Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 Next
Comments 118101 to 118150:
-
Ned at 21:05 PM on 6 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
chriscanaris writes: In fact, I think rightly or wrongly GC interpreted the Copenhagen Diagnosis as predicting 6 degrees rise this century. I confess that was my own impression from a quick perusal of the graph. Perhaps GC could have put his point less provocatively. Perhaps that is not what the graph really says - I'm happy to stand corrected. Well, if that was the source of concern, then we can all celebrate, because it was all just a misunderstanding. Like the IPCC AR4, the Copenhagen Diagnosis presents a range of projected temperature trends through 2100. This is nicely explained in the CD report text -- here are the first two bullet points at the top of the section on "The Future": Global mean air-temperature is projected to warm 2C - 7C above pre-industrial by 2100. The wide range is mainly due to uncertainty in future emissions. There is a very high probability of the warming exceeding 2C unless global emissions peak and start to decline rapidly by 2020. Here's the actual figure in question. Note the range of different projections on the right side (colored lines):
-
chris1204 at 20:39 PM on 6 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
gallopingcamel@55 'as usual my comments were deleted' Actually, the deletion of comments was very unusual. Even so, it's John's blog and we are his guests. Still, I felt it was a pity your comment got deleted, as I think did some others. Doug @ 53 point out 'Those disagreeing with [the consensus] must produce a rebuttal that not only addresses the present case but comports with a plethora of long-agreed findings.' I think Doug is setting the bar too high. Sometimes the 'present case' is cause to look again at 'long-agreed' findings. Moreover, I have more than once trawled through the literature in my area looking at the original papers cited as the basis for 'consensus' only to find that their conclusions do not follow from the original data. With respect to Ned @ 18, 'uncertainty in areas X, Y, and Z' may be 'a reason to throw out certainty in areas A, B, and C.' We don't throw out the laws of physics and chemistry. However, the interplay of the laws of physics and chemistry in highly complex systems leave may create far greater uncertainties. I'm sure this happens in the physical sciences often enough. It certainly is the case in medicine (not just psychiatry). Reflecting over the posts, I was intrigued to reread the other Chris' comment: 'Of course if one was to assert "The IPCC and Copenhagen Diagnosis says we're going to warm by 6 oC during this century." that would be alarmist. But they don't. These groups carefully spell out the range of likely temperature rises according to various emission scenarios and accommodating known uncertainties in the Earth surface temperature response to greenhouse forcing..... ' In fact, I think rightly or wrongly GC interpreted the Copenhagen Diagnosis as predicting 6 degrees rise this century. I confess that was my own impression from a quick perusal of the graph. Perhaps GC could have put his point less provocatively. Perhaps that is not what the graph really says - I'm happy to stand corrected. -
Ned at 20:39 PM on 6 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Fortunately, johnd, there are lots of different ways of measuring the mass balance of ice sheets. The article you linked to is non-technical, so it's not really clear whether the student in question is using radar altimetry or an airborne imaging synthetic aperture radar. But if you're just interested in the bottom line -- is Antarctica gaining or losing mass? -- this can be answered with much less than "60%" uncertainty, using gravity measurements from GRACE:
-
Ned at 20:10 PM on 6 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Marcus, along with the solar forcing, the early 20th century experienced a relative absence of volcanic forcing. John Cook has a very concise but clear explanation of this in the article A drop in volcanic activity caused warming. -
Ned at 20:01 PM on 6 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
gallopingcamel writes: It is my contention that forecasts of huge increases in global temperatures by 2100 look ridiculous rather than scary. I cited figure 21 in the "Copenhagen Diagnosis" as an example of this kind of "Extraordinary Claim" but it is by no means an isolated example This is the second time you've complained about that figure. Your first comment gave absolutely no reason at all, and the best explanation you can apparently provide now is that the figure's projections "look ridiculous rather than scary." But those projections are very clearly documented and justified, in short form by Chris above and in long form in the AR4 and elsewhere. I'm not sure why you ignore Chris's reply entirely and simply repeat your content-free complaint about this figure. Please stop playing games and wasting everyone's time, gallopingcamel. These kinds of actions really detract from the value of this site. -
johnd at 19:47 PM on 6 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Riccardo at 18:53 PM, you are right, the connection is not really to measuring sea ice extent, the subject of this thread, rather ice volume. With all the different ways various agencies report on trends in polar sea ice, coverage, extent, volume, it becomes confusing. I think ice volume would be the better indicator, however with a range of uncertainty of up to 60% in the various measurements needed to calculate actual volume, such huge uncertainty makes meaningful conclusions difficult to reach. With a new more accurate satellite recently launched, overcoming some of the other factors that contribute to the large uncertainty becomes even more essential for the full potential of the newer technology to be utilised. -
Riccardo at 18:53 PM on 6 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
johnd, honestly, I completely miss the connection you're trying to make. She is trying to find a way to accurately measure ice thickness from satellites (below 5 cm accuracy), which we know only recently has being tried (2003-04). Could you be more precise instead of genericaly say "useful data is still some way off"? Which data and why? -
tobyjoyce at 18:00 PM on 6 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Regarding Viscount Monckton's response, John would never have allowed such a self-serving, bad-tempered, ad-hominem assault to be posted on this blog. What does Professor Abraham think?Response: Stay tuned on that... -
johnd at 17:56 PM on 6 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
This article is relevant and interesting regarding the difficulties in being able to accurately measure polar ice. If the work is at the stage indicated by the research carried out by this student then reliable, thus useful data is still some way off. Measuring Antarctic snow levels http://www.theage.com.au/national/love-of-science-in-a-cold-climate-20100605-xly2.html -
