Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 Next
Comments 112901 to 112950:
-
Ned at 06:50 AM on 11 August 2010Temp record is unreliable
Berényi Péter writes: Unfortunately I do not have too much time for this job, you may have to wait a bit. Like Berényi Péter, I also don't have a lot of time right now, being about to leave for vacation in a few days and having far too much to do. But I thought it would be worth putting up a quick example to illustrate the necessity of using some kind of spatial weighting when analyzing spatially heterogeneous temperature data. Since BP uses Canada as his example, I'll do the same. He mentions a useful data source, the National Climate Data and Information Archive of Environment Canada. I'll use the same data source. Since I want to get this out quickly, I'm just using monthly mean temperature data from July, and as another shortcut I'll just look at every 5 years (i.e., 2010, 2005, 2000, 1995, ...) I picked July because it's the most recent complete month and 5-year intervals for no particular reason. Maybe sometime later I can expand this to look at the complete monthly data set. In any case, using just one month per 5 year interval will make this analysis more "noisy" than it would otherwise be, but that's OK. I then identified all stations with data in all years, and whose name and geographic coordinates were exactly the same in all years. There's just over 150 of them:
Note, first, that the stations aren't distributed uniformly.
Note, second, that the trends differ greatly in different regions.
In particular, note that there are a large number of stations showing cooling in inland southwestern Canada. There are also a lot of stations showing warming across eastern and northern Canada.
(This is an Albers conical equal-area projection, so the apparent density of stations is proportional to their actual density on the landscape).
If you calculate the trend for each station, and then just take the overall non-spatial average, you get a slight cooling of about -0.05C/decade for Julys in the 1975-2010 period.
But as the map shows, that's quite unrealistic as an estimate of the trend for the country as a whole! The large number of tightly-clustered stations in certain areas outweighs the smaller number of stations that cover much larger areas elsewhere.
To estimate the spatially structured temperature trend I used a fairly simple kriging method. This models a continuous surface based on the irregularly distributed station data. There are many other approaches that could be used (e.g., gridding, other interpolation methods, etc). Anyway, the spatially weighted trend across all of Canada is warming of +0.18C/decade.
So ... a naive nonspatial analysis of these data give an erroneous "cooling" of -0.05C/decade. A spatially weighted analysis gives a warming of +0.18C/decade.
This is why I keep telling Berényi Péter that his repeated attempts to analyze temperature data using simple, nonspatial averages are more or less worthless.
Again, this is based on a small fraction of the overall data set, and a not necessarily optimal methodology. But it's sufficient to show that using real-world data you can end up with seriously misleading results if you don't consider the spatial distribution of your data.
-
muoncounter at 05:25 AM on 11 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Doug, You have made my day. Knowledge of the existence of such a thing as 'conservapedia' enriches my existence. I suggest to anyone not willing to believe in relativity that they immediately forfeit their GPS units. Given these remarks about quantum mechanics, "Collapsing of the wave function is by no means magic. In can be intuitively understood as this: You find a particle at a particular spot; if you look again immediately, it's still in the same spot, they should also forfeit all semiconductor-based electronics. Of course, they have wonderful things to say about global warming: "The anthropogenic global warming theory is one of several explanations for the 1.5 degrees F of warming of the earth's surface recorded since the middle of the 19th century. The theory enjoys broad based political support from Liberals, Greens and the US Democratic Party, and theory supporters frequently assert the existence of a "scientific consensus" favoring their viewpoint" Not too long ago (during the height of the ID debate in the US), this was a popular cartoon in the world of science education:
-
Peter Hogarth at 04:35 AM on 11 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
doug_bostrom at 04:22 AM on 11 August, 2010 Agreed. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:32 AM on 11 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Pete if you don't mind I'll refer to something you said in relation to Ned's recent post, as support for a general observation. Pete said: I may be able to make time for a further read but looking at some of the over 200 references mentioned there to “uncertainties” and “estimates” about those horrendously complex global climate processes and drivers gives me a hint that I’ll be wasting valuable time. I was disappointed to see virtually nothing about assumptions made. Looking beyond the immediate topic of sea level rise, Ned's remark exactly illustrates how Pete's reasoning about "wasting time" looking at citations is incorrect, and how his remark about seeing "virtually nothing about assumptions made" is not actually right. We have to look at all the information made available to us if we want to avoid ambiguities leading to fallacious conclusions. If we choose not to or cannot find the time to do so, that's not an argument against the worth of what we personally don't know. Personalizing this, for the article above I made a best effort to summarize what I was able to find from a variety of authoritative sources on London and floods. If I missed something in my research leading to errors in my little essay, that doesn't mean I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong, it simply means I'm ignorant of certain things. Ignorance is universal and thus permissible but we should deal with ignorance in a conservative way; I should not claim that because I don't know something nobody else does, or that my perspective is correct when I have cause to believe I don't have a complete grasp of my topic. I should be mindful of accidentally conveying and promoting misperceptions springing from my ignorance. -
Peter Hogarth at 04:25 AM on 11 August 2010Temp record is unreliable
