Recent Comments

Prev  501  502  503  504  505  506  507  508  509  510  511  512  513  514  515  516  Next

Comments 25401 to 25450:

25401. knaugle at 05:31 AM on 18 February 2016
       Checking Ted Cruz's climate science denial howlers
       

       #1
       I hate grammer nazis with a passion.  That said, the statement that Ted Cruz is "praying" upon the scientific weakness of the USA political right is a rather humerous pun.  It highlights the unwillingness of many USA Southern Evangelicals to accept good science at face value.

25402. gregcharles at 04:42 AM on 18 February 2016
       Checking Ted Cruz's climate science denial howlers
       

       What record shows 14 out of the hottest 16 years have been since 2000? I've asked this before, but never got an answer. I usually follow NASA GISS at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt . Based on its Jan - Dec anomalies, all 15 years of the 21st Century would make the list of the hottest 16 years. 1998 is the one and only 20th Century year on the list, where it tied for the 7th hottest year.

25403. PhilippeChantreau at 04:14 AM on 18 February 2016
       This climate scientist has tried really hard to get a date
       

       Tom Curtis, your link to wikipedia does not clearly explain how the French Academy has not been or is not successful in maintaining standards for the language. Spelling is quite important in French, where mutiple different words can be spelled identically but take different meanings depending on type and position of accents, for instance. This is especially true for verbs, and is of concern regarding semantic. The Academy does produce changes, albeit not at the pace that the populace sometimes would like to see. Those of us who do not struggle with spelling are not bothered by its conservatism. Some minor controversies have been blown out of proportions by the mass media when they have nothing else to talk about. Whereas it is true that phonetic can and should change, I am not opposed to guard against change coming from a generic dumbing down. I find it inapropriate to use the word "tyranny" in these matters. Nobody is suffering much, really...

       Now, back on topic before we get slapped by moderation...

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Indeed, lets not have a grammar/spelling discussion.

25404. Tom Curtis at 02:43 AM on 18 February 2016
       This climate scientist has tried really hard to get a date
       

       OPOF @5, you have it backwards.  American English typically is more conservative than the English of Kent (ie, BBC English) just as Yorkshire English also tends to be conservative.  Consequently where American English and "English" English differ, normally it is the language of England that represents the innovation.  In this case, 'gass' may be a last remnant of the middle English spelling customs that gave us manne (for man).

       As for an impossed tyranny of uniform spelling, that makes no more sense (and will be no more successful) than the French Academy.  There are reasons why Chinese characters (at heart pictograms) should not vary over time, while the phonetic alphabet of English should.  If it does not, it becomes arbitrary, and no longer a phonetic alphabet at all.  We will have thrown away the Phonecian's great and lasting innovation in the pursuit of dogmatism.

25405. One Planet Only Forever at 01:13 AM on 18 February 2016
       This climate scientist has tried really hard to get a date
       

       My careless reliance on automated spell-checking resulted in the obvious gaff of 'will' instead of 'while'.

25406. One Planet Only Forever at 01:10 AM on 18 February 2016
       This climate scientist has tried really hard to get a date
       

       Digby Scorgie @4,

       I would encourage you to discourage the use of 'gasses' as an alternate of 'gases'.

       It appears the misuse of the spelling 'gasses' is rampant in the englishy speaking lands that rebelled and wanted to be different from original English (mainly the US, a place that even made up a different spacing between rails for trains just to be different, and comically continues to drag out the use of English weights and measures).

       If 'gasses' has a use it clearly is as a verb, along with 'gassed' and 'gassing'.

       Used in a sentence "Timmy often gasses a room to gross out others, and is amused (never to become amuzed) by the sound made will gassing and the look on the faces of others after he has gassed."

       My basis for declaring that it is inappropriate to use gasses as the plural of gas includes the Scholastic Children's Dictionary 2002 edition which only lists gases as the plural of gas. The hope of that book appears to be to correct an incorrect development in the US.

       Other spelling fads of the US rebellious phase should also be 'encouraged to fade away', such as their choice to spell colour as 'color' even though the ending sound of the word is more like fur than for so if they were to be reasonable in their rebellion they would have dropped the 'o' and spelled it 'colur'.

       However, rebellious people often are not reasonable or rational. And pointing out that they are 'going through a phase (never to become faze) of irrationality' often angers them. So be careful how you discourage the use of gasses.

       As for the evolution of language, the way a word is said and the meaning of a word can indeed change, but its written presentation should be a constant. The Chinese understand how important that is. And even English speaking people can understand the importance of always spelling 'roof' the same way even though it can be said in many ways including the 'phonetically spell-able' versions 'reuf' and 'roove'.

25407. Jim Hunt at 23:20 PM on 17 February 2016
       Checking Ted Cruz's climate science denial howlers
       

       It may surprise Ted Cruz to discover that a variety of Antarctic sea ice metrics have taken a terrible tumble this (Southern Hemisphere) summer.

       Messrs Monckton, Soon and Legates also seem remarkably reluctant to discuss this perhaps surprising turn of events:
       
       http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/for-life-on-earth-ice-is-not-generally-a-good-thing/

25408. bozzza at 16:33 PM on 17 February 2016
       Checking Ted Cruz's climate science denial howlers
       

         Deliberatley taking science out of context has to be a concern for any serious person appealing for political capital. I would expect this weakness to be prayed upon by way of forcing an extended debate on the matter.

25409. Mal Adapted at 12:02 PM on 17 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       OPOF:

       The greatest threat to humanity is "Misleading Marketing".

       OPOF has identified the fundamental reason why AGW is an existential threat.  Scientists are constrained to let facts speak for themselves, or they are subject to severe professional sanction.  The people who stand to lose the most if the world stops burning fossil carbon are, OTOH, not subject to penalty for misleading the public by the clever use of language.  They are willing to pay top dollar for skilled professional disinformers, because it takes money to make money  Hence, the doom of the world.

