Recent Comments

Prev  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  1704  1705  1706  Next

Comments 84901 to 84950:

84901. David Lewis at 04:58 AM on 26 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       I received my copy of your book yesterday and haven't had time to read much of it yet. I appreciate the work on climate that you do and ordered it on the strength of that. I'm looking forward to reading your book, as I have appreciated the way you handle the arguments of those who deny the validity of climate science. However, I immediately went to see what you had to say on nuclear power and carbon capture, to see if you approach those issues in the way you wish climate denialists would approach climate science. I think that if you want to understand a bit more about why climate science deniers just can't seem to understand that climate change is happening, consider your remarks in the book on nuclear power and carbon capture. A few points: The IPCC AR4 says because nuclear is "similar" to renewables in terms of lifecycle CO2 emissions, it is "an effective GHG mitigation option". It seems you disagree. Does this mean you would say the IPCC is a suspect source for information? Should we just cherry pick what we agree with from it and dismiss the rest? You say 6.7 cents a kWhr is "not cheap" and you say instead of building nukes that could produce power at that price we should spend where CO2 can be displaced "soonest". What does that mean? Shouldn't we be concerned about the cost? Take a look at the chart Al Gore took from McKinsey, i.e. the "global GHG abatement cost curve" he republished on page 240 of his book "Our Choice". McKinsey found that nuclear is a more cost effective mitigation option per tonne of CO2 displaced than wind or solar. Gore removed the word "nuclear" from his version of the chart so renewables supporters couldn't see what McKinsey found. Aren't you arguing the same way? Take a look at Monbiot’s critique of German solar power subsidies - Why are feed in tariffs for solar set so high if 6.7 cents a kWhr for nuke electricity is so expensive? You say the nuclear “fuel cycle produces weapons grade uranium and plutonium”. It doesn’t. Weapons grade material refers to highly refined material, i.e. in the case of uranium that means a sample that is 90% U235, in the case of plutonium that means Pu-239 93%. The fuel cycle for commercial nuclear power produces U235 at 3%. The plutonium would have to be reprocessed out of the waste and the bomb grade isotope separated. Why assert that a specific grade of material is created that is not? Do facts matter? If I used words the way you do, I could say crushing ordinary granite for gravel produces “weapons grade uranium”, just because it contains minute amounts of U235. Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue, but you should make your case about it without lies or whatever you want to call what you’ve done here. Nuclear waste can’t be dealt with, you imply. You might want to take a look at Kahan’s Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. Kahan was studying, among other things, why people reject climate science. One thing he discovered is that people who accept climate science tend to reject the equally authoritative scientific consensus among the relevant scientists about nuclear waste. He cites NAS NRC studies on climate science and nuclear waste to show what the consensus on the two issues is, then writes about his data and conclusions. The NAS concludes nuclear waste is a political problem, not a technical one. You assert otherwise. Why? Look up WIPP, which is a licensed facility in the US that is safely disposing of US military nuke waste in a salt formation. The formation has been there for 300 or so million years, There isn't water flowing through it to carry anything anywhere because otherwise the salt wouldn't be there. The formation is large enough to hold the entire world supply of nuclear waste. Opponents of nuclear power insist there is no place to put the waste. Why? Why do you, as someone who wants something done about climate, add your voice to theirs? In order to make your point that nuclear plants are not being built, you had to tell us to ignore the places where they are being built, i.e. Asia. Why does arguing this way not seem very weird to you, given how much time you must spend going over the fine points of climate denier arguments? We’ll have to mine uranium, unless we use breeder reactors, but we can’t use those, according to you. MIT said they didn’t expect breeders to be used in the immediate future, so you refer to them, but you don’t say why they said that. They said there is enough uranium, which you dispute, they said light water reactors are proven and available and not too dangerous or too expensive to use given the climate problem we face, which you dispute, so they expect the industry, if people decide climate change should be dealt with, will use those. Your argument cherry picks MIT for what you can distort them to say to support your conclusions, which MIT would disagree with. Does this type of argument sound familiar to you? You assert that nuclear power stations can “melt down like Chernobyl”. None ever has. Only Chernobyl. Chernobyl didn’t have a containment building, and it had a graphite core that could burn. The reactor core caught fire and burned out of control without a containment for some days. It is a significant design difference from anything operating in other places. You might want to let the dust settle before declaring how great a catastrophe Fukushima was or is or will be in response. Dr. Robert Gale, who directed the medical effort treating victims of Chernobyl, expects no one will be able to detect the small theoretical increase in cancer that he expects will be calculated to have occurred as a result of Fukushima over the next decades. Why state what has to be disposed of when a nuke plant is decommissioned in units of pounds? Why not micrograms, or better, picograms? Wouldn’t that make the number look even