Berényi Péter at 23:54 PM on 10 August, 2010 Peter, some of the links seems to be broken? Anyway, does your first chart represent published results or just your own analysis? If you are interested in Arctic surface station records have a look at Bekryaev 2010 which uses data from 441 high latitude and Arctic surface stations. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:22 AM on 11 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Not to prematurely consign my article to the dustbin of history but the topic of accuracy of sea level measurements is already treated here on SkS and includes some helpful discussion around confusion concerning sea level measurement and the like. Rather than reenacting that history here, perhaps it would be better to contribute to existing threads. "How much is sea level rising" has a well developed discussion on measurement uncertainties. There's also "How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?", devoid of discussion but with a writeup by John Cook including data to work from, probably more germane to the exact discussion that has arisen here.Moderator Response: Excellent suggestion. This is one of those cases in which an original post on a broad topic legitimizes comments on all those topics, but at some point the comments get so detailed that continuation on that original thread no longer is appropriate. Everyone is welcome to post a comment on this thread, announcing that they have posted a comment on a more specialized, relevant thread. I suggest you even paste a link to your comment on that other thread. (Right click on the time-date stamp of your comment on the other thread.) -
Ned at 04:13 AM on 11 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Let's see. In these two comments (first, second) Pete Ridley suggests that we should use data from a network of 12 GPS stations in the South Pacific to look at sea level rise. He also dismisses global studies of sea level based on the combination of satellite altimetry and gauge data. The satellite record shows a global trend of around +3.3 mm/year over the past two decades (thanks, Peter Hogarth!) The South Pacific GPS network that Pete Ridley refers to shows individual trends ranging from +3.2 to +8.6 mm/year (ignoring one outlier of +16.8 mm/year). The mean is +5.4 mm/year and the median is +4.9 mm/year. So, the network of stations that Pete Ridley was recommending actually shows a rate of rise that's about 50% greater than the global mean from the satellite record. However, as noted in the annual reports on the South Pacific GPS project, sea level in that region is known to be rising faster than the global average, and this regional difference shows up in the altimetry data as well. Taking this regional difference into account, their annual reports conclude that: The net sea level trends are positive at all sites, which indicates sea level in the region has risen over the duration of the project. The sea level rise is not geographically uniform but varies spatially in broad agreement with observations taken by satellite altimeters over a similar timeframe. [...] The sea level trends from SEAFRAME stations are mostly higher than the global average rate, but this is consistent with higher rates in the southwest Pacific measured by satellite altimeters So, if Pete Ridley likes the South Pacific CGPS project, he must also approve of the global satellite-based sea level record, since the two data sets are mutually consistent. Surely Mr Ridley isn't arguing that the satellite altimeters are accurate over the South Pacific but inaccurate over the rest of the ocean..... -
Doug Bostrom at 03:53 AM on 11 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Further to muoncounter's remarks, one of my concerns about this brouhaha over climate science is how the tactics employed to degrade public confidence in climate research necessarily can't and don't respect borders of inquiry. If somebody becomes the victim of purposeful confusion about the difference between hypothesis and theory or what "uncertainty" means in terms of confidence in scientific findings they're going to carry that loss of coherence everywhere they go, see everything through the same fuzzy cloud. Leading to things like this: The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's action at a distance, which is basic to Newtonian gravity and quantum mechanics. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid. ... Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for relativity. Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis.[6] Relativity also gravely conflicts with quantum mechanics, and although theories like string theory and quantum field theory have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven. ... Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities. ... The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of federal funding of physics research today. Conservapedia article "Theory of Relativity" Sound familiar? -
Phila at 03:52 AM on 11 August 2010Remember, we’re only human
Typo alert: I meant to say "The Isles of Britain can't and don't support their population." -
Phila at 03:45 AM on 11 August 2010Remember, we’re only human
Humanity Rules: "Yep Malthus was wrong. He believed the Isles of Britain could not support more than 7 million people. He was wrong." The Isles of Britain can't and don't support more than 7 million people. The resources that actually support its population come from all over the globe, just like the resources that support other first-world countries. The population of Tokyo, for instance, is "supported" by a land area that's roughly three times greater than the land area of Japan. This situation is extremely vulnerable to various types of climactic disruption, wholly apart from the fact that we're running an unsustainable ecological deficit. Hope is not a plan, as the saying is. -
Peter Hogarth at 03:04 AM on 11 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Pete Ridley at 00:26 AM on 11 August, 2010 All of the recent global sea level analyses use similar high resolution tide gauge data, as well as GPS/satellite altimetry as in the South Pacific Project. There is a global integrated sea level monitoring system and the South Pacific stations are part of it. In my view you have been extremely selective in your choice of references on sea level. Have a look at this short article on sea level rise where I cite the main recent references available in early 2010, and incidentally provide some visual clues as to why sea level rise in the South Pacific is not representative of sea level rise globally, notwithstanding that a 15 year period is less likely to give statistically significant trends when analysing individual stations (this seems to be a tactic often used by skeptics) as has been done in your reference. I could cite you many individual tide stations where sea level has actually fallen over the entire satellite recording period, but this does not change the global result. I suggest you gain much more knowledge of climate data and recent scientific research, and then balance this against the minority views of Spencer. -
