major problems if we continue to burn fossil fuels ...”). (Hint: I am surprised that every supporter of AGW, no matter what he writes, always has to add something “like that "...) "Major problems" that those 3 degrees K, if we use - as appropriate - no errors - Spencer simple model based on an analysis of changes in the OHC. However, we have: "... overestimate ocean heat uptake ... "- How much? For example, recently noted the "problem"with OHT and clouds in the tropics, the "problem" preventing the full potential of OHC - which diminishes the sensitivity of climate to these external factors that directly affect the accumulation of energy in the ocean ( Climate sensitivity to changes in ocean heat transport, Barreiro & Masina, 2011.: „This suggests that the present-day climate is close to a state where the OHT maximizes its warming effect on climate and pose doubts about the possibility that greater OHT in the past may have induced significantly warmer climates than that of today.”). In addition, the ocean can draw energy, not only passively but actively - bigger (or smaller) regional energy storage by the ocean can be a global positive feedback to the (even smaller - in absolute values) changes in OHT caused by the small (but in a concrete place ) changes in external forcing. “The influence of ocean circulation changes on heat uptake is explored using a simply-configured primitive equation ocean model resembling a very idealized Atlantic Ocean.” “Calculating heat uptake by neglecting the existing reservoir redistribution, which is similar to treating temperature as a passive tracer, leads to significant quantitative errors notably at high-latitudes and, secondarily, in parts of the main thermocline.” ( The passive and active nature of ocean heat uptake in idealized climate change experiments , Xie and Vallis, 2011.) How much - these new observations - the calculation - are significant to the results obtained by other „... many of these methods ...”? For example, “the skeptical analysis” of claims that only the ocean, "tells the truth", because: „... ocean heat has one main advantage: Simplicity. While work on climate sensitivity certainly needs to continue, it requires more complex observations and hypotheses making verification more difficult. Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis: When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.” Ocean - heat content - therefore has an advantage over : “... many of these methods ...”. Less problematic - uncertain - estimates. 4. I therefore consider that although Spencer methodological mistakes - they are insignificant to the correctness of his final conclusions (as noted - in the comments of this post). He is right - paying particular attention to the importance of natural variability - can not (I hope for now) just to prove it properly. I hope that in this last issue is consensus, ie, he ... “ can not ... " “Bullet” of Spencer - is just one of many "silver" shot at in the same direction ...?
84817. actually thoughtful at 17:50 PM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Apirate - do you admit to your students your anti-science bias in regards to global warming - or do you pretend you are unbiased? You ARE unbiased - in that you have no bias for or against peer reviewed literature vs. anti-science web sites (WUWT being one of the most famous anti-science sites). I have lived in the American Southeast, Southwest, Northeast and Northwest - only in the Southeast could someone with your admitted problem with science be considered a "science" teacher.
84818. pkm at 17:09 PM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       Michael @14 Inclusion of the weather anomalies in these summaries serves several purposes: 1. It provides a context for other concurrent events 2. It puts a relatable human perspective on impacts from severe weather events including fatalities, costs (direct and indirect), and disruptions to human processes (e.g., crop and livestock losses as a result of drought, shipping closures on the Mississippi as a result of flooding, etc.) 3. It provides a compact historical record of anomalous weather events within the frame of a warming world. While I do find a good documentation of weather anomalies a good idea, I continue to have problems in which weather and climate are being messed up in this report. I agree that nowhere an explicit link between these weather anomalies and climate change is made, but implicitly they merge seamlessly. After all it is published under the title "Monthly Climate", and as I learned this is in a monthly series called "State of the Climate"! Apparently NOAA feels the need to assess the state of the climate on a time scale that is barely longer than that for a low-pressure system to pass over your house. It is like visiting your dentist twice a day to see if you haven't developed any caries yet. Obviously a warming world will carry with it a changed set of weather event statistics, let there be no doubt about that. And certainly that is going to impact on societies as a whole. But given the intrinsical non-linear behaviour of weather and climate, the trend of (explicitly or implicitly) using individual weather events to illustrate climate change is simply a dangerous exercise, both scientifically and in the long run also image-wise.
