Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  749  750  751  752  753  754  755  756  757  758  759  760  761  762  763  764  Next

Comments 37801 to 37850:

  1. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?

    renewable guy - See this post by Chris Colose: Milankovitch Cycles.

  2. renewable guy at 16:14 PM on 11 March 2014
    The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?

    I remember an article in SKS where it was stated that the orbital forcing did not explain the warming coming up out of the last ice age. It (orbital forcing) supposedly would only explain about 10% of the warming. The rest would be positive feedbacks I assume. Loss of albedo and co2 coming up out of the oceans. I would like some help getting to that article that explains just that ratio. It helps to emphasize that a small nudge of the climate can make a much bigger response.

  3. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B

    scaddenp @13, absolutely agree about the need for whole sale pricing of domestically generated electricity sold back into the grid.  Indeed, more than retail pricing (mandated in some Australian jurisdictions) has the perverse effect of providing a maximum incentive for the domestic user to minimize use in the daytime when they are generating power on site, and maximizing use at night when there is minimal renewable supply.  That is, it maximizes inefficiency in using solar power, and minimizes the emmisions reduction from the extra generation.

    The only caveate I would place on the whole sale pricing is that renewable and non-renewably sourced energy are differently priced when sold to the consumer.  At least in Queensland, you can pay a premium to have a significant proportion, or 100% at a higher premium, of your energy from carbon free sources.  The "sell back" price of domestically generated solar electricity should also reflect that premium.  That could be accomplished by the sell back price matching the average whole sale price of renewable power, rather than the average price of power in general.

  4. citizenschallenge at 14:00 PM on 11 March 2014
    GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    It amazes me how much people enjoy focusing on splitting hair, all so they can avoid evaluating the full scope of evidence...  Well, setting up of impossible expectations doesn't do much for learning either.

    In any event, thank you SkepticalScience.com for your stream of valuable information, stuff that we can actually learn from.

    And thank you for your Reposting Policy, I'm honored to be able to Repost such an excellent article at my little effort.

    http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/gwpf-misleading-public_10.html

  5. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Hi jwhite @31,

    My gripe was not with your or the brevity of your post :)  Rather Lewis's inexperience, background and who he chooses to associate with.

    Thanks for notifying us about his CA post.  Someone at SkS will have a look.

  6. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B

    A "wind the clock back" meter could only make sense if you were buying the power from the generator, not the supplier. This is essentially saying that you want the sell back to the retailer at the same price as you bought it, whereas the retailer is buying from wholesaler at much lower price. What business could do that? It is only realistic that you sell electricity back at the average price from other generators. Some of the buy-back prices offered in NZ look very generous to me.  Really realistic would be that you only get paid for your electricity what the current wholemarket price is. Now sometimes, in a dry winter, that could be really high, but often when there isnt much solar then to generate.

    While obviously the price difference includes profit for the retailers which could do with some scrutiny but it also includes the balancing act of giving consumers fixed prices while market price changes every 5 minutes, regulatory costs, line costs etc. There is a reluctance by government to lump those costs into a per-household "line charge" no matter how realistic because this amounts to a penalty for low-power users, stuck with high line charges and low usage costs. The current line charge is fraction of the real cost. There are going to have be a lot of solar generators harping about the difference before the government would reconsider the political cost of such a change.

    Generating companies building peaking power plants are generally divorced from electricity retailers. They are building them because they see they can make money at times of high demand. Increased micro-scale solar generation doesnt really threaten this opportunity at the moment.

  7. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B

    [PS] Put the links in properly and there will be no complaints.

  8. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    I apologize for my post being so brief, but I don't have the technical background to make an informed comment on Lewis's post. I was hoping someone here would be able to do that. That's why I brought it to your attention. I respect and very much appreciate this site.