michael sweet at 02:45 AM on 11 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Pete, The study you referenced in 63 was not a scientific evaluation of the data the Australian gorvenment collected. It was a denier eyeballing the data and concluding the Australians were wrong when they measured the sea level rising. I have no problem with the Australain data. Why don't you use the scientists evaluation of their own data here instead of some denier pap? If you have a problem with the NAS data you need to read their references. In a summary report they do not have enough space to answer the detailed questions you are asking. People are expected to learn the background on their own, some of us have not done our homework yet. If you have trouble with this summary, you should make a better effort to find a summary you can understand, not discard the report. This web site has a number of basic summaries that you could start with. The scientific position on causation of sea level rise is discussed in the NAS report. Obviously, if humans cause the warming and warming causes sea level rise, then humans caused sea level rise. Roy Spencer is one of the 3% of scientists who disagree with the consensus. Why should I listen to the fringe crowd, especially someone like Spencer who has been shown to be wrong any number of times in the past? In any case, recently he has conceded that his data now matches the surface record that he criticized in the past. Other scientists corrected his mistakes. -
barry1487 at 02:18 AM on 11 August 2010More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
Your question about record highs is a good one. Surely this is a simple enough figure to be readily available from most European countries
Since 2002, when the website below was born, there have been more record-breaking hot days than cold each year for the list of cities, towns and airports around the world. http://www.mherrera.org/records.htm The record-breakers for the current year are here. http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm That page also includes a list of 1600 or so (from memory) of the cities and towns in the database with there min/max temps (but no dates). -
Pete Ridley at 00:26 AM on 11 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Michael, I don’t think that the Australian Government would be very impressed with your derisive “ .. dating back to only 1993 and covering only 12 islands .. ” comment about their The South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project (Note 1). You seem to be suggesting that the coverage they have established for that part of the globe will provide inadequate data. The Monitoring Network (Note 2) comprises: “- Sea Level and Meteorological Monitoring Stations. The current network of 12 robust and low maintenance Sea level Fine Resolution Acoustic Measuring Equipment (SEAFRAME) monitoring stations is providing excellent service. All parameters having an effect on sea level (wind, air and sea temperatures, atmospheric pressure) are being sampled at one second intervals. Sea level readings are taken and averaged over three minutes and meteorological data is collected and averaged for 2 minutes at the hour. - CGPS Monitoring Stations. The Continuous Global Positioning System (CGPS) network monitors vertical movement in the earth's crust, such as subsidence or tectonic shifts, at the SEAFRAME tide gauges and adjacent land. Sea level data can then be adjusted to compensate for the earth's movement to within a millimeter, enabling the absolute sea level to be determined.” Perhaps you’d like to show how the monitoring network used by Church & White (2006), Holate & Woodworth (2004) and Leuliette et al. (2004) to produce the data used in the NAS graph compares. You say that “The NAS study .. has real sea level data on page 168” but what I see on that page is a graph that purports to represent changes in annual mean sea level as determined by tide gauges and satellite altimeters, along with rate of sea level rise estimates. How reliable are those estimates, arrived at following statistical manipulations undisclosed on that page? Far more important to our discussion is the statement just above that graph “Distinguishing the effects of natural climate variability from human-caused warming is one of the challenges of understanding the details of past sea level and anticipating its future course”. You might also consider Dr. Roy Spencer’s “My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies” comment (Note 3) “ .. to the extent that warming occurs, sea levels can be expected to also rise to some extent. The rise is partly due to thermal expansion of the water, and partly due to melting or shedding of land-locked ice (the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers). But this says nothing about whether or not humans are the cause of that warming. Since there is evidence that glacier retreat and sea level rise started well before humans can be blamed, causation is — once again — a major source of uncertainty” – “hear hear” to that.. You may like to read his book “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists”. NOTES: 1) see http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/ 2) see http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/technologies.shtml 3) see http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/ Best regards, Pete Ridley -
Berényi Péter at 23:54 PM on 10 August 2010Temp record is unreliable
#99 Ned at 21:31 PM on 4 August, 2010 As a reminder, BP's figures (like the first one in his comment above) are not particularly useful as long as he continues to use simple averages of the GHCN data set. In a sense that's true. But it is good for getting an overview, the big picture if you like. Also, if adjustment procedures are supposed to be homogeneous over the entire GHCN, this approach tells us something about the algorithms applied, if not about the actual temperature trends themselves. However, with a closer look it turns out there are multiple, poorly documented adjustment strategies varying both over time and regions. Some adjustments are done to the raw dataset, some are only applied later, some only to US data, some exclusively outside the US, but even then different things are done to data in different regions and epochs. A gridded presentation is indeed an efficient way to smear out these features. On the other hand, it is still a good idea to have a closer look on intermediate regional and temporal scales if one is to attempt to identify some of the adjustment strategies applied. For example here is the history of temperature anomalies over Canada for a bit more than three decades according to three independent datasets (click on the image for a larger version).
I have chosen Canada, because of data availability and also because this country has considerable expanses in the Arctic where most of the recent warming is supposed to happen. The three datasets used were
- GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network)
- The National Climate Data and Information Archive of Environment Canada
- and Weather Underground, an independent weather portal company (a spinoff from the University of Michigan)
It is funny, that even the raw map used by GISS misses a fair number of the arctic islands that belong to Canada and shows sea in their place. At the same time Arctic coverage of Environment Canada is excellent. Their data are also said to be quality controlled and of course digitized. Why can't it be fed into GHCN? Looks like a mystery (I know there used to be a war between the two countries back in 1812 when seaborne British terrorists ate the President's dinner and set the White House aflame, but I thought it was over some time ago).