84819. quokka at 16:53 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Marcus #25, I don't know where you are getting your figures for Germany from, but according the IEA Monthly Electricity Statistics Report in 2010 Germany produced 45,010 GWh from wind, solar, geothermal and other, of a total production of 586,486 GWh which is about 7.7%. IEA Monthly Electricity Statistics
84820. RSVP at 16:52 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Chemware "If you can't, then your colleagues do not respect you, and value your comments somewhere below those of taxi-drivers." Highly paid TV news anchormen and women have all appearances of respectability, spewing calculated half-truths they are given to read. The taxi driver, on the otherhand, may actually know the real story. So at the end of the day, arriving at the truth depends not on the speaker, but the listener. (nor the publisher, but the reader).
84821. Bern at 16:23 PM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       GC, the Little Ice Age has been discussed on this site already. If you care to read through that and some of the other articles linked, you'll find that climate models consider a wide range of natural forcings, in addition to human greenhouse emissions. It's only in the last century that GHG emissions have had a significant effect, and only in the last half century or so that they've come to dominate.
84822. barry1487 at 16:10 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Hi Jay, how about something simple from the beginning of Happer's article? He writes of the beneficial role of CO2 in the atmosphere, and then states;

       Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to regulate atmospheric CO2 as a “pollutant.”

       The EPA wants to regulate CO2 emitted from cars and industry, they're not trying to regulate the natural CO2 cycle. Happer's rhetoric here obscures the facts. Agree? If you take this up with Happer, let us know. I think he'd be most welcome to post here, if you'd care to send him the link.
84823. Donald Lewis at 15:57 PM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       I found that the parts of this thread that commented on the pedagogy of science were very engaging. Safe to say, IMHO, there is as yet no science of pedagogy, in spite of efforts to create one. On the other hand, whatever ones pedagogical preferences or technology, in any classroom, on any given day, there is a subject. Any sincere teacher will attempt to communicate the advertised subject of the course to the students although, perhaps, in non-conventional ways. However, IMHO, through High School, the goal of a class, whatever the teacher's methods, is typically to establish some level of "cultural literacy" about the subject of the course...especially in science and math classes. For example, action/reaction, oxidation/reduction, r-selection/K-selection, derivative/integral, are all very subtle when considered in detail, but are exactly the kinds of oppositions of which a culturally literate student should be aware If you ever encountered a HIgh School student who could plainly articulate the distinctions among these contrasts, you would be impressed, I imagine. You might also find yourself wondering where they went to school. "A_pirate_looks_at 50" is over the top! For example, I don't believe one can even express the more modern concept of "limit" in the logic of Aristotle. If one grounds ones reasoning in Aristotle, precious little of modern science or math even makes sense. I love Aristotle, but come on! Any pirate looking at 50 who is enchanted by the reigns of Aristotle may perceive the difference between Scholasticism and Science, but has certainly not accepted Science over Scholasticism as a working world view. I mean, let's devote a class to an open debate about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, and walk away thinking the debate actually resolved the issue. The discourse of science has moved on.
84824. Riccardo at 15:47 PM on 26 May 2011
       It's cosmic rays
       Philip Shehan given that gcr count didn't change in the last 70 years or so, Spencer's hypothesis can not change the picture of the last decades. It might only have an effect before then, if any.
84825. kdkd at 15:40 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Happer certainly fits the profile of a professor who'se "gone emeritus". He seems to be in his 70s, talking about a field outside of the area of his professional expertise (optics - seemingly on small scale stuff of the type that's useful in medical imaging.
84826. Chemware at 15:32 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       @58 Phila Sorry no, it's the other way around. If you have a PhD, you have to back up your claims with either experimental evidence or published literature. If you can't, then your colleagues do not respect you, and value your comments somewhere below those of taxi-drivers. Speaking of published literature, i did a search for publications by Cadbury, Jay on the ISI Web of Knowledge. I found none, only a James Cadbury: an English ecologist who retired in the 1990s. Odd that someone with a PhD has no publications.
84827. Philip Shehan at 15:26 PM on 26 May 2011
       It's cosmic rays
       There is a discussion on Roy Spencer's blog (hope I got the link process right) on a recent though as yet non peer reviewed study by Svensmark. Any comments?
84828. gallopingcamel at 15:25 PM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       scaddenp @23, The figure you linked claimed ~0.75 degrees difference between the models with and without anthropogenic forcings over the last 100 years. Will similar trends extend over the next 100 years? I would wager $10,000 that it will not but sadly I won't be around to collect my winnings. I could not get to the Hare et al. paper as it was behind a $34.95 pay wall. However, it does sounds like something that addresses the right questions. You seem to be open minded so I want you to tune in to the History Channel at 9 p.m Eastern Standard Time on Friday, May 27th. The program is called "Little Ice Age - Big Chill". This is global warming/cooling as seen by historians, archaeologists and geologists. Climate models have not done as well as historians when it comes to describing past climate changes. Let's continue this after you have watched the program.