bigger? Isn’t that your point – to exaggerate? Why do it? What is remarkable about the nuclear fuel industry is the tiny quantity of waste that has to be disposed of compared to the amount of power produced. When I toured a reactor, its entire production of waste was sitting in a back parking lot in casks, or in the spent fuel pool in the plant, for a facility that was producing about 10% of the power to the US state I live in for decades. One thing to bear in mind about the anti nuclear movement is that it predates widespread awareness that climate change is a problem. Eg. If you look up the written policy of the Sierra Club, the largest environmental organization in the world, you'll find that all of its nuclear policy is dated prior to their first attempt to write any policy at all about what they called back then "the enhanced greenhouse effect". Policy and attitudes conceived before it dawned on the people who conceived them that there is a very great problem nuclear may be able to help address, may need to be reconsidered, given how serious climate change is. Would you disagree? You should carefully examine Amory Lovins a bit before quoting what he says. Among people who are looking seriously at nuclear power, Lovins is regarded as a liar, something like Lord Monckton. For instance, at the height of the Fukushima crisis I tuned into Public Radio International's "Living on Earth" podcast which featured an interview with Lovins. He asserted that the entire cost of a new nuclear plant is being paid for by the US government at the moment and even at that, no one wants to build a plant that's how undesirable nuclear power is. The program he referred to is a loan guarantee program, where the US government provides insurance to a utility that is building a plant and charges the utility for that insurance. The utility still has to pay the entire cost of building the plant. Lovins says otherwise. He’s been around long enough and he’s been confronted with this often enough this is an outright lie he repeats to the ignorant which is who he thinks listen to a show like this. This is how climate deniers operate - and it is exactly how Lovins operates. Listen to this interview with Lovins and read third comment on this post Etc, Etc. On carbon capture, I note that the IPCC takes a different view than you do, see their Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage. Mark Jaccard wrote a more accessible look at the technology entitled "Sustainable Fossil Fuels". I find it weird that people who want something done about climate tend to reject carbon capture but who tend to have a more open mind about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere after it dawns on civilization at some future time that it has to do so to survive. What will civilization do with that carbon given the arguments you make against stopping it from going into the atmosphere in the first place? Etc. Etc.
84902. Albatross at 04:57 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Jay @ 15, "Okay well why don't you comb the article again, give me some statements you think are incorrect and I will check up on it with him" You have actually bothered to read the feature post that we are all commenting on right?
84903. Albatross at 04:57 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       JMurphy @14, "It's obvious by now that being a Phd doctorate.....is certainly no guarantee of rational, thoughtful, considerate, honest, unbiased or intelligent writing. What a great shame." Amen. Now are you talking about Happer or Lindzen or Christy or Spencer or Michaels or McKitrick or Muller or Curry or Plimer...? ;)
84904. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 04:55 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       @Rob Honeycutt Give me a natural disaster or a storm that has happened since the beginning of the industrial era and I can find you a bigger storm or larger natural disaster in the past.
84905. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 04:52 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       @Sphaerica Okay well why don't you comb the article again, give me some statements you think are incorrect and I will check up on it with him?
84906. Albatross at 04:49 AM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Apirate @ 95 APirate "I provided the requested answer in the second paragraph" Did you mean this? "I will play your game and say that I do get some good information from WUWT" The games continue. WUWT is a disinformation machine, set up to feed fodder to the 'skeptics' and those in denial about AGW. It is also, for the most part, a faux science site. WUWT does not satisfy the criteria outlined in the post @64 ("One that demonstrates the science in a balanced way, with no games, no tricks, no misrepresentations, no blatant falsehoods?"), not even close. So you answer (WUWT), whether or not it was intended, is insulting. You tried to answer the question, but failed. Try again.
84907. JMurphy at 04:49 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       It's obvious by now that being a Phd doctorate (especially when it is being used to try to project some sort of scientific credibility to impress the credulous) is certainly no guarantee of rational, thoughtful, considerate, honest, unbiased or intelligent writing. What a great shame.
84908. Utahn at 04:43 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Dr. Cadbury: "Happer happens to be a friend of mine and since he is an authority on physics he doesn't need to site items that are common knowledge to himself." "Common knowledge to himself." That is pretty funny. And talk about appealing to authority.
84909. Rob Honeycutt at 04:36 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Cadbury said... "The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events, which it does not." This kind of casual dismissal of what amounts to vast swaths of known science never ceases amazing to me.
84910. Bob Lacatena at 04:34 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.,