Anyway, the very practice of making adjustments to a raw dataset prior to publication is a strange one, which would be considered questionable in any other branch of science. But should adjustments be done either way, if their overall magnitude is comparable to the long term trend, anything is measured but the trend itself.
The double adjustment to raw Canadian data also makes understandable why USHCN have got a different treat than the rest of the world. It would be pretty venturesome to meddle with US raw data directly for the US, despite the recent legislative efforts of both major parties to put an end to this preposterous situation, is still an open society, more so than most other countries of the world. Therefore it was advisable to introduce US adjustments only in v2.mean_adj, which is a unique feature, not done for the rest.
As the US is only a tiny fraction of the globe, at first sight it does not make much sense to go into such pains. But without the 0.52°C upward adjustment of the US trend, data from there would get inconsistent with neighboring Canadian ones. What is more, it would be somewhat inconvenient to explain why the US does not have this warming thing, but still needs cap & trade.
It is also noticeable, that the strange divergence, if global, does not increase one's confidence in computational climate models parametrized on this very dataset.
-
muoncounter at 22:15 PM on 10 August 2010Why I care about climate change
#124: "science will triumph over the establishment's beliefs, but whereas it didn't happen within Galileo's lifetime, hopefully the establishment will see the error of its ways sooner than later" Sadly, it took over 200 years for 'the establishment' to see the error of its ways. By 2200, we'll have 800 ppm CO2? I teach high school science; as a new school year begins I remind myself of this: four out of five Americans (79%) correctly respond that the earth revolves around the sun, while 18% say it is the other way around. These results are comparable to those found in Germany when a similar question was asked there in 1996; in response to that poll, 74% of Germans gave the correct answer, while 16% thought the sun revolved around the earth, and 10% said they didn't know. When the question was asked in Great Britain that same year, 67% answered correctly, 19% answered incorrectly, and 14% didn't know. Science may indeed triumph some day, but there always seems to be that last 20-25% who will never get it. -
J Bowers at 21:28 PM on 10 August 2010Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
Speaking of which. John, you may have noticed a commenter at the Guardian going by the nickname of PaulInOz1 who was highly critical of you and your article. Turns out he's Paul Ostergaard of Aeris Systems, the developer of Our Climate. There's another "contrarian" called PaulInOz at Guardian CiF who's been there for a while now, so it's not sure if he's the same guy, but PaulInOz1 only started posting on August 7th. Pretty low if you ask me. He's been banging heads with some of us (in one he kept repeating "Shame on you" at me), and one in particular called onthefence. Search through the Our Climate reviews at the Apple store and you'll find a review by an "on the fence" singing the praises of Our Climate. OurClimategate, as far as I'm concerened. -
michael sweet at 19:45 PM on 10 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Typo: should be page 186 in the NAS report. -
michael sweet at 19:36 PM on 10 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Pete: You cited a non-peer reviewed article by a single author dating back to only 1993 and covering only 12 islands as more authoritative than the US National Academy of Sciences? The entire paper consists of eyeballing data, no analysis is performed. If this is what convinces you have a good day. The NAS study Doug linked has real sea level data on page 156. -
chris at 19:32 PM on 10 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP at 18:47 PM on 10 August, 2010 I'd say that they are products RSVP, and we should be careful not to over-categorise the outcomes of scientific advance. We might say that in the broadest sense the aims of science is enhancement of human wellbeing (even if in reality scientists are more focussed on rather specific outcomes, many of which may have commercial motivations). For "products" in the commercial sense this might relate to direct benefits of things (like cars and flights and duvet covers), and the slightly less direct benefits in relation to profits and employment, and then the overall benefits to societies from economic wellbeing. Publically-funded research is less likely to result in products in the sense of discrete things (although a lot of this does do just that in relation to technology transfer of publically-funded research outcomes to industry). But the science that underpins the development of vaccines or cancer therapies or antimicrobials can be considered to yield "products" that have enormously positive contribution to human wellbeing. I would consider that the scientific outcomes on CFC catalytic destruction of stratospheric ozone is a "product" in this sense, if rather less directly so, since it leads to understanding that informs productive economic and political decisions which enhance human wellbeing. Apollo is an interesting example. I certainly wouldn't say that the future realities of whether or not there might be commercial voyages to the moon, is any reason to question the science, for at least two reasons. First, it might be a reason for questioning the motivation underpinning the scientific effort. Much of this was political, and one could argue that the "product" (enormous prestige and enhancement of personal satisfaction in the American population during the 1960's) had huge value. More generally, the science stands on its own merits. One can't predict necessary outcomes of scientific research, but Apollo was an important step on the path for development of technologies in rocket science, computers, satellite remote sensing and various elements of materials science, and understanding of human physiology.Moderator Response: I think this conversation has gone far outside the topic of waste heat. Please, everybody get back on topic. -
