Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 Next
Comments 86301 to 86350:
-
KR at 13:30 PM on 7 May 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
scaddenp - Agreed; those are well written, certainly better than I can do late on a Friday night. Ed Loretz was truly a genius. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:28 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Marcus, thanks for the rapid response. Your point does remain, but your argument is not strengthened by leaving out the money flow directly back to the government. We get lease payments in exchange for the public or formerly public fossil fuels in the ground. We don'y get payments for use of wind and sunshine. We add production taxes like we add sales or excise taxes, for revenue purposes Income tax is irrelevant in this argument. I pay auto excise tax mainly in proportion to the services required for that property (emergency services and some road maintenance). The fossil fuel companies pay production taxes for no comparable services or benefits. -
Marcus at 13:25 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"When you talk of PV Solar being economical in boutique applications now - that is not new. PV Solar has been the best choise for powering remote area small scale applications for many years." Shows what you know Ken. Grid interactive PV's have a generation cost of about $0.33c/kw-h, even with the application of an unnecessarily harsh Discount Rate (much harsher than the ones applied to new coal-fired power stations). Even though this cost is much higher than the supposed $0.06c/kw-h for generating electricity from coal, it is *not* that different to the $0.26c/kw-h I currently pay for electricity from fossil fuels. Of course, the latter cost is predicted to rise over the coming decades due to increases in fuel & grid maintenance costs, whilst the cost of the former is expected to continue to fall as the cost of panels drops, the efficiency increases & the amount of power that can be stored increases. So you see, Ken, this is yet another bogus argument on your part. -
Marcus at 13:18 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Eric, plenty of businesses & industries pay State & Federal governments money-in taxes & leases-even when they don't receive a single cent in tax-payer funded subsidies. I don't receive any money from my government, so maybe I shouldn't have to pay income tax? No, you don't agree with that assessment? So why should the fossil fuel industry be somehow exempt? My point still remains-that the fossil fuel industry is supposedly a highly profitable & mature industry, & so does not really *deserve* such large subsidies in the current age. Subsidies are only really meant to be available to help industries get off the ground, yet the fossil fuel lobby routinely decries such subsidies for the renewable energy sector whilst still quite happy to take money from the government themselves. That's hypocrisy, pure & simple. -
johnd at 13:17 PM on 7 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
chris at 18:51 PM, it's hardly up to the present time given the study period was only until 2008. Also considering the study supposedly focuses on Global grain production of the four major grains, wheat, maize, rice and soybeans, there are several major provisos that has to be taken into account, apart from the fact it is all based on modeling trying to tie production directly to temperature. Firstly the positive and negative impacts on rice and soybeans apparently balances out, so nothing there. Then America is noted as an exception as yields there and several other places have instead risen as indicated by the rather unscientific map accompanying the Scientific American article that fails to include Australia, making the global climate change impact on global cereal crops somewhat less than global in nature. One is then left wondering how the periodic overproduction of grains in the study period were accounted for. All this finally seems to fly in the face of the fact that nearly 3 times as much cereal grain is presently being produced from the same acreage as 50 years ago, and agricultural analysts believe that this can be repeated over the next 50 years. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:07 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
#91 Marcus, if you ended fossil fuel subsidies, would you also end state production taxes (e.g. 7.5% http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/nat_gas/) and federal royalties (e.g. 12.5% http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2695&type=0&sequence=2)? If you think that question is off topic, that is fine by me, but your analyses appear to ignore some revenues when you only talk about subsidies. Also it would be good to have subsidies compared per kWh instead of gross amounts. -
scaddenp at 13:03 PM on 7 May 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
Aside from KR's answer, you might like to look at Realclimate here and here for comments from the people that do the modelling -
Marcus at 12:46 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"What technologies were available 100 years ago for large scale central generation? Answer - fossil fuel and hydro. In the absence of hydro resources and the availablity of relatively cheap coal - the choice of was one of necessity - coal." Again, at what point did I *ever* say that hydro & coal shouldn't have been invested in at the start of the 20th century Ken? Your comprehension skills seem awfully weak if you haven't figured that part out yet! My point is that (a) as a mature technology & (b) given what we know about the environmental damage it does, it no longer makes sense to keep funneling tax-payer money into the coal-fired electricity sector, especially when other, viable technologies now exist which-with a far smaller amount of government support-can produce a significant proportion of our electricity in a cost-competitive fashion. Of course, this fact flies in the face of the desire of people such as yourself who'd rather we continue our unhealthy addiction to a non-renewable source of electricity. -
KR at 12:46 PM on 7 May 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
neil - In terms of multiple equilibria, when those have not been observed in nature, I would suspect that either there are some issues with the model, or that if accurate the climate may be moving to a transitional state, such as severe changes in the thermohaline circulation. I don't know the particular models you mentioned - I cannot opine as to which this might be. Although you seem to be stating that these are fairly simple models... If multiple models show several equilibria, given different modeling criteria, complexity, and assumptions, I would watch that particular aspect of climate rather carefully for change. -