       Happer happens to be a friend of mine and since he is an authority on physics he doesn't need to site items that are common knowledge to himself.

       So why does he cite untruths that are common knowledge to everyone, and have been debunked dozens of times, and are easy to categorically and indisputably disprove? The level of Happer's piece is appallingly simplistic. I don't know the man, and I'm unfamiliar with his work, but if his physics is as childish as that diatribe, I'd never let anyone I know attend Princeton, or trust anything that comes out of that institution.

       Furthermore, Happer was fired by Al Gore as director of energy research, which just further proves the point that global warming began and is still a political movement.

       No, it's an important issue which requires action, and someone who is too ignorant or biased to act in the best interests of the country and humanity has no right to such a position.

       Furthermore, it is quite ignorant to dismiss history as is done on this website.

       That's quite a strong accusation, but it's unclear what you're talking about.

       The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events, which it does not.

       What complete foolishness. Obviously rising sea levels, increased droughts, drops in food production, and other calamities which have not yet become pronounced, but which are an inevitable consequence of global warming will be a very serious and indisputable way that elevated CO₂ levels can cause harm to humanity. Your attempt to portray the situation otherwise does not speak well for your understanding of the issues.

       Simply having a lot of co2 in the atmosphere does not effect a human's ability to breath, unless it exceeds 8,000 ppm, which is pointed out in Happer's article.

       What complete foolishness. Nobody has said that CO₂ is poisonous to breathe. Arguing that point reflects rather poorly on your understanding of the issues. Really, why am I not surprised that you and Happer are friends, and your comment here looks almost as if it were written by Happer himself (based on the level of knowledge and thought contained in both)?
84911. Stephen Baines at 04:25 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Cadbury...that's pretty poor "...he is an authority on physics he doesn't need to site items that are common knowledge to himself" He does if nobody else knows about them. Noone is exempted from that in academics, no matter who employs them or how respected they are. "Furthermore, Happer was fired by Al Gore as director of energy research, which just further proves the point that global warming began and is still a political movement." Are you suggesting that the earth is making a political statement by warming in response to greenhouse gasses? Sour grapes if you ask me. "The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events, which it does not. " First, we do not know Co2 levels don't affect hurricane or tornados - more research is required before any judgement can be made negative or positive. That would be the proper statement... That aside... you are ingnore all of the other possible impacts on impacts of sealevel rise, agriculture, extreme heating and precipitation events....
84912. KR at 04:23 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Dr. Jay Cadbury - So, you defend Happer's misstatements with a few of your own? "Simply having a lot of co2 in the atmosphere does not effect a human's ability to breathe" - Complete strawman, nobody has asserted that we're going to start flopping like fish out of the water due to CO2. "The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events" - Please read the thread on it's not bad. Sea level rise, ocean acidification, terribly expensive changes to croplands, food supplies, etc., species loss - you consider these to not be "harm"??? I'm appalled, Jay, simply appalled. Happer's article is a list of well debunked skeptic arguments, absolutely no science, and represents a political view in and of itself. Yet you're defending it? You have now, more clearly than ever, defined your point of view. And it's certainly not a scientific one - more one of denial.
84913. witsendnj at 04:13 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Here is the text of a letter I sent last June, to which I have yet to receive a reply: From: "Wit's End" To: austin@princeton.edu, happer@princeton.edu, smt@princeton.edu Dear President Tilghman, Dr. Austin, and Dr. Happer, I am writing in reference to this [http://sppiblog.org/news/many-leading-scientists-tell-the-epa-to-think-again] undated letter to which Drs. Austin and Happer are purportedly signatories. As a proud Princeton parent, I am dismayed that anyone affiliated with this institution would trample on its prestige, reputation, and academic integrity by being party to this fraudulent folly. I can only hope that the names of Drs. Austin and Happer were attached to this screed without their knowledge. Their entire premise of asking the EPA to hold hearings on the CO2 endangerment finding is based on this crucial lie: "In our view, particularly with temperatures now falling, the argument for CO2 regulation rests solely on the “validity” of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC and the EPA." Global average temperatures are NOT falling, they are demonstrably, irrefutably rising, as stated by NASA - reputable, reliable corroboration for which any undergraduate could find in the most trivial search attempt. For Drs. Austin and Happer to state otherwise is pure drivel. It is either unforgivably inept at best, or mendacious at worst. I am looking forward to a public statement by them repudiating this dangerous, deliberately misleading political propaganda; or to an announcement that their employment with Princeton has been terminated on grounds of moral turpitude. Of what value will my child's Princeton education be when she inherits a world dominated by climate catastrophe thanks to her elders, those charged with her education, disseminating and perpetrating lies that benefit no one other than energy corporations? How incisive was it for the speaker at Class Day, Charlie Gibson, to basically admit that "our" generation has abdicated any responsibility for the existential threats we have created - insurmountable debt, increasing income inequality, squandering energy and polluting the Earth's air, land and water? The hapless graduates and future generations are left to contend with rising seas and global warming likely to render many regions uninhabitable. And I might add, from observing the many students I have met, their Princeton education has left them woefully uninformed about the most important challenge facing humanity ever, and thus less prepared than a third-world peasant on a subsistence diet to survive in a rapidly and radically changing world. The university's approach to educating students about the perils of climate change has been wholly inadequate. If history is not to judge your enterprise as nothing more than a sham to prop up the status quo, there must be a fundamental effort to disseminate the facts throughout the curriculum, and professors who lie about the facts must be, at the least, called out and disciplined. Sincerely, Gail Zawacki Princeton Parent 2010
84914. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 04:11 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       @Shoeymore Happer happens to be a friend of mine and since he is an authority on physics he doesn't need to site items that are common knowledge to himself. Furthermore, Happer was fired by Al Gore as director of energy research, which just further proves the point that global warming began and is still a political movement. Furthermore, it is quite ignorant to dismiss history as is done on this website. The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events, which it does not. Simply having a lot of co2 in the atmosphere does not effect a human's ability to breath, unless it exceeds 8,000 ppm, which is pointed out in Happer's article.
       Response: "The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events, which it does not"
       