       Response:

       [DB] An open-copy is available here.

84829. Andy Skuce at 15:24 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Marcus: I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with the attempt to promote renewable energy in Germany but from what I have read, it seems to support the pessimistic rather than optimistic case for renewables. For example, this is the abstract of a review paper: The allure of an environmentally benign, abundant, and cost-eff ective energy source has led an increasing number of industrialized countries to back public financing of renewable energies. Germany’s experience with renewable energy promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a combination of farreaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly two decades. This paper critically reviews the current centerpiece of this eff ort, the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), focusing on its costs and the associated implications for job creation and climate protection. We argue that German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security. I was pointed to this paper by an article by George Monbiot--hardly a shill for business-as-usual--.Solar PV has failed in Germany and it will fail in the UK He wrote: In principle, tens of thousands of jobs have been created in the German PV industry, but this is gross jobs, not net jobs: had the money been used for other purposes, it could have employed far more people. The paper estimates that the subsidy for every solar PV job in Germany is €175,000: in other words the subsidy is far higher than the money the workers are likely to earn. This is a wildly perverse outcome. Moreover, most of these people are medium or highly skilled workers, who are in short supply there. They have simply been drawn out of other industries. I wish it were not so. Certainly, lucky countries like Australia will fare far better with solar energy, but those of us who live closer to the poles are going to have to try much harder. Any claims we make that renewable energy subsidies will be a boon for jobs will--and should--be scrutinized carefully.
84830. Andy Skuce at 14:55 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Adelady: I agree that energy conservation measures in buildings often do represent easy money returns. However, we do have to ask why homeowners are not all rushing to do these easy things. One problem may be that many people do a quick mental calculation that goes like "If I spend $1000 dollars and save only $50 per year on my heating bills, then it will take me 20 years to get my money back. Forget it, instead I'll leave my money in a savings account where it's earning 2% interest." To help overcome this, I think we need incentives/subsidies to encourage people to do this work and higher energy prices, too. Also, we need somehow to be able to capture the added value of energy-saving upgrades in housing price appraisals, perhaps with some kind of mandatory energy efficiency audit on all resales. In short, a few thousand-dollar bills are indeed lying there ready to be picked up in exchange for negawatts but we still need to prod people to do it.
84831. scaddenp at 14:55 PM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       "To suggest that suddenly CO2 is a major factor makes no sense." Then try reading some more. The planet has changed in the past because the forcings have changed in the past. Furthermore, our model for climate successfully predicts how much change will happen for a given change in forcing. Changes to CO2 in the past have always affected climate but the CO2 changed as feedback. You cant make milankovitch forcings produce the scale of temperature change without the feedback from CO2. The problem with the idea that it is "just a natural change" is showing what natural forcing has changed that can explain the current climate. For climate with or without anthro forcings, see this figure. For the question as to what would happen if all anthro emissions stopped see Hare and Mannshausen 2006
84832. Albatross at 14:49 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Rob and Les, That is intriguing about Happer's involvement with JASON. Interestingly, Donald Rapp was also involved with JASON and has been up to similar shenanigans. I wonder whether or not Rapp and Happer are pals? It would explain a lot and would not reflect well on Happer, because Rapp lifted swaths of text from the Wegman report. DeepClimate has the juicy details. It seems that Happer joins Lindzen in abusing his academic credentials and affiliations with ivy league universities.
84833. Albatross at 14:38 PM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       I may have missed it amongst all the obfuscation, but as far I can see Apirate has still not managed to answer the question posed @64..... If Prof Mandia is still following this thread I would like to thank him for all of his efforts.
84834. gallopingcamel at 14:18 PM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Kevin C #20, OK, I accept that clarification. You were not claiming the ability to do something that has eluded everyone else. scaddenp @21, That is pretty much my view. There have been huge swings in global temperature over the last 50,000 years in spite of the fact that for most of that time CO2 concentrations were stable. To suggest that suddenly CO2 is a major factor makes no sense. Imagine that you have a magic wand that can eliminate all anthropogenic CO2 emissions overnight. Based on what CGMs can tell us, what would be the effect on global temperatures?