MattJ at 12:43 PM on 7 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
@cloa513- You offer the thin veneer of a mere appearance of being scientific. But in reality, your entire 'analysis' here is extremely unscientfic. It is not true that "global climate science is not mature enough", it is not true that their evidence is 'rubbery'. The detailed proofs of these two assertions are all over this website, so I will not recapitulate them here. -
Marcus at 12:42 PM on 7 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"That type of comment betrays a lack of understanding of the history of electricity generation in Australia and most of the first world." I've spent the better part of 15 years studying the history of the electricity industry, Ken, & the only one displaying ignorance here is *you*. When the first coal-fired power plants came online, in the US, the cost of power was about $3/kw-h in today's money. It really wasn't until the post-war era that the relatively "cheap" fossil fuel energy we know today became available. Yet, in spite of this, the global fossil fuel energy sector *still* receives enormous direct & indirect subsidies courtesy of the government, subsidies which dwarf those received by the *entire* renewable energy sector (not just PV's). As much as you desperately deny the truth, Ken, grid-interactive PV's, Wind, Solar Thermal bio-gas & Tidal Power are already cost-competitive with natural gas & coal, & are cheaper than nuclear (in spite of receiving equally large subsidies from governments) in a shorter time frame, & with far less dependence on tax-payer funded subsidies. So, in closing Ken, I'll take you more seriously on the subsidy issue only if you admit that the fossil fuel industry should have *all* its current subsidies stripped away. Otherwise I can only assume (correctly) that your real fear re: renewable energy subsidies is that it will eventually make them *more* cost-competitive than coal or natural gas-& thus force their demise. I'm afraid that your latest argument simply reveals your pro-fossil fuel bias Ken. -
KR at 12:41 PM on 7 May 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
neil - The difference between a chaotic initial value system (weather) and a boundary limited system (climate) is the difference between trajectory details and trajectory averages. Weather is highly susceptible to initial conditions, and predicting weather and it's details (rain or not, where will the pressure systems go?) requires detailed information and a lot of computing power to predict even a few days out. This is a very hard problem, as even a small error or approximation of initial conditions will inevitably cause the prediction to deviate from reality a few days out. Climate, however, is a boundary condition system. We don't know what days in March 2012 it will rain, but we can predict even this far out what the average temperature is likely to be with high certainty. When a particular bit of weather departs from the averages, it will (statistically) return to the average, and spend some time on the other side as well. So why is climate a boundary limited system? It depends on total energies. If energy leaving the climate exceeds energy coming in, we'll get colder, and less heat will leave - back to the average as determined by the insolation and thermal radiation. If we have a hot season, the climate will radiate above the average, and we'll cool down. The weather will vary around those averages in a difficult to predict way, but it will vary around the averages determined by energy conservation! And those averages are what climate predictions are about. Boundary conditions drive any deviations back to the averages for that system. So while we cannot state whether it will be sunny on your birthday - we can still note that winters will be colder than summers, and that reducing the amount of energy leaving the climate at any temperature (with GHG's) will make the average temperatures higher. --- In terms of modeling - regardless of the initial conditions of a global climate model (GCM), it will move fairly quickly to the averages determined by energy flows and conservation. The further you have run a GCM, the less sensitive to initial conditions. This is the reverse of weather predictions, as your prediction of detailed weather, while still within a few standard deviations of the averages, may be anywhere around that average once you've run your prediction for a while. -
neil at 12:16 PM on 7 May 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
@scaddenp I don't doubt the utility of climate models. However here, and elsewhere you have said that the mathematical systems representing weather (in GCMs) formally display chaos, but that climate models are not chaotic. Since the mathematical system of equations in weather and climate models are practically identical, I don't see any reason why chaotic behaviour should be formally excluded from the latter. The only difference is the length of the integration. Perhaps you can explain what you mean. As a practical example, in the UVic Earth Systems Climate Model we can show sensitive dependence to initial conditions for the MOC strength in long equilibrium simulations (i.e. multiple equilibria in an intermediate complexity climate model in 3000 year long integrations). The MITgcm, set up as a fully coupled AO-GCM with simple geography, has also demonstrated multiple equilbria ( see MITgcm website). There is also a Journal of Climate paper submitted on this. So, it seems to me that chaotic behaviour certainly is permitted by these mathematical systems (climate models). Whether this holds in the real climate system is another question. To me this does not imply that climate models are useless - rather that they warn us that abrupt climate change is a possibility (even if the chances are low). -
y-not at 10:56 AM on 7 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
I suggest cloa513 may benefit from looking at "scientific method" and "hypothesis testing" on wikipedia or elsewhere, to understand the role of hypothesis testing, statisitics, and uncertainty in the development of scientific "knowledge". -
Steve Bloom at 10:38 AM on 7 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
And here he is still at it after the second outbreak:"That's as big as it gets; that occurs rarely in the history books," climatologist John Christy said. "It's one of those systems that only comes along every few decades."