       Let me direct you to http://sks.to/impacts to disabuse you of that notion.
84915. Charlie A at 04:10 AM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       #9 Galloping Camel -- I think you misunderstand what Kevin C has stated in comment #1. If the only thing you are looking at is a global average temperature, than an incredibly simple 1 box model fed with a set of forcings data will have an output which nearly identical to the most complex AOGCM. If you make a prediction for the annual net forcing for each of year of the next couple of decades, then I will make a prediction of the global average temperature over that period that will be virtually indistinguishable from the AOGCM outputs. Indeed, the each individual run of the typical AOGCM would probably have less correlation with the actual future temperature than my toy model, because of the internal variability of the AOGCMs.
84916. Bob Lacatena at 04:08 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       I've said it before about Lindzen, and now I'll say it about Happer and Motl. Princeton, MIT, and Harvard should all be huddled in shame. Certainly such institutions have to be very careful about squelching independent thought, allowing their researchers to pursue their instincts and their initiative where ever it takes them, and making sure that they have freedom of speech concerning political issues, as is the right of any one in the USA. But that does not entitle a researcher to use his title and standing at that university to "authoritatively" spout what are inarguable academic and scientific falsehoods, and to disparage an entire field of science and practicing scientists. This is particularly true if they do not actively do research and publish in that particular field. It may seem okay because the science has been turned into a political issue by economic and social forces (meaning fossil fuel interests, wing nuts, and weathermen with too much time on their hands), but it makes the university in question look very, very bad. MIT, Harvard and Princeton should all be ashamed, and in my mind it reflects very, very poorly on those particular institutions. Are there no actual climate scientists at these institutions? Don't they have something to say in the matter, when someone like Happer pontificates in an area that is clearly outside of his realm of understanding?
84917. Lou Grinzo at 04:08 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Happer stoops to using "correlation is not causality" when talking about the overwhelming majority of climate scientists? That's an astonishingly narrow-minded and condescending claim. I've heard many people talk about how physics is the field that produces the most adamant and often just plain wrong deniers. (Which is NOT to say that all physicists are deniers, merely that the worst ones with a background in a hard science tend to come from that field.) Happer sounds like a prime example of the phenomenon, right up there with Dyson.
       Response: [JC] Hey, no dissing physicists! What about petroleum geologists? :-)
84918. BillWalker at 04:04 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Has Happer "gone emeritus", or is he about to? Perhaps he needed a little extra retirement money.
84919. apiratelooksat50 at 03:28 AM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       I provided the requested answer in the second paragraph. No insult intended so you shouldn't feel too bad.
       Response:

       [DB] For clarity's sake, you consider WUWT to be an example of a skeptical site doing good science?