gallopingcamel at 16:40 PM on 6 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Gentlemen, I was hoping to get some "Extraordinary Evidence" but as usual my comments were deleted after many of you had seen my post (#40, now replaced by chriscanaris). It is my contention that forecasts of huge increases in global temperatures by 2100 look ridiculous rather than scary. I cited figure 21 in the "Copenhagen Diagnosis" as an example of this kind of "Extraordinary Claim" but it is by no means an isolated example. The other "Hockey Sticks" in the Copenhagen Diagnosis such as figure 20 lack credibility but for quite different reasons. Berenyi Peter's critique (#47) covered some issues but he failed to mention that this chart is at odds with well documented work by historians (e.g the LIA and the MWP) and also the work of Hubert Lamb. While I am not a climate scientist, I have experience in electro-optics research and teaching so there is at least a chance that I may understand your scientific arguments. -
scaddenp at 14:30 PM on 6 June 2010Climate's changed before
Roger, I am somewhat disappointed by your post on your blog. I think it would be have better to continue the discussion here, clearing up misconceptions one at a time rather than posting a public essay with a number of incorrect assertions. Lets see if I tackle the main points. "it is difficult to understand why we did not experience excessive heat (such as enough to make the world uninhabitable) during say the Holocene Maximum where the climate was significantly warmer than today.". Well watch for new papers on this, but Holecene maximium was a/ similar to today and b/ at time when most of humanity was hunter-gatherers. The worry about AGW is mostly about RATE of change and also that the last time we had atmospheric Co2 at 450ppm was in the Pliocene when humanity didnt exist let alone have developed sophisticated civilizations based on settled agriculture. The question indeed is "is it the driver of current warming?". I dont think you have understood the intent nor the conclusions of Harries, Griggs, Philipona, etc. Firstly, lets deal with water vapor. Clouds<> water vapour. They occur when vapour condenses. The do however complicate the measurement that these papers are trying to make. The reason for lack interest is the water vapour that it is a function of temperature. It is always a feedback not a forcing. It doesnt matter what the forcing is, GHG, solar, aerosols - if the temperature changes then so does water vapour. see water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas for more detail. Since we are interested in the FORCING not the feedback, water is deliberately filtered out. Now here is the condensed basis of the those papers: Hypothesis - the forcing is GHG. Prediction: if the GHG is the forcing, then we can (for a cloudless sky anyway), predict the spectrum of detected radiation, filtered for water. (incoming for Philipona, Evans, Weng; outgoing for Harries, Grigg, Chen). This the "modelled result" in the papers, but please note this "model" is the GHG equations from fundimental physics, not the output of a GCM. Next you measure the actual radiation, filter for water vapour and compare results. Observation confirms prediction - there isnt a placebo effect, statistical uncertainty, and skeptics can examine the data themselves at leisure, no need for double-blind. The results can also determine how much energy is from the increased GHG - roughly 4x the radiation difference from solar minimum to solar maximum. The paper is written for scientists in the field. They dont need to discount the sun because the sun does not emit radiation in this part of the spectrum. (see for example of The sun and Max Planck agree. For more on why its not the sun see, Its the sun. Especially, explain upper stratospheric cooling - increased CO2 is the only theory going so far that can explain this. And by the way, we have no way of measuring what the outgoing radiation was in holocene. Despite being told explicitly earlier in the thread about accounting for past climate change, you state "There is no attempt in your analysis to identify and then rule out the reasons why the earth has warmed in previous epochs. (I agree that it would be a very tough project)". This is patently false. Why do you continue to assert this? You also assert without proof: " Neither have you have not taken into account, so far as I can see, of the negative logarithmic relationship that CO2 has with its greenhouse properties," Where on earth did you get this fanciful idea? Or perhaps it is better to ask why do you believe this? The mathematics used in the code is published and the GCM code is online. Given other comments on your site, I suspect you knowledge of climate "science" comes mostly from sites like WWUT and Climate audit, rather than from climate scientists (especially Realclimate.org). Instead of making assertions about what science does or does not say, how about actaully reading it IPCC WG1 ? Then we all start on the same page and have a sensible discussion but please respond in the appropriate sections of this blog. -
scaddenp at 13:10 PM on 6 June 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
Johnd - while you are right, the pot will not heat if input exceeds loss, but once an equilibrium has been established, then increasing the heat (in our gas add GHG) will definitely raise the temp. As to how we know that heat loss does not equal heat gain - well the TOA energy imbalance persists no matter how how complex the energy exchanges below it. -
Marcus at 12:37 PM on 6 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
What's interesting about this figure 20, though, is that-whilst the warming in the first half of the 20th century is fairly "uncontroversial" (due to the increasing solar activity at that time), the warming in the 2nd part of the 20th century (1950-1999) is controversial due to the lack of rising solar activity to explain it. Indeed, even though the 2nd part of the century was dominated by *falling* sunspot numbers (from 1979-2000). Temperatures rose slightly faster for the period of 1950-1999 than for the period of 1900-1949. This is something I think people need to keep in mind when looking at these kinds of graphs-is to remember what was going on in the *bigger picture* at the time! -
Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
johnd > Take away temperature statistics as a means of validation and what is left? Tom's post specifically pointed out that statistics are used to validate the output of the models. What he is saying is that the output itself is not generated from pure statistics, it comes from simulations of the underlying physics. As such, you cannot analyze the significance of the results using pure statistics (by which I do not mean comparison to observations, just statistical analysis all by itself). Some good discussion of the topic here. -
Marcus at 12:01 PM on 6 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
@ VM Pillet. Thank you for that clarification. It's always great when an expert in the field is able to come here & clarify the points that are being made on these blogs. It really is an honor to have you here! -
Marcus at 11:59 AM on 6 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
@ Doug in post#21. Methinks that Monckton's attack on Dr. Abraham proves the old adage that "it is best to remain silent, & be thought a fool, than to speak-& remove all doubt!" ;) If this is the best that he & his mates can summon up in their attack on the science of global warming, then they're on very shaky ground indeed! -
johnd at 10:02 AM on 6 June 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
Tom Dayton at 09:10 AM, re "Anthropogenic global warming predictions most certainly are not based only on statistics of temperature observations." Given most models can only be validated by backcasting, what else is there other than statistics of recently observed, but more so, reconstructed temperatures? Even though CO2 concentrations can be measured from ice cores, these still have to relate to reconstructed temperature statistics. Take away temperature statistics as a means of validation and what is left? -
