Recent Comments

Prev  1716  1717  1718  1719  1720  1721  1722  1723  1724  1725  1726  1727  1728  1729  1730  1731  Next

Comments 86151 to 86200:

86151. Berényi Péter at 23:39 PM on 9 May 2011
       Tracking the energy from global warming
       Daniel, you can of course delete any comment at will, but that does not change the fact Tamino does not even mention satellites in the post you have linked.
       Response:

       [DB] Firstly: Your comment was deleted due to being in conflict with this portion of the Comments Policy

       Posting personal details of another user results in your account being banned from Skeptical Science.

       It is noted that Tamino does not regualarly make an appearance at SkS.  But since Tamino is his Internet nom de plume, honor that personal preference he has made.  Your repeated usage of his personal name is thus interpreted as being an invasion of privacy.  Please respect that in future comments.

       Secondly, Tamino's post was referenced as a prime example of the lengths that some go to take OHC data out of context.  A focus on recent expanded ARGO data without the context of historical data is also an example of that.

       

       Lastly, if you feel that ARGO data is so suspect and unusable, then stand behind your position with the due diligence of publishing your analysis.  There exist a number of publishing entities that would do so.

86152. Ken Lambert at 23:31 PM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Marcus Lets get the terms right for a start. I assume you mean that $0.06c/kW-hr means 6 cents. With a dollar sign and a cents sign it could be confusing to those who are assailed by errors of two orders of magnitude on this blog. Let us assume your costs per kW-hr are roughly in the ball park. PV Solar: 33 cents without storage or grid costs. Wind: 8 cents without storage or grid costs. Solar-Thermal: 10-12 cents without grid costs. Coal fired: 6 cents (as low as 4 cents) without grid coats. Hydro: 3-5 cents without grid costs. I pay 19 cents for business power so 30 cents seems too high for coal. This includes about 7 cents for the grid costs and 12 cents for the power 'retailer'. Why would you use the coal fired retail price as a comparison with the renewables? Are you suggesting Solar/Wind and other 'renewables' be sold to consumers with no gross margin for the retailer? The cost of PV Solar and Wind need to be increased to allow for storage devices, and some grid connection cost to get some comparison with 24/7 base load power provided by coal/hydro/nuclear. Even on the above numbers without storage devices PV Solar is still 5-8 times the cost of coal or hydro, with lower availability on cloudy days and in winter. Wind has an availability in the 12 - 25% range - Both need to be covered by other base load sources for the rest of the time. Do the 8 cent Wind costs cover the availability and storage issues? Certainly not the storage. Your assertion that "for local energy supply (say, within around 5km-10km of the generation site) the total costs for PV solar even out quite nicely." So what are your grid costs for these 'close' sites? Whichever way it is cut, PV Solar and Wind are a long way from providing base load at anything near coal and hydro costs. No doubt PV Solar will reduce more sharply than Wind which has theoretical limits to efficiency - but both suffer from the fundamental issues of sensitivity to variable weather systems and low energy density. If we could afford a 25-30% portion of Wind & PV Solar - what happens when a large weather system of heavy monsoon cloud and rain sits over a wide area for days or even 1-2 weeks as happened recently in Queensland. Where will the reserve capacity to cover large power losses come from?
86153. johnny4550 at 23:17 PM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Adelady, I refer to natural variability with the meaning I think Lindzen is referring to. This can include variations of forcings as you mentioned, but also identified (as ENSO, which is not only "atmospheric"), or unidentified, spontaneous cycles. Obviously a century scale global trend can not be attributed to short term decadal oscillations, but I think that what Lindzen says is that we cannot exclude possible long term variations - that are unnamed since they may be not identified. I understand you think he's wrong - I didn't understand why. Just a side remark : do you think that it is plausible that a renown climate scientist like Lindzen could "simply" forget the law of conservation of energy , or didn't see the very simple argument that deep ocean should have cooled ? you're playing a strange game here - both arguing that contrarian blogs cannot contradict peer reviewed articles, and using your own blog to dismiss the work of real scientists. If you're not yourself very good professional scientists, with a very good knowledge of what you're dealing with, it's very unlikely that you'll be able to bring a valuable piece in the debate. Are you claiming you are ?
86154. lucia at 23:07 PM on 9 May 2011
       Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
       

       In fact, the probability that all 20 previous values within the range of statistical significance are lower, is just the probability the 2007 was higher, or using your simple test of the upper bound of that probability, 0.975^20 =~= 0.60.

       Sorry- Yes. I goofed that up in the comment. That's what I get for scrawling on pads while writing comments. I did it this way in my blog post. However, as I noted before: that's the upper bound. The MI for 2007 is not on the edge of the 95% confidence interval, but further in. But that problem is not amenable to discussing in comments, so I did it at my blog. (Actually, I did a slightly different problem at my blog-- but I'll be posting this exact one.) So, the cummulative probability for 1928 v. 1931 is .73 not 0.95 and the one for 1931 is 0.76 not 0.95. The product is 0.55. Accounting for all years get you down to 12.6% and 2007 was probably not a record. But 2010 may be. Because FKM is published we can compute this when the 2010 data are in. (They aren't yet though.) So...what do you estimate for 2010? I can run the numbers baed on your estimate for 2010 and add it at my blog.