Hmm, you'd hardly know that this was a record event. Headline:April's tornado outbreaks the two largest in history
If Christy ever visits Oz, perhaps someone should take him to see the black swans. -
Alex C at 10:37 AM on 7 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
There is also the "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" argument, which covers this topic too and gives links to the inquiries or reports. -
Alex C at 10:35 AM on 7 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
chrisd3 @#1 - the EPA looked into the issue as well. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf... -
Robert Murphy at 10:26 AM on 7 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
"What a load of rubbish- true science comes to proof" No science comes to absolute proof. Proof is for mathematics and whiskey. -
cloa513 at 10:17 AM on 7 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
What a load of rubbish- true science comes to proof- not absolute proof with some uncertainly- relative high percentage not the vague qualitive evidence (they put numbers but those only really descriptors) that many climate scientist put as evidence. Nearly every science (chemistry, physics, medicine, material science) has to be checked all the line- only so-called climate scientist accept such rubbery evidence as some of proof. They are so not skeptical. The socalled global climate science is not mature enough to come up with anything like certainty. -
neil at 10:15 AM on 7 May 201110 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
@CBDunkerson Thanks. I understand the concept of greenhouse gas induced radiative forcing. I note that in Arrhenius (1896) there is the prediction of reduced DTR, which has been confirmed experimentally. I submit to you that more recent research (like Stone and Weaver (2002, 2003) ) has shown that water vapour and soil moisture have an overwhelming effect on DTR - its not simply a direct radiative effect of anthropogenic CO2. So, it may be wise to note that (although I accept increased water vapour may be attributed to anthropogenic CO2). As for the ocean heat. Of course increasing ocean heat content itself does not prove anthropogenic warming - so if that's how my line read I apologize. The strength of the argument lies in that there is a measured decrease in outgoing long wave radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere - and a concomitant measured increase in downward longwave radiation at the earths surface - corresponding to the CO2 absorption bands in the spectrum. That is the anthropogenic link - and yields a radiation imbalance or anthropogenic radiative forcing if you will (with some error). The ocean heat content increase IMPLIES a radiative forcing which is in line (though smaller) than the observed radiative forcing, and also in line with that predicted by GCMs doing global warming experiments. Essentially my point is, the Ocean Heat Content Anomaly is a far more robust measure of global warming than the surface temperature record, because the ocean absorbs most of the heat. -
Steve Bloom at 10:11 AM on 7 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Self-pwnage from Christy (NPR interview recorded in between the tornado outbreaks):WERTHEIMER: So, John Christy, we're looking at the wild weather continuing? Mr. CHRISTY: The wild weather is part of what happens in the United States in spring. I would certainly say somewhere in the United States, you will see some more wild weather coming this year. However, I think the tornado outbreak that we experienced last weekend, you know, is a fairly unusual event. You just don't see those happening more than once a year. (emphasis added)
Oops. So, in addition to his long record of poor scholarship, Christy neatly demonstrates his poor physical intuition. Unfortunately, as a reliable contrarian he is as sh*t to the media flies. -
chrisd3 at 09:48 AM on 7 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
Nice piece. Question: Apparently I'm missing a "Climategate" inquiry. Dr. Washington mentioned that there have been eight inquiries, but I'm only aware of seven: - UK Parliament - Oxburgh - Russell - Penn State (two inquiries) - UK Government - US Commerce Dept What inquiry am I missing? -
Albatross at 08:47 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
And last, but not least, in his CATO missive Michael's argue a strawman about the work of Rignot et al. (2011) and in doing so misrepresents their work. But first the quote: "And, this is important, the period of the lowest ice melt extent across Greenland for more than a century occurred from the early 1970s through the late 1980s – or very near the beginning the time period analyzed by Rignot et al." And another version here: "There was another paper on Greenland ice published by my nefarious research team at the same time as Rignot's. Instead of looking at recent decades (satellite monitoring of polar ice only began in 1979), we estimated the Greenland ice melt using a remarkable 225-year record from weather stations established there by the Danish colonists. We found that about the time that the satellites started sending back data the ice melt was the lowest it had been for nearly a century. In other words, Greenland was unusually icy when Rignot et al. started their analysis." Now here is what Rignot et al. (2011) actually did. From their abstract: "Here, we present a consistent record of mass balance for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets over the past two decades, validated by the comparison of two independent techniques over the last 8 years." Specifically, all their figures (and trend lines) are for the period 1992 through 2009, much later than suggested by Michaels. Michaels has misrepresented Rignot et al's work. Also, the lowest SMB loss in the FKM study the minimum running mean in FKM was in the 70s, with the lowest three datapoints for that era in FKM's Fig. 2 occurring in a cluster in late sixties early seventies.Response:[DB] Fixed Link tag.
-
Riccardo at 08:31 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Yes, in a world of unbiased models and data the earth is younger than we thought, a few thousand years maybe ... I don't know what it is but don't call it science please. -
Albatross at 08:27 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
KR @172, Wow...so Pat's emotional appeal for unbiased reporting and balance rings very hollow indeed. -
Albatross at 08:24 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
And yet another nugget from Pat Michael's CATO missive, in which he misrepresents the science again: "But, as we have noted previously in this Wisdom, many of the proposed mechanisms for such a rapid rise — which is caused by a sudden and massive loss of ice from atop Greenland and/or Antarctica — don't seem to operate in such a way as to produce a rapid and sustained ice release." I'm not sure to what CATO propaganda piece he is referring to, but that is certainly not what the paleo data suggest. From a post here at SkS on what happened the last time CO2 was this high, in which he discusses the work of Csank et al. (2011) and Dwyer and Chandler (2008). Specifically, Dwyer and Chandler note that: "These results indicate that continental ice volume varied significantly during the Mid-Pliocene warm period and that at times there were considerable reductions of Antarctic ice." Additionally, Rohling et al. (2009) conclude that: "Reconstructions indicate fast rates of sea-level rise up to 5 cm yr-1 during glacial terminations, and 1–2 cm yr-1 during interglacials and within the past glacial cycle." They also conclude that, "On the basis of this correlation, we estimate sea level for the Middle Pliocene epoch (3.0–3.5 Myr ago)—a period with near modern CO2 levels—at 25 +/- 5m above present, which is validated by independent sea-level data. Our results imply that even stabilization at today’s CO2 levels may cause sea level rise over several millennia that by far exceeds existing long-term projections." And from Pfeffer et al. (2008): "We consider glaciological conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess of 2 meters are physically untenable. We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits. More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter." And from Grinsted et al. (2010): "Over the last 2,000 years minimum sea level (−19 to −26 cm) occurred around 1730 ad, maximum sea level (12–21 cm) around 1150 ad. Sea level 2090–2099 is projected to be 0.9 to 1.3 m for the A1B scenario, with low probability of the rise being within IPCC confidence limits." And looking forward, from Horton et al. (2008): "Our results produce a broader range of sea level rise projections, especially at the higher end, than outlined in IPCC AR4. The range of sea level rise results is CGCM and emissions-scenario dependent, and not sensitive to initial conditions or how the data are filtered temporally. Both the IPCC AR4 and the semi-empirical sea level rise projections described here are likely to underestimate future sea level rise if recent trends in the polar regions accelerate." Also, from Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009): "For future global temperature scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report, the relationship projects a sea-level rise ranging from 75 to 190 cm for the period 1990–2100." Indications are that the loss of ice in the Polar regions may indeed be accelerating. And remember sea levels will continue to rise beyond 2100, and also that these estimates are higher than the upper range cited in the IPCC's latest report. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:53 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Albatross @ 170... That has to be one of the most insane statements I've read in a while. I had to read it twice to make sure he was saying what he was really saying. Let's see if we can apply this thinking to something else... "The number of papers coming out saying 'there are far more dinosaurs with feathers in the Cretaceous than we thought' vastly outnumber the papers saying there are fewer than we thought. In a world of unbiased science these two should be equal." Hm... I'm thinking that Michaels is maybe just bitter because his own biased position is not panning out in the full body of research. -
KR at 07:44 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Folks - Keep in mind that Knappenberger and Michaels are principals of New Hope Environmental Services, "...an advocacy science consulting firm that produces cutting-edge research and informed commentary on the nature of climate, including patterns of climate change, U.S. and international environmental policy, seasonal and long-range forecasting targeted to user needs...". (Emphasis added.) New Hope Environmental Services also puts out the World Climate Report blog, which ties them closely to the Cato Institute. As such, it is to be expected that they will produce primarily advocacy position papers, i.e. PR papers, for their clients. Oddly enough, I have no objection to that as long as I know what the source is about, as I can then rely upon/discount the work accordingly. Much as I treated the work of the Tobacco Institute, or now treat any of the PAC's for "Clean Coal" and the like. I do wish that these advocacy groups would be called on their paid positions in public discussions, however, and not treated as unbiased science. Note: I consider it worthwhile to look at the reasoning behind work presented in the sphere of science, and paid advocacy definitely has an effect - I don't intend this as an ad hominen in any fashion. But this is the elephant in the room, the selective attention test. -
Albatross at 07:37 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Sorry, failed to provide a link for the quote @170. Here it is. -
Albatross at 07:35 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Michaels also has said this, here: "But the rapid sea level rise beat goes on. In global warming science, we note, the number of scientific papers with the conclusion "it's worse than we thought" vastly outnumbers those saying "new research indicates things aren't so dire as previous projections." In a world of unbiased models and data, they should roughly be in balance." Whaaat? The science has to present a 50/50 balance, regardless of the reality? The overwhelming evidence points to a problem, that is not indicative of bias, but a reality presented by the data. There is just no getting away with that. This is an incredibly disingenuous and/or misguided belief that Michael's holds. I suppose then that using Pat's bizarre logic the same should apply to HIV/AIDS research suggesting that there is no link between AIDS and HIV, or research into linkages between between tobacco and cancer....That a scientist of Pat's alleged stature would hold the belief in the quoted text beggars belief. -
Albatross at 07:26 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Re the comments made at @167 by Chip, Instead of being an apologist for Michaels (why I care I don't know, it is your reputation that you are throwing away by doing so), how about you please read the actual State of the Arctic Coast report. Rising sea levels do not operate in a vacuum as some apologists would try and have us believe-- there are cumulative impacts at play here and rising sea levels is one of them. From the report's conclusions: "Sea-level rise in the Arctic coastal zone is very responsive to freshening and warming of the coastal ocean (leading to increased sea level at the coast) and is highly susceptible to changing large-scale air pressure patterns." Also, "Many Arctic coastal communities are experiencing vulnerabilities to decreased or less reliable sea ice, greater wave energy, rising sea levels, changes in winds and storm patterns, storm-surge flooding or coastal erosion, with impacts on travel (on ice or water), subsistence hunting, cultural resources (e.g. archaeological remains, burial sites) and housing and infrastructure in communities. In some places, this has necessitated community relocation, which in some cases increased vulnerability." And from Page 6 of the report: "The response to climate warming is manifest in a succession of other changes, including changes in precipitation, ground temperatures and the heat balance of the ground and permafrost, changes in the extent, thickness, condition, and duration of sea ice, changes in storm intensity, and rising sea levels, among other factors." Also from page 6: "There is evidence from some areas for an acceleration in the rate of coastal erosion, related in part to more open water and resulting higher wave energy, in part to rising sea levels, and in part to more rapid thermal abrasion along coasts with high volumes of ground ice. This directly threatens present-day communities and infrastructure as well as cultural and archaeological resources such as cemeteries and former settlement sites, particularly in areas of rising relative sea level (where postglacial uplift is limited or regional subsidence is occurring)." And I'm only on page 6 of the report at this point.....sea-level rise features prominently. Michaels is making fun of people losing their homes and having their lives affected by AGW. Shame on him, and shame on those who elect to uncritically apologize on his behalf. -
Albatross at 07:09 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
In this CATO Institute missive, Michaels makes this extraordinary claim: ”Our simple computer model further indicated that there were several decades in the early and mid-20th century in which the ice loss was greater than in the last (ballyhooed) ten years. The period of major loss was before we emitted the balance of our satanic greenhouse gases. So, about half of the observed change since 1979 is simply Greenland returning to its normal melt rate for the last 140 years or so, long before there was global warming caused by dreaded economic activity.” Really, "there were several decades in the early and mid-20th century in which the ice loss was greater than in the last (ballyhooed) ten years..."? Their research demonstrates no such thing, and they even state in their abstract that the melt in 2007 was the highest on record, "The greatest melt extent over the last 2 1/4 centuries occurred in 2007; however, this value is not statistically significantly different from the reconstructed melt extent during 20 other melt seasons, primarily during 1923–1961." and we also know that the 2007 record was surpassed in 2010. Michaels is publicly misrepresenting and exaggerating his own work, and that of his co-authors. If I were Knappenberger or Frauenfeld, I would very incredibly uneasy and unhappy about that. Also, I was unaware that Greenland had a "normal" melt rate. The above quote from Michaels also (predictably) plays into the “skeptic” myth that what we are experiencing now, and what we will experience under business as usual, is nothing out of the ordinary. It also suggests that the recent acceleration of ice loss from Greenland is attributable to natural variability. As the GISTEMP maps below show, the warming in the vicinity of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) between 1923 and 1953 (based on the “warm” period noted by Wake et al. 2009) was highly regional in nature. Now compare that with what has been observed since 1980 (the most recent 30-yr period). Quite the striking difference. Something very different is happening, and this is still relatively early in our rather bizarre experiment that we have decided to undertake.