johnd at 09:53 AM on 6 June 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
scaddenp at 08:57 AM, your example assumes that the heat input exceeds the heat loss, but as many campers will tell you, that is not always a given. Apart from math games having to be consistent with physics, they also have to consistent with the physical world. Would the pot theory hold if it became numerous pots of various sizes placed at random on individual burners? All connected to a single fuel source but each fuel line controlled by a thermostat that may be at times be in close proximity to the pot or could be remote, perhaps in closer proximity to a larger, or smaller pot. -
johnd at 09:37 AM on 6 June 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
Whilst weather is not climate is an oft repeated phrase, I'm not certain that we can dismiss it so readily. The bottom line is that whatever the global climate is today, or what it may be at any point in the future, it can only be quantified by the weather conditions that exist at that point. What is global climate? There is not such thing, we have a vast collection of geographical diverse areas all with a completely different range of conditions that are both related to, and independent of the adjoining regions. When we describe the climate for each region we are actually typifying the range of weather conditions that exist for that region. Does this make climate a proxy for the weather, or is the weather a proxy for the climate? If "climate change" occurs then the only way the changes can be expressed in how those changes are exhibited in the weather for each region. So the process is to firstly quantify the typical weather, then classify that as a certain climate, add in the climate change factor, then convert new climate to typical weather conditions. -
Tom Dayton at 09:10 AM on 6 June 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
DaveU wrote "The trend behavior...is unconvincing since a 130 year record is simply inadequate in the scheme of things. I could replicate this chart easily with a two function chaotic attractor." DaveU, you are leaving out the physical, causal mechanisms, and the empirical support for them. Anthropogenic global warming predictions most certainly are not based only on statistics of temperature observations. The theory and its predictions date back to the 19th century before there there even was a set of global temperature observations in which to look for patterns. The observations came later, supporting the predictions and the underlying physical theory. Both the initial simple models and the subsequent general circulation models (GCMs) are physical models, not statistical ones. Statistics are used to validate and improve the physical models. I suggest you get an overview from cce's The Global Warming Debate. With regard to chaos, see RealClimate's Chaos Theory and Global Warming, and Butterflies, Tornadoes, and Climate Modelling. -
scaddenp at 08:57 AM on 6 June 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
Dave, put a large pot on the stove and heat it from bottom. The surface temperatures and convection that result will be very complex - but the overall, over time, the pot heats up. Whatever games you play in maths have to be consistent with physics. Thingadonta - explain to me why if the forcing is solar, then why isnt the pattern of observations (esp. upper stratospheric cooling) consistent with solar? -
shawnhet at 08:05 AM on 6 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Ok, Ned. You did ask about what I was talking about though. I was simply responding to your query. Cheers, :) -
DaveU at 08:01 AM on 6 June 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
I concede that climate is not long term weather. However, I find it hard to believe that the forcing functions of climate are not non-linear feedback systems themselves. If they aren’t, they would be a rarity among naturally occurring phenomenon. I’ve seen temperature plots over millions of year in Jim Hansen’s book “Storms of My Grandchildren” and other sources that look very chaotic to me. The trend behavior shown in "Figure 5: GHCN & HADISST1 global temperature record" is unconvincing since a 130 year record is simply inadequate in the scheme of things. I could replicate this chart easily with a two function chaotic attractor. Trends often turn out to be oscillations on a different scale. Any practitioner of finance can attest to that. Chaotic behavior is independent of scale. Plots of stock prices taken every 5 minutes for a day, taken every hour for 12 days, taken every week for 2 years or taken every month for 8 years, each having roughly 100 data points, will all look similar. Could it be that the “leash”s pull on the climate is chaotic on a much large time scale. -
johnd at 07:44 AM on 6 June 2010Models are unreliable
Just adding to earlier posts, a new type of El-Nino has been identified in recent years and is being worked into the models used by the Japanese who work on the Sintex forecasts and research. I believe again it is these Japanese researchers who first identified it, and likely is contributing to the reliability of their forecasts. It is a modified form of the ENSO pattern and called ENSO Modoki or El Nino Modoki. The link below provides some information. The researchers believe that perhaps the conventional El-Nino is evolving into something different. However only time will tell whether this is something new evolving, or just part of an even bigger cycle where these changes may be periodic, and it is our understanding instead that is in a state of evolving. El Niño Modoki http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JC003798.shtml -
Ned at 05:16 AM on 6 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
shawnhet, there are many of us on this site who consider ourselves "environmentalists" and who would be delighted rather than disappointed at the prospect of some hypothetical "cost-free" solution to AGW. I would suggest that you'd be better off engaging the positions of people who are actually on this site and who can respond to your comments, rather than attacking some viewpoint that it's not clear anyone here actually holds. -
vmpillet at 05:03 AM on 6 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Just, for the record. My exact wording was this: "There is not such a formal position endorsed by the IAU. Let alone any claim from IAU that suggests that global warming (defined as the heating trend observed on Earth during the last mid 20th century) can be explained by solar variability." The definition in parenthesis is important for me. Valentín Martínez Pillet, IAU Div II (Sun and Heliosphere), President -
muoncounter at 04:33 AM on 6 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Ned, "I don't think it's worth giving people a hard time about" OK, you caught me on my high horse. Must have been the heat: 93F here. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:32 AM on 6 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Further to the discussion of discussion, may I recommend this piece just published in Science? Nominally a book review by philosopher Philp Kitcher but as with so many useful reviews, a helpful discussion in itself. Teaser: In one of the earliest and most eloquent pleas for open discussion and debate, John Milton wrote:And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.
