by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Silent Sun
The BBC has a very nice article Is our sun falling silent? Excerpt:
“I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” says Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.
He shows me recent footage captured by spacecraft that have their sights trained on our star. The Sun is revealed in exquisite detail, but its face is strangely featureless.
“If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive… you’ve got to go back about 100 years,” he says.
This solar lull is baffling scientists, because right now the Sun should be awash with activity.
Freezing is the new warming
RealClearPolitics has an interesting article Freezing is the new warming, that summarizes the current state of the public debate on climate change. Excerpts:
Or try refuting global warming. Temperatures have stopped warming for more than a decade? That’s just a temporary “pause” in the warming that we just know is going to come roaring back any day now. Antarctic ice is growing? That’s actually caused by the melting of ice, don’t you know. A vicious cold snap that sets record low temperatures? That’s just because the North Pole is actually warming. So if the winter is warm, that’s global warming, but if the winter is cold, that’s global warming, too. If sea ice is disappearing, that’s global warming, but if sea ice is increasing, that’s global warming.
Now we can see what they mean when the warmthers say that global warming is supported by an ironclad scientific consensus. The theory is so irrefutable that it’s unfalsifiable!
Which is to say that it has become a cognitive spaghetti bowl full of ad hoc rationalizations, rather than a genuine scientific hypothesis.
Survey
Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic) has prepared a carefully crafted survey of professional attitudes on AGW, and the target audience is YOU:
The url is:
The aim of the survey is to understand the nature and background of those interested in the climate debate online. It will provide an invaluable insight into the education and work experience of participants, test the relevance of politics in forming views and assess employment and social factors for their relationship with views on climate.
I’ve taken the survey, it takes about 5 minutes. I will be very interested to see the results, I hope that each of you will participate and take the survey.
Science is broken(?)
Cracked has a very interesting article 6 shocking studies prove science is totally broken. This paper describes peer reviewed journal articles that study scientific practices in various fields. The six topics are:
#6 A shocking amont of medical research is totally bullshit. I have highlighted this issue previously at CE
#5 Many scientists still don’t understand math
#4 . . . And they don’t understand statistics either. This one definitely resonates in the climate community.
#3 Scientists have nearly unlimited room to manipulate data. Bingo
#2 The science community still won’t listen to women. Hmmm . . .
#1 It’s all about the money.
The summary statement is this:
Just to be clear: It’s not that you should suddenly stop trusting science in general — without science it would be impossible to distinguish charlatans from people who have actual wizard powers. But there’s a big difference between accepting scientific consensus and just blindly believing everything said by a guy in a white lab coat.
Invisible(?) Judith Curry
Donna Laframboise has a thoughtful article on my congressional testimony The Invisible Judith Curry. She is concerned that my testimony has gotten no MSM attention. As far as I can tell, the whole hearing got no MSM attention. And very little blogospheric attention. A little attention on twitter (mainly Mann’s anti-science thing), and critiques that my verbal delivery is ‘boring’ even if on target.
The article did make me think about my ‘visibility’. I am not looking for public visibility, rather I am hoping to influence the integrity of scientific research, the direction of scientific research (i.e. more natural variability), a better incorporation of uncertainty at the science policy interface. This is mostly behind the scenes stuff (i.e. outside of the MSM, public eye): blogging, some tweeting, occasional op-eds, presentations to scientific groups, occasional congressional testimony. Is this an effective strategy? Who knows, but it is the one I am comfortable with.
Re my testimony, it is my written testimony (not the verbal remarks) that I expect will have some influence on the EPW committee. We’ll see. I felt that my previous testimony to the House (last April) did influence that Committee.
“The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions.” – Leonardo da Vinci
C02?
Nothing to worry about.
Full Stop.
Worry about a meteor impact. Where is the cash component allocated to this cause?
Your blind faith that CO2 is nothing to worry about stands in stark contrast to Dr Curry’s uncertainty monster.
Where’s your uncertainty?
(btw the probability of dangerous meteor impacts is something that can be calculated…it’s low)
“If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive… you’ve got to go back about 100 years.”
_____
So what isn’t average global surface temperature decreasing?
Max,
Dont’ upset the so-called “skeptics” here. They love to hold on to the belief that it’s all the “sun wot done it”. Their holding on to that belief tells me that the skeptic moniker is too generous for them.
Settled science says: sun don’t matter (except when we need an excuse for the pause that is killing our cause).
I am shocked. Lollie has posted two comments recently that are sensible. We are not out of the woods on the CO2 thing. We need to fund some real scientists to study the GHE.
R Gates, I don’t know what mix of influences has caused a 16 year pause, do you? It looks right now like the same kind of natural variability that caused earlier “pauses” may be causing this one; many are using the PDO label as a proxy for that natural variability, as per the recent Nature article admitting that there has been a pause and that we don’t know why.
I tend to not see the sun as an important player, but I don’t think we fully understand what we need to understand about the effects of the sun, either. Judith Lean, who now thinks the effects of the sun are minimal, in 1992 wrote a book for the NSF relating changes in Be10 and C14 isotopes to solar activity, and showing how these two isotopes rose and fell in concert with the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. (No “Censored” file, either!). Now she thinks that earlier work is outdated, overwhelmed by GHGs. Was she right then, or now?
I am one of those skeptics you mention, not about whether GHGs affect the climate, but about how much they affect the climate. I’m also skeptical about whether the sun can do much, but I haven’t closed my mind to the possibility that Judith Lean was more correct in 1992 than she is now. I simply don’t know, and I don’t think I would if I were a highly trained expert in both observing the sun, and in climate change models.
When you have a 16 year pause that the climate people can’t explain, that goes against all of their arrogantly non-falsifiable models, I think all of us need to take a step back and admit our lack of understanding.
“R Gates, I don’t know what mix of influences has caused a 16 year pause, do you?”
_____
“Know” is an unscientific term. We can look at “most likely” based on our knowledge of the dynamics of tropospheric sensible heat and make some extrapolations. We know that ENSO is the major short-term influence on tropospheric sensible heat variability. We also know that right after the very large El Niño in 1998 (in which an very large amount of latent and sensible heat was released from ocean to atmosphere) that ENSO activity switched over to more frequent La Ninas. During La Ninas less than average sensible and latent heat flows from ocean to atmosphere. This dominant La Niña period is also seen as the cool phase of the PDO. Thus, we can make reasonable extrapolation that a big part of the tropospheric “pause” is due to the cool phase of the PDO. Do we “know” it? No, true and honest skeptics never “know” anything, but hold all truth as provisional.
“When you have a 16 year pause that the climate people can’t explain…”
_____
Of course, as soon as the “pause” began to make itself seen in the tropospheric record, climate “people” began to look at the dynamics behind it rather quickly. The cool phase of the PDO is a rather reasonable explanation for part of it, and the volcanic aerosol increase and sleepy solar cycle picks up the rest, though personally, my suspicion is that increasing GH gases might be actually playing a role in creating an overall more persistent La Niña state as was seen during the mid-Pliocene when GH gas levels begins to approach these levels. There is some research that supports my “suspicion”:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1948.short
“Settled science says: sun don’t matter (except when we need an excuse for the pause that is killing our cause).”
err not even wrong,
1. The only aspect of the sun we really understand (TSI) says that
a) the 11 year cycle might cause .1C of temperature swing.
b) there has been no secular trend in the past 100 years.
2. In the LIA the sun went went really quiet, but we also had increased
volcanic activity. some portion of the cooling is down to the sun.
3. Thre are aspect of the sun that remain mysterious, attributing climate change to these aspects is akin to blaming unicorns. It could be unicorns. Then again it might not be. Appealing to what you dont understand to explain things is not science it is “what-if-ism”
R Gates said:
““Know” is an unscientific term. We can look at “most likely” based on our knowledge:”
hahahahaha
Mosher, the 0.1 deg swing itself can cause a longer time-scale change if its frequency and amplitude vary. Most solar proponents suggest non-tsi mechanisms (electro/magnetic, tidal, clouds…) or thinking that mechanisms are simply unknown anyway.