  9. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B

    Chriskoz@7

    A good start would be net metering - ie. a single meter which turns backwards when your generation exceeds your power use.  However, we must not try to deprive the power company of their profit.  After all they maintain the grid which eliminates the need to have your own expensive batteries which must be replaced from time to time.  A fair, transparent way would be to have a line charge but we must be careful here.  The line charge should be the same for the user and the user/generator or the power company will gerimander the fee so that is still won't be worthwhile to install solar panels.  Then the government could stop taxing solar in all sorts of ways.  After the moderators comments, I don't want to 'advertize' my own blog but if you go to it under @6, there are a couple of blogs about how the German government, much lauded, taxes the small solar power installer 7 ways to sunday.  (do you have this expression).  The technology is adequate although it has some way to go and the price is right.  It should be well worthwhile for everyone with, say, 2.5 or more daily peak hours, averaged through the year, to profitably put solar panels on the roof.  There are benefits to the power companies too.  Once we have smart meters which allow demand balancing rather than the present supply balancing, having a lot of solar, financed by the small customer, eliminates the need for the power company to invest in an expensive, seldom used power plant for peak shaving.

  10. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    jwhite @28,

    It is a pity that Lewis chooses to keep airing his view and opinions at locations (such as the GWPF and CA) that habitually attack climate scientists and routinely try and undermine climate science by distorting the facts and data.  Where is Lewis on this thread?  He is undoubtably aware of it, yet he is posting on sites run by extremists and fringe elements. Him doing so does not bode well for his judgement being unbiased.


    His biases aside, I doubt very much that Lewis (a retired finacier) has the depth of knowledge, understanding and experience to speak to a complex issue such as this. Just as I would lack the same when speaking to models used to predict the financial markets-- you do not see climate scientists trying to argue that the economists and financeers methods are incorrect. But for some reason every contrarian out there feels that climate science is fair game and that they somehow know better.

  11. One Planet Only Forever at 12:10 PM on 11 March 2014
    GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    I enjoyed reading the thorough presentation of information that Lewis, Crok, Currie, Annan, Henderson, McKitrick, Montford, and Loehle would have had access to. It was very informative.

    If they were genuinely interested in improving the understanding of what is going on they would not be trying to get away with pushing out the glaringly inadequately investigated and justified information they have presented.

    Any media that gave their 'report' an iota of attention without a little basic fact-checking needs to be on an "Unreliable Sources" list. An honest and balanced media report would make reference to the report and its authors and include evidence of the clear inadequacy of their report.

    The gullibility of many in the current population, willing to accept whatever suits their deluded interest based on their experience immersed in the unsustainable and damaging mass-consumption socioeconomic systems, certainly makes attempts to best inform the general population about the unacceptability of how they want to 'enjoy their life' a battle, but it is worth fighting. As the unjustifiable claims become more glaringly incredulous, more and more people are will realize how easily impressed they had allowed themselves to become.

    People addicted to the unsustainable and damaging artificial industrial chemical-filled mass-consumption socioeconomic system need to admit to the harmful nature of their addiction. Then the changes to a better sustainable life can begin.

  12. The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL

    There is already about 650,000 barrels per day of rail-loading capacity for oil in western Canada. That's scheduled to grow to over 1,000,000 barrels per day by the end of this year. The additional cost of shipping by rail doesn't mean much either because the supply costs for Alberta bitumen are actually pretty competetive compared to world prices (contrary to what's typically perceived, Alberta bitumen is no longer a marginally economic source of hydrocarbons, but a relatively low cost one, competetive with alot  of U.S. tight oi). In other words, making it ship by rail isn't going to change its economics very much.

    So, that bitumen is going to get to market via pipe or rail as long as there is a market asking for it. Kill demand, either through a carbon tax or much stricter emissions regs, and you'll do a far better job at solving your carbon problem rather than picking on one particular source of supply.

    I haven't even gotten into America's "carbon bomb" of its own, tight oil, whose resource potential might be up there with bitumen's.

  13. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Lewis has a response to the Shindell paper here:

    climateaudit.org/2014/03/10/does-inhomogeneous-forcing-and-transient-climate-sensitivity-by-drew-shindell-make-sense/

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] This runs very close to the "no link only posts" rule. Please try to incluce some discussion of the issue when posting links.