Pete Ridley at 19:15 PM on 10 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Michael I don’t see that we are splitting hairs on the fundamental issue. This is whether or not emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere arising from our use of fossil fuels has made, is making or will make any significant contribution to past, present or future global climates (or weather events). Discussing whether or not it is correct to refer to opinions on this issue as hypothesis, theory or even law is pure semantics so let us stop wasting time on it. I’m not impressed by the numbers argument (scientific consensus) in supporting conjecture, only by what I recognise as hard evidence and am always suspicious of statistical manipulations and people with political motives. Your “list of predictions” includes such speculation and the first one, “sea level rise” is something that I have been involved in recently as I have been reviewing a draft book on the subject of sea level change being written by a couple who are not scientists. They, like you, obviously QUOTE: .. think these are "significant human-made global climate change" .. UNQUOTE but this does not make it a fact. May I suggest that you take a look at the 2009 article “SOUTH PACIFIC SEA LEVEL: A REASSESSMENT” at the New Zealand Climate Science Coallition site (Note 1). I particularly like that column “Years with zero trend” in Section 3 Conclusion. Doug, I have had quick look at the NAS report and so far have found nothing that I haven’t seen before, either in AR4 or the numerous papers and articles that I have read during the past 3 years. I may be able to make time for a further read but looking at some of the over 200 references mentioned there to “uncertainties” and “estimates” about those horrendously complex global climate processes and drivers gives me a hint that I’ll be wasting valuable time. I was disappointed to see virtually nothing about assumptions made. NOTES: 1) see http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/spsl3.pdf Best regards, Pete Ridley -
michael sweet at 19:14 PM on 10 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Johnd: Around 1900 Arrhenius calculated a climate sensitivity (by hand) of 4.5 C/W2 without knowledge of the weather that you claim is required for that calculation. His number is still within the range of accepted values. The models of the 1970's and 1980's predicted, with skill, current warming, arctic amplification, sea ice loss, Arctic/Antarctic anamolies, etc. These models did not have the weather knowledge you claim is required. The forecast of weather, both short term of weeks and long term of a few months or years is simply different from the long term forecast of weather out decades. Weather is chaotic while climate is not. I was going to refer you to the "weather is not climate" page but I see you are a frequent visitor already. Perhaps it is worth another read. -
RSVP at 19:06 PM on 10 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Chris Similarly, with global warming, whether it is caused by men, women or nature, there will be no way to proove it, even if people take action and a detected warming trend goes away. I have tried here to help, but cannot afford to spend time writing things that get deleted. So this is my very last post. I salute you and wish you all the best. -
RSVP at 18:47 PM on 10 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Chris "I'd say they're knowledge an impulse to understand difficult phenomena and to apply this knowledge and understanding productively. " The application of science has its impact on products that in the end must work. In many cases, customer satisfaction is a reliable indicator that proves the science out. Global warming, the size of the ozone layer hole, whether they went to the Moon or not,... these are not "products" passing the scrutiny of society at large. It is applied science yes, but not the same. Going to the Moon could be a product, and the day it is, very little skepticism on this issue will remain. You could still however question whether Apollo was for real, but how relevant will it be? On the other hand, the more time that goes by and there is no commercial voyage to the moon, the more reason to question the science. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:18 PM on 10 August 2010Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
Lewis, I can't reliably answer your questions but am inclined to believe the authors are speaking of reactive, interventionist techniques, possibly leading to failure to effectively deal with what spawns the intervention. One of the authors (Morris Judd) has a blog post mentioning the publication of the paper, Geoengineering Article, and seems responsive to folks stopping by with comments. For my part, if we can't avoid putting things in the atmosphere it seems to me most conservative to focus on directly removing what we've added, not exactly geoengineering in my book so much as tidying up as we go along. Which of course begs the question, how may we avoid adding what we must remove? If it's cheaper not to add at all that's better than going full circle. -
Rob Painting at 17:13 PM on 10 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Doug @ 108 - great graphic over at Jeff Masters' blog, very interesting to see how it compared with the 2003 European heat wave. I have one eyebrow raised. -
LewisC at 16:44 PM on 10 August 2010Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
Doug - thanks for the synopsis above - sadly the text is "currently unavailable" so I'm hoping you can clarify some points. As one who'd still be opposing Geo-E if there were any credible argument that excess airborne GHG stocks could be removed by natural sinks before the feedbacks gain enough momentum to run amok, my interest is in effective sustainable Geo-E techniques. The meaning of "antecedent criterion" is unclear - does it refer to "a return to conditions prior to the problem" ? Or perhaps to "problem being insoluble without intervention" ? The "future state constraint" appears to generalize an assumption that all Geo-E options generate permanent change from the original condition. True in the sense that you can't step in the same river twice; untrue in that a gigahectare of forest carbon sink would both retore pre-industrial planetary tree cover and would help cleanse the atmosphere. Also untrue for albido restoration via 'cloud brightening,' where miniscule sea-salt particles, lofted in minute seawater droplets, would reliably be rained out within a few days, and would be generated to do so over the oceans. So is the paper generalizing unjustifyably, or is it just that the synopsis not able to express a more nuanced argument ? If the latter is the case, could you describe it ? Regards, Lewis -