There has been s secular trend in the last 100 years in most solar indices.
It’s not only the LIA, it’s all of it and it was also accepted as the most likely explanation before the rise of AGW in the 80s/90s.
The Cause of the Pause is explained by thermodynamic Laws
http://contextearth.com/2014/01/11/the-cause-of-the-pause-is-due-to-thermodynamic-laws/
Funny how something this simple is not well understood by skeptics. It has all the ingredients that they crave, such as natural variability and solar forcing.
that is indeed a catchy title
Looks like you have attracted one loyal disciple there, webby. Keep at it.
“Mosher, the 0.1 deg swing itself can cause a longer time-scale change if its frequency and amplitude vary. Most solar proponents suggest non-tsi mechanisms (electro/magnetic, tidal, clouds…) or thinking that mechanisms are simply unknown anyway.”
1. you present no evidence that a .1deg swing can cause a longer time scale change. none.
2. Yes, most solar proponents appeal to ignorance. That is, “something”
we dont understand about the sun MUST cause changes. Unicorns.
######################
There has been s secular trend in the last 100 years in most solar indices.
1. No, there hasnt. Stay current on the science. there is no modern grand maximum.
###########################################
It’s not only the LIA, it’s all of it and it was also accepted as the most likely explanation before the rise of AGW in the 80s/90s.
1. wrong again.
2. Even if it were correct it would be beside the point. The point is we have
data that needs explaining. That data is explained by AGW which includes
a role for the sun, a role for natural variability, and a role for GHGs.
The only people who dont get it are those sun nuts who say the sun explains it all, AND when pressed for mechanisms.. they say “the things we dont understand explain it all. Unicorns.
1. you present no evidence that a .1deg swing can cause a longer time scale change. none.
The change is 0.1% in solar forcing not 0.1c .The perturbation of the astronomical forcing globally for glacial /interglacial is also exceedingly small ie also 0.1% albeit over 10^5 yrs.
Many of the natural oscillations caused by lunar and solar effects have fundamental frequency of a month (think tides). The beat frequency between differences in the months (such as synodic, anomalistic, and draconic) leads to periods such as 6, 8.85, and 18.6 years. These should be stronger than the second-order beat frequencies caused by further interactions.
If we can measure the effects of more fundamental frequencies, it will give us more confidence on what the bounds of the slower frequencies may be.
And the trick-box to all this is that, if the slower beats are strong, that will point to a greater climate sensitivity, which may not be the greatest thing in the face of a strong CO2 forcing function.
This is how well CSALT can pick out the diurnal tidal component in global temperature:
http://imageshack.com/a/img13/3775/89rt.gif
The blue curve is the theoretical prediction of the tidal contribution to the energy perturbation in the Length-of-Day (LOD) measure. The red curve is the phase and relative amplitudes that CSALT finds in the GISS teime-series.
Mosher,
“you present no evidence that a .1deg swing can cause a longer time scale change. none.”
It’s basic mathematics. If the swings become stronger and their frequency higher, that can cause warming. Strong solar cycles are shorter as you probably know. It’s besides the point anyway, no one really claims TSI does it directly.
“Yes, most solar proponents appeal to ignorance. That is, “something”
we dont understand about the sun MUST cause changes. Unicorns.”
No, most solar proponents just point out the correlations. Some suggest and hypothesise physical mechanisms, such as UV variation, clouds etc.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/site/longterm_solar_activity.png
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/site/sunspot_web.png
“No, there hasnt. Stay current on the science. there is no modern grand maximum.”
See links above or this one:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:12/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/trend
It’s really simple – will it warm or cool in the next few decades? AGWarmers says warm, sun says cool.
.”This solar lull is baffling scientists, because right now the Sun should be awash with activity.”
In climate science there should be more baffled scientists. Nearly all papers on climate science that I read admit to unanswered questions.. I hope that never changes. That is why the level of certainty possessed by some is absurd.
Nearly all papers on biology admit to unanswered questions.
But humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
Things that are known cannot be undone by pointing at things that aren’t known. Although that does seem to be the ploy.
No ploy. Just an unbiased observation about science and about the human condition. Lets come back in 100 years and review the knowledge they possess against the knowledge that we think we possess now. Hubris does not cut it.
“Wow, what a fantastically sensationalist, irresponsible article. Great job giving rhetorical ammunition to religious fundamentalists and other anti-science folk, though.”
“Don’t worry, gatesy. If any of those scenarios come to pass, you and your settled science ilk will think up excuses to convince yourselves that your dogma is intact.”
____
Funny, I agree with ways that AGW could be falsified, and it still upsets the faithful deniers. That’s to be expected from religious beliefs I suppose.
Promises, promises. We will believe it when we see it, gatesy.
“Don Monfort | January 19, 2014 at 11:40 am |
Promises, promises. We will believe it when we see it, gatesy.”
____
It would be exciting to see a major theory overturned– as unlikely as it seems in the case of AGW.
OK, gatesey. But your kneejerk adverse reactions to any signs that your AGW dogma is undermined do not indicate an open mind to any kind of overturning. Carry on.
RGates, it is the ‘catastrophe’ which is being overturned.
===========
“kim | January 19, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
RGates, it is the ‘catastrophe’ which is being overturned.
===========
For our children’s sake and future generations, that would be a good thing, though I remain skeptical that anything related to the rapid changes (not just AGW) that humans are imparting to the Earth has been “overturned”. At some point, advocacy and political and economic infighting needs to turn to a true stewardship vision for humanities relationship to this planet. We are the dominant species and it is possible for us to damage our ecosystem to the point of collapse. We would ignore the potential for catastrophe at our own peril. But I am encouraged by our technical ability, and think that some very promising developments in the area of renewable energy are right on the horizon.
“Funny, I agree with ways that AGW could be falsified, and it still upsets the faithful deniers. That’s to be expected from religious beliefs I suppose.”
yes gates its ironic to see skeptics argue that AGW is unfalsifiable and then argue that they have falsified it.
Not a single one of them understands falsifiabilty.
“Not a single one of them understands falsifiabilty.”
You should have left off the dumb part, Steven.
There is no possible observation or sets of observations that can disprove the idea that a catastrophic global warming of anthropogenic origin is in the making.
I’d expect a 100% agreement on the statement above.
I am not sure about this. I think there could be some observations that the warmists would have difficulty explaining away. For example
1. If Arctic sea ice increased dramatically.
2. If OHC decreased rapidly
3. If global surface temperatures decreased rapidly.
And, I may add, I sort of hope ALL of the above occur in the very near future. They are the Sword of Damocles hanging over the warmists. However, the return of a new LIA could have dramatically negative effects of my great-grandchildren (I have one already, and hope for a second in June).
Jim C.,
I actually agree with the 3 points you make. If all of those happened over an extended period (at least a decade) then AGW would, at least in my mind, be DOA. As an honest skeptic, I am always open to that possibility, as remote as it seems.
Don’t worry, gatesy. If any of those scenarios come to pass, you and your settled science ilk will think up excuses to convince yourselves that your dogma is intact.
R. Gates, you write “I actually agree with the 3 points you make.”
Thank you for that. However, let me be clear. I am not sure we necessarily have to wait a decade of more. I deliberately used the words “dramatically” and “rapidly”. I hope you will agree that it might be possible for the occurrences to be so dramatic, and so rapid, that we might not have to wait a decade or more.
Don, you write “Don’t worry, gatesy. If any of those scenarios come to pass, you and your settled science ilk will think up excuses to convince yourselves that your dogma is intact.”
I think this remark is entirely unnecessary. It will not matter what dyed-in-the-wool warmists do. What will matter is what organizations like the Royal Society do. I suspect, strongly, that if the three conditions I suggested were, in fact, to occur, it would result in a rapid rethink on the part of all learned scientific societies.
“I hope you will agree that it might be possible for the occurrences to be so dramatic, and so rapid, that we might not have to wait a decade or more.”