  14. There is no consensus

    Realist308 - this article is showing that the statement "that there is no scientific consensus" is false. You are entitled to believe that all those scientists could be wrong but I wonder whether you have same opinion on all those scientific theories on which there is a consensus? If your Dr tells you have x disease and the scientific consensus is that you need Y to save your life, do you go with the consensus or the crank who tells you it can fixed with magnets?

  15. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Kevin C,

    Thanks, I'll give Shindel et al. a read.

     

    Tom Curtis,

    I tried the same type of spreadsheet as you.  My results also depended on how much random variable I inserted.

    I also looked at the 11 models in Kiehl's two charts.  Not having the data,  I estimated the values for CS, TF and AF as follows:

    Model /CS (°C) /TF (W/m-2) /AF (W/m-2)
    a /1.9 /2.04 /-0.6
    b /2.1 /2 /-0.63
    c /2 /1.7 /-0.7
    d /2.5 /1.68 /-0.74
    e /2.4 /1.6 /-1.15
    f /3.7 /1.48 /-0.62
    g /2.6 /1.24 /-1.26
    h /2.7 /1.21 /-1.42
    i /3.5 /1.2 /-1
    j /4.6 /1.16 /-1.3
    k /3.3 /0.8 /-1.15

    Between TF and 1/CS, ρ=0.78

    Between TF and AF, ρ=0.76

    Between 1/CS and AF, ρ=0.49

    So, to answer my own question, the inverse correlation between CS and aerosol forcing isn't as strong, but it's likely not zero.

  16. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Russ R, I failed to include the B/C correlations in my response @24, and also made a small technical error on my spreadsheet.  Having corrected both errors, however, I find one example with correlations of:

    A/B: -0.62  B/C: 0.58  A/C: 0.01

    The twenty one trial averages are:

    A/B: -0.65  B/C: 0.33 A/C: 0.14

    Consequently, I believe the point I made still stands.

    Having said that, Kevin C's response is far more informative in this particular case.

  17. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Russ R: This big paper from Shindel et al would seem to be key.

    They find that the correlation between aerosol forcing and ECS changes sign between CMIP3 and CMIP5 (also Andrews et al). However the CMIP5 models show no particular correlation between ECS and total forcing or effective aerosol forcing (which includes the indirect effect).

  18. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Russ R @ 13:

    "Is it somehow mathematically possible that if A and B have a "strong negative correlation" and B and C have a "strong positive correlation" that A and C can have "no correlation"?"

    I set up a spread sheet were A is a linear function plus a small random variable (Rand()*4), B is -A plus a smaller random variable (rand()*2), and C is a B plus a large random variable (rand()*16). Over a restricted range of values, I obtained in one instance correlations of A to B or -0.97, and of A to C of 0.06. Averaged across 21 trials, with a similarly restricted range of values the correlations were -0.59 for A to B, and 0.19 for A to C. So, in answer to your question - yes they can.

    Of course, as the range of values increases, the correlations of A to B, and of A to C rapidly approach -1. In the first example given, over a range of 100 values the correlations were -1, and -0.99 respectively. Averaged over 21 trials, they were -0.99 and -0.97 respectively.

    The key point here is that the range of values of climate sensitivity, and of aerosol forcing are small. Consequently this counterintuitive result is possible provided the variation the aerosol forcing is large (relative to that range), which it is.

    I am not saying that this is the basis for the apparent divergence between Kheil (2007), and Schmidt. That may be due to specific differences between the specifications of the CMIP3 and CMIP5 experiments, or of the actual CMIP3 and CMIP5 models. But your intuitive argument is not automatically valid regardless of specific reasons.

  19. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Of course its possible climate sensitivity may be towards the low side. It is also possible that a relatively small increase in temperature globally could be associated with much more extensive climate change than we have previously thought.

    Weather patterns recently suggest this may be the case. Nobody seems to have considered this possibility.