Two centuries after Milton, in the same year in which Charles Darwin published the Origin, John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty (2) added further arguments for the free exchange of ideas, suggesting that such exchange is vital for intellectual and social health. Although both Milton and Mill stand behind our current acquiescence in the value of extensive free discussion, both of them knew that they were opposing ancient suspicions about the viability of democracy. The political theorists and philosophers of the Greco-Roman world viewed ordinary folk as vulnerable to deception and exploitation. Allowed to determine the direction of the state, the folk would be easily seduced into believing falsehoods aligned with the interests of charismatic leaders, so that the popular voice would enthusiastically clamor for disastrous policies. Better, then, to entrust the ship of state to wise navigators, whose wisdom embraced both depth of understanding and moral integrity. The Climate Change Debates
-
shawnhet at 03:31 AM on 6 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Doug, "I maintain that the market has been ineffective in tackling some problems, notably (and sorry to be so boringly repetitious on this) municipal sewage system. The market provides vital bits and pieces to be plugged into sewage treatment systems but there just does not seem to be sufficient profit in the actual collection and treatment process per se. Yet there's not doubt that creating a market for trading pollution credits can be a boon by the simple act of imposing a price on those pollutants." I agree that the market alone can't tackle every problem, however, I think that once we can get the market *to work on a problem* it is very good at finding efficient solutions to it. Further, to your municipal sewage example, I think it is worth pointing out that not all sewage treatment is based on the municipal system(septic tanks for one). It so happens that the municipal treatment system is, generally, a pretty economical/efficient one for most folks. This model will not work for CO2 though(CO2 goes up into the air, not down into the earth or water, for one. Ned, "I would be very surprised if there was any substantial number of people who would not be thrilled to have an inexpensive and effective way to "fix" AGW. Furthermore, inventing a hypothetical case and then making negative assumptions about how people would respond just doesn't seem like a useful way of promoting cooperation or understanding. In particular, your comment about "it would make their other goals more difficult to achieve" is a bit disconcerting to me. Perhaps this isn't what you meant, but I do read a lot on "contrarian" sites about how concern for AGW is really just a fig-leaf for people who want to impose a big-government agenda on the world. Strangely enough, despite some familiarity with climate change activists, I really don't see any evidence of that. I really think this is a case where people are ascribing dark motives to their opponents because if you find yourself opposed to someone it's more psychologically comforting to believe that they're trying to impose some nefarious agenda on the world than that they really do just think there's a global environmental crisis that needs to be solved. (My apologies if this is not what you mean, shawnhet, and I realize that this paragraph may be venturing into issues that are properly considered offtopic and inappropriate on this site)." http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/ Well, I don't think I'm imputing "dark" motives to environmentalists I'm talking about(and I don't know how large a segment of the population generally they might make up). My reading of their philosophy is essentially that they want to reduce the human "footprint" generally(where a climate activist wants to reduce the carbon footprint). In this context, it is not hard to see why an environmentalist would view commercial fusion as a bad thing. Fusion would allow humans to increase the size of their "footprint" at almost no cost. If you think that footprint, generally, is a bad thing, you would not want fusion. On its own, I don't this implies dark motives to environmentalists, they may well be right about wanting to limit all human manipulation of the environment(I don't share this view). In the interest of accuracy, though, I will say that I have met a few environmentalists that are pretty comfortable with the idea of forcing people to do what they think is right. I, personally, view *this* as a somewhat "dark" trait. "First, we don't yet have economically viable fusion, despite its being allegedly "just around the corner" for half a century or so. So people might be concerned that you're suggesting doing nothing about carbon emissions today based on the promise of a solution that might or might not arise at some point in the future." Yes, it is true that we don't have viable fusion now, and that the scientific consensus of fifty years ago(that we would have fusion by now) was wrong. That doesn't mean that put some money down to *research* it. As to your second point, what we should do now - my position is that currently we don't have the ability to solve the problem, but that there is every reason to believe that a solution is possible in the future. Most of the stuff we do right now is essentially wasted effort IMO. We spend a huge amount of effort trying(and failing) to use today's technology to fix tomorrow's problems. It would be much more efficient to try and develop new technology first and then implement it. Even assuming fusion turns out to be a no go, barely a week goes by without some progress on the solar front. Cheers, :) -
DrTom at 02:52 AM on 6 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
@Billwalker: The reply you posted from your correspondent is almost word-for-word to a reply I got from my friend who is is an MD and was an Oceanographer before that. I sent him a link to this and another blog. He replied: "Sinking Climate Change at townhall.com" So I deconstructed that for him and sent him a list of citations from every serious scientific body in the world. This is his reply: "A lot of effort here, and thanx for that. No disrespect, but I just don't have the energy to get into it with you on this one. From time to time if something crosses my path I'll forward to you, like the last one, not to irritate but because you may not have seem it. Sorry, but I've finished my own due dilligence on this." Is it something in the water? (Sorry.) @Doug: If the hyperlink is malformed, please delete the post and accept my apologies. a hui hou T -