25410. Tom Curtis at 11:40 AM on 17 February 2016
       It's the sun
       

       cdbenny @1165, the OP of this thread is about the myth that recent global warming has been primarilly due to increased solar radiation.  Your comments have no bearing on that topic.  Even the fig leaf that solar radiation is also absorbed by CO2 is shown to be irrelevant in that the intensity of solar radiation in the relevant portions of the spectrum are only 1.4% of the intensity of upward IR radiation from the surface at those same wave lengths.

       The final phrase of my preceding post was hyperlinked to the appropriate thread.  The link in plain text is

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=109&&n=1210#116071

       I will not address again your silly misunderstanding of Wein's Law.

25411. michael sweet at 11:28 AM on 17 February 2016
       New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
       

       Sharon,

       Sorry for the slow reply.  It seems to me that you have found reasonable sources of information.  Keep reading new material as much as possible.  Information on this topic almost always comes with a slant (including information from me).  Unfortunately, Skeptical Science does not post a lot of material on solutions, their objective is to deal with myths about Global Warming.

       The Jacobson paper discusses the energy payback time for the manufacture of the materials to generate all power using renewables.  Wind generators pay back in less than a year.  As more renewable energy is built the remaining turbines (or solar panels) come from renewable energy.  This does not appear to me to be a major problem. There are more questions about the total cost and generating backup power on windless nights (the backup power is one of the major costs).

       I have seen the article you linked about birds.  I accept the experts view that wind generators do not kill many birds.  If they build as many turbines as Jacobson plans that will have to be one issue that is carefully monitored.  I have heard that newer, taller wind generators (as tall as 700 feet to the rotor) are so tall that most birds fly under them.  Migrating birds and raptors might still be an issue.  Wind operators have other plans that might help (like stopping turbines when raptors are in the area), we will have to see.  We cannot stop such an important build for an issue that is currently not a problem.

25412. cdbenny at 10:53 AM on 17 February 2016
       It's the sun
       

       Why off-topic?  Doesn't CO2 absorb radiation originating from the sun?  Re-radiated from earth?  What wave-lengths does CO2 absorb?  A number of analyses state "CO2 strongly absorbs IR radiation at 15 micro-meter wavelenght."  Review math? do you not know Wein's eqn.: deg.K = 2897/15micro-meter wavelenth = 193deg.K, or neg.80deg.C.  (The sun radiates avg.abt 0.5micro-meter, so sun surface avg.abt 2897/0.5 = 5,800deg.K).  If CO2 absorbs 15 micro-meter radiation, that is very low energy; where is the energy analysis on CO2 absorbing IR radiation?

       Curtis @1164 :where is the 'approp thread' you answered 1163?

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Try clicking on the link Tom provided and please read an article before deciding to comment on it. You might want to check your understanding of Wein's law in a text book.

25413. Digby Scorgie at 10:11 AM on 17 February 2016
       This climate scientist has tried really hard to get a date
       

       Pardon me, Howard.  I didn't intend to initiate such a discussion.  However, after consulting my two UK dictionaries (Oxford and Collins), my one US dictionary (Webster's), as well as the latest Fowler's Modern English Usage, I infer an interesting trend:

       Both my UK dictionaries are pre-2000.  They give "gases" as the plural of the noun and "gasses" as the third-person singular, present tense of the verb.  My Webster's is also pre-2000 but gives "gases" as the plural of the noun, with "gasses" as an alternative.  Fowler gives only "gases" as the plural of the noun.

       From Tom's comment I deduce that the alternative US form "gasses" is beginning to push out "gases" as the plural of the noun.  I shall therefore continue to use "gases" but won't complain about others using "gasses" — although you might hear a groan or two from Down Under.

       You have my sympathy, Howard, in your struggles with US versus UK English.  Good luck!

25414. howardlee at 05:05 AM on 17 February 2016
       This climate scientist has tried really hard to get a date
       

       Digby - I'm a Brit imported into the US, so I'm permanently confused as to which usage belongs on which side of the pond! 2 nations divided by a common language, as George Bernard Shaw said. I have tried to write 'gases' but it just says 'gazes' to me. 

25415. michael sweet at 21:15 PM on 16 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       Tom,

       We agree.  It frustrates me that scientific posters (where you carry much of the burden) are held to a high standard for claims that AGW causes warming while skeptical posters can make whatever wild claims they want.  This happens everywhere.

       Necktoppc at 8 claims that the high temperatures in Britian are expected because of the strong El Nino.  Why was 1998 so cold when El Nino was the same as 2015?  (S)he claims at 2 "This has happened before, and especially before all the noteriety regarding global warming." Has any evidence been presented that this claim is true?  A single month in the last decade was rated cold and that cherry pick is offered against the mountain of high temperature records.

       Tamino has a new post that last month broke the anomaly record for NASA, set in November 2015.  The anomaly is about 0.2 higher than any before November 2015 but according to skeptics, it could still be caused by the El Nino.  A local fact checker rated an Obama statement that fish were in the streets of Miami (from sea level rise) as half true because it was actually in a city next to Miami called Miami Beach.  Meanwhile Ted Cruz  claims it is not getting warmer and is not called on it.  Australia shoots the messanger to stop the message.

       We need to go beyond these arguments of if AGW is occuring and move on to solutions.  

       You do a great job here dealing with the skeptics day after day.

25416. Tom Curtis at 15:03 PM on 16 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       michael sweet @14:

       "I have heard it argued that Hansen and Cato only showed that the average temperature over the summer was hot and that single months have a higher variation. I do not think much of those arguments."

       You are right to think little of those arguments.  They completely ignore the drift in annual values as shown on this adaption of Hansen (2013)'s chart.