  20. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B

    Michael Whittemore - I need to get my butt into gear and finish the series of posts on deep ocean warming, but long story short; the stronger trade winds spin-up the subtropical ocean gyres - where surface water converges. Stronger surface convergence means stronger downward transport of heat down into the ocean interior because there is nowhere else for the water to go but down (taking heat from the surface with it). 

    When the trade winds undergo their typical multi-decadal weakening (the positive phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) expect weaker deep ocean warming.

  21. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    The paleoclimate report quoted above, with the exception of the PETM, deals with changes occurring within the slow feedback response time (deep oceans, weathering, etc). As such I believe they give lower sensitivity values than is applicable to our modern climate change. Carbon-belch events like the PETM, Permian, Triassic, Toarcian, even the Mid Miocene CRB/Monterey event, happen at timeframes faster than the slow feebacks can process them, causing CO2 to build up rapidly in the atmosphere and surface ocean. Warming in these events is much more severe due to the disequilibrium. Moreover the PETM timing in the above report is for a long-term event whereas one (albeit contoverial) paper recently put the initial CIE at 13 years. Modern climate change is not very comparable with glacial-interglacial slow changes, and much more comparable to the PETM, Triassic, Toarcian, and other rapid, massive carbon-belch events.

  22. 2014 SkS Weekly Digest #10

    John Hartz - In the opening paragraph you have incorrectly attributed John Mason as the author of the Science editor endorses Keystone XL post, rather than Andy Skuce. 

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] I have corrected the error. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

  23. 2014 SkS Weekly Digest #10

    I went to the UCSC Climate Conference last weekend where the panel of speakers was asked when activists would be able to quote scientists directly linking extreme weather to climate change, in order to inspire the public to respond to the threat of global warming.  I think it was Benjamin Santer of LLNL who said that they were decades away in research before they would have the ability to do that and then Gavin Schmidt chimed in and added, "Scientists won't ever do that. Don't wait for that...if you're waiting for that, you are just WASTING YOUR TIME."  So, when I saw your cartoon it reminded me that I made a comic for that!  http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/01/kitchen-table-comic.html

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Link activated.

  24. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    dana1981 @16,

    Thank you for clarifying.

     

    Kevin C @19

    Has any similar analysis been done on the CMIP5 ensemble, to show the correlation (or lack thereof) between estimated ECS, and historical values for total anthropogenic forcing and aerosol forcing?

     

    Tom Dayton @20,

    Models are but one "line of evidence", as are observational studies. Currently, they point in different directions. Not hugely different... still within a likely range, but different enough to be cause for disagreement.

    I expect that over time as the observational record grows and the models improve, that difference will resolve and a consensus will emerge.  Until then, everyone will simply have to agree to disagree.

  25. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Russ R.:  For example, read Box 12.2 (pp. 1110-1112).  Figure 1 shows the probability density functions.  And there is "On the other hand, AOGCMs show very good agreement with observed climatology with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5°C to 4.5°C range."  Later there is this sentence: "comparisons of perturbed-physics ensembles against the observed climate find that models with ECS values in the range 3°C to 4°C show the smallest errors for many fields (Section 9.7.3.3)."

  26. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    There are several points of confusion here:

    1. The Kiehl paper was on the CMIP3 models.

    2. Forcings are dignosed from the models, they are not an input to the models. The input to the models is the external influences on the system, e.g. anthropoenic changes to atmospheric composition.

    3. Aerosol indirect effect, while it affects TOA energy balance, is technically a feedback rather than a forcing from the perspective of a GCM.

    Put 2 and 3 together and it should be clear that sensitivity and radiative forcing can be correlated without training. I don't know to what extent that is the case in practice.

  27. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    It is in examining GWPF Report 13 that Lewis & Crok's objections to the 'effective' TCR within GCMs can be fully assessed - within in the shorter GWPF Report 12, their explanation is cut down to incoherence.
    The problems the IPCC GCMs exhibit, allegedly, is that they do not perform properly. The GCM 'effective' TCR values are far higher than even GCM 'actual' TCR values. This is what causes the GCMs to project their alarmingly high future temperatures (as opposed to the reassuringly low ones suggested by Lewis & Crok).