       I say your naive interpretation, of course, because it assumes the difference between actual and reconstructed values follows a normal distribution (which is unproven)

       Sure. I made one of the most common assumptions in statistics. Aware that these are open questions, I asked Chip for the underlying data. The errors do look normal as tested by plotting the histogram and eyeballing the histogram. There are only 30 or so values in the reconstruction, so we aren't going to have much power to reject the assumption of normality, and really, this looks pretty normal. Even if you want to call it naive, I'm comfortable making a very common assumption.

       hat the values are independent,

       The correlogram suggests the errors are uncorrelated.We only have 30 errors. Once again, you can call this naive, but I'm comfortable with assuming the errors are uncorrelated.

       (As there are known to have been no major tropical volcanoes in the period 1920-1960, the latter is particularly important.)

       I agree there weren't any, but I'm not sure how you think this affects the distribution of the residuals, (i.e. 'errors' or difference between the reconstructed MI and the one that would have been measured by satellite if the satellite had been in place back in 1928.) The point of the calculation is to figure out whether it's likely 2007 is or is not a record. This is separate from explaining why we may or may not be seeing a record. It's important to keep these two issue separate. In any case, there weren't any major volcanic eruptions after something like 1993. So...?

       It assumes that the values determined by satellite observation have no uncertainty.

       Yes. At my blog where I have more space, and can proof-read more easily, and insert images more easily etc, I say this. :) FWIW: If the values determine by the satellite have uncertainty, the probability that 2007 is a record will be lower than we calculated.

       (Note, I am not making any claim of wrong doing, only of statistical bias that resulted from perfectly reasonable methods.)

       Well.... in fact, I checked the things you are assuming I did not check, and the problem is a typo in the comment. It seems to me that while you may be well intentioned, you are

       Now if you where to calculate the autocorrelation of the series excluding the three years after any major tropical volcano, and use that autocorrelation in determining the probabilities of any given year exceeding the 2007 (or 2010) value, I would be very interested. I am, unfortunately, not mathematician enough to do that myself; but I am logician enough to know that without factoring autocorrelation in, your probability calculations are effectively worthless.

       For testing whether or not a record occurred, the recontructed melt index is "deterministic"-- they are already observed. The temporal autocorrelation that would matter is the one for the errors that matters. The temporal autocorrelation for the MI themselves is not zero and matters to a slightly different question. (That different question is an important one, but I haven't done it yet.) I'd invite you to visit this post and suggests questions you think might be worth testing. I discuss 3 questions there, but, in truth, there are 4 questions with 4 different answers. The question we are discussing here has to do with "is it a record". The conversation has gone that way because that's what the wording in FKM seemed to be discussing. (I've emailed Chip, and it turns out that was the concept they were discussing. The wording was clearer in the first version submitted.) But if you go back to my previous comment, you'll see I've been considering other questions someone might ask. I discuss these at my blog. One is: Where does 2007 fall in the range of MI that likely occurred during the period of the reconstruction? (I call this Q2.) If you note above: I said that 2007 is outside the ±95% confidence intervals for that. There is a third question I thought of, which is a tweak on Q2, which focuses on the full range of natural variability (given matched forcings). I haven't done that one because (a) I thought of how to word it yesterday just before company was arriving and (b) it's a bit more complicated than the other ones. The complication in the computation requires me to formally account for the temporal autocorrelation in the melt indices-- but actually, accounting for that will do the opposite of what you 'like' relative to Q2. I do think you'll be interested in the posts showing various features I'll be putting up this week. If you visit the blog posts, you'll be able to ask for other graphs, which I can make. If I need to get additional data from Chip, to account for whatever it is you think needs to be accounted for, I'll get the data.
86155. Rob Painting at 22:27 PM on 9 May 2011
       What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
       John Bruno - I guess we'll have to disagree on that point. One only has to consider examples of the recent past, such as slavery, segregation, apartheid, womens rights, gay rights etc, etc. Change was not implemented simply because those in power, or voters, were convinced of the truth. No, disruption and protests, often violent, were necessary to implement momentum toward change. Many people had to put themselves in harms way. Look at what access to information and the truth has done for western society today: obesity (nothing - it's an epidemic) and rates of smoking uptake in youth (again dismally disappointing). NZ has a high rate of skin cancer because of high UV levels. Go to the beach in summer and you'll see hundreds of people sprawled on beach towels,"baking" themselves to an early grave. And this despite decades of TV campaigns on the risks of UV exposure. It's going to take a tad bit more than the truth to overcome this global paralysis. I wish it were otherwise, but people do underestimate the power of denial.
86156. Berényi Péter at 22:04 PM on 9 May 2011
       Tracking the energy from global warming
       #110 Tom Curtis at 21:01 PM on 9 May, 2011 You have interpreted it as a decrease, which means you have the wrong sign for Heat Content anomaly as measured by satellites in your second and third graphs. That is not so. Please try to understand first what's being said and shown and subsequently provide your reflections. That sequence is much more convenient for all. The sign of satellite heat content anomaly is correct indeed, which, among other things, can be seen from the brief increase during 2008 and in the first half of 2009. If you still claim direct OHC measurements before mid-2003 are correct, you should inevitably say satellite radiative imbalance measurements at TOA prior to that date are in error. Is that your position? BTW, you may notice how ARGO coverage improved between April 2003 and April 2004, especially in the Southern Pacific. Here is current coverage:
       Response:

       [DB] Tamino has much to say about this specific topic here.