84920. Camburn at 03:01 AM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       Albatross: You are correct. I should have been thinking April 10th verses now as that is the context of the subject matter. The temps to the north in April were even colder than the present deviation, so it was a very strong clash.
84921. Albatross at 02:59 AM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Apirate @93, I'll remind you of the question: "Can you find a "skeptical" site that you consider to demonstrate good science?" So stop insulting us by playing games and answer the question posed @64. The poster was very clear, and asked you to provide a "skeptic" site (note the quotation marks). While your sad attempt to avoid the question is entertaining, I for one would appreciate an unambiguous answer. Truth is you will not be able to find a 'skeptic'/contrarian/denier site that meets specified criteria. Sad that fact does not seem to register with your or bother you in the least.
84922. Albatross at 02:45 AM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       Camburn @17, Sorry for not being clear-- I was specifically referring to the SST anomalies during the super outbreak/s in April as per Dr. Master's blog. Positive anomalies have weakened since then, but here are the mean anomalies for the past month, still above the 1971-2000 average in parts of the GOM. This is what Dr. Master said (in the link that I provided @16) when referring to the record breaking outbreak in April: "April 2011 sea surface temperature in the Gulf of Mexico were at their third highest levels of the past 100 years, so there was plenty of warm, moist air available to create high instability, whenever approaching storm systems pulled the Gulf air northwards into Tornado Alley, and brought cold, dry air south from Canada." It would help if contrarians actually followed the links provided before opining. Since then the SST anomalies have weakened, here are the mean anomalies (wrt the 1971-2000 base period) for the past month. Mean SST anomalies have still been above average over portions of the Gulf over that time. [Source]
84923. apiratelooksat50 at 02:40 AM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Sphaerica @ 64 Can you find a "pro" site that you consider to demonstrate good science? Just one? One that demonstrates the science in a balanced way, with no games, no tricks, no misrepresentations, no blatant falsehoods? I will play your game and say that I do get some good information from WUWT. I also get some good information from SKS. Eventually, though, investigation will lead to sites like the following 3 examples: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ http://www.noaa.gov/ http://www.nasa.gov/
84924. Camburn at 02:31 AM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       DB: I understand the AMO quit well, and know that it is a long term oscillation. We know that the AMO and the AO affect central upper plains of the USA weather. The result of the current status of them combined is keeping an open door to cold coming south. We have been between .7 and .4 degrees F below 30 year averages for several months now, and current forcast show no easing of this pattern. This is enhancing the development of tornados as the contrast is very strong.
84925. Camburn at 02:21 AM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       Albatross@16: Actually, current SST anomoly of the Gulf shows that it is not much above. Parts are warmer and parts are colder. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data
84926. Eric the Red at 02:15 AM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Kevin, I read both today's and yesterday's posts. I think the result of Hansen's paper is that there is still a lot that we do not understand. He offers several possible explanations; all which will coincide with the observed data. However, that does not tell us which is correct, if any. My opinion is that many of the models underestimate several forcings, in addition to the aerosols. Ocean cycles are still being updated for model use, and may play a much mroe vital role that previously thought. Camel's link to Greenland temperatures may be largely due to the cylcic nature of the AMO. Phil Jones has co-uthored a paper recently in Nature which shows the changes in SST in the north Atlantic during the past century. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09394.html
84927. shoyemore at 02:03 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       My attention was drawn to Happer's article when I saw it referenced on a website I visit. Of course, it was being quoted in favour of the denialist position. It astonishing that it contains no references to peer-reviewed science at all, just Happer's unsupported assertions. If anything, it showed his lack of acquaintance with climatology. A miserable effort from someone who must have been once quite distinguished.
84928. gallopingcamel at 01:48 AM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Bern, Yes, I was aware of that 1981 Hansen prediction. I agree that it looks pretty good. So good in fact than one might be tempted to extrapolate it forwards to 2100 or backwards to 1930 or even 1850. However, when you extend the timescales, the wonderful correlation breaks down. Anyone who believes that CO2 is a major driver of global temperature is looking for hockey stick trends because that is what the CO2 concentration is doing. I tried to match the CO2 hockey stick to the Greenland temperatures shown in the attached graph which I prepared with the idea that temperature trends are magnified at high latitudes. Can you see the correlation? http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/coastal-average.png?w=1024&h=621
84929. Alexandre at 01:45 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       He does not imply that the Earth has cooled 10ºC in the Younger Drias. He actually states that: "During the “Younger Dryas” some 12,000 years ago, the earth very dramatically cooled and warmed by as much as 10 degrees Celsius in fifty years." What would be the correct statement here? Maybe "During the Youger Drias Greenland has warmed by as much as 10ºC in fifty years"? No comments about the rest. Really disappointing from someone that probably knows how unscientific, unaccurate and harmful to our society that kind of text is.
84930. dana1981 at 01:45 AM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Nice post, Chris. It's worthwhile to read Happer's article just to see the sheer number of absurd claims he makes. The article contains on the order of 20 of the SkS climate myths. A true Gish Gallop unworthy of a Princeton physicist.
84931. Charlie A at 01:41 AM on 26 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       @Kevin C, #34 re climate response function and Hansen 2011 et al. Hansen's sections 5,6, and 7 and figure 9 discuss only the ocean mixing in regards to the climate response function. It seems to me that, since the forcing for Figs 7, 8a and 9 is a step doubling of CO2, then there are some additional important time constants related to the decrease of CO2. Perhaps CO2 is the cause of the change in slope around 700 years on Figure 7 and around 50 years on fig 8a. For CO2, IPCC AR4 defines a response to a step in CO2 that has 4 time constants. "About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years." ref: 2nd bullet under Carbon Cycle.. at AR Exec summary Chap 7, WG1 The specific time constants are given in note a of Table 2.14 in AR4 WG1 errata.. It gives 3 time constants, with the 4th time constant of infinity implied by the fixed a0 = 0.217. Note that the 50% decrease in 30 years in the exec summary descriptive text above is the combined result of A2/tau2 and A3/tau3 pairs of 19% decaying with 1 year e-folding period and 34% of the CO2 decaying with 19 year e-folding period. The 30% in a few centuries text corresponds to the A2/tau2 of 33.8%, tau2 of 172.9 years. The twenty percent remaining corresponds to the a0 of 21.7 and a tau of infinity Charlie
       Response:

       [DB] OK, let's try to rein in the off-topic discussion here.  Plenty of threads exist to discuss specific options, like sensitivity or models.  This thread is about a repost of Professor Bickmore's piece on Spencer's latest attempt to un-physicalize the downsides of the anthropogenic GHG contributions to global warming.  IMHO, the Spencer series should be called "Spencer Straws", as the grasping going on is plainly evident.

84932. Albatross at 01:20 AM on 26 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       "I find Ross McKittrick's comments on Keynesian marginal propensity to consume (MPC) model and Friedman Permanent Income Hypothesis (PIH) model (the comment just above the graph) a rather interesting parallel...." Enough said. McKitrick (an economist) and his forays in to climate science have been debunked so many times that I have lost count. Here is the most recent example. But this post is about Spencer failing again....and contrarians, 'skeptics" and those in denial have been unable to refute Dr. Bickmore's analysis. So instead resort to obfuscation and attempts to detract from Spencer's failings. What is striking is how the estimates for climate sensitivity keep converging on a number very close to +3 C for doubling CO2 (at least when the analysis is done correctly). Recently, Spencer was also trying to claim that natural variability could explain almost all of the observed warming the last century. I wish he would make up his mind instead of groping around in the dark for silver bullets. Really, at this point, one really has to wonder whether his systematic bias towards lower CS in his calculations are really attributable to ignorance or incompetence. Someone of his standing surely knows better than to systematically make such egregious errors...
84933. Esop at 01:17 AM on 26 May 2011
       Humlum is at it again
       No surprises here. The Norwegian magazine that printed the article (Teknisk Ukeblad) is a denialist rag edited by a hardcore denier. Norway has become a hotspot for climate change denial, not surprising, since the country is a major exporter of oil and gas. A few cold Decembers have caused the public opinion to flip to anti science mode and the MSM is taking advantage by reprinting every denier lie known to man, no questions asked. The country sits at the Arctic circle, but December/January temperatures below freezing is now front page material almost every single day during the winter. Almost no mention of the warmest April on record, with folks going to the beaches and swimming in the ocean during the Easter Holiday up here at the latitude of Labrador.
84934. Albatross at 00:57 AM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       Eric @15, "Tornadoes are not caused so much by warming, but the metting of warm air and cold." It is much more complicated than that-- there are a number of factors at play here, including much above average ocean temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico providing a source of super juicy low-level air to fuel the storms, drought in Texas and OK panhandle that may be affecting the location and strength of the dryline. The juxtaposition of the great plains low-level jet and the polar jet is also playing a role in enhancing low-level vertical wind shear critical for supercell thunderstorms that produce tornadoes. Dr. Jeff Masters has an excellent article on this issue. I recommend people read it. Ultimately it boils down to this: "In summary, this year’s incredibly violent tornado season is not part of a trend. It is either a fluke, the start of a new trend, or an early warning symptom that the climate is growing unstable and is transitioning to a new, higher energy state with the potential to create unprecedented weather and climate events. All are reasonable explanations, but we don’t have a long enough history of good tornado data to judge which is most likely to be correct." Masters also notes that there have been several billion dollar storms/events in the USA so far in 2011, with damages exceeding 20 billion dollars so far.
84935. Charlie A at 00:57 AM on 26 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       Kevin C -- it does not appear that any of the usual posters here will discuss your questions. The ratio between short term sensitivity and the equilibrium sensitivity can be varied by changing various parameters in the model. Obviously, one extreme is the 1 box model. The graph below shows how a simple linear + 1 lag model can have the nearly identical 1880-2003 hindcast as GISS-E, but have equilibrium sensitivity be identical to transient sensitivity. An important thing to understand (and this relates back to this actual topic of this thread - going from a 55 year span of OHC to equilibrium sensitivity) is that the goodness of fit from 1800-2003 tells us very little about equilibrium sensitivity over the span of a 1000 years. Any transient sensitivity diagnosed by looking at upper ocean OHC over a period of 55 years could be consistent with almost any equilibrium sensitivity. If long term feedbacks are positive, then equilibrium sensitivity will be higher. If long term feedbacks are negative, then equilibrium sensitivity will be lower. This graph below is the response to a flattening of CO2 at current levels in a model that emulates GISS-E very closely from 1880-2003, but has no long term component. Context and info on the above graph I find Ross McKittrick's comments on Keynesian marginal propensity to consume (MPC) model and Friedman Permanent Income Hypothesis (PIH) model (the comment just above the graph) a rather interesting parallel to the current situation with GCMs.