    The 'effective' TCR of course can be determined by using "the observational-TCR based formula" as derived by those clever analysts Lewis & Crok.

    ΔT(2012-2100) = (ΔF(2012-2100) x OTCR)/3.71 + 0.15ºC

    :where OTCR is derived (as described in GWPF Report Note 86) not just from ΔT(1951-2010) attributions but actual ΔT(1951-2010) as measured by real thermometers and these compared not just to ΔF(1951-2010) but also to ΔF calculated from dF/dt(1951-2010), both of which yield the exact same result (TCR=1.4ºC excluding a minor adjustment) which only goes to show how accurate this TCR derivation is!

    Not only that, Lewis & Crok manage to manipulate this highly sophisticated and complex model to yield GCM 'effective' TCR not just for 2012-2100 but also for 1850-2000.
    This is why Lewis & Crok find without even wielding a single error bar that, "in the case of climate sensitivity and TCR, arguably the most important parameters in the climate discussion" (and few would disagree with that), the IPCC AR5 "failed" to provide an "understanding (of) the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change." And if (unlike Lewis & Crok) you link to the source document laying out the role of the IPCC, you will find that Lewis & Crok are accusing IPCC WG1 of being in contravention of the Principles Governing IPCC Work.

  28. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Tom Dayton,

    You say:

    "they are unwilling to make a point estimate of the value, but certainly are willing to make a range estimate"

    Yes... and the range they give is "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)."

    So how exactly does Lewis & Crok's "best estimate for ECS of 1.6–2.0°C" contradict this?

    You continue:

    "And as is clear from other sentences, they judge the point value most likely is in the middle of that range than at either end."

    Which other sentences?  Citation please.

  29. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Russ @13 - the Schmidt quote is from a personal communication.

  30. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Climate sensitivity is also the topic of How much hotter is the planet going to get? by Michael LePage, New Scientist, Mar 9, 2014. LePage's article parallels Dana's OP with respect to recently published papers about climate sensititvity.   

  31. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Russ R., you persist in your factually incorrect interpretation of the "no best estimate" quiote as meaning "we have no idea."  That statement instead means they are unwilling to make a point estimate of the value, but certainly are willing to make a range estimate--the range they refer to in that same sentence as the "assessed lines of evidence and studies."  And as is clear from other sentences, they judge the point value most likely is in the middle of that range than at either end.

  32. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    I agree that this "report" from the GWPF contains nothing new. It's just a reshuffle and redeal of existing literature. The only thing I find noteworthy is that it further reinforces the point that there is no scientific consensus on a best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is entirely in agreement with the IPCC's statement in AR5 WG1 SPM: "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."

    Tangentially, I'm not sure how to square Gavin Schmidt's statement above, with the findings in Keihl (2007).

    Schmidt: "Climate model sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is intrinsic to the model itself and has nothing to do with what aerosol forcings are. In CMIP5 there is no correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity across the ensemble, so the implication that aerosol forcing affects the climate sensitivity in such 'forward' calculations is false."

    Keihl (2007): "These results clearly illustrate a strong inverse correlation between total anthropogenic forcing used for the 20th century and the model’s climate sensitivity. Indicating that models with low climate sensitivity require a relatively higher total anthropogenic forcing than models with higher climate sensitivity....

    These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity...

    What is the major reason for the large uncertainty in total anthropogenic forcing? Figure 2 shows the correlation between total anthropogenic forcing and forcing due to tropospheric aerosols. There is a strong positive correlation between these two quantities with a near 3-fold range in the magnitude of aerosol forcing applied over the 20th century."