       

       Further, they completely ignore the drift in 11 year distributions as shown in the update:

       

       As you can see from that update, there is slight variation in the 11 year distributions that strongly overlap the baseline period, and the first following 11 year period is not so distinct that it requires significant explanation.  The two following 11 year periods, however, and the definite trend certainly require explanation (except for NH Dec to Feb).  Detailed statistics would show how much they are in need of explanation (ie, how statistically significant they are, or more correctly, what their p value is) and may show the drift shown in the fourth panel is statistically significant.  But eyeball mark 1 is sufficient to show something interesting is going on in the rest of the panels (particularly the first).

25417. Tom Curtis at 14:34 PM on 16 February 2016
       This climate scientist has tried really hard to get a date
       

       Digby Scorgie @1:

       Merriam-Webster: "plural gas·es also gas·ses"

       Collins: "plural gases gasses"

       Oxford: "plural gases or chiefly US gasses"

       wiktionary: "plural gases or gasses"

       Dictionary.com: "plural gases or gasses"

       This leaves aside the fact that, in principle, there are no correct or incorrect spellings.  Merely common and less common spellings.  That is the straightforward application to lexical dialects of the well known definition of a language, ie, "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy".

25418. Digby Scorgie at 13:44 PM on 16 February 2016
       This climate scientist has tried really hard to get a date
       

       Is the plural of "gas" not "gases"?  I can't understand why so many now spell it "gasses".  Mr Moderator, please delete this comment after reading.  I don't wish to cause unnecessary embarrassment.

25419. Tom Curtis at 11:24 AM on 16 February 2016
       It's the sun
       

       cdbenny @1163, your question of topic on this thread, so I have answered it in a more appropriate thread.

25420. Tom Curtis at 11:22 AM on 16 February 2016
       Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
       

       cdbenny elsewhere, using Wein's displacement law (or a convenient calculator) you can indeed determine that the peak intensity of a black body with a temperature of 193 K is 15.1 micrometers.  However, using Planck's Law (or a convenient calculator) you will quickly determine that the radiation intensity at any wavelength always increases with increasing temperature.  As the point of peak intensity moves to a shorter wavelength, the intensity of the longer wavelengths still increases.  Thus, at 193 K, the intensity at 15.1 micrometers is 1.0967 W*m^-2*µm^-1*sr^-1.  At 288 K, it is 5.7595 W*m^-2*µm^-1*sr^-1, or 5.25 times more intense.  At 6000 K it is 881.53 W*m^-2*µm^-1*sr^-1, or 153 times more intense than at the Global Mean Surface Temperature.  This relationship, for temperatures relevant in the atmosphere of Earth, can be seen in the graph below.

       

       6000 K is approximately the Sun's surface temperature.  But, of course, although the Sun radiates at 15.1 K far more intensely than at the Earth's surface, the Sun's radiation at the Earth's surface is much diminished.  Indeed, at its peak it is diminished by the ratio of the Sun's surface area to the area of a sphere having the radius of the distance of the Earth from the Sun.  That is, it is diminished by a factor of 0.00009.  Ergo, the incomeing IR radiation from the Sun at the Earth peaks at 1.4% of the intensity of the outgoing radiation from the Earth's surface.  (This is important, because if it averaged a the same magnitude, there could be no greenhouse effect.)

       The upshot is the 15 micrometer absorption band of CO2 absorbs a significant proportion of the outgoing radiation from the Earth's surface (as can be seen in the diagram above), but an inconsequential amount of the incoming radiation from the Sun.

       Further, the actual amount absorbed by CO2 can be inconsequential to the greenhouse effect.  What is more important is the average temperature at which the heat stored in the CO2 is radiated.  That heat can come from collisions with other molecules and does not need to be specifically absorbed by the CO2 molecule that radiates it (see OP above).  Consequently, although CO2 is responsible for 20% of the total greenhouse effect, it probably absorbs less than 20% of IR radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere.

25421. cdbenny at 10:04 AM on 16 February 2016
       It's the sun
       

       For 220 ppmv man-made CO2 in Earth atmosphere, how much real energy does that amount of CO2 absorb from the Sun, or from 15 micro-meter wavelength IR radiated back from the Earth?  Doesn't 15 micro-meter IR radiation (that CO2 "strongly absorbs") correspond to a surface radiating at -80 deg.C? (Wein's radiation temp.equation).  That would be very, very low energy radiation absorbed by CO2.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Before just deleting this comment outright for being off-topic, how about we give you the opportunity to explain why you think this applies to the article you're commenting on? Which is: 
       "Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions."

       [PS] And perhaps have poster review their mathematics and understanding how the RTE works - a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial corresponds to 1.1C increase in surface temp before any feedbacks.

25422. michael sweet at 09:35 AM on 16 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       Tom,

       THe statistics are above my grade.  On the other hand, the baseline is 1950-1980 which includes a substantial amount of warming from pre-industrial.   If you subtract out all that heat I doubt that more than 0.1% 3 sigma remains, even if you only used El Nino years.

       I have heard it argued that Hansen and Cato only showed that the average temperature over the summer was hot and that single months have a higher variation.  I do not think much of those arguments.  The globe is clearly warmer and we have to own up to the damage that we have done.

25423. Tom Curtis at 06:30 AM on 16 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       michael sweet @12:

       "Since 0.1% is the expected rate of 3-sigma temperature, more than 99% of heat waves during the summer could be attributed to AGW."

       It is not quite that simple.  The statistical distribution in Hansen, Sato and Ruedy (2012) is against a thirty year period (1950-1980).  Therefore it represents the probability, with no AGW, of a seasonal distribution of heatwaves over a thirty year period.  Within that, it is quite consistent that any given year have an unusually high number of heatwaves, and correspondingly, for some other year to have an unusually low number of heat waves.  Ergo, because at least some of the high % of warm areas in 2015 is due to the El Nino, you cannot reason that 99% of heatwaves in 2015 could be attributed to AGW.