Doug Bostrom at 02:40 AM on 6 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Ken L we can probably agree that folks making assertions of any kind may not absolutely require "extraordinary evidence" but they are still required to produce -some- evidence. In this particular case the amount and kind of evidence required to support a significant rebuttal of fundamental parts of how we presently understand our climate system to work could well be termed "extraordinary." There's an innate disparity between the position of people agreeing with the broad conclusions of such as the National Academy on this topic and those who believe those broad conclusions to be fundamentally unsound. For those concurring with the NAS, there's about 200 years of a continuous research progression leading to a broad array of findings and predictive capability including unfortunately the likely result that we're modifying the climate. Those disagreeing with that must produce a rebuttal that not only addresses the present case but comports with a plethora of long-agreed findings. Producing an effective rebuttal to what this vast cumulative research effort projects as part of our future is a very high bar to cross. Some attempts to cross this threshold may uncontroversially be judged as failures. As an example, pointing to a single graph in a paper and laughing at it without explaining why does not remotely approach the investment required to be useful. Is it censorship or suppression to dump such remarks that add simply nothing to productive discussion? I think not. -
Ned at 02:06 AM on 6 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
muoncounter, thanks for the comments about the PIPS model. However, I have to disagree about this: "I also stumbled across a very smug group of denialists actually placing bets on monthly sea ice extent. Digression: I happened to be watching images of brown pelicans getting much browner at the time and wondered whether these same folks would bet on bird deaths or when oil reaches Pensacola, etc." There are many others who like to bet (formally or informally) on sea ice and other aspects of climate -- e.g., the obvious non-"denialists" at Stoat. Betting on stuff that's emblematic of potentially serious climate change might seem a bit macabre but I don't think it's worth giving people a hard time about. -
DaveU at 02:02 AM on 6 June 2010The significance of the CO2 lag
The discussions of positive and negative feedback only discuss special cases of the process. Much has been written about non-linear feedback systems (undescriptively referred to as chaos theory) and, to my knowledge, no one has mentioned it yet on this topic. If the x-x^2 equation is used, the constant in front has an enormous impact on the behavior of the feedback. One can use the relationship x2 = A * (x1-x1^2) to see this point. If x1 is .5 and A is less than 2, a negative feedback is established, greater than 2 a positive feedback is established and both approach equilibrium. However, if A is set to 3.5 a stable, predictable oscillation will result. Things get interesting, and more real world, if A is set to 3.916. In this case, the time series oscillates totally unpredictably in a chaotic fashion, hence the name. Interestingly this particular pair of initial conditions and constant produces a “stable” zone lasting about nine periods. Other initial conditions than x1 =.5 produce different, but similar results. The point of all this is that it is impossible to model non-linear feedback systems in the chaotic region. Therefore it is very difficult to take any comfort in the validity of any of the climate models since both CO2 and temperature have fluctuated significantly in the past. I could be wrong, but I bet they are, or have been in chaotic regions of oscillations. Weather, climates, and financial markets are all examples of non-linear feedback systems. I once produced a model that predicted the mean and standard deviations of the S&P index for a 50 year period using only two overlapping chaotic attractors (forcing functions). The resulting time series was different, but visually, undistinguishable from the actual results. Most importantly it had NO predictive power!Moderator Response: Chaos is addressed by the post Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted. -
Ken Lambert at 01:57 AM on 6 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Chris #14, Ned, DougB and others Great discussion gentlemen. I agree that this blog is largely self-correcting and is a credit to John Cook in its current state of 'moderation'. I was commenting on the switch in the last two topics to discussion of what was *fair comment* and this looked like the thin end of the 'censorship' wedge to me; especially if 'skeptical' arguments required a higher standard of evidence than those of 'consensus' AGW. The wrong assumption here is that all 'concensus' AGW science is good science, and that all those who disagree or find fault are maybe not so good at science and need 'extradordinary' evidence to be credible (and published). For example, I have learned a lot reading BP's detailed contributions across many topics - and his clear headed application of the first law of thermodynamics to the confusing issues of OHC and temperature, satellite measurements etc is valuable indeed. Look at BP #47 above and then his comments in the 'Robust warming of the global upper ocean' and the 'Does ocean cooling prove global warming has ended' topics and find some good data and sound science and serious fundamental questions for the climate science as revealed in the papers discussed in those topics. John, your site is probably the most credible climate science site on the net and your moderation policy to date is one of its strenghts - don't fix what isn't broken. -
chris at 01:06 AM on 6 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Berényi Péter at 22:43 PM on 5 June, 2010 No I'm pretty sure gallopingcamel was referring to Figure 21 (which I meant to say in my post just above but just repeated camel's mistake!). That's the Figure that addresses the projections through the 21st century that camel was discussing. That's the Figure (and text) we should be discussing if we wish to address camels point as described here. You simply can't say anything about projected 21st century global warming from a figure describing Arctic paleo and 20th century temperature anomalies. As for your points re Figure 20 of the Cophenhagen report. Firstly, I agree with you that the presentation of this Figure is poor. However you're overdramatising its flaw by pretending that the error indicates that the Report is trying to "mix up fact and fiction" by extending to 2040. Here's what has likely happened: (i) The report wants to present a consistent graph style and in reproducing Kaufman et al (2009)'s data from Figure 3C of that paper (see link in Peter's post) they wish to remove the Overpeck et al data that slightly clutters the Figure. (ii) They put (as far as I can see) exactly the same data in the new Figure 20 of the report as Figure 3C of Kaufman et al (2009). This is the full proxy reconstruction (10 year averaged) referenced to the 1961-1990 Arctic summer temperature anomaly (blue) and the 1961-1990 referenced Hadcrut3 10 year averaged Arctic temperature through 2008 in red. (iii) For some reason they've messed up the overlay. The red plot should only extend to 2008 (or 2004 for a 10-year mean?) but as you say it seems to go to a later date. Part of the problem is the thickness of the line (15-20 years wide). But otherwise it seems to be the same data as presented in Kaufman's Figure 3c. It reaches a temperature anomaly of 0.8-0.85 oC just as in Kaufman's Figure. So nothing untoward I think; however not the finest piece of graph reproduction. Some of the relevance of rapid early 20th century warming is described here as described here. I can’t remember whether the deposition of sulphurous aerosols and black carbon in Greenland cores is consistent with a dominant contribution to early 20th century warming. Do you have the relevant cites? -