    • Is it somehow mathematically possible that if A and B have a "strong negative correlation" and B and C have a "strong positive correlation" that A and C can have "no correlation"?
    • Are the latest generation of GCMs somehow entirely different, rendering Keihl's observations out-of-date?  Has Schmidt actually back-tested the CMIP5 ensemble in the same way that Keihl did with earlier models and found no correlation?

    Also, could someone please link to a source for Gavin Schmidt's quotation?  I couldn't find it on realclimate or anywhere else, except for here and in Dana's column in the Guardian (which linked back to here).

  33. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    @Tom Curtis

    if you email me at sean.danaher@unn.ac.uk I can forward you a copy of the Leohle paper

  34. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Tom @4,

    Thank you for the info on the three Lewis papers.

    We at SkS are aware of the new Loehle paper, how shall I say this...? There are several critical issues that undermine the premise of his paper and his results. I will leave it at that for now.

  35. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Thanks Dana for a great post and also Kevin for comments as well.

  36. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    In the acknowledgements the Loehle paper thanks " Nic Lewis for helpful suggestions." Very interesting timing of the paper and report.

  37. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B

    Michael, there have been several posts on the subject of ocean heat transfer. I think the most recent was this one.

  38. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Praise be !! The gospel according to Lewis & Crok is now available in all its glory without having to hand out your e-mail to the GWPF gatekeepers.


    The 44 page GWPF Report 12 linked in the post is but an edited version of the longer 72 page GWPF Report 13. (The shorter version was "written for the lay reader, and summarises [the] longer, more technical document.") Both reports are not solely the work of Lewis & Crok but also incorporate the "help & comments" of Annan, Curry, Henderson, McKitrick and Montford. Curry also wrote the forward for both documents, strangely both times providing "this report" with a word-for-word identical eulogy.

    The question to be asked of Lewis & Crok is why they feel any serious scientific study should be presented to the world as a GWPF Report. These documents (along with GWPF Briefing Papers) have such an excellent track record of misrepresenting the evidence and presenting untrustworthy analysis that they manage to bring all UK charities and the UK Charity Commission into disrepute. Frankly I cannot consider a less appropriate method of publication (unless you consider a web-page on such planets as Wattsupia constitutes 'publication').

    Surely, if this gospel according to Lewis & Crok were worthy of anything other than the rubbish bin, they would publish elsewhere, perhaps within a journal which peer reviews its content. Or perhaps Lewis & Crok believe the "help & comments" of Annan, Curry, Henderson, McKitrick and Montford are adequate to eliminate any embarrasing errors, a belief I fear that itself constitutes an embarrasing error.

  39. The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos

    Great article. Kudos, and thanks.

  40. Michael Whittemore at 20:26 PM on 10 March 2014
    2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B

    A little of topic, but could someone please direct me to the skeptical science page that explains how the heat is being transferred down to the deep ocean? I saw the page but forgot where. Thanks .

  41. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B

    william@6,

    what you are advocating for:

    correct relationship between the small solar owner, the power company and the government

    brings in a whole array of economic social and political issues, including energy generation and energy efficiency, gov regulations, energy retailers' new business model, to name just a few. I recommend a recent book

    Sustainable Energy Solutions for Climate Change

    by Mark Diesendorf from NSW Uni, who discusses all those issue at depth with numerous references. Very good starting point for anyone interested in the research of AGW mitigation. And a very positive one (i.e. zero-carbon energy future is very much possible with renewable technologies only, even excluding nuclear, cause Mark is very skeptical about nukes).

  42. 2014 SkS Weekly Digest #10

    I have a question: is there anything at SkS server side possible to prevent the data loos when the server times out why I'm typing a comment? It happened to me recently more often: my crafty comment including several links and a picture just disapeared when I hit submit button, obviously to my utter frustration. The browser back button does not bring the input editor back: I need to re-logon to bring it back and my comment is long gone. I think the server timeout has been decreased lately (down to some 30mins?) increasing the likelyhood of such unexpected comment loss.

    On the client site, in my Firefox browser, "Submit" button is a typical HTML input. So, to prevent comment losses in the future, I speculate that the server could perhaps send the response to the "timed-out" client:

    Your message [input HTML text] has not been posted because the connection timed out. Please try again.