86157. WSteven at 21:48 PM on 9 May 2011
       New SkS graphic: the Respiration Carbon Cycle
       (Oops, hit the submit button too early) On the other hand, surface O₃ and other pollutants will still need to be dealt even if we do successfully limit our CO2 productions @John Cook The graphic looks good. You're not finished making the graphics for this important rebuttal I take it?
86158. WSteven at 21:42 PM on 9 May 2011
       New SkS graphic: the Respiration Carbon Cycle
       

       This graph begs the question - What happens when the trees and perennial vegetation die off?

       I don't think it does, the graphic is specifically about the respiration carbon cycle. Ozone pollution would be a separate topic.
86159. John Bruno at 21:39 PM on 9 May 2011
       What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
       Artful Dodger, scientists don't know all science. And climate change science is a massive and diverse body of knowledge. I am sure even the most knowledgeable climate scientists don't know all the science explained at SkS. The biologists don't know all the physics and vice versa. SkS science has also taught us how to deal with and respond to all the non-science in this realm (which may be greater in volume than the real science!). Policy people do read SkS. And if they don't directly, they learn from it indirectly from the people that do read it, eg, they read books by James Lawrence Powell, Naomi Oreskes, Bill McKibben and many other authors who rely heavily on SkS. Point being; education-it works and SkS is the course textbook. Rob, I have to disagree about civil disobedience; lies have to be overcome with the truth, not bad behavior.
86160. David Horton at 21:38 PM on 9 May 2011
       What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
       Just teasing John!
86161. witsendnj at 21:24 PM on 9 May 2011
       New SkS graphic: the Respiration Carbon Cycle
       This graph begs the question - What happens when the trees and perennial vegetation die off? Wait - why would they? Well, aside from deforestation, droughts, disruption of the nitrogen cycle, and wildfires, they are being slowly poisoned by air pollution. It's well established science that at current ambient levels of background tropospheric ozone, annual crops yields experience stunted growth in the range of 10 - 20%. The quality and viability of seeds and nuts is also impaired. (See this research: http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php?sid=368143) As background levels continue to rise, it is expected that a concurrent increase in damage will result. With a burgeoning population and other adverse extreme weather impacting crops, we could see widespread famine soon. Aside from annual crops it seems reasonable to wonder what effect ozone has on longer-lived species like trees and shrubs, which are exposed to high summer levels season after season. And yet very few people do wonder, because since many species of trees can live for centuries, and can become so large, and because there is no control atmosphere for comparison with ambient levels of ozone, there is no funding and almost no research into the impact on mature trees, and in general, which leads to a sense of resignation and total apathy about their fate in a world where they, in essence, cannot breathe or photosynthesize. I expect that when we run out of oranges, avocados, peaches, cherries, apples, pecans, walnuts and maple syrup, not to mention lumber and paper, perhaps then people might notice that our trees are suffocating in a poisonous brew of toxic volatile organic compounds and stop blaming opportunistic insects, disease and fungus. And then maybe some enterprising scientist will get funding to study exactly what difference the mandated addition of ethanol and the resulting acetaldehydes and peroxyacetyl nitrates mean for emissions, because all indications are that the longer-lasting resultant ozone isn't being accounted for in models currently in use. I hope that happens before we run out of oxygen.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Hot-linked URL.
86162. Tom Curtis at 21:01 PM on 9 May 2011
       Tracking the energy from global warming
       Berényi Péter @109: 1)

       "As you can see the story the data tell is somewhat different from the standard one. Heat content of the climate system is not increasing, but decreasing."