_____
Such dramatic changes would have a specific dramatic and powerful forcing attached– i.e. a large meteor striking Earth or a series of very large supervolcanoes, such as if the Yellowstone caldera blowing up again. In this case, AGW would not be falsified, as climate is always the sum of all forcings, and a large negative forcing would then counter the forcing from human activities, and possibly negate human activities as well.
I would agree with the 3 items Jim mentioned.
I think it would take a catastrophic volcanic eruption for those things to happen, or some other observation that would explain such obsevations.
But I would add the currently unlikely idea that all the industrialized nations would agree to stop burning coal by say 2050.
bob droege, they would have to do more than that. They would have to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere too, otherwise these things just will attain a steady level.
There is no possible observation or sets of observations that can disprove the idea that a catastrophic global warming of anthropogenic origin is in the making.
#####################################
that’s trivially true since observation can never prove or disprove. Observation gives weight or takes away weight. However we might want to reduce induction to deduction nobody has been successful in doing so.
But there are observations that could make it far less likely that catastrophic warming is a viable theory.
1. You could go in the lab tommorrow and find that everything we know about
C02 is wrong. It could happen. Go and try
2. we could see temperatures plunge by 10 C over the next 10 years. That
would ( absent volcanos of course) make the theory far less likely.
There are all sorts of observations one could in principle make that would make you disbelieve in the theory. None of these observations would merit the title
“proof” we get proofs in logic and math, in science we get the best explanation.
But back to the basics, to falsify that CO2 in the atmosphere warms the earth, you only need two things, an observation that CO2 does not emit in the infared, and an observation that no heat is transferred by infared radiation.
My guess is that we will keep burning fossil fuels untill we get to the point where we have had enough catastrophies.
“There are all sorts of observations one could in principle make that would make you disbelieve in the theory.”
This made me laugh because it made me think of this similar conclusion:
“There are all sorts of phony adjustments climate scientists could in principle make that would make you disbelieve in the theory.”
Andrew
@bob droege
If you are talking about adding more CO2 to current levels and if you are assuming that CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, then I disagree with your statement on falsification. If the lapse rate were to reduce as a direct result of adding CO2, the earth might not warm.
Omnologos:
See my post of 2:51 p.m.
Willb,
The lapse rate being the combined effect of all greenhouse gases, so you may indeed be correct.
But that would require that an increase in CO2 causes a decrease in another greenhouse gas.
willb, the convective lapse rate changes in known ways in response to temperature and water vapor properties and we see its variation from cold to warm climates. CO2 doesn’t figure into that in any significant way. This is known from physics.
Bob Droege,
Other GHGs would not necessarily need to change. Nobody knows precisely the relationship between GHGs and the lapse rate. Adding CO2 should increase thermal radiation in the atmosphere, which would change its thermal properties. An increase in water vapour, which is another GHG, seems to decrease the lapse rate from the adiabatic lapse rate. Why not a similar effect for CO2?
The lapse rate is a well known quantity in meteorology. It depends mostly on latent heating, gravity and the heat capacity of air, and only the last is even marginally affected by CO2.
Yeah, but without CO2 in the air there would be very little water vapor to do that latent heating.
bob droege, it is true that more CO2 leads to more water vapor, and that changes the lapse rate, but while lapse rates with surface oceans several degrees in excess of 30 C are rare these days, those lapse rates are predictable from meteorological principles.
Can you point to any period in history when there was no water vapour or CO2, and it depended on CO2 increasing to a certain level before water vapour could exist?
The truth is, there has never been zero CO2 or zero water vapour.
And, if any ‘Snowball Earth’ epoch actually did take place, it took place despite CO2.
@Jim D
“The lapse rate is a well known quantity in meteorology.”
As an observed and measured phenomenon, I agree.
“It depends mostly on latent heating, gravity and the heat capacity of air…”
… and on the thermal radiation properties of GHGs. There are more than a few people (scientists included) who seem to believe that without any GHGs at all in the atmosphere the lapse rate would ultimately decrease to 0.
@bob droege
My comment was intended to address the situation where CO2 levels increase beyond current levels. I think it’s a bridge too far to speculate on what would happen if all CO2 were somehow to disappear from the atmosphere. Does that mean all CO2 in the oceans also has to disappear?
The Ice Ages were very dry and dusty.
willb, the extreme case of no GHGs is rather separate from real atmospheres. Anyway increasing GHGs has very predictable effects in both radiation and convection. The lapse rate is mostly determined by convection.
I was just going to extremes to show that CO2 concentration does affect the lapse rate, and I think someone backed off of their statement to one I more agree with.
I had expected someone to counter that the lapse rate is not totally due to the greenhouse effect
but that an increase in CO2 concentration will increase the lapse rate.
Cause CO2 at any level in the atmosphere warms the atmosphere below it.
Cause it absorbs and radiates in the infared.
bob droege, that may be the case if you suddenly change CO2, but eventually the warmer surface returns to convecting, and the lapse rate becomes a convective one again (in the whole troposphere). It is pretty much determined by the surface temperature alone.
And CO2 in the whole atmosphere affects the temperature at the surface.
Well played.
@Jim D
“Anyway increasing GHGs has very predictable effects in both radiation and convection.”
The validity of this statement is one of the points of contention in the debate between skeptics and warmists. I personally don’t think the GHG effect on the lapse rate has been adequately nailed down.
“The lapse rate is mostly determined by convection.”
I would dispute this. It depends on what you mean by “mostly”, but if convection completely dominated all other mechanisms, the environmental lapse rate would be close to the adiabatic lapse rate. It is not.
@bob droege
In my original reply to you, I had stipulated my assumptions:
“If you are talking about adding more CO2 to current levels and if you are assuming that CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere…”.
“Cause CO2 at any level in the atmosphere warms the atmosphere below it.”
CO2 at any level in the atmosphere warms the atmosphere above it as well.
The tropical ocean environment is close to the moist adiabatic lapse rate, and this helps to determine lapse rates elsewhere too.
I am not assuming CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, I would put that down as an observation, away from known sources and sinks it is pretty much the same everywhere.
Of course skeptics haven’t got that nailed down yet cause if they concede that, they are well on the way to the concensus.
@Jim D
I would not consider the moist adiabatic lapse rate to be “mostly determined by convection”. The moist adiabatic lapse rate is 1/2 the dry adiabatic lapse rate. The reduction is due to the presence of water vapor, the dominant GHG in the atmosphere.
@bob droege
I’d like to understand the science behind climate change a little better. I’m not interested in joining a religious movement.
willb, convection and the moist adiabatic lapse rate both depend on latent heating. We are talking about tropical thunderstorms here.
Willb,
You are correct that water vapor is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect.
from wikepedia, for the quote, but check the links wikepedia provides if you can get through the paywall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
“Robert H. Essenhigh developed a comprehensive thermodynamic model of the lapse rate based on the Schuster-Schwarzschild integral (S-S) Equations of Transfer that govern radiation through the atmosphere including absorption and radiation by greenhouse gases.”
The lapse rate can be predicted form greenhouse gases.
Welcome to the cult
@Jim D
I’m going to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. let’s say that the average lapse rate on Earth is 6.4C/km. Assume also that the increase in the average global temperature due the greenhouse effect is 32C. This would put the effective radiating level at 32/6.4 = 5km.
Now let’s say that the lapse rate decreased from 6.4C/km to 6.2C/km, about a 3% decrease. This would reduce the temperature increase due to the GHE to 5×6.2 = 31C, a drop of one whole degree. One degree is how much the global temperature increased over the last 150 years.
The Earth’s lapse rate varies spatially and temporally in a somewhat chaotic manner, from 0C/km to 10C/km. Do you honestly believe that we can accurately determine the average lapse rate of the entire Earth at any instant to within a few percent accuracy? If not, then how do you know that the thermal radiation properties of adding more CO2 won’t affect the lapse rate?
willb, it is more complicated than that because the lapse rate varies from nearer 10 C/km at the poles to 6 C/km near the equator, and clouds have to be considered too which is where GCMs or reanalyses come in. In the simple case, adding CO2 raises the effective radiation level, and the feedback addition of moisture raises it further, but reduces the lapse rate lowering the effective level back slightly. This is known as the negative lapse rate feedback. It doesn’t cancel the CO2 effect or water vapor feedback, but works in the opposite direction. Papers on this by Soden and Held are worth looking at. Representing the global atmosphere by one average column gives a good idea of the relative importance of these effects.