Now, of course, internal climate modes and regional climate regimes can amplify or mute the underlying long-term trend. No denying that. But, oscillations cannot generate a long-term trend as we are witnessing (see here and here). As greenhouse gases increase, the greatest warming is expected to occur at high latitudes, and we are already observing polar amplification of the warming over the Arctic (Flanner et al. (2010), Screen and Simmonds (2010)) in response to the long-term warming trend.
Response:[DB] Fixed images. I note that it was hotter in Mongolia way back when...
-
Chip Knappenberger at 07:03 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Albatross@166, The climate topic of Pat's Cato article about buying beach houses was sea level rise (notably absent from the list you bolded). I imagine that he would take different things into consideration if he were looking into buying coastal property in Alaska (rather than say, the Outer Banks of North Carolina). -Chip -
scaddenp at 06:57 AM on 7 May 2011Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
Indeed. One of many things that would change my mind. 5-10 years on though, and with measurements improving, if the "missing heat" is accounted for, are you changing YOUR mind? -
Albatross at 06:25 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip I asked if you and Frauenfeld agreed with Pat's juvenile challenge? It seems then that you agree with Pat and are also interesting in buying some coastal property..... Re your political blog citation, yes there has "always" been coastal erosion, just as there have "always" been forest fires, yet we know that people cause fires too. You seem to be intent on missing the point entirely. This excerpt from the Arctic report referenced above: "There is growing evidence that accelerated erosion may be attributed to retreating sea ice, changes in storm wave energy, and increased sea-surface temperature (Jones et al., 2009b; Overeem et al., 2010; Barnhart et al., 2010)." I really do not know what compels you to be an apologist for the disingenuous actions of Pat Michaels. Anyhow, I have only gotten started with Pat's abuse of FKM11.....more soon. -
Chip Knappenberger at 06:11 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Pete@163, The terms of the AGU's usage policy are unclear to me, so I am not sure whether I can post the reprint or not. Maybe someone can clarify this. If allowed, I'd gladly make it avaible. -Chip -
Bob Lacatena at 06:03 AM on 7 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
36, Jesús,I cannot link to silence, because it just means they've ignored it.
This is B.S. You can't attack someone because they failed to say what you want to hear. RC has many, many posts on sea level. They're all rather objective and thorough. Their "failure" to explicitly come out and attack what was never even a projection is hardly an offense.Hansen & Sato's suggestion of 5m SLR is not supported by any other scientist.
Perhaps because it doesn't exist? Where in the paper do you see this stated? And if you haven't looked yourself, then why are you talking about it, and linking to the paper, when you haven't read it yourself?Caution when assuming more than 1 meter SLR is my personal opinion...
The key words there being "my personal opinion."...then you should go against this blog post summary, not against my comments
But you're spreading it as if it's true, without proper citation, and without even having followed up yourself. In fact, you accused RC of "silence" without evidence, and you've accused Hansen and Sato of making a prediction which they didn't make. And yet the fault isn't yours, you were just blindly parroting what you read on some blog somewhere (and yet you can't provide a link to what you read, and a Google search finds nothing). We can hardly blame you, now, can we?...now you seem more interested in discussing the semantics...