       If you wanted to determine that attribution from Hansen, Sato and Ruedy's work, you would first need to find the statistical distribution of warm areas in detrended 2015 data.  That would determine the area subject to heatwaves in a no AGW case, ie, based on natural variability alone.  From that, you could then determine the increase in areas subject to heatwaves due to the trend, which could then be attributed to AGW.

25424. michael sweet at 02:57 AM on 16 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       Following up on KR's comment above, Hansen and Sato have updated their data.  For 2015 21% of the world had 3-sigma or greater temperatures during Jun/Jul/Aug of 2015.  Since 0.1% is the expected rate of 3-sigma temperature, more than 99% of heat waves during the summer could be attributed to AGW.  Winter temperatures have higher standard deviations but the temperatures are so high now that a significant amount of high winter temperatures can be attributed similarly to AGW.   The December England temperatures were so extreme that the likelyhood of similar temperatures without AGW would be very small. (Hansen and Sato only show the JJA data).

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] Spatial pattern of extreme temps from Hansen & Sato:

       

25425. MA Rodger at 21:34 PM on 15 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       I do wonder if the posted article has suffered a bit from too much editing. Is it correct in the third paragraph to conflate the "exceptional warmth in Britain" during December with the  Adam Scaife quote talking of us "experiencing is typical of an early winter El Niño effect"?

       December in southern UK was startlingly "exceptional" with the CET December average temperature head and shoulders above anything previous (since 1659). If this were what the  Adam Scaife quote referred to, this would be "typical of an early winter El Niño effect," and we should expect December 1997 to show at least signs of being exceptionally warm. But we don't see that. While CET's December 1997 was not a cold December, sitting at =10th warmest in the last 30 years of CET Decembers it's a bit of a stretch to even call it 'warm'.

       So I would suggest the Adam Scaife quote was more likely referring to global climate events and not to the UK's warm winter.

25426. KR at 13:55 PM on 15 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       For those who are interested (as opposed to those who from their comments seem to feel that climate isn't changing), Hansen et al 2012 discusses how warming trends 'load the dice' for more and more extreme heat events. Previously 3-sigma outlier heat waves affecting 1% of the globe (using a 1951-1980 baseline) are now affecting 10% of the globe, as they are now less than 2-sigma extremes. What was once rare in terms of a heat wave is becoming more and more common, and events like the UK warm December, while not in and of themselves evidence of change, are exemplars of how observed change is affecting us.

       This can also be seen in just the statistics of how often we see temperature extremes, as in Meehl et al 2009 - the ratio of record highs to record lows corrects for number of observations and length of temperature record, and clearly show more and more record highs compared to record lows for the last 40+ years. 

       I would never claim a single month warm/cold event was by itself evidence of a trend - but we can look at the climate statistics and trends (as opposed to the weather), see how the frequency of those events is changing, and be more than justified in pointing to an extreme heat event as a harbinger of the future.

25427. Glenn Tamblyn at 12:40 PM on 15 February 2016
       Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
       

       sailingfree
       
       Take a look at the RSS site here.
       
       Select different dataseries to show different heights. The graph on the left for each one is the Weighting Function. Essentially how much of the signal for that channel originates from different levels of the atmosphere. Irrespective of whether there is an actual Goldilocks layer at altitude, there is a blurring of our ability to measure it due to the physics of radiation transfer.

25428. Rolf Jander at 12:24 PM on 15 February 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
       

       I have been havin great fun posting on this article.

       https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/10/what-these-christians-are-giving-up-for-lent-fossil-fuels/?postshare=8681455137488521&tid=ss_tw-bottom

       Come join in

25429. jenna at 11:33 AM on 15 February 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Digest #7
       

       An interesting essay on people's perception of the weight of expert consensus;

       Why People Are Confused About What Experts Really Think

25430. sailingfree at 05:44 AM on 15 February 2016
       Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
       

       The Earth's surface is in a warming trend, somewhat as predicted.
       The stratosphere is in a cooling trend, as predicted.
       So would not there be a "Goldilocks Layer" in between, with no trend at all?
       Could that Goldilocks Layer be the middle troposphere?

       So "No warming, since forever." can be the denialists' mantra.

25431. NecktopPC at 05:03 AM on 15 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       PS - I am not disputing that your site is about climate.

       Can climate exist without weather?

       Weather is a major factor of climate. Weather over periods of time, results in the establishment of a climate; over time.

       Does weather not make climate? Surely you would agree that climate does not constitute weather - and climate is based on the history of weather.

       December 2015 (Daffodils) may have been the warmist in the U.K. thus far. but it all depends on the historic average trends (climate), and over decades.

       Point being; should the past December (and it should) be included into the historical data, and then the average temperatures (calculated) considered; how much of an increase or decrease is there, for Decembers as a rule, over that historical period?

       El Nino by itself in not weather, but it certainly is, a factor of weather - and likewise, so is the gulfstream and the jetstream.

       Likewise: El Nino by itself, does not constitute climate, but it does have a definite effect on climate, albeit not in the long term. It does influence the weather, and the climate, and can be a factor, for as much as two years or more.

       If there were no weather reports, and or the collection of weather data, then how would climate be established, or determined? One would only have one's memory or personal opinions to go on, in order to come to a decision, regarding what the climate is, at a particular location or country.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Have you actually read the article you are commenting on? Eg "We expect 2016 to be the warmest year ever, primarily because of climate change but around 25% because of El Niño,” said Scaife, who added that El Niño was not linked directly to climate change but exacerbates its effects." Your weather reports seem to be pushing the view that nothing is really changing, nothing to worry about. The article, and papers provided by other commentators, show otherwise. You are welcome to provide contrary evidence of trends. So far you have not provided anything about trend.