       Stackhouse et al clearly indicate that there was a decrease in Out going Long Wave Radiation in 2008, and a decrease in Reflected Short Wave Radiation. With near constant incoming Short Wave Radiation, a reduction in outgoing radiation means there was an increase in energy stored in the ocean/atmosphere system. You have interpreted it as a decrease, which means you have the wrong sign for Heat Content anomaly as measured by satellites in your second and third graphs. That also means that the Heat Content Anomaly of the ocean/atmosphere system is increasing contrary to your claims. As the supposedly decreasing HCA is the basis of your entire analysis, your employing the wrong sign renders the analysis false. 2) On a side note, your rejection of Ocean Heat Content data prior to mid 2003 is without basis and constitutes the grossest sort of cherry picking. ARGO buoys where deployed as early as 1999. If there was a fundamental flaw in the Expendable Thermobathygraph (XBT) measurements, it would show in distinctly different trend in measured temperatures between XBT data and ARGO data. No such divergence in trends exists. Picking mid 2003 as the start of the ARGO era rather than 2002 when hundreds where already operational, or November 2007 when the target of 3000 operational buoys was first achieved has no basis other than to provide a high OHC as the start point of a cherry picking argument.
86163. Rob Painting at 20:36 PM on 9 May 2011
       What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
       How do we speak to Power? Mass civil disobedience. Still too many comfortable people in western societies, that will change.
86164. adelady at 20:32 PM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       johnny "... the warming is still compatible with the natural variability ..." I'm having a problem with what you're getting at. When you talk about "the warming" I presume you mean that 1. The atmosphere is warming. 2. The ocean is warming. When I hear 'natural variability' I think --- 1. The sun's been a bit cooler the last few years. 2. Volcanoes are not doing anything interesting. 3. ENSO and the other large atmospheric features are just chugging along in their usual fashion, up for a while, down for a while. But I get the impression that this is not what you mean by 'natural variability'. Could you clarify?
86165. funglestrumpet at 20:25 PM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       sgmuller@10 "They get away with it because organisations like Murdoch's News Corp are actively following an anti-AGW agenda." Your comment exposes why this side of the argument is losing the war, despite winning the battles by providing sound science with proof that global warming is, and will increasingly be for some time to come, a problem. Take 'Anthropogenic' out of the discussion and assume that the global warming is due to some mysterious cause, as yet unidentified, and the discussion centres on prediction of future warming. There is no disagreement to the fact that it is warming and the deniers have no idea as to where it is going. All their suggested mechanisms have been proven to be invalid. That leaves them with no arguments to put forward to stop us, as a species, taking whatever action that we can in order to combat it. GHG are a proven source of heating, no matter where they originate, so reducing them is obvious. We can agree to continue to try to find the source of the heating because, clearly, combating global warming is not going to be cheap and nations should be expected to contribute pro-rata their culpability. When that discussion comes, you can bet the 'heat' of discussion will be several orders of magnetude greater than that of the current debate. But by then, the world will fully engaged and there will be a lot of pointing to sites like this one in order to prove that the science was known early on, therefore ignorance that SUVs etc. etc. could be a bad thing will not be a legitimate defence. Its like 911, 'truth will out' eventually.
86166. Artful Dodger at 19:35 PM on 9 May 2011
       What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
       It's good that Scientists are reading SkS, but presumably they already know the Science... So, is anyone in a Policy role reading? We know they are listening to the millions of U$D pushed into their pockets through the hands of Lobbyists. How do we speak to Power?
86167. David Horton at 19:08 PM on 9 May 2011
       What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
       Worth noting, for all of us who voted, that Professor Naomi Oreskes and Alliance for Climate Education have been named 2011 Climate Change Communicators of the Year. http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/
86168. David Horton at 18:14 PM on 9 May 2011
       What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
       Oh, OK, I think you are pretty good too John, but don't you go getting a swollen head now!
       Response: [JC] I do note the comments apply to SkS as a whole which is a group effort with a number of contributors.
86169. johnny4550 at 17:40 PM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Rob, this totally irrelevant to the point I raised. I was not discussing the point that there is no CO2 increase, or that it doesn't contribute to stratospheric cooling or to ground warming. All this wouldn't be contradictory with the fact that the warming is still compatible with the natural variability (which doesn't mean that it proves there is no anthropogenic component), and doesn't justify the-wrong- "conservation of energy" argument. Please stick on what I'm really discussing if you want to answer me.
86170. Martin at 17:33 PM on 9 May 2011
       Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
       #43, Spherica sorry, I clicked on the wrong button before I was finished. That bit starting with 5. Interglacial ... is a quotation. And so is this bit: "We conclude that ocean cores provide a better measure of global temperature change than ice cores during those interglacial periods that were warmer than the pre-industrial Holocene." Again my question, is this preference for ocean cores during warm interglacials main stream climate science or particular to Hansen and Sato.
86171. Martin at 17:29 PM on 9 May 2011
       Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
       # 43, Spherica Actually, I do think that Hansen and Sato 2011 states that ocean cores are in some instances better than ice cores. 5. Interglacial temperatures Fig. 4 raises important questions. How warm were recent interglacial periods relative to the Holocene? Do ice cores or ocean cores yield a better estimate of global temperature change during those interglacial periods?
86172. Rob Painting at 16:59 PM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Johnny - "OK since most of the comments seem to show a very poor understanding of physical processes" Yeah, right. Not only does your warming from the ocean, not cause cooling in said ocean, but for some really weird reason it seems to happen predominantly at night and induces stratospheric cooling ( a signature of the increased greenhouse effect) Note the natural variability over the last 800,000 years: Johnny and Richard Lindzen "natural variability" shown in top right-hand corner. And if you're wondering why the temperature has not yet surpassed earlier interglacials, see CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Changed IMG 'alt' tag to IMG 'width'
86173. johnny4550 at 16:26 PM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       yes, classic - from you , apparently. I'm not here to teach you physics. I was just surprised to read an argument that I didn't understand. I asked for explanations, and what I read confirms that the argument is wrong, and based of wrong pictures of what natural variability really means. Believe it or not, I don't care. I would be interested in continuing the discussion if I were sure that it could be hold in an open and peaceful way, without censorship. What I've read from the other posts shows me that it is probably not the case, so good bye.
       Response:

       [DB] You did indeed come here with a question.  One for which you received a multitude of responses all from people trying to help you.  You subsequent replies of "you don't know anything" (I paraphrase) are more indicative of equal parts:

       • poorly-framed initial question on your part
       • lack of interest in meaningful dialogue on your part

       Based on the multiple questions from responders asking you to reframe your question to better reply to it you now withdraw, claiming censorship and lack of open and peaceful discussion.  That is your right to do.  It is also your loss, for nowhere on the Intertubes exists a forum with the level of open scientific discourse free from invective and censorship (provided comments comply with the comments policy) as this one.