No, I'm more interested in paying attention to what people are actually saying, instead of distorting their position to create a strawman. Your desire to equate "meters" with "5 meters" goes hand in hand with your own misunderstanding of what is being presented. Once again, you are taking the BAU comment out of context, and exaggerating what it says. Hansen's basic point is that sea level rise is unlikely to be linear, and most linear estimates wind up at 1m or 2m, meaning any non-linear increase must be over 2m, and therefore on the order of "meters." This is reasonably well supported by the fact that ice loss is accelerating. Is it guaranteed? No. Is it a viable position? Yes. But in the end, you attack RC, you attack Hansen, and you come back with bluster and hand waving. You can't support your statements, you won't even take the blame (it's the blogger's fault), but you still dig in and refuse to budge. Typical. -
Chip Knappenberger at 06:03 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Albatross@161, Maybe you'll find this article to be of interest: Settling on an unstable Alaskan shore: A warning unheeded. -Chip -
Pete Dunkelberg at 05:58 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip Knappenberger, would you please make the paper available online? -
Albatross at 05:43 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
An addendum to my post at 161. Michaels also says this, here: "So should you sell your beach house because of the impending doom? I say yes. You need to beat the rush, put it on the market at a bargain-basement price, and sell it to me. And then I will keep it until the cows come home." Well, maybe there is a loophole for Michaels et al., because it seems that the cows have already "come home" as per the evidence cited @161 above. Then again, perhaps he should approach the residents of Tuktoyaktuk for some ocean front property. -
Albatross at 05:33 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Daniel Bailey, While much attention has rightfully been placed on the decision by the author’s to exclude the record 2010 data, as a number of posters here have noted, another big story here is how the KFM2011 is being used by Pat Michaels to play down and to belittle the seriousness of the situation that future generations face down the road. In his CATO Institute missive, Michaels openly taunts and belittles the situation with this juvenile title “The Current Wisdom: Please Sell Me Your Beach House”. Fortuitously, the a new report has just been released titled “State of the Arctic Coast 2010:Scientific Review and Outlook" which contains a some inconvenient truths for Pat Michaels. In the report they state that: “Regions with frozen unlithified sediments at the coast show rapid summer erosion, notably the Beaufort Sea coast in Alaska, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories and large parts of the Siberian coast. The ACD compilation (Lantuit et al., 2011) showed that the Beaufort Sea coast in Canada and the USA had the highest regional mean coastal erosion rates in the Arctic (1.15 and 1.12 m/year in Alaska and Canada, respectively).” You see, rising sea levels are only part of the bigger picture that Pat Michaels unwisely chooses to ignore to advance his agenda. Again from the Arctic report: “Trends of decreasing sea ice and increased open-water fetch, combined with warming air, sea and ground temperatures, are expected to result in higher wave energy, increased seasonal thaw, and accelerated coastal retreat along large parts of the circum- Arctic coast.” As a result some communities have already had to be evacuated, with more on alert. From the report: ”The US Army Corps of Engineers (2006) report provides a synopsis of the situation for threatened Alaskan communities. The situation in some communities is sufficiently dire that they are considering immediate relocation (e.g. Shishmaref (http:// www.shishmarefrelocation.com/). In other cases (e.g. Tuktoyaktuk – Johnson et al., 2003; Catto and Parewick, 2008), phased retreat to a new location is an option which is now being considered (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/09/08/climate-changetuktoyaktuk-erosion.html; http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_science/tuktoyaktuk/)" So a challenge to Pat Michaels. There are a few communities in Alaska alone who would probably very much like for you to buy their land and beach-front property. In fact, someone ought to let them know that Pat Michaels (and the CATO institute?) has publicly expressed a sincere interest in purchasing their land. I’m also interested to know whether or not his co-authors Frauenfeld and Knappenberger unequivocally stand by the bizarre challenge made by Michaels? -
Albatross at 04:39 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Grypo @157, The same misinformation and juvenile tone are being presented at the CATO site. More soon. The title egotistical and conceitful nature of title of their series, "Current Wisdom", beggars belief. -
grypo at 04:36 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Oh, I was looking at this oops. -
Chip Knappenberger at 04:34 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
grypo, Pat's Daily Caller article has always been a trimmed down version of his Current Wisdom piece for Cato. Here is the link to Current Wisdom piece which is where there is more detail given about our latest paper: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13010 I don't think anything has been changed in either article. -Chip -
Jesús Rosino at 04:25 AM on 7 May 2011Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
Sphaerica, I think there's some misunderstanding here. I just said that RC didn't say anything about Hansen & Sato's 20th century multimeter [if you like it more than 5m] SLR suggestion. Of course I cannot link to silence, because it just means they've ignored it. The citations you provide are, of course, previous to Hansen & Sato 2011 and I think they just support my point: that Hansen & Sato's suggestion of 5m SLR is not supported by any other scientist. Caution when assuming more than 1 meter SLR is my personal opinion, which I've tried to back up whithout mentioning RC at all. I cannot imagine where you get the idea that I've said that there's any "comment at RC suggesting that a 5m rise by 2100 is at all likely" nor what makes you think I should provide such a link. On the other hand, if you think Hansen made no such a projection of 5m SLR, then you should go against this blog post summary, not against my comments. In any case, my comments apply the same to the "I find it almost inconceivable that BAU climate change would not yield a sea level change of the order of meters on the century timescale". So now you seem more interested in discussing the semantics of "projection". Sorry I'm not. Regardless of the label of your choice for Hansen & Sato's multimeter fantasy, it's way off the peer reviewed literature numbers and they provide weak evidence (I'd be more open to the idea if they meant in something like 300 years rather than one century). As I said before, if they can get that through peer review, I will take it more seriously. Regarding scientists' opinions on Hansen 2007, you can see William Connolley here or here, or James Annan here. Alexandre, yes, I refer to the same IPCC projection. See your link where they say: "They include a contribution from increased Greenland and Antarctic ice flow at the rates observed for 1993-2003, but this could increase or decrease in the future". I don't think we know what the cause of the IPCC underestimate is (I may be wrong, it's just my impression from what I've read in blog posts), but I guess it can only be ice sheets or thermal expansion. Given that thermal expansion seems easier to calculate and there's a lot of uncertainty about ice sheet dynamics, the latter turns up as a more likely culprit. However, I think this is rather speculative, especially considering this is a short-term comparison (we have just a couple of decades of data to compare with projections). See, for example, Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle about Song & Colber 2011. Don't trust me on the consensus matter, I'm not an expert, but that's my impression. I think the +1m is rather based on empirical data, which is quite compelling, but, lacking a physical understanding of the underlying causes, I think it's difficult to call it a consensus yet. Anyway, I may be too influenced by this discussion I had with Zorita and its later blog post. Cheers. -