@bob droege
So it appears that Essenhigh is also of the opinion the the IR absorption and radiation properties of CO2 will change the lapse rate. You do realize this contradicts Jim D? As you will recall, he said this:
Jim D | January 19, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
The lapse rate is a well known quantity in meteorology. It depends mostly on latent heating, gravity and the heat capacity of air, and only the last is even marginally affected by CO2.
@Jim D
All you’re really telling me is that there is a whole lot of speculation on the mechanisms that affect the lapse rate and that noone has actually made an attempt to separate and quantify the various mechanisms through lab experiments.
The BBC article on the sun is another in a series of such articles, as we’ve all been following this “sleepy sun” stories. This quote from Lockwood taken from the article is worth taking note of:
“Prof Lockwood says that while UV light varies with solar activity, other forms of radiation from the Sun that penetrate the troposphere (the lower layer of air that sits above the Earth) do not change that much.
He explains: “If we take all the science that we know relating to how the Sun emits heat and light and how that heat and light powers our climate system, and we look at the climate system globally, the difference that it makes even going back into Maunder Minimum conditions is very small.”
____
From my extensive reading of the research and looking at public perception, there seems to be some confusion among the general population about the role of the sun during the LIA versus volcanic activity, and how each affects global versus regional climate differently. But that’s a lengthy discussion, suffice to say that Lockwood’s comments above related to solar influences are right on target.
R. Gates
Problem is, that neither Prof. Lockwood (nor certainly not you) know all the many ways that the sun can influence our planet’s climate.
But we do know that the climate has changed dramatically over time, long before there was any human CO2, so there must be another major “climate control knob” – we just don’t know what role the sun has played and by what mechanism this has occurred.
It’s all about “uncertainty”, Gates.
Max
“It’s all about “uncertainty”, Gates.”
____
Well, no, it’s all about what is most likely as you can never have complete certainty. There will always be uncertainty. If you smoke, it is not completely certainty you will die from cancer, but you raise the odds quite a bit. The continued eruption of the human carbon volcano, with a business as usual or even increasingly big eruption raises the odds of some very nasty consequences. The “warmer is always” better crowd hates this, and ironically many of them live in Australia where the thousands of dead bats falling from the trees from the record hot weather would be testimony that “warmer is not alway better”. Of course, this past years record warmth has ended the “pause” for Australia- which also has been inconvenient for the so-called “skeptics”.
No, Gates, Lockwood’s comments (below) are NOT right on target.
“If we take all the science that we know relating to how the Sun emits heat and light and how that heat and light powers our climate system, and we look at the climate system globally, the difference that it makes even going back into Maunder Minimum conditions is very small.”
Here are three Figures of precise experimental data on how the Sun emits heat and light that nuclear and solar scientists ignore because they falsify the SSM (Standard Solar Model).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
You can verify that for yourself by asking the best-known expert you know in nuclear and/or solar science to give their explanation for the data.
Judith –
What do you find “interesting” about a repetition of the same tribalistic and shallow talking points that you have no doubt read thousands of times?
Is it interesting because it is so inane and banal? I have to admit, inanity and banality at that level is pretty remarkable.
More BS! from lolwot.
How did you come to the conclusion that C02 is a threat in the first place?No scientific paper exists on planet Earth to prove your case, but plenty of evidence exists to suggest a threat from outer space is a real threat.
Think Russia and the meteor impact of late.
My guess is that Judith will ignore joshie’s latest smarmy attack, as usual.
Steve R W. ask Judith if we should be moreconcerned about danger from potential man made global warming, or from meteors. I bet she will agree more with lollie.
JC’s testimony has resulted in much comment and some ill thought out criticism, if you were to move to a more celebrity status, this would certainly result in many more attacks, not only on your work and what you say, but no doubt the criticsm would become more personal. Any change in approach would give those who wish you reputation harm, an opportunity to close some doors that, at present, are still open to you.
Those calls that have been made for you raise your profile, I think, are generated by frustration that the (sceptical) voice is not heard much above the blogosphere. In the end it is your call.
Meanwhile Steve Goddard has an interesting post on temperature adjustments that may cause a kerfuffle.
“Meanwhile Steve Goddard has an interesting post on temperature adjustments that may cause a kerfuffle.”
____
Really? Does someone actually care what Steve Goddard has to say?
It’s evidently got you bothered
I looked at the Goddard blog post and it is a fine example of a Gish Gallop applied via lots of charts..
The USA accounts for only 2% of the surface area of the earth.
So Goddard has 2% of an argument.
A real correction is the 0.14C offset that is needed during the WWII years of 1941 to 1945. After that correction, we can get agreement between data and model such as this:
http://imageshack.com/a/img89/5736/1jg.gif
“But there’s a big difference between accepting scientific consensus and just blindly believing everything said by a guy in a white lab coat.”
________
Now you tell me, after I spent good money on a white lab coat to wear when I do citizen science.
I tuned in to CSPAN to watch the entire hearing (or I thought) since they usually do a good job of covering such hearings. Unfortunately, at least for the time slot I watched, they broke away before JC got to testify.
They are not in the MSM category for a variety of reasons. Which just added to the disappoint of not having all of the hearing televised.
It should be pointed out that overall this was a relatively minor hearing, with a very specific political agenda. Dems trying to push Obama’s climate agenda and Republicans (especially those in favor of helping old King Coal) trying to delay, stall, or outright sideline the Democrats. Judith was “tapped” by the Republicans to testify, and fulfilled her duties admirably from their perspective.
Gates
I agree with you about the political agenda but tell me when that is not the case. With the entry of TV it is all political theater. Knowing how LBJ operated with such supreme skill, I wonder how he would have liked the cameras hampering his style. Face time trumps political muscle now, I am afraid.
The average citizen really doesn’t care that much about the issue of climate change. It makes headlines when some major weather event happens or some new study comes out, but generally the public just does not care that much. We “climate nerds” who frequent the climate blogosphere are quite the exceptions, and so we naturally assume that when one of our blogosphere leaders goes to D.C. to testify that it should be a big deal. It just isn’t, and her appearance there was all for the political benefit of the Republicans (whether she intended that or not).
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | January 19, 2014 at 11:00 am |
It should be pointed out that overall this was a relatively minor hearing, with a very specific political agenda. Dems trying to push Obama’s climate agenda and Republicans (especially those in favor of helping old King Coal) trying to delay, stall, or outright sideline the Democrats. Judith was “tapped” by the Republicans to testify, and fulfilled her duties admirably from their perspective.
___________
How is it you expect anyone to believe you are an “honest skeptic” when you are frequently using pejorative slurs, but only on the “denier” side of the argument?
IMO your self-proclaimed skepticism is overwhelmed by your obvious faith.
“IMO your self-proclaimed skepticism is overwhelmed by your obvious faith.”
____
I have no faith that AGW is correct– simply take it as the “most likely” explanation for a variety of actual real world observations that are in line with expectations of the energy imbalance caused by the human carbon volcano. I welcome other plausible explanations for how Earth’s climate system could be forced into the accumulation of so much energy.
So AGW is the the “most likely” explanation for the past 15 years? In that case, I have some land in Florida I think you’d be interested in.
Oh, and R Gates, let me ask this: how confident are you that 100% of all land ever inhabited by man has been freed by ice as of today? Because if the Earth has accumulated so much energy, as you assert, I’d expect all of it to be exposed by now.
If JC wanted to “raise her profile” she could always be a headliner at some upcoming Heartland conference. That would of course really “seal the deal” in terms of her credibility, but she would be better known.
I think your comment is unnecessarily confrontational. Heartland has an open invitation to any warmist, or people like our hostess, to give papers at their conferences. One such warmist did, indeed, accept the invitation, was warmly greeted, and his paper was accepted as a genuine attempt to discuss science.