86174. Tom Curtis at 16:17 PM on 9 May 2011
       Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
       lucia @198, in attempting to rebut a prior comment you argued that an upper limit could be placed on the probability that 2007 was the peak value over the period, which said was derived by the formula "( 1- 0.975^20) = 0.3973 as the probability all previous 20 are lower". In fact, the probability that all 20 previous values within the range of statistical significance are lower, is just the probability the 2007 was higher, or using your simple test of the upper bound of that probability, 0.975^20 =~= 0.60. Reducing the number of years within statistical significance to eight increases the upper bound of that probability to approx 0.88, ie, it effectively halves our uncertainty. What is more, it effectively halves the uncertainty that 2010 has the highest value of those years which are within statistical significance relative to 2007 regardless of what that probability (using your naive assumptions) regardless of what that probability is for the excluded years (those years for which 2007 is within their 95% confidence limit, but 2010 is not) because all of those years are very close to being at the 95% confidence limit for 2007. So I was careless in my wording. I should have said that our uncertainty halves rather than that our certainty doubles. And I should also have restricted that claim to your naive interpretation. But the increase in certainty is real, and significant. I say your naive interpretation, of course, because it assumes the difference between actual and reconstructed values follows a normal distribution (which is unproven) and that the values are independent, which is known to be false in that there is significant autocorrelation in the series, particularly once the effects of major tropical volcanoes are excluded. (As there are known to have been no major tropical volcanoes in the period 1920-1960, the latter is particularly important.) It assumes that the values determined by satellite observation have no uncertainty. It also assumes that the method of reconstruction is not biased in favour of high values in the middle of the twentieth century, whereas I suspect there is reason to think it is. (Note, I am not making any claim of wrong doing, only of statistical bias that resulted from perfectly reasonable methods.) Now if you where to calculate the autocorrelation of the series excluding the three years after any major tropical volcano, and use that autocorrelation in determining the probabilities of any given year exceeding the 2007 (or 2010) value, I would be very interested. I am, unfortunately, not mathematician enough to do that myself; but I am logician enough to know that without factoring autocorrelation in, your probability calculations are effectively worthless.
86175. dana1981 at 16:06 PM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Ah yes, the old "I'm right because I'm smart and you're dumb" argument, along with a little "if you're too dumb to understand what I'm saying then I'm not going to bother trying to explain it to you." Classic :-)
86176. johnny4550 at 15:48 PM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       KR : "Well then, pray, expound! Natural variability includes things like the ENSO, where energy shifts between ocean and air and back again. How would heating in one area not be reflected in cooling in another and not violate conservation of energy? " This is a very bad description of ENSO cycle, and there is no "conservation of energy" in open systems. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensocycle/elninosfc.shtml "El Niño episodes also contribute to large-scale temperature departures throughout the world, with most of the affected regions experiencing abnormally warm conditions during December-February." Some regions can cool, like the Gulf coast, but not because the conservation of anything : the overall warming is positive (it should be zero if it were only a heat transfer from one region to another). I'm not offering my own theory of GW : you are stating that Lindzen is grossly and obviously wrong, and you believe you can demolish it with a crude argument that a first year student should understand (if it's getting warmer somewhere, it must cool elsewhere ! ) -but this argument is simply wrong ) and shows you have little grasp of what you're discussing.
86177. adelady at 14:51 PM on 9 May 2011
       What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
       So it's not just us who think highly of your work. The fact that you've attracted so many good writers is an endorsement in itself. Good work everyone. And it's nice to know there are lots of readers as well as commenters.
86178. Albatross at 14:44 PM on 9 May 2011
       What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
       Congrats John, I hope that more endorsements keep rolling on in.
86179. KR at 14:33 PM on 9 May 2011
       What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
       Thumbs up, John.
86180. KeenOn350 at 14:28 PM on 9 May 2011
       What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
       Nice accolades, John, and well-earned. DaveW
86181. lucia at 12:52 PM on 9 May 2011
       Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
       Tom That difference approximately doubles our confidence that the most recent peak value is in fact the actual peak value over the entire period, at least using Lucia's simplistic interpretation of confidence intervals. I'm not sure how you are getting "doubles" our confidence the most recent peak value is in fact the actual peak value or even how you are defining doubling our confidence. If we were remotely confident year X was a peak year (thought the probability was greater than 50%) we could hardly double our confidence to more than 100%. Using the actual reconstructed, the uncertainty in the reconstruction based on the residuals to the reconstruction and the 2007 melt index value values, I get a very low probability that 2007 exceeded the melt index during the years for which FKM provide reconstructed values. (I get the probability 2007 actually is the peak value near 12-13%). So, 2007 was probably not a record. On the other hand, It occurred to me that in addition to estimating the probability it's a record, I could also estimate where it stood in the distribution of likely "true" (not reconstructed) values of the melt index. (This turns out to be very easy to do and I'm going to discuss this likely on Tuesday.) I'm also getting that 2007 is probably in the top 2.5% of all values in the period of the reconstruction. What actual numerical value are you getting for 2010 using your graphical method? I can check whether your estimate of 2010 would likely be a record. (Knowing numerical values, I think the result will be that 2010 is also probably not a record, but who knows? I'm sure since your estimate for 2010 is higher than 2007, too is in the top 2.5% of all values in the period of the reconstruction. )
86182. Albatross at 12:42 PM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Ken, "This kind of remark might appeal to the emotions Daniel,.." Actually, I thought it rather useful to help people grasp the energy involved-- all this talk of W m-2 might make sense to scientists, but does not necessarily resonate will lay people. I have heard of similar example given for the amount of energy in a typical thunderstorm or a tropical storm. So it seems to me that you are arguing a strawman when you complain about the alleged "appeal to emotion". Interestingly, appealing to emotion is something that Lindzen is rather good at: "For a lot of people it is also something I call “the quest for cheap virtue”, people need a cause…and they sorta feel puffed up by having a cause like saving the Earth, and they don’t really care that they are hurting people, that they may be involved in an immoral cause, and so on, they’re perfectly happy to just go along with it because they were told it’s virtuous."
86183. Albatross at 12:25 PM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Hi Ken, Not that I'm saying your wrong, but can you describe how you arrive at the numbers you reported @40 please? And another question, I'll ask of you the same question that I asked of Johnny here. Thanks.
86184. Ken Lambert at 11:20 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Daniel Bailey response #18 "[DB] The rate of energy building up since 1970 is equivalent to 2.5 Hiroshima bombs every second. Nope, not significant" This kind of remark might appeal to the emotions Daniel, but can be rebutted in similar fashion. We are looking for 25 Hiroshima bombs every second and can only find 2.5 below 1000m in the oceans. The Earth also has an energy flux flowing in and out of the atmosphere of 6000 Hiroshima bombs every second in each 24 hour rotation.
86185. KR at 10:10 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       johnny - ""If natural variability is in play, warming in some regions should be offset by cooling areas in others" again : wrong. " Well then, pray, expound! Natural variability includes things like the ENSO, where energy shifts between ocean and air and back again. How would heating in one area not be reflected in cooling in another and not violate conservation of energy? Are you speaking of natural variation in insolation or IR radiation to space? If so, please describe what you are discussing, rather than casually dismissing others statements. Personally, johnny, I am sensing a concern troll, rather than honest questions, given that you have simply dismissed pointers to more information rather than discussing them.
86186. Berényi Péter at 09:48 AM on 9 May 2011
       Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
       