84835. Marcus at 14:16 PM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       "So, you are calling 260-280 ppm CO2 normal, and anything above that is abnormal and caused by humans. To be "normal" the Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration needs to be within that very narrow range. Anything above 280 ppm is abnormal and leads to global energy imbalance." Hmmm, clearly you're not aware of what the Holocene Era is? I did state that this range was *normal* for the Holocene Era-or the last 12,000 years, so anything above that range could be considered to be *abnormal*, especially within the frame of reference of human civilization. Also, given that we had about 25,000 years of CO2 concentrations between 260ppm & 280ppm, & also given that we've had the better part of 1 million years of CO2 concentrations of between 220ppm & 280ppm (between the various glacial & inter-glacial periods) then I'd say it is pretty fair to call this range *normal*, at least as far as human civilization is concerned. Its only been since the industrial era that CO2 levels ever got above 300ppm, & today they're now higher than they've been in at least 30 million years. Then you need to consider the *time-frame* in which CO2 emissions have risen, compared to in the past. Pre-industrial changes in CO2 occurred over a period of millenia to tens of millenia, whereas recent rises in CO2 emissions have occurred in the space of less than 3 centuries, with about 80% of that rise being in just the last 100 years. So, yes, in terms of both levels & speed of increase, its entirely fair to say that anything above 280ppm can be considered *abnormal* & contributing to the current energy imbalance-& that's even before we consider the ratio of the various isotopic fingerprints of the CO2 that's been measured at Mauna Loa over the past 50-odd years. I also pointed out that Global Warming is a completely distinct phenomenon to the Greenhouse Effect-the former is caused by an energy *imbalance* resulting from some change in one or more "external" forcings, whereas the latter is the natural *balance* between incoming & outgoing energy that is meant to maintain our planet at about 33 degrees C warmer than its Black-body temperature would seem to suggest, thus making our planet habitable. Again, if you don't understand all these very basic issues, then exactly how can you teach them to students?
84836. Phila at 14:13 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       I have a PhD, but I'm not comfortable disclosing anything about it. All the same, I really, really, really want all of you to know that I have one. OK. Now that everyone knows I have a PhD of some sort -- according to me -- I can say whatever I want without having to provide evidence for it, right? After all, I'm simply citing facts known to myself as an expert, right? That's how it works, isn't it?
84837. Dave123 at 13:48 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       You can find a copy of Happer's US Senate Testimony from 2010 here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html another one of those merchant of doubt organizations. What I've also seen, and can't find right now is Happer making disparaging remarks about doing DOE reviews of the climate scientists. I suspect they knew they were in front of a hostile audience with him. I'd also raise this question about biological sinks for CO2. If CO2 were generally the limiting nutrient for plants, then wouldn't you expect that despite human CO2 emissions, that the system wouldn't have budged much from pre-industrial times? Plants should have sopped up every ppm. Take this forward: How high does CO2 have to go before the biological sinks equilibrate with our **present** level of CO2 emission from fossil fuels? How useful overall are these two thought experiments in understand what bogus notion is being advanced in terms of increased plant growth2?
84838. Rovinpiper at 13:34 PM on 26 May 2011
       Abraham reply to Monckton
       Question 14 of Monckton's Deliberate Response is interesting. Monckton claims that he was paid nothing for delivering the speech in Minnesota. He also challenges Abraham to provide evidence to support the claim that Monckton is paid by the Science and Public Policy Institute. If you look closely, you'll notice that he did not actually deny being paid by SPPI. Is there any way to prove whether or not he is compensated for his work on SPPI's behalf or for his speaking appearances? If he is not compensated, why on Earth does he do it? Is this his way of "giving back to the community"? Note: When reading Monckton's response it is important to note that he was responding to Abraham's original presentation , not to his later, more refined presentation.
84839. scaddenp at 13:01 PM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Hey JMurphy - apparently we are compadres. How do. Apirate. As far as I can see wottsup provides a counterpoint to WUWT disinformation. I didnt express any opinion on whether I thought it was any good, only to ask whether its counterpoint was based on published science. I tackled you over why you thought the qualifications of the person were relevant in any way, because I dont think so. I am arguing for forming your opinions on the basis of peer-reviewed published science not opinion in blogs, unless those blogs are also informed by that science. WUWT is not. Skepsci is.