    That would be enough to prevent the data loss. I;m not sure if other blogs have such mechanisms or they don't care. But I think SkS could care because this blog is valuable to me as most of the user comments. Thanks!

    I think Bob Lacatena would give the best response to my question although anyone whoknows the impl details of SkS server can chime in...

  43. The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos

    A new BBC video:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26511229

    Large stretches of the British coastline have been hit hard by storm after storm this winter, with some areas suffering the equivalent of seven years of erosion in just three months.

    Now the National Trust has called for a rethink on how Britain defends its coastline and suggested that some locations may have to to be sacrificed because the sea can no longer be stopped.

  44. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    In a larger context, at the point AR5 was finalised, there were in my view 3 big, new and unexpected problems in climate science.

    1. Could the apparent slowdown in warming be explained?

    2. Why was observed warming lower than the model projections?

    3. Why did simple models give lower sensitivity estimates than GCMs and paleoclimate.

    I think now we've got tentative answers to all three. Coverage, forcings and ENSO address (1) and (2) and Shindell addresses (3).

  45. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    The Shindell paper is breathtakingly simple. It just takes two completely well known facts, puts them together and points out the trivial and inevitable conclusion:

    1. The NH responds more quickly to changes in forcing than the SH, because the SH has more water.

    2. Most of the aerosol cooling effect occurs in the NH.

    Since the cooling is happening in a place where is has a more rapid effect, the impact is greater than if it were happening uniformly. So we see less warming than we would expect from a model which treats the whole globe uniformly.

    This leads to the second conclusion: If we use a uniform forcing over both hemispheres, such as in Otto et al or my own n-box model, then we will conclude that TCR is lower than it actually is.

    I think there must be a few climate scientists slapping their foreheads over this one. The only thing left to do is to confirm the size of the effect.

    (My model produces more mainstream TCR values only becuase I haven't adopted the latest aerosol forcing estimates. Thus it contains two errors which just happen to roughly cancel out.)

  46. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
    Let me see ... looks like stage 3)1)it's not happening2)it's not us3)it's not bad4)it's too hard5)it's too latealtho i suppose 4 and 5 could be rolled together
  47. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Albatross, Dana, Nic Lewis has been a co-author of two papers, and sole author of a third that I am aware of:

    Improved Methods for PCA-Based Reconstructions: Case Study Using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic Temperature Reconstruction

    Energy budget constraints on climate response

    An Objective Bayesian Improved Approach for Applying Optimal Fingerprint Techniques to Estimate Climate Sensitivity

    On a side, note, as I was doing my google searches to find exact titles and links for the above, I came across a new paper by Craig Loehle also estimating low climate sensitivity (1.99 C per doubling).  His trick appears to be to attribute much of the recent warming to the PDO, but I would need to buy a copy of the paper to determine the exact details.  Publication date is March 24th, but now available online, so we can expect to see that cited a lot in the near future.

  48. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    'Few' is vague.  I'm pretty sure it's 2, but I said 'few' in case I missed any.  I think he's just got Lewis and Otto though.

    The Curry Foreword is kind of interesting from a psychological perspective.  First, why did GWPF invite her to write it?  She has no publications and no expertise in sensitivity research, as her comments on the subject make crystal clear.  I can only guess they wanted a 'climate scientist' to write something since neither of the authors is really a climate scientist.  Basically to try and make it seem more credible.  And I suppose they couldn't think of many climate scientists who would be willing to endorse that report, for obvious reasons.

    And then why would Curry agree to write the Foreword?  It totally undermines her claimed role as the 'bridge builder', as GWPF is an anti-science, anti-policy, politcal advocacy group.  Perhaps it's naîveté about what GWPF is and does.  Perhaps it's that she views her role as amplifying 'skeptic' voices.  That's basically how she explained it on her blog.  But it's pretty hard to maintain the perception of a bridge-building open-minded skeptic when you're writing material for a group like GWPF.