       Response:

       [DB] Anyone who wants to respond to this needs to do so on the Tracking-the-energy-from-global-warming thread, where this subject more properly belongs.  Thanks!

       I'm open to advice. It's done.
86187. Berényi Péter at 09:44 AM on 9 May 2011
       Tracking the energy from global warming
       The issue is spreading misinformation in another thread: "Satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere". It's not allowed to challenge this proposition where it occurred, we were redirected here. Therefore let's reiterate the references given there. See e.g. Trenberth 2009: "There is a TOA imbalance of 6.4 W m^-2 from CERES data and this is outside of the realm of current estimates of global imbalances that are expected from observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere". Or Trenberh 2010: "The difference between the incoming and outgoing energy -- the planetary energy imbalance -- at the top of the atmosphere is too small to be measured directly from satellites". From this it is crystal clear that satellites in fact have not measured an energy imbalance at the top of Earth's atmosphere, which is inconsistent with the claim they have. So far so good. But we can certainly do better than that. There was an interesting presentation on the 12th CERES-II Science Team Meeting Wednesday, November 4, 2009, Marriott Hotel, Fort Collins, CO at 9:30 am by Paul Stackhouse et al.: FLASHFLUX Update. They merged three datasets.
       1. CERES Terra EBAF Edition 1A (3/2000 - 10/2005)
       2. CERES Terra ERBE-like ES4 Edition2_Rev1 (1/2003 - 8/2007)
       3. FLASHFlux Terra+Aqua (7/2006 - 9/2009)
       They used overlap periods to remove mean difference between datasets and anchored the entire time series to the absolute values of the EBAF. Their (improved) result is seen on slide 21. At the moment we are only interested in the lower panel, the net TOA radiation balance. Unfortunately it is only a picture one can't do much with, other than staring at it. Therefore it had to be re-digitized: Net_TOA_Imbalance_Stackhouse_2009.txt. As accuracy of satellite radiative imbalance measurements is very low, the baseline is of course arbitrary. It is simply aligned to EBAF and has nothing to do with the actual imbalance. However, since precision is a bit better, we can still use it to track changes of this imbalance over time. To anchor the baseline to reality we need another data source (not considered by Stackhouse et al.) Fortunately we have quarterly data for the heat content anomaly of the upper 700 m of oceans since 1955 at the NOAA NODC Global Ocean Heat Content page. OHC (Ocean heat Content) anomaly is perfect for intercalibration purposes, because it is a linear function of the temporal integral of radiative imbalance at TOA. That is, the average slope of OHC in a time interval is indicative of average imbalance over the same period. For intercalibration we need several full years, because Stackhouse et al. only provides deseasonalized data while Levitus et al. of NODC include seasonal signal. It is best to use data from the ARGO period, because prior to that OHC is poorly and sparsely measured by diverse systems while ARGO provides a homogeneous and dense dataset. Now, before about mid-2003 ARGO coverage was not yet global, so we have to settle to the 6 years between 4. quarter 2003 and 3. quarter 2009. In this period (taking into account the error bars provided by NODC) slope of the OHC anomaly curve (for the upper 700 m) is -1.8±9.6×10²⁰ J/year, which translates to an imbalance of -11±60 mW/m². That is, in this period the climate system was probably losing heat, not gaining it, but the gain, in any case was more than an order of magnitude smaller than Trenberth's 850 mW/m²: "The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and is estimated to be 0.85 ± 0.15 W m^-2". Therefore heat accumulation for this period can be considered zero well within error bounds. It is fortunate, because only a fraction of the net heat content anomaly is realized in the upper 700 m of oceans, the rest comes from or goes to elsewhere (deep ocean, land, ice sheets), although at least two third remains in the upper ocean. Average of Stackhouse's net TOA imbalance for the 72 months between October 2003 and September 2009 is 202 mW/m², that is, their baseline is probably too high. If 213 mW/m² is subtracted from each of their values, it brings net TOA radiative imbalance in line with OHC data. Now, that we have the correct offset for TOA imbalance, we can calculate heat accumulation for the entire timespan covered by Stackhouse's data. It looks like this: As you can see the story the data tell is somewhat different from the standard one. Heat content of the climate system is not increasing, but decreasing. What is more, the radiative imbalance at TOA during the satellite era is about -0.26 W/m², which is, according to Trenberth, inconsistent with the 0.85±0.15 W/m² determined from climate models. Furthermore, if we suppose about 2/3 of heat content changes are realized in the upper 700 m of oceans, it turns out satellite radiative imbalance measurements at TOA are also inconsistent with pre-ARGO OHC measurements. It probably means before about mid-2003 OHC data are absolutely bogus and unusable for model testing and calibration.
86188. Albatross at 08:06 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Oh my, "OK since most of the comments seem to show a very poor understanding of physical processes,..." Dunning-Kruger or concern troll or both? This person originally state that they " I have no idea of the natural noise of the system, so I can't answer you clearly - I'm just trying to understand what is wrong with what he's saying...", and asked to be shown some more estimate as to the magnitude of the "natural noise. When presented with the evidence, they then simply dismiss out of hand a whole lot of science and observational data. But it seems that the point is not to make a valid or substantive argument, it is to fabricate faux debate and to distract us from yet another of Lindzen's failed hypotheses. Stephen @33-- "As far as I know, no one has been able to produce a model with realistic physical constraints that by internal dynamics alone can produce anything like the recent changes in temps." Not to mention being unable to explain the known fingerprints associated with a stronger "greenhouse effect" because of anthro GHG forcing. So there are two critical tests that the "skeptic" myth fails. Phil @36-- I think the other point of the Lindzen supporters here is to keep us guessing as to what the mystical forcing it could be, anything but anthro GHGs of course ;) But as DSL noted @35, we are probably "cruelly" destined to keep guessing, because of our ignorance of course. You see, if we were geniuses then we would understand Lindzen and Spencer ;)
       Response:

       [DB] I did find out johnny wasn't from Missouri...

86189. Bob Lacatena at 07:54 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       34, johnny,

       ...since most of the comments seem to show a very poor understanding of...

       It's not a good idea to simply assume that others are wrong, and that there is nothing at all that you yourself are failing to grasp.

       "If natural variability is in play, warming in some regions should be offset by cooling areas in others " again : wrong

       And this is a perfect example of something you don't appear to understand. I would suggest asking clear questions, carefully studying the answers, and then asking more questions, until you reach a point where everyone recognizes where the confusion lies. Simply declaring everyone else wrong is obviously a bad direction to take, especially when this train of comments began with you asking a series of questions. Did you really want answers, or did you just want to set up a scenario where you could declare that everyone else was wrong?
86190. logicman at 07:48 AM on 9 May 2011
       Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
       #193 - citizenschallenge Thanks for reminding me of a point I forgot to address. #164 - Chip Are you endorsing the worldclimatereport article that you link to? It affords me an opportunity to demonstrate the methods used by deniers to obfuscate, deny and delay. The political intent behind the article is to show that coastal erosion in the Arctic is not new - which I do not dispute. However, the implicit suggestion that a former moderate rate of erosion from one cause is equivalent to a current high rate from a different cause is a leap of illogic which I am unable to accept. In support of the notion of 'nothing new', the author/s present cherry-picked selections from 'Arctic' and conclude with: [quote] Hume et al. (1972) include this photograph (Figure 1) with the caption: “Aerial view of the bluffs near the village recently settled. One building collapsed and one has been moved from the bluffs as a result of the 1968 storm. The beach formerly was 30 m. in width at this point. Photo taken in August 1969.” The authors go on to add “The village will probably have to be moved sometime in the future; when depends chiefly on the weather…” [endquote] Unfortunately for the author/s, the storm events and prior erosion to which they refer are widely known. The major causes of erosion studied in Hume et al (1972)are storm erosion and erosion due to the use of beach materials for construction. The full citation, cut off in its prime by the denier/s is: "The village will probably have to be moved sometime in the future; when depends chiefly on the weather, but also on man's use of beaches." (my emphasis) The erosion was formerly due to human removal of natural coast protection materials, storms and natural summer melt of permafrost in that order of importance and ranged up to ~3 meters of bluff erosion per year. The greatest driver of erosion today is global warming and the rate is up to ~10 meters per year. denier article: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/... Hume et al (1972): Hume et al For the benefit of any reader who would like to see how many other cherries were picked, here is the complete index of free to download Arctic journal issues: Arctic Archive
86191. Phil at 07:28 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       My reading is that johnny is postulating some form of short term external variability, given his insistence on the fact that the Earth is not closed. As to what it might be, who knows ? Its not solar cycles - reading deep between the lines he seems to be suggesting some sort of variability in the earths albedo due to cyclic processes on Earth ? Perhaps ? ??
86192. Steve Bloom at 07:15 AM on 9 May 2011
       Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
       Tom, this paper, to say nothing of Mchaels' and Knappenberger's entire careers, is an effort to mislead the unwary, so dismissing that as you do is entirely missing the point. An amusing exercise for those moderately informed about the details of the science is to read through a bunch of World Climate Report posts and spot the central lie. The vast majority have one.
86193. DSL at 07:02 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Perhaps you could enlighten us, rather than cruelly leaving us to wrestle with our primitive science. What does natural variability have to do with the current global warming trend, Johnny? Perhaps, since you have a better grasp on the physical processes, you could give us a theory that explains the current situation.
86194. johnny4550 at 06:42 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       OK since most of the comments seem to show a very poor understanding of physical processes, it is probably not useful to continue the discussion. Daniel : " If natural variability is in play, warming in some regions should be offset by cooling areas in others " again : wrong.