Doug Bostrom at 00:42 AM on 6 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Berényi there's a vast gulf between GC's style and yours. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, you invest time and effort in your remarks and claims, offer specific information you believe backs up your assertions. You provide us with food for thought. You also ask questions or make statements that do not always have patently obvious answers or rebuttals. This helps folks such as myself to test whether I'm in the realm of faith or reason. Your post elaborating on GC's empty comment serves as a good example of what I'm speaking of. In the case of GC, his remarks on this topic were confined to mockery, devoid of reason and not useful, whereas you took the time to make a detailed description of why you believe your assertion to be true. I think you're correct that threads tend to be self-correcting. However there's a certain threshold below which any utility is absent, leaving only noisy verbiage that must be filtered out for folks trying to improve themselves by reading or participating in discussion. There's no value in introducing errors of this kind requiring correction. -
muoncounter at 23:48 PM on 5 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Looking for information on the PIPS forecasting system, I found an interesting albeit somewhat dated review paper, which took issue with some aspects of PIPS: “it was found that PIPS correctly made 24-h forecasts of decreasing sea ice concentration 10%–15% of the time (it also correctly forecast increasing sea ice concentration an additional 10%–15% of the time). However, PIPS correctly forecast melt-out conditions <5% of the time.” Presumably later versions of PIPS addressed those concerns? I also stumbled across a very smug group of denialists actually placing bets on monthly sea ice extent. Digression: I happened to be watching images of brown pelicans getting much browner at the time and wondered whether these same folks would bet on bird deaths or when oil reaches Pensacola, etc. And what was the arbiter of who wins these ice bets? The JAXA data, referenced above. Their publicly available ice extent data goes all the way back to June, 2002. Here is a graph, comparing JAXA to the data I originally used from NSIDC, showing the two are in exceedingly good agreement. Those last two years sure do look like a significant uptick. However, when you look at even a slightly longer term, the uptick pales beside the downtrend. And the trend of Sept minima is still accelerating downwards. So while the denialists wager (and Rome burns, err - the ice melts), we fret over pixel-counting. Yes, data quality control is indeed of the utmost importance. But we can't lose track of the point, as someone asked a few days ago, of the discussion. Because that's how we lose the argument. -
chris1204 at 23:36 PM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
HumanityRules: I hope John reconsiders - I share your feelings about WUWT. -
Passing Wind at 23:05 PM on 5 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
chris at 20:01 PM on 5 June, 2010 I should also add that Huang et al paper is indeed 1997, although Monckton does cite it as 1998 (which is the point I was making above). The full citation is: Huang, S., H. N. Pollack, and P. Y. Shen (1997), Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world‐wide continental heat flow measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(15), 1947–1950, doi:10.1029/97GL01846. Chris, I didn't single out Huang, or any of the other references, Abraham did. He chose to debunk Monckton's claim by examining 4 of the 9 charts Monckton uses on that slide. My only interest was whether Abraham had provided evidence that Monckton misrepresented the data in his slide. Further, I only examined that proposition from Abraham's argument. I completely agree with you regarding what Monckton should have known about CURRENT literature regarding the MWP. This most likely means Monckton "cherry picked" his citations, but that was not the point Abraham was trying to debunk. -
Berényi Péter at 22:43 PM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
#40 gallopingcamel at 15:31 PM on 5 June, 2010 One of the many gems is Figure 20 which predicts temperature increases ranging from 2.5 to 7 Kelvin by the year 2100 Camel, there are problems with Fig. 20 (and the related text) in The Copenhagen Diagnosis indeed, but your interpretation is not among them.
(click on image for enlarged version)
The Report (pp. 44) gives Kaufman 2009 as reference.
Science 4 September 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5945, pp. 1236 - 1239
DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983
Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
by Kaufman & al.
However, Fig. 20 is not the original one from this paper, but, according to the caption is "modified by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research".
The original (except some explanation in indigo) looks like this:
From this figure it is obvious that according to Kaufman 2009 the step-like temperature increase occurred in the first half of the 20th century when CO2 emissions were an order of magnitude lower than they are today. Therefore it does not support the claims expressed in the Copenhagen Diagnosis, quite the opposite (I've told you it was soot). But the text of the Report fails to mention this particular detail.
On top of that there is the modification done by UCAR (the red patch in Fig. 20). You can have a closer look at it.
As it extends the graph to about 2040, it can hardly be anything else but an attempt to mix up fact and fiction. This small detail also goes unnoticed in the text and the modification is not supported by any peer reviewed reference either. What can I say? One simply never ever does such a thing in a scientific report.
One more thing (and here we return to Camel's claim). The last segment of the red line looks really steep and frightening, but actually it has a slope of about 2°C/century. Taking into account Arctic amplification, (even if it were real) it would suggest a 1°C/century global average temperature rise, lower than the low end of IPCC projections. Needless to say, the Report also fails to elaborate on this question.