Wow Gates, the gradual decline into outright clownhood continues. You were one of the warmists I took semi-seriously. Not anymore.
Steve R W,
I would assume that your comment will be deleted or highly moderated by Judith, but if it is not, I am sorry if the reality of what Heartland is and means to the larger scientific community upsets you. They have always been an advocacy group first, with the science there only as a support of the position their patrons pay them to take.
As far as what any reader of this blog can learn from me…that depends on how thorough their knowledge of climate science and political reality is. I have more than a passing knowledge of each and can stand my ground on both topics quite handily.
You got this one right, Steve RW.
pokerguy (aka al neipris) | January 19, 2014 at 11:20 am |
Wow Gates, the gradual decline into outright clownhood continues. You were one of the warmists I took semi-seriously. Not anymore.
____
You don’t like me taking pot-shots at Heartland eh? My comment was of course “dark humor”, and an attempt to show a not-to-serious way that Judith could raise awareness of her.
As far as you taking warmists, me or any warmist seriously, if you were an honest skeptic you would consider all ideas worthy. The fact that I particularly like to poke fun at the advocacy group known as Heartland should not alter you consideration of the scientific merit of my comments. But if it does– I really don’t care.
R. Gates
You are right that “the average citizen really doesn’t care that much about the issue of climate change”.
And that’s for a good reason.
It’s really not that much of an issue.
Climate is changing and always has, with or without human influences. It is unlikely to become a serious potential issue for humanity or our environment even in its worst incarnation over the time span of the next 100 years, when we and our children will all be gone.
The “average citizen” has much more pressing concerns than this non-issue.
Max
Continued preaching of the faith, and deionizing of those who aren’t of the faith, by R Gates.
Personally I think he should replace “Skeptical Warmist” (which seems to be an oxymoron) with “Warmist High Priest”. Better fit to the rhetoric.
Ha, deionizing, I like it. How about demonizing (sp?).
Actually, I think there are some who need to be deionized.
As on honest skeptic who constantly weighs evidence that might cause me to alter or even abandon the those “truths” I hold provisionally as most likely, I welcome all data and research you care to send my way. You do skeptics a great service by having them look at data that refutes their provisional truths. Thank you in advance for anything you send my way in this regard.
Corrected that one for you.
“I am sorry if the reality of what the IPCC is and means to the larger scientific community upsets you. They have always been an advocacy group first, with the science there only as a support of the position their patrons pay them to take. “
No I took into account craters on the Earth in order to realize just how low the probability is that a city will be struck by a sufficiently large meteorite in the next 200 years.
On the otherhand there is no past precedent for the current rate of CO2 rise caused by man. Yet somehow you’ve chosen to blindly and dogmatically believe that such a rapid change can’t have any ill effect.
Come forth Mr wise man of the internet. Post a link that suggest CO2 is a threat. Name the paper, name the author and post the results. Name the journal!
This is your chance to be famous LOLWOT. You can make history. This is your chance! You have an opportunity to make history.
@ Steve
“Come forth Mr wise man of the internet. Post a link that suggest CO2 is a threat. Name the paper, name the author and post the results. Name the journal!”
As the number of papers suggesting (proclaiming) that not only CO2 but ACO2 specifically is an existential threat is N, where N is large, I won’t bother with posting any.
I will note that all of the papers can be filed under the category of ‘ex cathedra pronouncements’ rather than ‘scientific analysis’.
Does anyone need a paper to know humanity needs more not less energy?
Baloney! I have found I can be just as happy using less energy and save money too. Do you have something against saving money?
Waggy is talking about humanity, maxie. Not you.
Yes Maxie it is entirely possible to be more happy using less energy.
It’s just easier to be more happy using more energy.
Bingo!
re; Humanity needs more energy to be happier.
Not necessarily if we go by total happiness. Ten people each living happily for 40 years is the same as 5 people living happily for 80 years. We need the metric to be happiness-years or something like that.
A metric for happiness is liable to be very subjective. Inescapably so I should imagine.
Let’s put it in terms Maxie might understand. If I grow 35,000 corn plants per acre for a yield of 160 bushels per acre then switch over to 30,000 per acre for a yield of 150 bushels per acre then clearly I should be growing more plants per acre.
Instead of bushels per acre think happiness years per megawatt/hour.
Maybe you should share your ideology with Al Gore and all of the Leftists that like to jet in places like Cancun to solve the world’s energy problems over pitchers of margaritas.
Waggy is green with Al Gore envy.
Does Al Gore have Bush envy?
most insightful comment of the week
What was?
Threading nor appears to be very, very broken. Figuring out how to post a reply to someone or get a new post to the bottom now eludes me.
(though this may end up at the bottom anyway :-)
Wagathon | January 19, 2014 at 12:35 pm | Reply
“Maybe you should share your ideology with Al Gore and all of the Leftists that like to jet in places like Cancun to solve the world’s energy problems over pitchers of margaritas.”
Al Gore doesn’t seem to be all that happy. My dogs are way happier than Al Gore and they don’t use as much energy in 10 years as Gore uses in 10 hours.
Your dogs have most likely not been able to amass a fortune like “the ex-future president of the USA and self anointed savior of the planet” has done.
Like ‘im or not – ya gotta hand it to ‘im – he’s got one effective shtick.
Max
I use a microwave 750 MW oven from 1986 that still works perfectly. Yet i witness such modern day ovens on the council clean up verge that have already failed.
Steve RW, wow, your neighborhood lights must dim when you turn that thing on.
Steve uses a step down transformer in deference to his greenie neighbors.
Jim D, after all these years, there has yet to a “leak” from the oven. 750 watts is 750 watts.
It’s a classic!
Steve, you wrote: 750MW jimmy dee made a joke, surprising us all
LOL… yep and sorry 750 watts is the key. The touch screen tech still works.
The brand is “National”
From 1986.
They used to build stuff right in those days, not the 3 year, or “just after the warranty runs out” design life rubbish you buy nowadays…
Litton Microwave Generation
I think you perhaps mean 750W ?, as 750MW would light a city, but I digress. I fix stuff as well. An old Rowenta toaster for over 20 years, then a combo microwave with (2) new magnetrons and even a new fan from sheet metal after the old one corroded away. However, there comes a time when it’s less hassle to buy a new one, much as it irks my sense of thrift :-)…
Well damn, if Max can do it, then all those starving in the developing world can to I say! Energy, smenergy, they don’t need no stinkin’ energy! Let them starve! Let them eat cake!
Max_OK
Today’s 7 million people use about 15% more energy per capita than the 3.7 billion inhabitants did in 1970.
At the same time, CO2 has increased by around 20% and global temperature has increased by around 0.5ºC.
Overall crop yields increased by 2.4 times, while population increased by 1.9 times.
Starvation rates declined significantly and world life expectancy at birth rose from 55 to 68 years, despite the AIDS/HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.
And if per capita fossil fuel consumption (and CO2 generation) continue to increase by another 30% by the end of this century, we’ll arrive at a CO2 level of around 640 ppmv by 2100, with a population rising to a bit more than 10 billion.
Of course, this increase will occur in the underdeveloped nations as they develop a reliable energy infrastructure and grow their economies while the per capita CO2 in the developed world will continue to decrease, as it has since 1970.
Sounds like good news all the way, Okie.
Whether or not additional CO2 and slightly warmer global temperature will continue to have a positive effect on crop yields is not certain (but likely).
What’s not to like, Okie?
Don’t be such a pessimist.
Max_CH
manacker, while I won’t disagree with your numbers, by 2100, using those, we would be committed to 3.5 C of CO2 warming, emitting at 80 Gt/yr and rising at 5 ppm per year. Not a good place to be. Some ramping down is needed, starting sooner rather than later.
Jimmy dee, do you understand now that when Steve R W wrote that he owned and operated an antique 750MW microwave oven that it was a typo? It’s 750 watts, jimmy. Does that make you feel better about Steve RW?