       NH average temperatures for Dec can be found here, should you want to calculate the trend.

        

25432. NecktopPC at 00:16 AM on 15 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       KR - I was not disproving global warming, based on the weather trends in the U.K.

       I provided some weather information simply as a means of showing that the weather in the U.K. and daffodils blooming, was a one off, and that its not so unusual. (snip) The sky is not falling.

       "According to the UK Met Office, the exceptional warmth in Britain and northern continental Europe is linked to the strongest El Niño ever recorded. “What we are experiencing is typical of an early winter El Niño effect,” said Adam Scaife, head of Met Office long- range forecasting."

       Source

       Climate is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is; climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Sloganeering phrase snipped.

25433. KR at 07:20 AM on 14 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       NecktopPC - See Does cold weather disprove global warming? The answer is No. Short term weather is not climate, and if you are arguing that the variation of a cold week disproves long term trends, you are simply wrong. Rather, you are just repeating earlier red herrings.

25434. NecktopPC at 00:26 AM on 14 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       The general theme over the next few days will be for things to get a bit colder, more in keeping with the season - temperatures will drop to around six degrees over the next few days, with the prospect of London and the south east being struck by the occasional snow flurry.

       2010: Coldest December since 1890. Average UK temperature of -0.7°C, although parts of Scotland were far colder at -21.3°C URL

       London weather: Capital set for cold snap as Arctic blasts hit the UK

       The unseasonably warm winter will take a dramatic cold turn as maximum temperatures fall from 11 degrees to a maximum of 5 over the next week. URL

       And the temperature today is at 6 degrees C and it is forecast to be -1 on Tuesday - URL

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Since this site is about climate not weather, papers about trends, comparisons of hot records versus cold records and so on are relevant. Weather reports are not, nor are they on topic. 

25435. ryland at 14:22 PM on 13 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       JH@25. I am sorry for the sloganeering it was out of order.

       
       mancan18 @26 You comment "My main concern comes from observing Government cost cutting measures over the last 40 years. It seems that every time a Government saving has to be made, it seems that science always cops more than its fair share."

       
       Agreed. I think that many Australians and indeed many people in other countries, know very little about science, don't understand science and it doesn't play much of a part in their lives. For example, the comment "Oh. I'm hopeless at maths" is not uncommon. People seem quite OK with that but not with saying "Oh I'm hopeless at reading" as most are ashamed of not being able to read. That, I think, sums up the attitude of most to science, it is something they don't mind admitting they know little about. Governments therefore feel that as the populace, in the main, doesn't much care about science, chopping science budgets is a lot more politically acceptable than, say, increasing the GST or introducing a co-payment to the GP.

25436. Tom Curtis at 12:35 PM on 13 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       Further on staff levels in the two units, my reasonable conjecture that they had 140 staff (based on an approximate reasonable estimate of similar value plus the fact that the number came from somewhere) is confirmed in this article, which says:

       "In a letter that was also sent to the CSIRO's board and chief executive Larry Marshall, the 2900 researchers said the decision to cut 100 full-time positions out of about 140 staff from two units of the Oceans and Atmospheric division "alarmed the global research community"."

       (My emphasis)

       Again, Dr Marshall appears to be guilty of deliberate misdirection in discussing the staffing numbers of the Oceans and Atmosphere division, most of whose units will not experience cuts, rather than the staffing numbers of the two divisions which will experience 100 cuts and which focus on climate research.  That is a cut of approximately 70% of the climate reasearch staff of the CSIRO.

25437. Tom Curtis at 12:28 PM on 13 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       Further update:  I turns out that the savage cuts to research under Tony Abbott are just about to have their largest impact.  The impact was delayed because of the number of scientists on short term contracts.  This appears to be a case of the Liberal's war on science.

25438. Tom Curtis at 12:24 PM on 13 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       ryland @25, if your charge is that Dr Marshall has not properly detailed his plans so that I lack essential knowledge on the issue, well then I agree.

       If your charge is that my 'speculation' was no more than that, you are wrong.  First, contrary to your implication, I have not speculated that RV Investigator will wind up climate research.  Or that the ARGO float program will continue its current rate of deployment.  I have merely pointed out that we have no specific assurance on these points, and that therefore Dr Marshall's "assurances" have not been to the point.  Second, even on that limited basis, my querying as to whether Dr Marshall's "assurances" have been sufficiently informative to actually reassure have been based on fact.

       Take the RV Investigator.  It was recently hired out to oil and gas companies because government funding of the ship was limited to 180 days of the year.  While concurrent research in addition to the oil exploration was conducted, that research was restricted to ecological research, as mentioned in the above article.  For a voyage commenced in November last year (possibly that above if delayed, or possibly a follow on voyage), research was again restricted to ecological research.  That RV Investigator conducts voyages in which climate research is not undertaken is a fact.  Not speculation.  Therefore Marshall's assurance that "The RV Investigator, operated by CSIRO for scientists from Australia and around the world as a state of the art research facility will continue to operate scientific voyages, gathering data every day at sea" provides no assurance of continued climate research by RV Investigator.  It may, under Marshall's plans - but the evidence for that has simply not been provided.

       Or consider the number of staff cut.  We are told that 100 of the 350 overall cuts will be from just two sections of Ocean and Atmosphere, the two most closely involved with climate research.  The sections of Ocean and Atmosphere are:

       • Coastal Development and Management
       • Earth System Assessment
       • Engineering and Technology
       • Ocean and Climate Dynamics
       • Marine Resources and Industries 

       Of these, Earth System Assessment and Ocean and Climate Dynamics are the most closely entwined with climate research.  I do not have direct figures for the number of staff in each, but across all five there are 420 staff.  If they are evenly divided, that means there are 168 staff in those two divisions, a calculation that ignores the number of administrative staff.  So on those figures, we are looking at a 60% cut in the climate related research, although it is probably higher than that.  That is a lot more than the 24% you would estimate from the figure actually given by Dr Marshall.