84936. Albatross at 00:41 AM on 26 May 2011
       The Climate Show Episode 13: James Hansen and The Critical Decade
       This is going to be a good one! Now to find the time to watch it....
       Response: [JC] That's why God invented mp3 players - The Climate Show is ideal for driving or doing chores. I have to go out to UQ campus tomorrow so looking forward to listening to the whole TCS episode, esp the Hansen interview, in transit.
84937. Eric the Red at 00:06 AM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       Nice pun Rob, Tornadoes have not been modelled very well due largely to reporting issues. Previously, many tornadoes that occurred went unreported because no one saw them, or they did not cause any damage. The best long-term data comes from the so-called violent tornadoes; defined as being at least an F3 or F4 (depending on the researcher). Chagnon and Hewings have compiled some statistics lookign at violent tornadoes (among other things) and found a downward trend from 1950-1997, although the data has a large scatter. Tornadoes are not caused so much by warming, but the metting of warm air and cold. The abundance of cold air over the plains has probably been the biggest contributor to the storms this year. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/01/big-time-la-nina-tornado-and-spring-flood-season-possible/ https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/DaveLegates03-d/Changnon03.pdf
84938. apiratelooksat50 at 00:06 AM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Sphaerica at 89 How dare you call me ignorant. That is a very arrogant assumption on your part because you and I do not exactly agree. Once again - my stance on this issue: 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to global warming, which is necessary for life on Earth as we know it. 2. The burning of fossil fuels and land use practices by humans affects the amount of CO2 entering the atmospheres and oceans. 3. Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon. 4. However, humans are partially responsible for changes in the climate. 5. Climate change effects may range from benign to serious and there are some catastrophic predictions. That is what I teach. I also encourage my students to explore and research on their own before they come to any conclusions. I teach them how to think and how to research and to have open minds. You and I really aren't far apart on GCC. We differ on what we believe the effects will be and methods of mitigation.
84939. KR at 00:05 AM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
       jonicol - Tamino's expressed area of interest and expertise on that blog is in time series analysis, not the underlying physics. In other words, does the data support or not support various hypotheses. For the physics the Science of Doom blog is good. In that realm, time series analysis, he's one of the best I've seen.
84940. Michael Searcy at 23:59 PM on 25 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       pkm, Obviously I disagree. I think there are many benefits to noting weather anomalies in the context of a climate discussion, as does NOAA apparently. Most of the weather event related details and statistics are drawn from their monthly "State of the Climate" summaries, which are also linked within the discussion in several places. And you'll notice, not by accident, that no climatic trend conclusions are drawn from these singular weather event or singular seasonal notations. That said, all weather events (yes, even cold ones) are influenced by changes to the encapsulating environment in which they occur. Those influences may be large or small, direct or indirect. But they are there, in the same manner that all bodily functions are impacted in varying degrees that change over time by a rising internal body temperature. 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 you may disagree, I think all of these items make such summaries worthwhile.
84941. Camburn at 23:44 PM on 25 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       DB: I meant the AMO: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data Note the trend since the middle of 2010.
       Response:

       [DB] I would suggest learning a little time-series analysis.  Using the Eyecrometer^TM does not give you appropriate context.  What about the first 5 months of 2009 then?  The AMO is a 20-40 YEAR oscillation.  On a monthly basis, much variability/noise is present.  All you can look at is if the monthly number is positive or negative and then all you can infer from that is "Hmm, interesting."  All else is cherry-picking.