So no, Camel, Fig. 20 of the Copenhagen Diagnosis bogus it may be, definitely does not "predict temperature increases ranging from 2.5 to 7 Kelvin by the year 2100"
Don't do that please. The discussion here, taken as a whole, is self-correcting. By deleting posts simply because they don't suit your personal taste, grave obstacles are raised against this process.Moderator Response (to gallopingcamel #40) Would you prefer to demonstrate your case or would you instead prefer to have your opinion deleted without trace? If you can demonstrate your case, please do so in a constructive way. In either event this particular post will be deleted; this is simply a courtesy explanation of why that will happen and how you can avoid such wasted effort in the future. -
Passing Wind at 22:26 PM on 5 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
chris at 20:01 PM on 5 June, 2010 Monckton's slide as shown by Abrahams cites Huang et al (1998), not 1997 as you suggest. See Abraham's slide 25. In that paper, Huang et al state, "Temperatures were also warmer than present 500–1,000 years ago, but then cooled to a minimum some 0.2–0.7 K below present about 200 years ago." If this comment, which I plucked from the abstract, is not supported in that paper, I'd like to know as I only have access to the abstract. -
Ned at 21:49 PM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
HR, please review the previous comments on this thread. Your mistaken assumptions have been responded to clearly. There is such a thing as common sense, and we can informally apply it to assess whether a given claim is moderate and reasonable or extreme and improbable, in light of current scientific understanding. Consider the example I used above. Suppose someone were to come here and suggest that we need to cut CO2 emissions now because "doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus, where temperatures rise high enough to boil away the oceans". Most people, I think, would recognize that as a rather extreme claim. There is no known physical process operating today that could amplify the warming from 2XCO2 that way. No model or paleoclimate study suggests such a thing is possible. So if I were to make that claim, you really ought to expect me to provide some non-trivial reasoning or justification. Does this expectation really seem unreasonable to you? Frankly, I would be insulted at the idea that my ideas are so poorly grounded that I need to be exempted from providing any evidence for them. -
Passing Wind at 21:29 PM on 5 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
I am not surprised to see how much interest Abraham is receiving within the blogosphere since his attempted take down of Lord Monckton's St Paul presentation. Monckton is well know for his anti-AGW position as well as his eloquent speaking style. Some have claimed Monckton is loose with facts and high on rhetoric. A thorough fact-check seemed overdue. Abraham starts off by explaining why he feels qualified to bring Monckton down, then compares Monckton's, Al Gore's and the IPCC's sea level claims, and then polar bears. Hardly central issues until we get to slide 24 - The MWP. Finally, some meat. Abraham makes the following statement. "If 700 scientists say the medieval warm period was warmer than it is today, why are we concerned? That's a legitimate [garbled] If, if it was warmer than it is today then maybe we are in a natural warming period." Abraham's slides from 25 to 32 attempt to debunk Monckton's claim that 700 scientists believed the MWP to be warmer than today. He attempts to debunk this by looking at some of Monckton's citations, Esper and Schweingruber (2004) , Keigwin (1996), Noon et al (2003), and Huang et al (1998) by reading some of the papers and asking the authors. "Let's do something crazy, let's either read the actual papers or ask the authors..." How well did he do? Here are some of my observations: 1. Abraham makes no mention of actually reading Esper and Schweingruber (2004). Perhaps he did, but fails to mention it. Abraham emails Schweingruber "to ask whether Monckton correctly interpreted his findings". Schweingruber tells him he's retired, so he refereed [sic] him to his mate Frank instead. Frank claims "temperatures now, are indeed much warmer than the Medieval period." This may be the case, but it clearly isn't evidence that Monckton misrepresented Esper and Schweingruber. Why didn't Schweingruber say Monckton was wrong himself? A quick look at the paper in question clearly shows a MWP (figure 10) that was much warmer than it is today. 2. Abraham emails Keigan and once again makes no mention to having read the paper in question. Keigan does not claim Monckton is misrepresenting his research or that the graph Monckton shows is incorrect. Keigan asks for a free trip so he can come down and explain himself, "if someone was willing to send me down to St. Thomas I would be delighted to explain in person", and he also agrees with Monckton regarding constructing nuclear power stations. The abstract to Keigan et al (1996), states "Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was ~1°C cooler than today ~400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and ~1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).". This seems to support the existence of the MWP. 3. Abraham then shows the cover of Noon et al (2003) but rather than comment on the contents, he looks up the website of Viv Jones, one of the Noon et al (2003) authors instead. There he finds the following statement, "The Arctic region is currently undergoing rapid climate warming" and accordingly uses this as evidence that Monckton cited Noon et al (2003) inappropriately. 4. Finally, Abraham attempts to show Monckton's use of Huang et al (1998) graph is wrong, not by reference to that paper, but to a paper by Huang in 2008. Never mind that in the paper in question, Huang et al stated "Temperatures were also warmer than present 500–1,000 years ago, but then cooled to a minimum some 0.2–0.7 K below present about 200 years ago." The use of Huang by Monckton seems rather selective, especially given Huang's later work no longer supports a warmer MWP, but does not claim the MWP did not exist. All in all, Abraham has not provided any reason not to accept Monckton's evidence for a MWP, with perhaps the minor point that Huang has partially recanted his earlier claim. However, since Monckton was, in part, suggesting the IPCC had disappeared the MWP, but does not explicitly state this, I'll call this small point a draw. Perhaps Abraham would have been better served had he approached debunking these points by showing that the authors to the cited papers had since changed their mind and that Monckton should have been aware of this. Alas, this is not the direction he chose, even though a teenie weenie part of this argument does leak out, even though never explicitly stated. Overall, I find that Abraham has very much failed to disprove Monckton in the most important question. I have no idea if he managed any better in other parts as I did not examine the rest as closely (yet). Sorry for the longish post. Hopefully it was not too boring. I look forward to any comments or corrections. -
HumanityRules at 21:26 PM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
damn looks like this blog is going to go the same way as WUWT and RealClimate. A borefest of mutual backslapping. Can somebody point me to the peer-reviewed paper that delineates what idea is acceptable and what is extraordinary? -