       Unless we think the other three divisions are mere cyphers, there is no shadow of a doubt that Dr Marshall has deliberately concealed the impact of the cuts by quoting the larger, irrelevant figure rather than the current staffing levels of the two divisions that will actually experience the cuts.

       Finally, with regard to the computer model, if Dr Marshall was leaving a sufficient staff to appropriately update the model, it would have been irrelevant to his point that the model was open source.  That he thought it was, and defended the cuts on that basis makes it plain that he does not envisage more than a skeleton staff maintaining the software, and therefore more than staffing levels required to keep the model up to date.

25439. mancan18 at 11:52 AM on 13 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       Ryland thank you for your detailed response. My main concern comes from observing Government cost cutting measures over the last 40 years. It seems that every time a Government saving has to be made, it seems that science always cops more than its fair share. It also appears that due to the change in funding emphasis over the years, that Australia has difficulty retaining scientific expertise and attracting new expertise. I would like to see guaranteed science funding for independent scientific research based on a fixed percentage of GDP and the CPI, with scientists managing it and determine the science programs that are important and that need continued funding. I was a mathematics educator with qualifications in economics (albeit a long time ago), so I haven't had to apply for grants, but I have seen the impact that unilateral funding cuts can have where managers have had to cut important programs that they still see as important, just not as important as others deemed to be worthy of continued funding. Of course there is little point in Australia entirely duplicating everthing that is done overseas, it couldn't afford to anyway. However, it is important that Australia retains its standing within the international scientific community, but to me, it does not appear to be at the forefront like it used to be.

25440. ryland at 11:11 AM on 13 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       mancan18@24.  I've been a practising laboratory based scientist for over 30 years running research programs, supervising PhD students and applying for grants, so I'm acutely aware of the problems with funding in science.  What I find amazing about the proposed changes at CSIRO is the attitude that if these changes occur the study of climate science as we know it will cease to exist.  

       You say "For our viability into the future, it is important for us to know what that scientific reality is."  

       Just because there will be a cut to the climate science research at CSIRO does not mean that Australia will not know what that scientific reality is.  For example it has been said that a reduction in CSIRO climate scientists will impinge on Australia's ability to monitor sea level change which in turn will mean developers won't have the information necessary for projects that are close to the sea.  As NOAA has just launched the Jason-3 satellite which according to  NOAA "will be able to detect changes in sea level height down to the millimeter" and "help us to track global sea level rise, an increasing threat to the resilience of coastal communities and to the health of our environment." it seems even if CSIRO no longer measures sea level change, developers can still get information appropriate for their needs.

       In the supplemental reading provided by John Hartz at 17 it is said:

       "Funding and job cuts at Australia's climate change research body could undermine the country's goal of dominating the Asian premium food market by placing farmers at a disadvantage to U.S. and European competitors.

       Australia's extreme weather means farmers rely heavily on climate change forecasts from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) to mitigate the impact of bushfires, cyclones and droughts.

       "In the next 30 years we will need to alter our farming habits due to rainfall, heat, drought, soil moisture. Australian farmers need the best data and predictions," said former chief of CSIRO marine research Tony Haymet.

       Without such data, Haymet said Australia and its farmers will be "at a disadvantage in the long run". 

       Surely the prime need for farmers "to mitigate the impact of bushfires, cyclones and droughts" is information on short term weather forecasts from BoM not long term climate change forecasts from CSIRO.

       Isn't the alteration of farming habits in the next 30 years exactly what is proposed by Dr Marshall in looking at ways Australia can adapt to climate change?  As for information on rainfall, heat, drought soil moisture all this is obtainable from sources other than CSIRO.  

25441. ryland at 09:50 AM on 13 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       Tom Curtis @ 23.   Unlike mancan@18 I am surprised at the unusual amount of speculation and supposition in your discussion.  I too read the SMH but I also read the Australian and trust neither to give a totally unbiased report. You express reservations on the statements made by Dr Marshall on staff cuts, the RV, Argo and the climate models that have no basis in fact.  They are in fact pure speculation

       On RV Dr Marshall stated:"The second area of correction is our ability to support climate measurement in Australia. Cape Grim and RV Investigator are not under threat from these changes."Your interpretation is:"RV Investigator is a multi-function research vessel and can continue its voyages very easilly without any research on climate (focussing instead on ecology, for instance)". What evidence have you that any of this will occur?  As far as I can determine it is again speculation with no basis in fact

       On Argo, Dr Marshall: :We will also continue our contribution to the international Argo floats program which provides thousands of data points for temperature and salinity of our oceans; and we’ll be investing more in autonomous vehicles, using innovation to collect more data than ever before."

       Your comment is : "Nor does a continued contribution to the Argo floats program assure us that the level of contribution will remain the same."

       Any evidence that it won't? Marshall certainly gives no indication it will be changed. He specifically states "we'll be investing more".

       On climate models Dr Marshall states:"Our climate models have long been and will continue to be available to any researcher and we will work with our stakeholders to develop a transition plan to achieve this."

       You say "the phrasing of the assurance regarding the climate model suggests that it will not be used by CSIRO researchers, merely that it will be available to others (of which more later). More important, it contains no assurance of the continued development and testing of the model, without which it will be obsolete in 4-5 years."

       This is purely your interpretation of Marshall's phrasing.  Another interpretation could well be  "that as the statement says models will continue to be available etc, these models will be fit for purpose".  