84942. adelady at 22:26 PM on 25 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       skyhunter Yup. They're called seasons.
84943. Tom Curtis at 22:07 PM on 25 May 2011
       UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
       Sorry, of topic and all, but I have to do it: QUEENSLANDER QUEENSLANDER QUEENSLANDER!!!!
       Response: [JC] As a Queenslander, I'm going to allow it.
84944. SkyHunter at 21:43 PM on 25 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       adelady But weren't the buffalo herds movements effected by changing weather and climate patterns?
84945. Kevin C at 21:42 PM on 25 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       While we're at it, I have a load of questions about GCMs which maybe someone can answer. Most of my detailed knowledge of GCMs comes from Science Of Doom's articles, which I may in turn have misunderstood. Here goes: 1. I understand from SoD that all but a handful (no more than 5) processes in GCMs are implemented directly from the underlying physics (with the only issues being fineness of sampling). The remaining 5 or so cannot be modelled on an appropriate scale and so have to be handled with empirical models. Is that correct? Does anyone know what these processes are? Can the empirical models be determined by fine-scale modelling of smaller systems? 2. My impression from SoD is that the parameters for the empirically determined processes are determined by fitting by fitting a stable pre-industrial climate and the forced 20th century climate - but only by fitting global observations such as global mean temperature or precipitation. Is that correct? If so, it would presumably be correct to regard any local behaviour as a true prediction of the model, which gives an independent (if hard to enumerate) indication of the validity of the model. 3. The 2011 Hansen draft paper linked by Eric@2 (thanks, I wrote a précis of it yesterday here) suggests that the rate of deep ocean mixing is wrong in GCMs. Is the deep ocean mixing modelled from the physics, or empirically? If empirically, then the error is already explained - the incorrect aerosol forcing. If physically, then some explanation is required of why the physical model is producing aphysical results. Has any been suggested? Thanks in advance for any pointers on these questions!
84946. jonicol at 19:36 PM on 25 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
       Thanks Tom. I am having difficulty in accessing the paper by Ramanathan... which IE keeps telling me it cannot access even though th elink lleads to what looks like a sensible web address and when I go to Climate physics which also presents the Ramanathan... paper the same thing happens. Do you know of another source? Thanks. John Nicol
       Response:

       [DB] I found it through Ramanathan's website here:

       http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr15.pdf

       If it takes too long to load IE may give you that message.  Try another browser or a faster connection.  Worked for me.

84947. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 19:34 PM on 25 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Good article. I'm interested to know whether you are going to cover methods for downscaling in future articles? Global temperature trends are good to know but they don't tell us an awful lot about impacts in specific areas. Prediction of future rainfall trends for example. These are helpful in determining planning needs for water resources and flood protection. Such models exist in the UK and can predict rainfall trends at a resolution of 5km2. Predictions from the UK Climate Projections are used extensively in future UK planning at both a national and regional levels. It is better to have an estimate with a degree of uncertainty than no estimate at all. That way at least you have some method for determining adaptation measures.
84948. Tom Curtis at 18:16 PM on 25 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
       jonicol, while I highly recommend Science of Doom as being the best single website for explaining the physics of greenhouse, I think you would be better of reading the text books first. In fact, SOD has a list of text books that he recommends, which would be a good place to start. I also highly recommend Raymond Pierrehumbert's Principles of Planetary Climate, of which I had the good fortune to read a draft which (pre-publication) was available free on the net. If you want something easier to access, explanations by Chris Colose are note worthy for their clarity.
84949. jonicol at 17:30 PM on 25 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
       Adelady. As a physicist I would have to say that the site of correlation to hell does not appear to me to reflect an open mind. I'll pick this up again on the other site that Tony Curtis kindly directe me to. I find it a bit childish actually to resort to abusive type headings like "Mathturbation". Thermodynamics is important but it isn't the be-all and end-all behind climate science and, as you scaddenp will know, is sadly not well understood generally. Scaddenp: Thanks again. Yeah, people quote the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics when these are totally inapplicable in the situation in which they are used such as where convection, conduction and adiabatic effects underlie the processes which are being analysed according to these laws. And thanks for the links to those other articles. John Nicol
84950. adelady at 17:01 PM on 25 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       jarch Climate models ... Considerable confidence? About as much confidence as the rest of us have in our seasonal climate experience. Xmas Day for instance. Australians and others have visions of our Xmas Day spent playing cricket on the beach and Brits have similar idealised visions of a white Christmas. It's absolutely true that each is more likely in its own geographic area, but no sensible person does more than hope for those ideals. The Aussies might be stuck on a beach in a freezing wind. The Brits can look out over a miserable grey day with no sign of the picture postcard white blanket. These are perfectly natural variations within certain bounds. And climate models are much like our direct experience. Britons will never, ever have a calm, sunny 33C day for a Xmas lunch under a cloudless sky. Aussies will never, ever wake up on Xmas morning to a crisp white blanket of pristine snow over Sydney or Perth or Adelaide's suburban expanses. Climate models tell us what features are more likely in various places at various times. Most importantly, models, like our experience, tells us what is and is not surprising in particular places.

Prev  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  1704  1705  1706  Next