macoles at 16:31 PM on 10 August 2010Why I care about climate change
...Indeed its fair to say that today's establishment is ruled by the all powerful economic "realists". Once again science will triumph over the establishment's beliefs, but whereas it didn't happen within Galileo's lifetime, hopefully the establishment will see the error of its ways sooner than later. -
schulwitz at 16:13 PM on 10 August 2010Pluto is warming
Two questions: 1. Where are the scientific citations for "What the science says..." section? 2. The following statement has major logical flaws: "Any Plutonian warming cannot be caused by solar variations as the sun has showed little to no long term trend over the past 50 years and sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth." First off, why is it necessary for the sun to undergo long term variations over several decades for solar variations to affect Pluto? That is, why are short term variations completely irrelevant? For an extreme example, let's say the temperature of the sun doubled overnight and stayed that way for a year, only to fall back down to normal the next year. Does anyone seriously believe that such an extreme (but temporary) solar temperature jump wouldn't affect Pluto's temperature? Secondly why does the fact that the sunlight is 900 times weaker on Pluto necessitate that Pluto is not warming due to solar variations? Presumably the fact that Pluto is 500 times smaller in mass than the Earth with essentially no atmosphere plays a role, no? -
macoles at 14:59 PM on 10 August 2010Why I care about climate change
gallopingcamel @ 122 You fail to see the irony of your last post. Back in the day of Pope Urban VIII the establishment was based on theology. Galileo's theory of heliocentrism was based on science and the empirical observations that he could make. Who ended up being right? Galileo with his damnable science... -
garythompson at 14:52 PM on 10 August 2010Remember, we’re only human
a most excellent post! the most insightful sentence is "What is needed is a radical change in how we see ourselves and our place on this planet." in my opinion, Cosmology should be a required course in high school and college. Not just evolution that has happened on earth with regard to our life forms but stellar evolution. the fact that the elements that make up life on earth were formed in stars billions of years ago is truly a tremendous revelation. if we all come to the realization that life on this planet is so rare and it took close to 15 billion years to get here causes one to pause. although i don't believe it, we might be the first fruits of that evolution and could be the only advanced civilization in the galaxy or universe. upon coming to that realization how frivalous are wars and religious/political squabbles? are we so ignorant and arrogant to destroy ourselves and snuff out the only life in the universe? sometimes i think it might be in our best interest to find life on another planet so that we put our existence in the proper perspective. and i agree with the first post by BP and all my beliefs in christianity are not nullified with my understanding of stellar evolution and the observations of our universe. the incredibly precise constants that are required to make life as we know it couldn't have happened by chance. the more i learn about the cosmos the more i realize that there must have been intelligent design and this cries out for a creator. i hope that our struggles now are just a turning point for our planet and only through education can we push through this to a new level of enlightenment and purpose. AGW is just one of the issues we are wrestling with and the good news is the cosmos has a funny way of exerting its influence no matter what we may 'beleive'. our only hope is to raise an educated public to discern which issues to focus on and which ones are real. -
gallopingcamel at 14:36 PM on 10 August 2010Why I care about climate change
JMurphy (#121). Great work! You have listed the "learned fools" who know what they need to say to keep the gravy train rolling. All the experts in the establishment supported Urban VIII but history has forgotten who them. -
johnrabbit at 14:34 PM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Suppose you go to the Star City casino on Friday night and place a bet at roulette. I just fixed another point, now people in Sydney will know what you are talking about! -
johnrabbit at 14:31 PM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Who will win the NRL Grand Final in September? I have just fixed up your example for you. -
muoncounter at 14:29 PM on 10 August 2010On Consensus
#38: "The increase in the amount of new CO2 in the atmosphere each year is only about 45% of anthropogenic emissions (this is known as the "airborne fraction"). ... Ferdinand Engelbeen has an excellent webpage on this topic" My congratulations to Engelbeen for a strong bit of work. I've been playing with a slightly different way of showing this strong connection between atmospheric CO2 increase and CO2 emissions. The US EIA has a wealth of data on CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by fuel type, by country, etc. These data can be turned into "annual world emissions of CO2 in Gtons". From MLO monthly CO2 concentrations, compute the annual high (Mar-Apr-May) and annual low (Sep-Oct-Nov) for each year. Form a delta CO2 (in ppm/yr) from these seasonal extrema; plot together with the world emissions:
The right hand scale is emissions in Gtons; the left hand scale is ppm CO2/yr. A smoothed curve of the composite of the spring and fall extrema is shown; with the exception of the big dip in 1991, this graph is an extraordinary match to the emissions curve.
What caused that drop in the rate of CO2 increase? Robock 2003 and others have established that the violent eruption of Mt. Pinatubo led to a short term cooling and diffusion of sunlight which in turn led to a profound increase in plant growth over the following few years. More plant growth, more CO2 taken out of the atmosphere. Note however, that the annual change in atmospheric CO2, even at the bottom of the dip, is still positive. Note also that the rate of CO2 increase quickly recovers its upward trend; as CO2 emissions continue to increase, we should be seeing 2.25-2.5 ppm/yr fairly soon.