Max_CH, what’s not to like is energy hogs who want to use up all our fossil fuels ASAP and pollute as much as possible. In terms of damage to mankind , these eco-criminals are the modern day equivalent of the bubonic plague.
Oh puh-lease.
We’ve had a little warming – most of the desperate attempts to find some harm are empty. Maybe the real criminals are those would deny economic advancement to the third world which could use it.
America’s energy hogs care about the Third World? That’s a laugh. They don’t care about Third World, they don’t care about future generations, they don’t care about anything but themselves.
How about China’s energy hogs? They probably don’t care about anything but themselves?
Waggy, you might not get along well with the Chinese. Unlike fossil fuel fanatics, the Chinese don’t like to see and taste the air they breath.
Are fossil fuel fanatics sort of like protein fanatics who like egg white omelets with their cappuccinos?
It is said of Chinese pigs that:
They seek beauty and a sensitive love. They are caring, unique, self-sacrificing, obliging, sensible, creative, empathetic, tactful, and prudent. …
With Chinese pigs, we’re in good hooves.
Chinese pigs bring home the bacon.
Those who want to “pollute as much as possible,” are people like Saddam Hussein who in his revenge for being kicked out of Kuwait set the oil fields on fire because Carl Sagan said the smoke would blot out the sun around the world for a year. But, if you think air conditioning and heating or driving a car to work is being an energy hog, instead of calling everyone criminals, why not get together with your Leftist buddies and beg Al Gore to run for president, again?
Drama queen.
Drama Queen was directed at
@Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | January 19, 2014 at 6:37 pm | Reply
Max_CH, what’s not to like is energy hogs who want to use up all our fossil fuels ASAP and pollute as much as possible. In terms of damage to mankind , these eco-criminals are the modern day equivalent of the bubonic plague.
Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals
By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Brussels
Europe may be backing away from its ambitious climate protection goals.
Europe may be backing away from its ambitious climate protection goals.
The EU’s reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking — jeopardizing Germany’s touted energy revolution in the process.
The climate between Brussels and Berlin is polluted, something European Commission officials attribute, among other things, to the “reckless” way German Chancellor Angela Merkel blocked stricter exhaust emissions during her re-election campaign to placate domestic automotive manufacturers like Daimler and BMW. This kind of blatant self-interest, officials complained at the time, is poisoning the climate.
But now it seems that the climate is no longer of much importance to the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, either. Commission sources have long been hinting that the body intends to move away from ambitious climate protection goals. On Tuesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported as much.
At the request of Commission President José Manuel Barroso, EU member states are no longer to receive specific guidelines for the development ofrenewable energy. The stated aim of increasing the share of green energy across the EU to up to 27 percent will hold. But how seriously countries tackle this project will no longer be regulated within the plan. As of 2020 at the latest — when the current commitment to further increase the share of green energy expires — climate protection in the EU will apparently be pursued on a voluntary basis.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html
More from the article:
Welcome, Frackers
In addition, the authority wants to pave the way in the EU for the controversial practice of fracking, according to the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The report says the Commission does not intend to establish strict rules for the extraction of shale gas, but only minimum health and environmental standards.
The plans will be officially presented next Wednesday ahead of an EU summit meeting in March. Observers, however, believe that a decision is unlikely to come until the summer at the earliest. But action must be taken this year: At the beginning of 2015, a climate conference will take place in Paris at which a global climate agreement is to be hashed out.
The European Parliament is unlikely to be pleased with the Commission’s plans. Just at the beginning of January, a strong parliamentary majority voted to reduce carbon emissions EU-wide by 40 percent by 2030 and to raise the portion of renewables to at least 30 percent of energy consumption.
If you reply to the last post, that post will be posted at the end … at least that is what seems to be happening.
Yep, it is obvious we need to try one of the successful “green” programs like Europe, Australia, and BC. It works great for them!!
We will jim2, but I believe it will be years from now, and I fear most fossil-fuel fuddy-duddies will be in the promise land by then or in that other place.
The success of British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax seem to upset climate contrarians everywhere. I think that speaks well for this tax.
@Max
“The success of British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax seem to upset climate contrarians everywhere. I think that speaks well for this tax.”
The tax was advertised as being necessary to control AGW. To have succeeded, it must have measurably reduced the rate of ‘global warming’.
Did it? By how much and how do you know?
Bob, have you heard about the pause?
Well, there’s the pause.
“I believe that UHI and land use change are a major component of the observed warming trend. Multidecadal cycles in the sun and oceans account for most all of the rest… [historical readings from ] Central Park NYC shows what a mess the UHI and versioning by NOAA of data has been… there is no way jose we could hope to estimate global changes to a precision of 0.1 F. In the words of John von Neumann, father of the computer and of algorithms, There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.” ~Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
jim2 | January 19, 2014 at 10:35 pm
On the Spiegel reference: One can almost tell the slant of an item from the picture used to illustrate the story.
Here we have wind turbines against a background of towers spewing clouds. Green de rigueur. It appears that the turbines are idle and the cooling towers are spewing steam while the power plant generates electricity for the population.
Somebody ask little maxie if he actually knows, or if he can name some of those eco-criminals, who want to use up…blah…blah…blah
I would say most climate contrarians have eco-criminal tendencies. I don’t want to offend anyone here by giving names, but if you want to burn as much fossil fuel as possible and/or you are repelled by the thought of clean energy from wind power and solar power, you may have eco-criminal tendencies.
Nice socialist attitude there, max. Might even be closing in on communist – totalitarian and all that.
Only BC have frozen the carbon tax for 5 years – if it’s so great, why is that Max?
Maybe the BC pols heard about the election in Oz.
jim2, I’ll tell you what I am and what I am not.
I am a successful capitalist.
I am not a free-market fruitcake.
Try to forget B.C. has a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Just put it out of your mind. Then it won’t bother you.
The BC carbon tax is working so well that the incumbent government is fearful of Oz type election results and are promising a freeze to attempt to placate the surly suffering citizenry:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-tax-freeze-part-of-b-c-liberal-election-pledge-1.1389584
“Clark says current economic conditions don’t allow for further increases.
“Now we’re at a point where people are finding it really difficult to afford to live in British Columbia and other places and people are concerned about their future, and with an unstable world economy we have to work hard to keep life affordable for people,” she said.
“Freezing the carbon tax for five years is part of my commitment.”
NDP environment critic Rob Fleming calls the move an admission of failure by the government, saying freezing the rate for half a decade will ensure B.C. doesn’t meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.”
Not working as planned. Where have we heard that before:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-offsets-program-slammed-by-b-c-auditor-general-1.1351316
British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax is working well enough to alarm fossil fuel fanatics and pollution advocates, who are shocked over the 17.4% per capita drop in B.C. fuel consumption that has occurred since the tax has been in place.
Saying the B.C. revenue-neutral carbon tax is “frozen” is a funny way of saying the Province still has the tax.
Yup, Max, the tax is working well enough that the net interprovincial migration in BC is negative: http://www.wminfomatics.com/WManalytics/Articles/120406/PopBC2011a.html
Clearly everyone loves a carbon tax!
Reposting due to threading issues. It got buried in the middle of the mess.
Jan. 19, 2014
Dear Readers,
On Monday, Jan. 20, New Energy Times will publish “Federal Investigations Reveal Academic Backstabbing at Purdue University.”
The report is about the controversy surrounding Rusi Taleyarkhan, a professor in the Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering, and his research. Taleyarkhan has said that his group’s nuclear cavitation research may lead to a new carbon-free clean-energy technology, yet it has never been independently replicated. The research is sometimes called sonofusion or bubble fusion.
In 2002, he and five colleagues at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory claimed that they were the first group to experimentally demonstrate and confirm the long-predicted phenomenon of nuclear reactions in cavitating liquids. According to independent audits performed by Oak Ridge peers Dan Shapria, Michael Saltmarsh and Michael Murray, they succeeded.