grypo at 04:01 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Well it appears the Beach House article on Cato and the Daily Caller has changed to exclude any specifics to this research. I thought I'd gone nuts, but the original was reposted elsewhere, so I was able to recheck my sanity. -
dana1981 at 02:24 AM on 7 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
angusmac, you're misrepresenting the facts. Maybe Hansen described Scenario A as the result if we continued with "business as usual", but the fact is that the radiative forcing has been nowhere near that in Scenario A. Hansen is not in the business of predicting how GHG emissions will change, he's in the business of projecting for a given GHG change, how much temps will change. That's what the adjusted Scenario B represents. Your claimed "dramatic drop in temperature projections" is purely imagined. That's why it's not mentioned. -
Albatross at 02:05 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Well Eli Rabbet has something of potential interest to this issue. But I'm sure the "skeptics" will probably again bend over backwards to try and defend this too. "Now look at the legend, notice that the red line is a ten year trailing average. Now, some, not Eli to be sure, might conjecture, and this is only a conjecture, that while using a trailing average is a wonderfully fine thing if Some Bunny, not Chip Knappenberger to be sure, is looking at smoothing the data in the interior of the record, but, of course, Chip understands that if you are comparing the end of the data record to the middle, this, well, underweighs the end. The rising incline of the trailing average at the end is depressed with respect to the data. Some Bunny, of course, could change to a five year moving average, which would make the last point not the average of the melt between 1999 and 2009 but the average between 2003 and 2009, a significantly larger average melt. Of course, this effect would be even clearer if someone, not Eli to be sure, knew that the melt in 2010 was a record." -
lucia at 00:25 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Tom Curtis at 10:47 AM on 6 May, 2011 In response to:1) Ice melt extent in the 2000's would be statistically indistinguishable from that for the highest period in the reconstruction. (This is true as it stands, but apparently was not worthy of comment in the paper.)
Huh? I thought what everyone is upset about is that the paper basically says the melt during the 2000s is statistically indistinguishable from that for the prior reconstruction. But if you agree that the ice melt extent is 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from that of the highest period in the reconstruction, I'm sure Michaels will be happy to report that Tom Curtis decrees this is so.2) The two years with the greatest ice melt extent would have occurred in the last ten years, and five of the most extensive melts would have occurred in the last ten years. In no other ten year period would more than two of the ten most extensive melts have occured. 3) The year with the highest melt extent would be the most recent year, with just eleven reconstructed values having 95% confidence intervals encompassing that value.
So what if the record happens to fall in the most recent year? This summer will probably have a lower melt than 2010. I'm unaware of any scientific rule that says papers discussing reconstructions can't be published if they happen to end with a melt index that is not a record. Moreover, if 2010 is a record it will still be a record until it is broken. The fact that it might not have been broken again in 2011 won't prevent anyone from pointing out that a record was broken in 2010.(And of course, if 2010 is not a record, it's not a record. ) On the claim that two years with the greatest ice melt would have occurred in the past ten years: How are you concluding this with any certainty? It's true that the satellite measurements would indicate that the melts for 2007 and 2009 are greater than all reconstructed melt indices. But the reconstructed melt indices have uncertainties associated with them. Based on the observation that the 2007 melt index falls outside the ±95% uncertainty intervals for the reconstruction and there is at most a 60% probability that the 2007 melt is greater than all melts during the previous period. (The probability is actually much lower because I did a quick calculation which assume the 2007 melt index exactly equaled the upper 95% confidence value for 20 cases. So I did ( 1- 0.975^20) = 0.3973 as the probability all previous 20 are lower. But this represents the upper bound for the probability that all 20 are lower because in each individual case the probability a particular value from the previous period is < 0.975). So with respect to 2007-- you can't know for sure its melt exceeded those in during the 30s. That certainly makes your claim that two years with the greatest melt occurred in the past 10 years tenuous. (I suspect if we got the more detailed data from Chip and did the full analysis, we'd find the probability your claim is true is less than 1/2. ) But even your claim that one year with the greatest melt occurred in the past 10 years is tenuous. Assuming your estimate that 2010 would fall outside the uncertainty intervals for 11 years, there is at least a 24% probability that the 2010 value is a not record. Very few people would consider this probability sufficiently high to say with confidence that even 2010 was a record. So you can't even say 2010 must be a record. (Though of course it might be. If we got the data from Chip, we could do a better calculation, and the probability that it's a record is even lower. ) If a reviewer has been thoughtful, they might have asked FKM to do this calculation to firm up the numbers-- but given the traditions for making statistical calls, no one looking at the probabilities would decree that a record can be called even with only 11 and even making the simplifying assumption I made above. But the reviewers didn't do that. The consequence is the text in FKM doesn't discuss this at all, and text that might have needed more extensive modification showing that the probability of a record is "x%" isn't included in the paper. As the abstract stands in the published paper, changing "11" to "20" and "2007" to "2010" does not need to be modified. (So, yeah, assuming your '11' is correct, I missed on edit.) As a practical matter, the abstract only needs a "tweak" and you would have been no happier with it. Note: When the observed index is falls inside fewer than 5 ±95% uncertainty intervals, a more refined calculation will be needed to figure out if we can 'call' a record. At some point-- I'm SWAGING when the observed melt index falls inside fewer than 2 ±95% uncertainty intervals-- it will be impossible to say that there is any realistic probability that the melt falls outside the range experienced during the 20s-40s. I suspect this will happen during the next El Nino. Since KFM's reconstruction is now published, you'll be able to do this and using the KFM reconstruction and they will need to admit it. (I don't think this notion seems to have sunk in.)4) The relatively low ice melt extents in the early satellite period are due in large part to major tropical volcanic eruptions, eruptions which were absent in the 1930s. In the absence of these eruptions, the longest and period of extensive melting would be that straddling the end of the 20th century, not that in the middle. Clearly natural forcings have favored extensive ice melt in the mid 20th century, while acting against it towards the end. (True also in 2009, and surely worth a mention in the paper.)