-
muoncounter at 12:59 PM on 10 August 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#102: the stomata argument started wayyy back at #21. The geocraft website left out some critical bits from its source material (notably one of the Kouwenberg papers). -
muoncounter at 12:49 PM on 10 August 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
Well before a disastrous 'upper limit' is reached, stress fractures occur: Search some variation of 'high electricity demand blackouts' in Google News and you find US electricity blackouts skyrocketing A hot month and a record power demand IEC, private producers pull out stops to avoid blackouts Electricity consumption reaching record highs Saudi Arabia needs $80B to spend on power by 2018 and so on. There was a popular saying in the late 70s-early 80s US oil patch: Let the bas_ards freeze in the dark (referring to folks in the northern US who complained about the high price of heating oil during those cold, cold winters). The times, they are a-changin'! -
adelady at 12:22 PM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Hang on nhthinker. This is about a 3 minute spot on a radio station. A good opportunity to get thoughts in order and presented for people who don't normally consider scientific issues. A shopping list of thesis proposals is not what's required. -
muoncounter at 12:20 PM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
#36: "Impact of 2 to 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2 is generally accepted. So is it really 2, 3 or 4.5 C?" You're missing the point. The exact temperature change doesn't matter; the fact that temperature is increasing does. Or to use the analogy here, does it matter all that much whether you hit the brick wall at 70, 80 or 90 kph? -
Doug Bostrom at 12:20 PM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Shorter version of nhthinker's post: "Don't raise my taxes." -
Doug Bostrom at 12:16 PM on 10 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Bat, could you sort me out re your concept of map versus terrain? Earlier, if I understood you correctly, you remarked that the notion of energy being emitted by a magnetron and then being reabsorbed by the same magnetron is "gibberish" and cannot be supported by any experimental evidence. Yet we are confronted with the phenomenon of magnetrons prematurely failing when their RF emissions are not absorbed and converted to heat by something other than the magnetron that is also sympathetic to the magnetron operating frequency, w/the net effect of overheating the magnetron filament and thus prematurely shortening its normal useful lifespan as a thermionic emission source. If the same magnetron RF emissions are allowed to disperse in free space we do not see the phenomenon of shortened filament life we see in the case of their being confined to a fairly efficient reflective cavity having no exit but the magnetron waveguide itself. This result can reliably be reproduced in the case of having no observers. I think I understand something of what you're driving at w/regard to quantum mechanics yet here on the scale where we live we must explain failed magnetrons. What's the deal w/maps and terrain? How is it relevant to our scale? -
nhthinker at 11:56 AM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Uncertainty: Impact of 2 to 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2 is generally accepted. So is it really 2, 3 or 4.5 C? Our knowledge needed to tighten up this very wide range of estimates has not seriously improved since the first projections in the mid 70s. So much for certainty. And so much for the value of computer models to tighten up that estimate. How is the formation of high and low level clouds impacted by doubling of CO2 or a 2 C rise in temperature? (we don't know). How certain are we that ice core proxies are only inaccurate for the last 100 years and were never inaccurate before? (we don't know). What will be the response of deep water - (the real driver of long term climate trends be) to a 2 degree rise in surface temperatures? (we don't know). What will the solar activity be in the next hundred years? (we don't know). What will the volcanic activity be in the next 100 years? (we don't know). What will be the asteroid activity of the next hundred years? (we don't know). Who predicted the depth of the recent/current solar minima? (no one). Realistically, the global tax thing is doomed unless you expect to go to war with developing nations over it. When will be the creation a small low power source to replace 0.25 to 10,000 hp engines AND be lower cost than an internal combustion engine and burning carbon? In the next 50 years, how much improved will our scientific knowledge of CO2 be if CO2 continues to rise as opposed to stagnating? Fifty years from now, how much improved will our ability to create a create stationary and portable power sources that cost less than burning carbon from coal or oil or wood? How certain are we that the Earth would now be in the midst of an ice age were it not for the impact of humans? (we don't know) If you, by definition assume that every else that can impact climate averages out, we still are at 2 to 4.5 C. But it is only fools that ignore the uncertainty in their assumptions. So much for certainty. -
Bern at 11:27 AM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
MattJ: Given the broadcast is going to be on RTR-FM, which is "a community radio station based in Perth, the capital city of Western Australia", then the references to Burswood Casino (in Perth) and AFL are probably much more appropriate than Monte Carlo & the World Cup. It could easily be modified for an international audience along the lines you suggest, though. -
muoncounter at 11:14 AM on 10 August 2010The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Nice interview with Dr. James Zwally on MSNBC's Countdown tonight. "Ice chunks 4x the size of Manhattan don't break off every day", etc. Video of the interview may be available here later tonight or tomorrow. -
Bern at 10:30 AM on 10 August 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
This story about the current heat wave & forest fires in Russia perhaps gives an example of what a significant increase in global temperatures would bring. Long before we got to the point where areas became uninhabitable, we'd see these sorts of results in heatwaves become more and more frequent. The current problems in & around Moscow are likely due to the smog more than just the heat, but increasing temperatures brings an increasing risk of forest fires, too (and peat bog fires? That's a lot of carbon being released that was tied up for a few thousand years...) -
adelady at 10:19 AM on 10 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
JohnD "It is not enough to just focus on those warming processes that work to retain heat energy, those cooling processes that disperse and remove accumulated heat must also be quantified." Nothing 'removes' accumulated heat from the system except radiative transfer out to space I would have thought. The energy within the system concentrates in different places at different times. But the redistribution of heat between various parts of the land, ocean and atmosphere is exactly that. Redistribution. The more energetic the system, the more energetic the redistribution. Heat is only 'removed' from the system at large at the top of the atmosphere. The fact that the atmosphere and oceans within the system are over-excited and rocking and rolling all over the surface doesn't matter. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:57 AM on 10 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