The experiments were replicated by a team at Purdue in 2003, with some help from Taleyarkhan. Another team at Purdue replicated the results in 2005, and the experiments were also demonstrated in 2006 in front of a DARPA-sponsored review team. According to witnesses at that review, Taleyarkhan succeeded.
Nevertheless, academic peers and competitors of Taleyarkhans coordinated to make accusations against him of research misconduct and/or fraud.
Through multiple Freedom of Information Act requests, New Energy Times has obtained inter-university correspondence and documents from federal investigations revealing that Eugenie Reich, a freelance journalist writing for Nature’s news service, conspired with Lefteri Tsoukalas, at the time the head of the Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering. Reich also collaborated with physicist Seth Putterman at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chemist Kenneth Suslick at the University of Illinois.
All four of them sent allegations to Holly Adams, at the time the inspector general of the U.S. Office of Naval Research, claiming that Taleyarkhan had committed research misconduct and, in some cases, fraud.
Yet, after several years of extensive and costly federally mandated investigations, no evidence of fraud was found.
In response to pressure from the media, the inspector general, and Congress, a Purdue University committee, under the direction of an outside law firm, eventually created two specious allegations of research misconduct and adjudicated those same allegations against Taleyarkhan.
Meanwhile, some of his accusers – fellow scientists – manipulated and withheld their own confirmatory data, misled the media, and misled federal investigators to advance their own diverse agendas.
In response to investigations by New Energy Times, three federal offices conducted their own investigations. On Monday, we will report for the first time that documents obtained over the course of several years by New Energy Times from the federal government in response to FOIA requests show that Adams inappropriately collaborated with Tsoukalas.
The Department of Defense put Adams on administrative leave, revoked her security clearance, and later reassigned her and reinstated her clearance. By that time, Purdue had forced Tsoukalas to resign as the head of the School of Nuclear Engineering.
Taleyarkhan remains a professor in the school; however, Purdue has not rescinded most of its sanctions against him. His research has ground to a halt, and his reputation remains tainted by the accusations of fraud.
Steven B. Krivit
Publisher and Senior Editor
New Energy Times
jim2: A url would have been friendlier IMHO (rather than the full text).
This was an email. This newsletter used to be free, I think you have to subscribe now. At any rate, here is the web site:
http://news.newenergytimes.net/
I’ll re-post this here (slightly re-worded to make it less extreme :-) as it too got lost up thread.
Null Hypothesis = Scenario C
A more scientific, statistical, claim that can be made about the above ‘slogan’ is
The longer that Global Surface Temperatures track Hansen’s Scenario C, the more likely it is that Climate Sensitivity is <1.0.
There are only two questions that need answering.
1. Is it true that Global Surface Temperatures are tracking Scenario C (see http://snag.gy/FeWzn.jpg)?
2. Is it fair to characterise Scenario C as having a Climate Sensitivity of <1.0 given that greenhouse gasses did NOT track the levels after 2000 as proposed but that Global Surface Temperatures DID track Scenario C?
Notes for http://snag.gy/FeWzn.jpg:
1. Original image 'http://web.archive.org/web/20010223232940/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/' which is Hansen's original publication.
2. New observations are from GISS and scaled to match the original figure.
You should post this on every thread.
=========
k scott, that’s because energy hogs are fleeing B.C., which is a good thing not a bad thing.
Did I not read some where that half the population of BC drives across the border to fill their tanks and drums. Explaining the apparent drop in fuel consumption.
Some “capitalists” seek “economic rents” through political favoritism or political policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
This was supposed to be a reply to Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | January 19, 2014 at 11:51 pm
Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | January 19, 2014 at 11:09 pm
Have you gone off the rails, Max? Criminalize opposition?
Do look up: Various. “Totalitarianism – Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.” Encyclopedia? Wikipedia, March 14, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
And where it leads: Niemöller, Martin. “And Then They Came for Me.” Accessed April 17, 2009. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
You want to eradicate them (energy hogs) as a plague?
Curiouser and curiouser.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/abstract
enjoy
Craters on the earth get eroded, hidden, filled in, etc. Yes, many can be discerned, But a meteor that leaves even a small crater can ruin your day. Much better to count the craters on the moon, then factor in relative areas of moon vs earth, age of moon. etc. The odds will still be low of course, but you’ll have a better number. And certainly a higher number.
As to your other point,for CO2, and pretty much everything else due to the industrial activity of man (leaving out agriculture for the moment) that has been added to the environment, we have barely 150 years of history, No natural releases of CFCs has ever been proposed, but CO2 has been a part of the atmosphere since about Day 4, so why assume an ill effect for a trace gas that has many natural sinks, which should moderate any change?
lolwot
70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, where one would have a hard time finding any craters.
To change our planet’s climate would take a biggie, but to wipe out a town or city would not take much more than the one that hit Russia recently.
As for CAGW – fuggidaboudit, lolwot – it’s a virtual hobgoblin.
Max
Incidental re craters under water: There is an interesting submerged crater at the eastern end of Lake Ontario near the mouth of the St. Lawrence. I sailed over it many times without realizing it was there.
From the article:
…
However, there is another tight oil play located outside of the United States that greatly eclipses all of these. That deposit is known as the Bazenhov Shale. The Bazenhov is located in West Siberia in Russia, approximately 2,000 miles to the east of the Russian capital of Moscow. The overall region covered by the formation is quite extensive, including much of Western Siberia and even extending to as far north as the Kara Sea and Novaya Zemlya.
…
The sheer quantity of oil that is estimated to be contained inside of the Bazenhov Shale is nothing short of astonishing. Unfortunately, the estimates of its size also span quite a wide range. According to Wood Mackenzie, one of the most respected research and consulting firms in the energy and mining industry, the Bazenhov Shale formation contains approximately two trillion barrels of oil in place. The U.S. EIA estimates that the Bazenhov Shale contains 1,243 billion barrels (1.2 trillion barrels) of oil with 74.6 billion barrels of this total being technically recoverable using today’s technology. The Russian government agency Rosendra (Russian Federal Subsoil Agency) estimated in 2012 that the Bazenhov Shale formation contains from 180 to 360 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Finally, the Russian oil company Rosneft (OTC:OJSCY) estimated that the formation contains a mere 22 billion barrels of oil. Rosneft’s estimate, by far the lowest of the group, is still enough to make this formation the equal of the Bakken Shale in the United States.
…
The Bazenhov Shale is not as developed as the tight oil plays in the United States are. In fact, for the most part, it is not developed at all. One reason for the lack of development here was due to Russia’s oil taxation regime. According to Tom Reed, former CEO of Ruspetro (OTC:RUSPF) who was interviewed for an article in the September 26, 2013 issue of the Financial Times,
“of every $110 of Urals crude, producers pay about $55 in oil export duty and $23 in mineral extraction tax, leaving revenue of just $22 per barrel.”
As I discussed in a recent article on Ruspetro, it is significantly more expensive to extract oil from tight oil formations such as the Bazenhov shale or other shale formations than it is to produce oil conventionally. This factor makes Russia’s high tax regime, which worked fine when levied on the nation’s conventional oil production, a significant handicap for the development of the Bazenhov. In fact, this tax rate makes the development of this tremendously large resource uneconomical given current oil prices.
However, the Russian government is determined to change this. In July 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin approved a law that would significantly reduce the nation’s Mineral Extraction Tax on oil resources extracted from low permeability formations such as oil shale. The Mineral Extraction Tax is one of two taxes that the nation applies to wellhead revenue, or on revenue that is brought in before an exploration and production company is even able to pay its expenses. Therefore, the reduction of this tax will increase the amount of revenue that an oil company actually realizes from every barrel of oil that the company extracts from the ground. This move significantly changes the economics of Russian shale oil.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1955281-make-way-for-russias-impending-shale-oil-boom
Thanks for your work and this week’s testimony, Dr. Curry.
lolwot, you write ” Yet somehow you’ve chosen to blindly and dogmatically believe that such a rapid change can’t have any ill effect.”
When you show me a report which measures a CO2 signal in a modern temperature/time, or OHC/time, graph, I will agree with you. Until then, I will remain convinced that CAGW is a load of scientific nonsense.