    In any case, we shouldn't turn the comments into a psychoanalysis of Judith Curry.  More important is that the report itself is a totally biased, cherry picked misrepresentation of the full body of climate sensitivity research.

  49. GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

    Dana,

    You say Lewis has published a "few" papers on climate sensitivity.  I am aware of only two papers by him in the peer-reviewed literature, and on one of those he was a co-author on a paper temperatures over western Antarctica. Did I miss a couple?  For now Lewis lies squarely in the climate "hobbyist" desgnation, and his fellow fake skeptics are bending over backwards to try and boost his impact.

    Curry's foreward was entertaining to read, nothing more.  That she is falling over herself to praise this report is hardly surprising given that she has declared that she supports the (ideological and political) objectives of the GWPF lobbyists.

    This report though is also another example of how the fake skeptics fail to present a coherent and physically plausible alternative hypothesis to the theory of AGW.  Some of them deny it is even warming, others claim anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax, others claim that there is some magical negative feedback that will result in virtually no warming, others like Lewis cherry pick literature to delude themselves into thinking that climate sensitivity is low, while others are convinced that an ice age is imminent ;)

  50. Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk

    Russ R @72, if you recall, what I originally indicated @47, and which you challenged, was:

    "Fox & Gallant estimate the costs of transferring to renewables on the assumption that all gross costs of electricity generation are also net costs. That is, they assume that increased investment in renewable energy will not be partly offset by reduced investment in coal fired power plants. That fact alone means that their headline result does not follow from their analysis"

    That should have been straightforward enough for you, but apparently not.

    In simple terms, if Ontario had not embarked on a LTEP to switch to carbon reduced* power generation, costs of electricity to the consumer would still have risen. They would have risen with increased wages due to inflation. Potentially they would have risen due to increased costs of fossil fuels. They would have risen due to increased investment in fossil fuel power stations to meet demand. The real cost of the choice to go to carbon reduced electricity, therefore, is the difference between the cost of that decision, and the cost of the cheapest alternative energy plan that did not take a reduced carbon route, but which similarly increased generation capacity. In economic terms, that approximates to the opportunity cost.

    The LTEP does not itemize that opportunity cost. It does not compare the cost of the LTEP to an alternative, high carbon plan that would have been pursued instead. Consequently referring back to the 2010 LTEP does not account for those opportunity costs. Nor does it show how their adjustments (even if considered legitimate) would effect alter the opportunity cost.

    For what it is worth, the 2013 LTEP indicates that the total cost of coal use was 4.4 billion a year. That is 25% of the 2013 total cost of electricity generation, and 22% of 2030 costs. (These figures underestimate the cost of coal as they compare 2003 nominal values with 2030 nominal values.) Health costs alone could have risen above 3 billion per annum (2005 study cited by 2010 LTEP).

    You introduced Fox and Gallant to show that projected costs of renewable energy programs underestimate actual costs. As has been pointed out, it only showed that one set of projected costs was higher than another. More to the point, it has now been shown that both the 2010 LTEP, and even more so, Fox and Gallant overestimated the increase in costs, at least over the first 3 years of the plan.

    Finally, you, following Fox and Gallant, highlighted the discrepancy between the Geoge Smitherson's statement in parliament and the 2010 LTEP. Neither you nor they, however, have shown whether Smitherson's statement referred to real value, nominal value or oportunity cost. Of the three, the later is the far more likely, and as it would be absurd to promise the LTEP would keep energy rises below the inflation rate, nominal value is extremely unlikely. Yet despite this, you (and they) have been quite happy to compare projected nominal increases to that statement as though they refuted it. For the record, the 2010 projected real increases work out at 2.3% per annum over the 20 years to 2030, not 3.5% quoted by Fox and Gallant. And opportunity cost would have been way below that.

    * not carbon free because they will still use gas power plants.

Prev  749  750  751  752  753  754  755  756  757  758  759  760  761  762  763  764  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us