Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 Next
Comments 25601 to 25650:
-
bozzza at 16:33 PM on 17 February 2016Checking 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.
-
Mal Adapted at 12:02 PM on 17 February 2016No 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:40 AM on 17 February 2016It'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.
-
michael sweet at 11:28 AM on 17 February 2016New 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.
-
cdbenny at 10:53 AM on 17 February 2016It'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.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:11 AM on 17 February 2016This 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!
-
howardlee at 05:05 AM on 17 February 2016This 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.
-
michael sweet at 21:15 PM on 16 February 2016Daffodils 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:03 PM on 16 February 2016Daffodils 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).
-
Tom Curtis at 14:34 PM on 16 February 2016This 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".
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:44 PM on 16 February 2016This 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:24 AM on 16 February 2016It's the sun
cdbenny @1163, your question of topic on this thread, so I have answered it in a more appropriate thread.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:22 AM on 16 February 2016Greenhouse 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.
-
cdbenny at 10:04 AM on 16 February 2016It'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.
-
michael sweet at 09:35 AM on 16 February 2016Daffodils 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:30 AM on 16 February 2016Daffodils 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.
-
michael sweet at 02:57 AM on 16 February 2016Daffodils 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:
-
MA Rodger at 21:34 PM on 15 February 2016Daffodils 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.
-
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.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 12:40 PM on 15 February 2016Satellites 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. -
Rolf Jander at 12:24 PM on 15 February 20162016 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
-
jenna at 11:33 AM on 15 February 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #7
An interesting essay on people's perception of the weight of expert consensus;
-
sailingfree at 05:44 AM on 15 February 2016Satellites 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.
-
NecktopPC at 05:03 AM on 15 February 2016Daffodils 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.
-
NecktopPC at 00:16 AM on 15 February 2016Daffodils 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."
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.
-
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.
-
NecktopPC at 00:26 AM on 14 February 2016Daffodils 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.
-
ryland at 14:22 PM on 13 February 2016The 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. -
Tom Curtis at 12:35 PM on 13 February 2016The 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:28 PM on 13 February 2016The 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:24 PM on 13 February 2016The 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.
-
mancan18 at 11:52 AM on 13 February 2016The 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.
-
ryland at 11:11 AM on 13 February 2016The 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.
-
ryland at 09:50 AM on 13 February 2016The 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.
-
No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
The graph below shows two interesting things:
- Nearby weather stations usually have an almost identical temperature trend, which is very useful when homogenizing temperature records.
- 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. -
mancan18 at 08:04 AM on 13 February 2016The 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.
-
dagold at 05:04 AM on 13 February 2016The 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).
-
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.
-
NecktopPC at 00:12 AM on 13 February 2016Daffodils 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
-
Tom Curtis at 18:37 PM on 12 February 2016The 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.
-
ryland at 13:54 PM on 12 February 2016The 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?
-
Tom Curtis at 10:53 AM on 12 February 2016The 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.
-
ryland at 10:52 AM on 12 February 2016The 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
-
Tom Curtis at 10:44 AM on 12 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
mancan @18, your comment is excellent all round. However, it does seem to attribute the current changes to the CSIRO to the government.
As it happen, the chief executive of the CSIRO is not appointed directly by government, but by the board of the CSIRO. The Chairman of the Board at the time this was done was, Simon McKeon, was appointed by a Labor government. He raised ire among deniers by his attitude towards Climate Change:
"Despite admitting he has "no scientific pedigree", Mr McKeon says he wants to see the issue of climate change elevated to the top of the political and public agenda.
"We may not have all the answers to what is occurring, we may not have certainly all the solutions to how to fix it," he said.
"But the point is, why wouldn't one take out very strong insurance to at least do what we can to future-proof our well-being? I think it's a no-brainer.""
Even today, nearly half of the board are Labor appointees, and at the time of appointment of Larry Marshall, the majority would have been.
As tempting as it might be to suppose this is an act of the government, it is not. It is the act of an independent manager of the CSIRO, of whom there is no reason to think that he is a denier or influenced by deniers.
There is a contradiction between Prime Minister Turnbull's supposed commitment to innovation and his not reversing Abbott's cuts to the CSIRO - but this decision is not a direct reflection of that contradiction.
-
mancan18 at 09:32 AM on 12 February 2016The gutting of CSIRO climate change research is a big mistake
Because of these cuts, there will also be a loss of corporate knowledge at the CSIRO. This loss of knowledge and expertise is, justifiably, of concern. Science is a collegiate profession which grows through interaction between scientists, not from scientists just working independent of each other. Change and renewal in collegiate professions should be a gradual process that occurs from the bottom upwards, not from the top downwards otherwise there will be a loss of corporate knowledge. New people coming to the organisation bring new knowledge and those already there bring experience that can best utilise that new knowledge. The modern management practices that have evolved in an age of economic rationalism and neoconservative politics don't seem to account for the nature of collegiate professions. I am a retired educator and have seen the impact and loss of expertise that can occur from gutting from the top rather than renewing from the bottom.