JohnD, clouds introduce uncertainty to GCMs in terms of radiative effects, not atmospheric heat transport. GCM functionality w/regard to redistribution of atmospheric heat appears quite good, not particularly controversial. -
johnd at 09:10 AM on 10 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
michael sweet at 10:22 AM, whilst it is a common cliche that climate is not weather, it is impossible to quantify climate without first understanding, and then quantifying the existing pattern of all the weather processes. Thus the GCM's that do understand, combine and quantify all weather processes provide the basis from which climate models are then able to articulate how the weather will (or should have) manifest(ed) itself at any point in time, both looking forward, and back. The main focus of the AGW theory is the role IR plays in the retention of heat energy. However IR only plays a small role in the movement of heat energy, about 25%(?), convection and conduction move and disperse the vast majority of heat energy, and of course these are weather processes, with clouds being an integral and dominating part of those processes. This then leads straight back to the inability of climate models in being able to successfully and adequately quantify such a dominating process. It is not enough to just focus on those warming processes that work to retain heat energy, those cooling processes that disperse and remove accumulated heat must also be quantified. Whilst the forecast of the next El-Nino/ La-Nina event may fall under the realm of weather forecasts, it is the frequency of such events and how they alternate that is relevant to the climate. A quick glance at the Quinn reconstruction of past El-Nino events over the last 500 years show clearly that such events are not regularly spaced but go through periods where they are more frequent and occur one upon another, and then times when they were infrequent. Given it is acknowledged that they are a result of redistributing heat energy then the obvious question is what caused such irregular patterns, patterns that seem to indicate as much, if not more regular occurrences in the past than at present. As an example, the extended drought that was responsible for the American dust bowl era, should it be weather forecasting, or climate forecasting, that can be used to forecast when such conditions might return? It is thought that another such pattern may be in the process of forming now. Which branch of the science does the responsibility for making predictions that may follow such longer term patterns, weather or climate modeling? -
chris at 08:36 AM on 10 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
batsvensson at 19:25 PM on 9 August, 2010 RSVP Category errors abounding here unfortunately. RSVP's sealed mirrored box with a lamp (an old chestnut that has sadly disappeared from the thread into the aether!) doesn't have the effect he supposes radiative theory should impose since in reality mirrors are only mostly reflective and in fact absorb a bit of energy at each of the millions of "bounces" of photons per second - if the box were to be opened, the opener might find it to have warmed a tiny amount; there certainly wouldn't be the expectation of a burst of photons of visible frequencies/energies/wavelengths. False premises don't advance arguments productively. Likewise bat's apparent negation of the possibility of knowledge of events involving electromagnetic radiation due to the "unknowability" inherent in quantum mechanics. We certainly don't know what a photon looks or smells like, or even whether one might have blue or brown eyes. However we have very functional models of photons (and electrons and atoms) and these manifest as macroscopic properties (absorption, emission, energy transfer, diffraction, excitation, relaxation and so on) that are extremely knowable. It is the macroscopic knowable elements of the electromagnetic spectrum that are of interest when we discuss rather basic (and also well understood) elements of radiative transfer in relation to the greenhouse effect. That's the bottom line, although one could develop this further. However it seems to me a very elemental indication of the knowability of macroscopic manifestations of microscopic quantum properties, that one can take very high energy photons (of X-ray energies; are these little chaps particles or waves or what??), blast them at crystallised proteins where they are diffracted by electrons (and the location of these chaps themselves can only be defined in probabilistic terms), to yield 3 dimensional atomic resolution structures that are sufficiently accurate that molecules can be designed by modelling, that bind to these proteins....and which themselves (the molecules) can be used to halt the progression of AIDS in fortunate recipients [*]. Clearly we know rather a lot about these supposedly unknowable manifestations of the EM radiation. What are the essential inputs to these advances? I'd say they're knowledge an impulse to understand difficult phenomena and to apply this knowledge and understanding productively. Even though we might not know whether a photon brushes it's teeth before going to bed at night, we can construct wonderfully effective models of its properties that have great explanatory power. [*] Of course if one was unfortunate enough to live in a country at a time when the scientific knowledge of HIV and AIDS was systematically misrepresented (e.g. South Africa under Mbeki), then the astonishing advances in antiretroviral therapies might have been of sadly little personal import. The misrepresentation of scientific knowledge tends to have victims, and one wonders at the impulse of those that go out of their way to do this, even at the lesser level... -
Doug Bostrom at 07:59 AM on 10 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
I have searched through all of my posts to this blog and can find nowhere that I have referred to AGW as a hypothesis. Pete, I think we're working through the hypothesis issue at your suggestion, or that is to say because of what implicitly appears to be a misunderstanding on your part judging by your own words. In your own words (many times): The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis It's not surprising some folks believe you're assigning AGW to the status of "hypothesis." On the other hand, the NAS says: Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. Comparing your words to the NAS it's reasonable to form the impression your assessment is at variance w/the scientific community. Now I suspect you're going to mention "significant" as the issue in play here. I suggest you turn to Part II of the NAS report and arm yourself with information before relying on significance of human contributions to climate change as a reason to dismiss concern over this issue. Overall Part II is an excellent summary of our understanding of this topic while beginning at page 158 you can read about the significance of human impacts on climate behavior. Be sure also to see figure 6.4.
Prev 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 Next