chris1204 at 20:54 PM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Thank you Ned. That's very kind of you. I guess I prefer chriscanaris. Commenting in the blogosphere under your real name with no semblance of disguise can overamplify your Internet footprint. I did think your comment @ 18 about the things we do know to be very valid. In dealing with an area like AWG, we have to do the best we can with what information we possess. Part of the problem in an area like AWG is that we are dealing with an issue on a global scale. Today's knowledge explosion however forces most of us to be 'specialists' - the polymaths of yesteryear are rare indeed. A specialist is sometimes described as one 'who knows more and more about less and less.' Hence, attempts at consensus in a field often involve simplifications which often irritate the specialist. I found your comments on economic alarmism @ 24 very relevant - economists of necessity simplify very complex systems sometimes with major unintended consequences. Yet policy makers do have to make decisions balancing out popular perceptions, pressures from special interest groups, etc (ie getting votes) whilst taking advice from economists. In the political sphere, this can translate into an argument that is 'clearer than truth.' I see parallels between the AWG debates and competing economic paradigms. -
Ned at 20:43 PM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Chris, thank you for that very clear and reasonable explanation of 21st century temperature projections. -
Ned at 20:40 PM on 5 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
shawnhet writes: Well, maybe it's simply the folks that I talk to, but I know a fair number of people who if you had a cost-free fix to AGW(say viable fusion) would be disappointed, because it would make it more difficult to make the sorts of changes they are in favor of. and then elaborates: Well, I never said that they would *reject* it, I said that they would be disappointed by it because it would make their other goals more difficult to achieve. I don't personally think that this is all that unusual a position. You will often find members of "green" parties who oppose research into fusion, even though it is comparatively inexpensive. I would be very surprised if there was any substantial number of people who would not be thrilled to have an inexpensive and effective way to "fix" AGW. Furthermore, inventing a hypothetical case and then making negative assumptions about how people would respond just doesn't seem like a useful way of promoting cooperation or understanding. In particular, your comment about "it would make their other goals more difficult to achieve" is a bit disconcerting to me. Perhaps this isn't what you meant, but I do read a lot on "contrarian" sites about how concern for AGW is really just a fig-leaf for people who want to impose a big-government agenda on the world. Strangely enough, despite some familiarity with climate change activists, I really don't see any evidence of that. I really think this is a case where people are ascribing dark motives to their opponents because if you find yourself opposed to someone it's more psychologically comforting to believe that they're trying to impose some nefarious agenda on the world than that they really do just think there's a global environmental crisis that needs to be solved. (My apologies if this is not what you mean, shawnhet, and I realize that this paragraph may be venturing into issues that are properly considered offtopic and inappropriate on this site). With regard specifically to fusion, there are a number of reasons why people you've talked to might be less than enthusiastic. First, we don't yet have economically viable fusion, despite its being allegedly "just around the corner" for half a century or so. So people might be concerned that you're suggesting doing nothing about carbon emissions today based on the promise of a solution that might or might not arise at some point in the future. Second, the (fission-based) nuclear industry has historically required large government subsidies, and in the US there is certainly a perception that other forms of government support are necessary as well (e.g., limits to legal liability in the case of an accident). Given that history, one can understand why people might be skeptical of the nuclear industry as an "inexpensive" solution to our energy problems. I personally think that it has to be part of the solution, but let's be realistic about the costs involved. My preference really would be for a market-based solution. Ideally we'd have a high price for carbon, no government subsidies for any particular alternative solution (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear....), no other artificial supports (like legal immunity) and then the market can work out what the most effective mix of energy sources is. If cheap and safe fusion becomes viable, great. If it doesn't, there are other options. -
chris at 20:24 PM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
gallopingcamel at 15:31 PM on 5 June, 2010 Yes, it's Figure 20. And of course it has to be interpreted correctly, so we should look at the various projections (not "predictions") and assess these in relation to the scenarios investigated. It also helps to look at the supporting text. This indicates that the 21st century temperature rise is projected to be in the range 2-7 oC of warming above the 1800-1990 (pre-industrial) baseline, depending on emission scenarios, and given known uncertainties (see shaded areas on graphs). Since we've already had nearly 1 oC of this warming, it's not too surprising to expect that even if we take rather dramatic steps to reduce greenhouse emissions, we're not going to avoid at least another 1 oC of warming this century (B1 scenario; 2.5 oC mid-range projection over pre-industrial baseline, with a lower bound near 2 oC). At the top end (essentially a "business as usual" scenario with unconstrained economic expansion and a heavy reliance on coal; A1F1), a mid range temperature rise near 5 oC above pre-industrial temperatures (~4 oC of 21st century warming to come) is projected. Since our uncertainty in climate sensitivity (Earth surface response to radiative forcing equivalent to 2x[CO2]) is large (2-4.5 oC of warming per doubling), this really has to be included in the temperature projections. So the (unlikely) A1F1 emission scenario combined with the (less than likely we hope) top end of the climate sensitivity gives a possible temperature rise near 7 oC. Is that alarming? Yes indeed. Is it alarmist? No not really. It describes a specific (and hopefully unlikely) emissions scenario and accommodates the (hopefully!) top end of the uncertainty in climate sensitivity. Of course if one was to assert "The IPCC and Copenhagen Diagnosis says we're going to warm by 6 oC during this century." that would be alarmist. But they don't. These groups carefully spell out the range of likely temperature rises according to various emission scenarios and accommodating known uncertainties in the Earth surface temperature response to greenhouse forcing..... -
DrTom at 20:20 PM on 5 June 2010Visual depictions of CO2 levels and CO2 emissions
@theendisfar. Aloha. I am not very clever and I won't try to parse words with you. In fact, I will accept your theorem until it is either proved or disproved to our mutual satisfaction. First, let us toss out the concept of AGW. Then let us throw out GHE. We don't need them. Can you agree that for some reason, 2010 is the hottest year on record? Can you also agree that temperature records were set ten times during the past fifteen years? And finally, can you agree that these must be cause by something, even if it a completely natural cycle? -
chris at 20:01 PM on 5 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
O.K. so I seem to be addressing thin air... There was a rather snarky post insinuating illogic against Dr. Abrahams analysis of Monckton's treatment of paleodata....it seems to have gone AWOL incidentally I meant: You consider that Monckton's use of Huangs 1997 (not "1998" incidentally) borehole data that apparently shows greater MWP warming than contemporary warming is acceptable evidence in support of Monckton's notion.
Prev 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 Next