First: If this is intended to engage or rebut anything I wrote, it's a bit misplaced. I wrote about changes to the existing manuscript that would be required if 2010 was incorporated. Second: I don't disagree with your explanation of why the data looks as they do. Given the nature of this paper, I even think the paper would be stronger with this sort of discussion inserted. However, the reviewer (Box) who made a rather vague suggestion to this effect while simultaneously requesting inclusion of data that was not available (and is still unavailable than 8 months later) bowed out because that not-yet-available data were not incorporated. Evidently, whatever happened, neither the editors, the other reviewers nor the authors thought to incorporate this sort of thing. It's worth noting that not every paper showing a time series or reconstructions discusses why the time series looks the way it does-- for example the "Surface mass-balance changes of the Greenland ice sheet since 1866 L.M.WAKE,1 P. HUYBRECHTS,2,3 J.E. BOX,4,5 E. HANNA,6 I. JANSSENS,2 G.A. MILNE1" doesn't discuss Volcanism when explaining they reported"Higher surface runoff rates similar to those of the last decade were also present in an earlier warm period in the 1920s and 1930s and apparently did not lead to a strong feedback cycle through surface lowering and increased ice discharge. Judging by the volume loss in these periods, we can interpret that the current climate of Greenland is not causing any exceptional changes in the ice sheet."
So, while I agree both the Wake paper and the FKM paper -- both decreeing that this century appears more or less similar to the previous melt period-- might have benefited from inclusion of a few sentences mentioning causal factors for the previous high and low melt periods, neither did. It seems the editors and reviewers standards are consistent in this regard.A paper drawing these conclusions, IMO, would be substantially different from the paper actually produced. Certainly it would have been very hard for Michaels to place the spin on it that he as been doing.
As I understand it, his "spin" amounts to your conclusion (1) above which is "Ice melt extent in the 2000's would be statistically indistinguishable from that for the highest period in the reconstruction. (This is true as it stands, but apparently was not worthy of comment in the paper.)" Since other conclusions you make are unsupportable based on the data, your suggesting that his including them would prevent him from "spinning" as he is seem a bit odd. It would be rather silly to suggest that FKM are required to include incorrect or tenuous conclusions to avoid whatever you, Tom, happen to consider "spin". Other issues that puzzle me in your comment:Tedesco shows mass loss, while FK&M show melt extent.
The graph I inserted is figure 1C from Tedesco indicates it shows "standardized melting index anomaly". The caption reads "(c) standardized melting index (the number of melting days times area subject to melting) for 2010 from passive microwave data over the whole ice sheet and for different elevation bands." Tedesco also shows a graph of "SMB" (Surface Mass Balance". It's labeled figure 3a in Tedesco. Since FKM use melt extent, incorporating data for 2010 would involve 2010 melt extent data, not SMB data.Second, this analysis has been done graphically, and has all the consequent uncertainties (ie, the numbers might be out by one or two in either direction).
Of course it's done graphically and your numbers might be out one or two.... I believe I said I was discussing an estimate and I assume you are too. We could add: Done in blog comments. Not even at the top of a blog post were many people could see it. Using Tedesco data as a proxy for the data that would really be used by FKM and so on. I've suggested before that this will be worth doing when the melt data used by FKM do become available. I see in your later comment you speculate that if only FKM had used a different proxy to reconstruct, they would get different answers, and you speculate as to what those results would be based on eyeballing graphs. Ok... but if their choice of proxy was tenuous, or the reviewers had wanted to see sensitivity to choice of proxy, then that was the reviewers call. They didn't make that call. Also: The fact that choice of proxy makes a difference widens the true uncertainty intervals on the reconstruction relative to those show in n FKM. So it would take an even longer time to decree that we feel confident that the current melt index is a record. When the melt index data are available, would you recommend doing the analysis to determine how much widen the uncertainty intervals on the reconstruction? It seems to me that may well be justified. -
lucia at 00:10 AM on 7 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Dikramsteven mosher@152 If you want papers published with turn key code and data, then I would agree that would be great, but who is going to provide the (quite considerable) additional funding to support that? Are you going to fund that just for climatology, or for all science? Sadly it is just unrealistic.
I've often told Steve the same thing. I do however agree with the principle that authors should grant access to key data on request. So, for example, if someone asked Chip for the data points underlying FKM figure 2 or asked Tedesco for the data points underlying figures 1(c) in his paper, I think both authors should grant that sort of request and fairly promptly. Ideally there would be some sort of formal archive for this sort of thing possibly funded by NSF/DOE office of science or something. People whose projects were funded would be required to either deposit it there or say where the data are deposited. But turnkey code? With all data in a nice neat little folder? I think Mosher is insisting on something that goes beyond what is practical.
Prev 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 Next