       On the staff cutting to which you refer Dr Marshall said: "In our Oceans and Atmosphere business we have about 420 staff, not 140 as reported by some media, and after these changes we expect to have about 355, contrary to media reports."

       Your comment "This, however, seems like misdirection to me. Specifically, the 100 full time positions lost from the Oceans and Atmosphere section will be lost from just two out of five units. The question is, how many staff are their in the two units that will sustain the losses? Larry Marshall does not answer, and the answer is probably 140". "

       "Seems like misdirection to me" is a purely subjective assessment with no apparent basis in fact Why is there "probably 140"? That number is specifically referred to by Dr Marshall as being incorrect.  

       In conclusion, why is the climate science community, of which SkS is certainly a member, so vehemently hostile to any actions it considers a threat to its beliefs and activities?  The furore  the appointment of Bjorn  Lomborg generated and the current hand wringing and prophecies of doom about proposed cuts at CSIRO epitomise the "to the ramparts" attitude of the climate science community at anything it perceives a threat to its beliefs and importance.  To the unbiased observer this could appear to be more like knee jerk paranoia than anything else.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Slogannering is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

25442. HK at 09:32 AM on 13 February 2016
       No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
       

       The graph below shows two interesting things:

       1. Nearby weather stations usually have an almost identical temperature trend, which is very useful when homogenizing temperature records.
       2. The Norwegian meteorological institute (DNMI) has obviously done a good job when adjusting the Oslo record to remove the effect from UHI. If not, it would show a stronger warming trend than the two other stations.

       

       Færder is a lighthouse located in the outer Oslofjord, about 100 km south of Oslo. Nesbyen is a village in the Hallingdalen valley, about 120 km northwest of Oslo. It’s known for its high summer temperatures, but has much colder winters than Oslo and Færder.
       I considered including Stockholm in Sweden too (about 400 km east of Oslo), but it would make the graph seem quite cluttered since Stockholm’s absolute temperature and trend is almost identical to Oslo’s.

25443. mancan18 at 08:04 AM on 13 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       Tom Curtis, thanks for your extensive comments. They are illuminating as your comments always are. I was not aware of how the CSIRO is managed. I am well aware that Labor, as well as the LNP, do not always see science as a funding priority and are happy to make funding cuts whenever they feel it is necessary. Personally, I think that independent scientific research should be funded as a fixed percentage of GDP and it should be related to the CPI to guarantee that funding. What level that the funding should be is, of course, an open question. However, it should be at least comparable to our OECD partners. Also, I don't think that independent science research can be easily privatised in Australia without the integrity of the science being compromised at times. This is because Australia does not have a history of the extensive philanthropic funding of science that some other countries have. Nor does it have the extensive high tech arms industry of our allies which attracts some of their Government funded scientific research. This is and has always been the problem of properly funding science in Australia. Certain appropriate funding would ensure that our best minds are attracted to science in Australia, remain in Australia and are gainfully employed, after all, science, while the short term dividend is not always clear, is the great multiplier that has driven the evolution of our high tech modern society and is needed to protect it.

       Ryland, accounting and scientific reality are always fair for comparison. It is the money provided that determines the science that is studied. The scientific reality will stay the same whether it is studied or not. It's just that we may not know what it is. For our viability into the future, it is important for us to know what that scientific reality is. Ultimately, the money for science is usually allocated by people who have qualifications in business administration, economics, finance, the law or in marketing. While our scientific organisations are normally managed by people with a scientific background, not many outside these scientific organisations, such as our politicians and Treasury, who are the ultimate arbiters of funding science, do not have a scientific background and necessarily understand its needs and nature. So when they decide on a funding cut, it is the managers of scientific organisations who have to curtail scientific programs, not the people who have decided to cut funding. Not many people go into science for the money. They go into it because they are curious and just want to know what is happening and how it happens. If they happen to make a lot of money out of it, is merely coincidental. Science does not always pay a short term dividend in the economic sense, but it does tend to pay a huge long term dividend from which the whole of society benefits. Climate science is about the long term dividend of protecting our world and should be properly funded. It is not about either-or it is about doing both.

25444. dagold at 05:04 AM on 13 February 2016
       The new age of climate exploration
       

       Thank you for the article. I even went to the "optomist/pessimist" cite that you linked. And....this may put me in the pessimist camp but - as far as I am aware there are abosultely none - zero - financial sanctions or penalties connected to NOT honoring the commitments made in Paris. Without agreed upon and 'hammered out in iron' economic penalties for nations opting out, I see this entire 'accord' as simply fantasy. I dearly hope that events on the ground prove me wrong. If they do, I shall be quite surprised. (see, for example, the U.S. Supreme court just blocking the one and only climate policy with some actual teeth that Obama put out - and the obstructionists in Congress and the courts are not going away anytime soon).  

25445. KR at 01:53 AM on 13 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       NecktopPC - A Guilt by Association fallacy (perhaps better described as Poisoning the Well) is your response to Abu-Asab et al 2001? That's no argument at all. And linking only the current bloom schedule is a red herring - the opening post is about climate trends.

       If you have genuine issues with that Abu-Asad et al's methodology (which is quite simple, really) or their conclusions (difficult to see how, simple statistics), preferrably supported by some published literature, great, it might be interesting to discuss. The same goes for growth regions published by the USDA - I'm sure farmers would love to avoid changing crops due to shifting hardiness zones, and would eagerly await actual evidence for climate stability. 

       However, throwing out nothing but logical fallacies seems to indicate you have no actual evidence backing your posts. 

        

25446. NecktopPC at 00:12 AM on 13 February 2016
       Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
       

       KR - There are some in the scientific community that do not hold Springer in high esteem; claiming that the "journal has published some real gems."

       RE: "The times, and the plant zones, they are a-changing."