86195. Stephen Baines at 06:15 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       I wanted to follow up with an example. "Chaos," and "non-linearity" does not mean "unfathomable." There are ways to ascertain the importance of internal variability relative to external forcing -- as long as you can contrain some model parameters pretty well. Take, for example, a choatic predator prey system that is highly unpredictable on the sort term. Despite the appearing randomness of the dynamics, the flow of material and energy between the predator and prey, and between the organisms and their environment, must obey certain rules governing by the physics and biology of the organisms. If you observed more predator biomass than could be explained by their consumption of prey given those rules, you could infer that some subsidy must be present to explain the discrepancy. That subsidy would be a form of forcing acting on a chaotic system. Likewise, in the climate system, you basically have the balance of heat coming into and out of the system, and the shifting of heat among compartments within the system. Non-linear dynamics affecting temporal distribution of heat between ocean and atmosphere can influence the atmospheric temperature, but that kind of dynamic would have specific signatures (in ocean currents, chemistry and temperatures) that we could detect and which should fall within bounds set by conservation of mass and energy. The temperatures in both the ocean and atmosphere are unlikely to go up at once without their being a change in the overall forcing. The models we have in hand reproduce internal variability pretty well. As far as I know, no one has been able to produce a model with realistic physical constraints that by internal dynamics alone can produce anything like the recent changes in temps.
86196. Rob Painting at 05:55 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Johnny @23 -again the Earth is not a closed system, you seem to imply that heating of one part implies cooling of another part Err, no, that's your misunderstanding. No one is claiming that heating of the Earth, via the greenhouse effect, will stop because of internal variability. If you remove heat from one location (the ocean) and put into the atmosphere, the ocean would be expected to cool, at least somewhere. The fact that the ocean and the atmosphere are warming (i.e. not losing heat) shoots rather large holes in Lindzen's claim. "variations of the heat content can occur with small imbalances due to any cause of variability (for instance oceanic circulation), without "cooling" anything anywhere." The variation we are referring to here, is a loss or gain of heat. How do you propose the ocean can undergo variation (heat loss) without cooling?. Just to remind you, the oceans are warming.
86197. michael sweet at 05:48 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Jonny at 22 and 23, You need to think through what you are saying. At 22 you say "I even don't see any possibility that heat would flow from the deep cold ocean layers to heat the warm surface, this would contradict the second principle ! so obviously internal variability does not transfer heat from deep ocean, upwelling of lower layers can only cool the surface" If upwelling from the deep ocean to the surface slowed that would slow cooling and cause the surface to heat. At the same time it would get cooler in the deep ocean. Thus changes in deep ocean circulation can "heat" the surface, by cooling less. By careful measurement scientists have tracked the energy and know where it is going. When you talk about the second principle you appear to have little understanding of what you are discussing. The natural variation depends on whether you add in volcanic eruptions and solar or just count internal climate variability like ENSO. What do you want to count?
86198. Stephen Baines at 05:37 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Johnny, predator prey systems still have to obey conservation of mass and energy as well as the second law of thermodynamics. Predators cannot obtain more energy or resources than the environment (including their prey) affords. That's why density dependence occurs - organisms run out of resources (energy, nutrients, space). That's also why food chains can't be infinitely long and why biomass of consumers declines with ecosystem photosynthesis, and photosythesis scales with nutrients and precipitation. So despite those crazy potential predator prey dynamics, even ecological systems, complex as they are, display certain dynamics consistent with what one might call energetic or material forcing. They tend to be more likely to display regularities when looked at over larger time scales or when characerized by aggregate variables (like biomass). In a way, the situation is much like that in weather/climate science. On the short time scale one can get chaotic dynamics as energy or materials shuffle between one compartment of another...but when those variations are averaged over time, space and taxonomic groups, you get see something more predictable.
86199. dana1981 at 05:07 AM on 9 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       johnny - although the Earth isn't a closed system, if something outside the 'system' is causing a temperature change, that's not internal variability. That's an external forcing.
86200. WheelsOC at 04:41 AM on 9 May 2011
       Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
       Logicman @ 186: "Scientists, as humans, make judgemental errors. But what is odd about the UN is that its gaffes are all in one direction. All are exaggeration of the effects of climate change." One of the more publicized retractions lately was of a paper that significantly underestimated sea level rise and therefore found agreement with the IPCC's 2007 underestimate. This happened back in 2010 and was even covered in the mainstream media a bit, and certainly must have made the rounds in more climate-geeky circles. Presumably that includes Pat Michaels. I see that Pat's piece claiming the IPCC never underestimates the dangers of climate change was published this April, more than a year after coverage of the Siddall et al. retraction and several years after widespread acknowledgement that the IPCC's 2007 sea level predictions were too low. There's no excuse for this, I have to conclude that Michaels is simply lying. Terms like distortion, misrepresentation, spin, etc. don't cover it.

Prev  1716  1717  1718  1719  1720  1721  1722  1723  1724  1725  1726  1727  1728  1729  1730  1731  Next