Another factor is that not all the climate scientists who have been at the forefront of climate reasearch in Australia can be necessarily redeployed elsewhere. Their expertise may not easily translate to a different discipline or emphasis. While the CSIRO should not be a welfare agency for scientists who no longer have experise that is relevant to their research, it is not as if the nature of the climate system and the Earth as a global ecosystem is fully understood yet. While the debate has been essentially won in scientific circles, it is not as if the debate has been fully won with the wider community. Reducing the climate science expertise of the CSIRO may also make it easier for climate deniers to continue to cast doubt because as the integrity of independent science is being undermined by reduced funding, corporate funding of vested interest "science" will most likely rise in response to a wider public acceptance of the science. After all funding climate science denial is more a delaying tactic to continue to exploit, what is now, a dwindling dirty resource for a technologically outdated industry.
Also, it seems strange that the Australia Government is happy to fund laboratories to assess whether products meet Australian safety and health standards, even though there are many other assessment laboratories in other countries. I would have thought that studying the climate would be a similar, unless of course the Government doesn't think there are safety and health issues related to a changing climate.
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. It's a bit like their Direct Action climate change policy, funding to reduce emissions while allowing increased emissions. But then again, it's all about the accounting, not the scientific reality.
-
BBD at 09:18 AM on 12 February 2016Onset of Eocene Warming Event took 3-4 millennia (so what we’re doing is unprecedented in 66 million years)
Howard Lee
The current thinking is that the PETM is not likely an orbitally forced event even if some of the subsequent hyperthermals may have been.
Yes, and I should have been clear about this. I mentioned DeConto because I'd implied that the PETM wasn't orbitally triggered and didn't want to create the impression that nobody had argued otherwise.
-
Daffodils in bloom, the warmest ever December: how worrying is the world’s strange weather?
NecktopPC - Yes, there is yearly and even decadal variation in flowering times everywhere. However, there is also a distinct and statistically significant trend in earlier and earlier blooming, in pole-ward shifting of plant hardiness zones, and claiming it's all due to short term variation is quite frankly nonsense.
Just from my region, see Abu-Asab et al 2001, "Earlier plant flowering in spring as a response to global warming in the Washington, DC, area", noting that those times "...show a significant advance of 2.4 days over a 30-year period [...] Advances of first-flowering in these 89 species are directly correlated with local increase in minimum temperature."
Also see Chung et al 2011, "Predicting the Timing of Cherry Blossoms in Washington, DC and Mid-Atlantic States in Response to Climate Change", noting that "Our results indicate that PBD [Peak Bloom Dates] at the Tidal Basin are likely to be accelerated by an average of five days by 2050 and 10 days by 2080 for these cultivars under a mid-range (A1B) emissions scenario."
The times, and the plant zones, they are a-changing. Handwaving like yours doesn't change that.
-
howardlee at 06:43 AM on 12 February 2016Onset of Eocene Warming Event took 3-4 millennia (so what we’re doing is unprecedented in 66 million years)
To be clear Both Zeebe's and the Kirtland Turner & Ridgwell study are talking about the initial warming of the PETM and the initial pulse of carbon that caused it.
The current thinking is that the PETM is not likely an orbitally forced event even if some of the subsequent hyperthermals may have been. I covered that in an article in 2014 here.
There's very strong evidence for intense volcanic activity associated with the North Atlantic Igneous Province (yes yet another Large Igneous Province associated with a warming event) ocurring at exactly the time of the PETM, See:
Zircon dating ties NE Atlantic sill emplacement to initial Eocene global warming
These papers are also relevant:
Large igneous provinces and mass extinctions: An update
Development of intra-basaltic lava-field drainage systems within the Faroe–Shetland Basin
Diachronous sub-volcanic intrusion along deep-water margins: insights from the Irish Rockall Basin
Kimberlite eruptions as triggers for early Cenozoic hyperthermals
However, from an isotope signature point of view the methane hydrate source works according to Zeebe, who told me: " I’m still convinced that this methane hydrate hypothesis is working very well in terms of total amount of carbon and in terms of the isotopic signature that we see. I think there is evidence that there could be mud volcanoes in the North Atlantic that could have contributed exactly to methane release during the PETM."
Whereas Ridgwell told me: " It seems it’s all around the time of a lot of enhanced volcanism going on in the North Atlantic and people have suggested, and I’m coming around to the importance of this, of a particular episode of quite extensive volcanism happening in the North Atlantic just at the time of the PETM. So it seems that maybe [the PETM] is a little bit like some of these older events."
-
BBD at 05:36 AM on 12 February 2016Onset of Eocene Warming Event took 3-4 millennia (so what we’re doing is unprecedented in 66 million years)
Sorry, DeConto et al. (2012).
-
BBD at 05:33 AM on 12 February 2016Onset of Eocene Warming Event took 3-4 millennia (so what we’re doing is unprecedented in 66 million years)
I should have added that there is a hypothesis (DeConto et al. 2010) that orbital forcing triggered the PETM. There is an SkS article about the DeConto study here.
Prev 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 Next