       Here is a Blooming schedule: http://www.nps.gov/chbl/cherry-blossom-bloom.htm

25447. Tom Curtis at 18:37 PM on 12 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       Further information, and comments.

       First, Larry Marshall clarified the restructure on Monday 8th here.  Amongst other things he said:

       "In our Oceans and Atmosphere business we have about 420 staff, not 140 as reported by some media, and after these changes we expect to have about 355, contrary to media reports. We asked business unit leaders to focus their operational plans on growth, and growth within finite resources will always initially lead to making choices about what to exit. However, as painful as any redundancy is, for the majority of the 5,200 CSIRO employees there will be no change to their current circumstances as a result of these plans, and we will also recruit new people with new skills."

       This, however, seems like misdirection to me.  Specifically, the 100 full time positions lost from the Oceans and Atmosphere section will be lost from just two out of five units.  Both are heavilly focussed on climate research.  The question is, how many staff are their in the two units that will sustain the losses?  Larry Marshall does not answer, and the answer it probably 140.  Marshall merely distracts us by inflating the denominator.

       Marshall goes on:

       "The second area of correction is our ability to support climate measurement in Australia. Cape Grim and RV Investigator are not under threat from these changes. The Cape Grim air pollution monitoring station which is a source of much of our greenhouse gas information will continue to be that source. Our climate models have long been and will continue to be available to any researcher and we will work with our stakeholders to develop a transition plan to achieve this. The RV Investigator, operated by CSIRO for scientists from Australia and around the world as a state of the art research facility will continue to operate scientific voyages, gathering data every day at sea. We also have an air archive which is a resource available to any researcher to investigate air changes over time. We will also continue our contribution to the international Argo floats program which provides thousands of datapoints for temperature and salinity of our oceans; and we’ll be investing more in autonomous vehicles, using innovation to collect more data than ever before."

       While happy to hear that Cape Grim will survive, I am less than sanguine about the other reassurances.  RV Investigator is a multi-function research vessel and can continue its voyages very easilly without any research on climate (focussing instead on ecology, for instance).  Nor does a continued contribution to the Argo floats program assure us that the level of contribution will remain the same.  Finally, the phrasing of the assurance regarding the climate model suggests that it will not be used by CSIRO researchers, merely that it will be available to others (of which more later).  More important, it contains no assurance of the continued development and testing of the model, without which it will be obsolete in 4-5 years.

       Ryland above reffers us to the Senate Estimates hearings, for which (unfortunately) a transcript is not yet available.  The SMH, however, reported on the hearings.  From them we learn that:

       1)  An original document planning this restructuring indicated the need for the loss of only 35 positions from Ocean and Atmosphere, which can reasonably be taken as the number of cuts necessary to impliment the restructure without loss of significant, relevant capacity.  Apparently the increase from 35 to 100 positions was a top down position made without familiarity with the research being cut.

       '"Those numbers of 100 are very round," said one senior researcher, who had watched the live stream of the hearing and whose work may face the chop. "What was the rationale for coming up with them? We still don't know."'

       2)  The board was told of the level of cuts involved in the restructure just two days before the public announcement.  From that it is clear that this was not a decision made in consultation with the board, and ergo also not a decision whose rational has been tested by independent scrutiny.

       3)  The executives making the decision had not adequately informed themselves of the details of the operations and research they were cutting.  This is evident in their having made several errors about that research in responding to Senate Estimates.  In particular:

       "For instance, they initially said the key Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) model jointly worked on by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO was "open-sourced", allowing for wide-ranging contributions that might offer the opportunity for savings."

       A belief that the software was open access may well have contributed to a belief that the CSIRO "climate models have long been and will continue to be available to any researcher" even while cutting the staff that operate those models (see Marshall's clarrification, and discussion above).

       This is fairly crucial in that Senate Estimates is the only indepedant scrutiny of the suitability of the restructure, and for the exectives to not have the basic facts underlying the restructure at their fingertips for Senate Estimates shows the numbers were chosen independent of an actual analysis of the number of staff needed to be retained for the capability Marshall claims will be maintained.  His clarrification is therefore revealed more as a statement of faith than something of which he can genuinely reassure us based on analysis.  Worse, his faith inflated by a factor of three the number of cuts an actual analysis showed to be appropriate.

25448. ryland at 13:54 PM on 12 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       mancan18@18  Your comment "It seems that the economic rationalist LNP Australian Government wants to embrace fund cutting policies that reduce the level of scientific expertise in Australia while at the same time beating the mantra of innovation."  The cuts to the CSIRO were under the aegis of Tony Abbott.  The "mantra of innovation"  is from Turnbull.  

       Compare like with like?

       Your obsdervation "But then again, it's all about the accounting, not the scientific reality."is equally applicable to the personnel changes at CSIRO. However at today's Senate hearing the CEO of CSIRO said ""that CSIRO would ensure "vital" modelling and monitoring of climate change would continue.".

       Is all this angst premature?

25449. Tom Curtis at 10:53 AM on 12 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       On the same topic, funglestrumpet @16, it is very dubious that the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer has much direct influence on the Treasury Department of the Commonwealth of Australia, or the Treasurer in the Australian Government.  Given the details @19, the idea that this redeployment of CSIRO resources results from the undue influence of Lawson in UK politics is not credible.

       For deniers as for supporters of science, this came as a bolt of lightning out of the blue.  The only difference is that they while they celebrate the loss of fundamental research on climate, supporters of science regret it.

25450. ryland at 10:52 AM on 12 February 2016
       The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
       

       Tom Curtis @19 I'm in the process of replying to your earlier comments but I was so taken with your comprehensive and even handed  reply to mancan18, to whom I am also crafting a reply,  that I had to send this immediately 

Prev  501  502  503  504  505  506  507  508  509  510  511  512  513  514  515  516  Next