84840. apiratelooksat50 at 12:58 PM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Marcus @ 104 "CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to global warming, which is necessary for life on Earth as we know it." Actually, pre-industrial, Holocene levels of CO2 (260ppm-280ppm) contribute to *The Greenhouse Effect*-not Global Warming as you claim. Global Warming, or Climate Change, is the result of some external forcing that leads to a global energy imbalance. If you can't grasp this key differentiation, then how can you teach all the other, more complex issues to your students? So, you are calling 260-280 ppm CO2 normal, and anything above that is abnormal and caused by humans. To be "normal" the Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration needs to be within that very narrow range. Anything above 280 ppm is abnormal and leads to global energy imbalance. That is just a start to your post. Please reply if my interpretation of your post is incorrect.
84841. apiratelooksat50 at 12:47 PM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       scaddenp@103 "Apirate - I am not sure what your point is. Does wottsupwiththat back his opinion with published or not? That's the important point, not the qualifications. Every one has an opinion, but there is only one reality." My point was in reply to your compadre JMurphy's post: "Anyone who gives any credence to WUWT as a source of unbiased information (of any sort, let alone scientific), needs to go to WottsUpWithThat now and again, if they want to stay properly informed." If you are going to call me out on the lack of published opinion, then you should have called out wottsupwiththat via JMurphy as well. In the interest of fairness, tell me why you did not call out JMurph on his post about wotts...
84842. scaddenp at 12:44 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
       Actually I dont believe time-series are used, let alone abused, in climate physics at all apart from prediction of future solar forcings. They are of course useful for model validation against paleoclimate but have no part in the formulation of such models. Your comments about hockey sticks suggest you are somewhat misinformed there but please feel free to follow up in the appropriate thread. KR's link to R&C 1978 is the paper I meant. PS. I hope your promised new physics that predicts planetary temperatures isnt in same vein as Postma's
84843. Marcus at 12:36 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       I simply don't agree with your pessimistic appraisal Andy. Take Germany as a case in point-using primarily what would already be considered "outdated" renewable energy technology (from c2000), they've managed to boost the total amount of electricity supplied from *non-hydro* Renewable Energy sources from about 4% to almost 16%-in the space of only 10 years. Yet their GDP & employment rates don't seem to have been negatively impacted. Now to put this into an Australian perspective, Germany supplied 105TWh of electricity per year from non-Hydro based renewable energy. Australia's current electricity demand is 255TWh per annum. So, using an area as small as less than 10% of the total area of Germany, Australia could supply nearly 50% of its total electricity needs from non-hydro based renewable energy, & reduce its total CO2 emissions by more than 100,000 tonnes per annum. Of course, if we could also reduce our annual per-capita electricity use so that its on-par with that of Germany (about 7,000kw-h per person, per year), then that same small amount of land could supply around 70% of our annual electricity demand. Of course, as I said above, the technology has advanced quite a long way since Germany started this process, especially in the area of renewable energy *storage*, so I've little doubt that Australia could supply the vast majority of *all* its electricity needs from renewable energy sources-with precious little disruption to the economy (with the exception of a temporary disruption caused by the shift away from the current dominance of our fossil fuel/primary industry focus to a greater emphasis on secondary industries-like Manufacturing).
84844. scaddenp at 11:52 AM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       If I were forced to bet, I would go fluke and guess next year will be normal. However, there is so far a dearth of published science on this so if someone (Rob?) can present a more convincing case for an alternative explanation from peer-reviewed sources, then I would very interested to read it.
84845. jonicol at 11:47 AM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
       Response: Thanks for the response. The web page you have quoted to Ramanathan is different from the one(s?) I had found before - and shorter. Thanks also KR for the comment. I'll have a look at Science of Doom. As you will b aware, time series is an area which is itself abused a lot in Ohysics of climate and the strict analysis depends on a regularly repeated factor, not necessarily sinusoidal, but with a fixed period to its structure. Trying to predict behaviour depending on functions which are not repetitive or "cyclical" is where a lot of statistical analysis comes to grief in science and in particular physics. It is only useful to fit such an expression to randomly varying data for which the functional form is very well known as a method of extracting information from noise. The FORM of global temperatures is not known either in the past or in the future, which is where Mann's Hockey Stick analysis came to grief. The only possible analysis of functional dependence might depend on analysis using known cycles to look for in the components of a very long term Fourier Analysis of the known temperatures. One might also try some other set of orthogonal functions other than sinusoids which are the basis for Fourier analysis. This is not dissimilar to Tamino's methods. However, each function must be unique and the set must be "complete" to work. Things like the solar sunspot cycle are easily picked up in this way. The amplitude of these cycles of course is too small and the period too short to account for more than a small part of global temperature change. Other cyclical events such as the variation of other solar surface parameters, the change in the eccentricity of the earth and the polar axial precession are other contenders the latter having very long periods associated very tightly and fairly completely with the onset of the Ice Ages and intermittent holocenes. As with a Fourier transform of a function, the components may be quite small in number, yet the function may display no suggestion of itself being cyclical - it is the combination which makes the function. You probably knew all this but I just get carried away. BTW, Scaddenp,I agree totally with your comment on the misuse of the first law and the idea of "Statistical Modelling" is coverd I believe in my comment on the inaplicability of a single assumed time series type function which unfortunately seems to be given legs by a number of people. Cheers, John Nicol
84846. Marcus at 11:44 AM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       "CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to global warming, which is necessary for life on Earth as we know it." Actually, pre-industrial, Holocene levels of CO2 (260ppm-280ppm) contribute to *The Greenhouse Effect*-not Global Warming as you claim. Global Warming, or Climate Change, is the result of some external forcing that leads to a global energy imbalance. If you can't grasp this key differentiation, then how can you teach all the other, more complex issues to your students? "The burning of fossil fuels and land use practices by humans affects the amount of CO2 entering the atmospheres and oceans." Well, at least you got *this* bit right. "Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon." Only if there is a natural source of forcing that can be identified as being responsible-like changes in insolation or long-term volcanism-neither of which is true in this case. "However, humans are partially responsible for changes in the climate." Actually, given that insolation has been trending *downwards* for the past 30 years, I'd say that humans are *predominantly* responsible for the climate change of the last 30-60 years. "Climate change effects may range from benign to serious and there are some catastrophic predictions." Really apirate? All the *peer-reviewed* predictions are for serious to very serious, with only a few making catastrophic predictions (largely based on the impacts of clathrates). I've yet to see any *peer-reviewed* predictions that suggest global warming will be in any way benign-at least on a *global* level. Seriously, just your claims here suggest that your knowledge of the subject is extremely limited.
84847. Eric (skeptic) at 11:41 AM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       As ClimateWatcher implies, "growing unstable" is meaningless without a measurement. Likewise a "higher energy state" sounds to be like global OHC or some other global state which has no direct influence on tornadoes here. There seemed to be two local factors this year, the strong jet, the dry line further east in the April outbreak and low latitude storminess in the current outbreak. If any of those are trending positive with global warming, I will be quite surprised. There are models that include the dry line (e.g. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=geosciencefacpub) but are notably studying natural variations. I have not found model results for spring storms in the U.S. (studies of winter events seem to be more popular). But it will be good to see a post that focuses on US local factors rather than generic world-wide trends.
84848. Bern at 11:39 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       witsendnj: the deniers leave a crucial bit of the story out when they talk about CO2 being good for plants - the phrase "all other conditions being equal" i.e. "Increase CO2 leads to increased plant growth and crop yield, all other conditions being equal" In other words: for increased CO2 to be beneficial, the plants must have adequate supplies of water and soil nutrients. As regular readers of this site will already know, predicted impacts of increased CO2 in the atmosphere mean that plants in many areas will almost certainly not have adequate supplies of water & soil nutrients. I largely agree with your last paragraph. The funny thing, though, is that drastic energy conservation may actually result in little or no impact to the economy. Here's an opinion from industry: “It’s thousand-dollar bills lying on the ground. People just need to bend over and pick them up,” said Eric Spiegel, president and CEO of Siemens Corp., the U.S. arm of the Munich-based conglomerate.
84849. adelady at 11:13 AM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Andy "...I don't believe that there are many thousand-dollar bills lying on the energy sidewalk just waiting to be picked up." Maybe in relation to power generation. But there are a goodly number of any denomination bills lying around for investment in nega-watts. There's an almighty amount of work to be done - and money to be made/spent - by DIYers sealing gaps in their houses through to tradespeople upgrading buildings of all kinds and on to engineering and architecture professionals retrofitting large structures as well as modifying projects already on the drawing board.
84850. scaddenp at 11:10 AM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Apirate - I am not sure what your point is. Does wottsupwiththat back his opinion with published or not? That's the important point, not the qualifications. Every one has an opinion, but there is only one reality.

Prev  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  1704  Next