“I”s this an effective strategy? Who knows, but it is the one I am comfortable with.”
Judith, Stick with what you’re comfortable with, though not too comfortable. I love that you’ve called out Michael Mann, something I doubt you’d have done 3 years ago. You continue to evolve and get stronger. Been a pleasure to watch.
Your contributions to the climate debate have been invaluable, We need many more like you. You can’t do it by yourself.
Multidecadal Sun-Climate 101:
Spatiotemporal Aggregation Primer
☼☼☼ Trivial Extension of Milankovitch ☼☼☼
On the last page of a new article I put forth a (very specific) challenge to climate modelers.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼
Sun-Climate 101:
Solar-Terrestrial Primer
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼
Sun-Climate 101 outlines law-constrained geometric foundations of solar-governed “internal” (a counterproductive misnomer) spatiotemporal redistribution (stirring) of terrestrial heat & water at a fixed, constant level of multidecadal solar activity.
Those with sufficiently deep understanding will recognize this as a 4-dimensional geometric proof.
See particularly item #5 on page 3, which underscores stirring & accumulation even with a fixed, constant level of multidecadal solar activity due to shifts & persistence of (large scale) terrestrial circulation that are an inevitable consequence of solar frequency shift.
It’s trivial and it’s geometrically proven.
The attractors (central limits) would be the same whether scrambled by white noise, spatiotemporal chaos, &/or lunisolar oscillations (the latter of which stand out clearly in observations).
The utility of these fundamentals extends beyond generalizing the role of stellar frequency in planetary aggregate-circulation to assessing the vision, competence, functional numeracy, honesty, & relevance of climate discussion agents, including those abusing authority.
Foundations
• http://imageshack.us/a/img850/876/f0z.gif (credit: JRA-25 Atlas)
• Concise overview of heat engines = p.433 [pdf p.10] here:
Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.
• Elaboration on heat engines = section 8.7 (begins on p.175 [pdf p.189]) here:
Sidorenkov, N.S. (2009). The Interaction Between Earth’s Rotation and Geophysical Processes. Wiley.
Paul Vaughan | January 19, 2014 at 11:21 am |
Sorry, had to give up. Wordslaw and fingerpainting with no apparent redeeming value worth the effort of slogging through.
It’s a chest-puffed out chimera with barely passing resemblance to a scholarly argument; perhaps try again with something less ambitious, and less Crayola.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼
Take personal responsibility for independently developing the foundations needed to recognize a proof.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼
Paul Vaughan | January 19, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
When I say READ HARDER, I don’t mean the same as “make it harder to read”.
The first responsibility of someone presenting a proof is that they communicate clearly.
Which, so far as I can tell, would reveal that this so-called “proof” is merest bafflegab.
No one has any responsibility to read your stuff. And now I need some Advil from just trying.
Bart,
PV JC SNIP does give some references, such as the one below. Although cryptic and enigmatic, this is all related to the Stadium Wave theory of Wyatt & Curry.
JC SNIP
[1]J.-L. Le Mouël, E. Blanter, M. Shnirman, and V. Courtillot, “Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 37, no. 15, p. L15307, 2010.
Misrepresentation.
The work was done long ago.
65% is not trivial.
__
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT),
Important:
Let’s have no further contact.
Take this seriously.
Judy take note.
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | January 19, 2014 at 11:20 am |
Steve R W,
I would assume that your comment will be deleted or highly moderated by Judith, but if it is not, I am sorry if the reality of what Heartland is and means to the larger scientific community upsets you. They have always been an advocacy group first, with the science there only as a support of the position their patrons pay them to take.
As far as what any reader of this blog can learn from me…that depends on how thorough their knowledge of climate science and political reality is. I have more than a passing knowledge of each and can stand my ground on both topics quite handily.
The REPLY button does not exist, but yet your diversion towards Heartland makes me laugh. Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth…. just WHO do you represent?
I’ve yet to learn anything from you reading this site.
Steve R W,
Your last comment is a bit illogical or poorly worded:
“I have yet to learn anything from you reading this site.”
____
I know what you meant, (at least I think I do) but the wording is awkward. You probably meant to say:
“I have yet to learn anything from reading your comments on this site.”
You of course would never learn anything by me reading this site.
Steve RW asks R. Gates:
“just WHO do you represent?”
____
The most accurate representation of provisional truth I can find. The most accurate representation of what is causing the shadows on the cave wall. Newton was not “wrong”, but Einstein was more broadly true. Is this too much for you?
You can ask Judith why she doesn’t go to Heartland, but I suspect the reason is along the lines that Gates mentioned. It is a fringe-fest. Entertaining, but not particularly a good use of time for a mainstream scientist. If she goes, it may need to be on vacation time.
“You can ask Judith why she doesn’t go to Heartland, but I suspect the reason is along the lines that Gates mentioned. It is a fringe-fest. Entertaining, but not particularly a good use of time for a mainstream scientist. If she goes, it may need to be on vacation time.”
____
I would hope, truly, that Judith would never even consider an association with Heartland, and that she takes my suggestion with the tongue-in-cheek dark humor it was meant. She is far more credible by steering clear of this organization, as any scientist would be. But that’s just IMO.
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | January 19, 2014 at 11:20 am |
Steve R W,
“I would assume that your comment will be deleted or highly moderated by Judith, but if it is not, I am sorry if the reality of what Heartland is and means to the larger scientific community upsets you. They have always been an advocacy group first, with the science there only as a support of the position their patrons pay them to take.
As far as what any reader of this blog can learn from me…that depends on how thorough their knowledge of climate science and political reality is. I have more than a passing knowledge of each and can stand my ground on both topics quite handily.”
The REPLY button does not exist, but yet your diversion towards Heartland makes me laugh. Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth…. just WHO do you represent?
I’ve yet to learn anything from you reading this site.
MK 2.
The asymmetry of attitudes is what often strikes me. GP, WWF and FoE supporters frequently give the impression that people who disagree with simply shouldn’t be publicly allowed to, in principle.
Michael, I agree. Sorta like the governor of NY who thinks those who have conservative beliefs should leave the state. Wow.
Dr. Curry,
Thank you so much for your unflinching courage and intellectual honesty as you challenge the populist dogma of global warming. As a spacecraft guidance, navigation and controls engineer I can state that my background in atmospheric science and heliophysics is limited. However five years ago I found the ongoing research based on the work of Theodor Landscheidt. He predicted the current solar minimum 30 years ago base on historic data, and some reasonable ideas that should have heliophysicists examining and that is the movement of the solar system barycenter into and out of the solar radius. He predicted climate cooling beginning in 2012 through 2036 as a result of this similar to the Dalton Minimum (this one should be named Landscheidt Minimum). Cooling is essentially due to a chain of effects, you likely understand deeply but in a nutshell low solar max, less push back on galactic cosmic rays, more lower atmosphere impingement of galactic cosmic rays, more cloud formation and thus higher reflectivity of solar insolation, thus climate cooling. Realizing that the many other factors play a role as you have stated the main point here is that CO2 sensitivity is clearly so far down the list it is almost laughable if it wasn’t for the serious consequences of the terrible policy decisions that are being considered and made. But I believe Landscheidt’s predictions are the predominant cause and effect in the coming decades and think he deserves his due (posthumously). Please see the current work being done to refine his theories and the evidence of its accuracy both past, present and future. You will see his record so far is far better than any of the high biased CO2 sensitivity models of course. http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/
Thank you for this link
The usual suspects don’t regard barycenter migration as sufficient to cause any significant change in solar output. The usual suspects are wrong more than they are right of course so their opinion means little. Even if they correct it’s still quite plausible that small changes in the sun can be amplified into significant changes in the weather. Total power can remain the same but power can be distributed differently across the spectrum. For instance an increase in UV with a commensurate decrease in near infrared means the stratosphere absorbs more energy via ozone and the troposphere absorbs less energy via water vapor. We know that distribution changes with the sunspot cycle at 10x the magnitude of total power change. Another potential mechanism is solar magnetic field which throttles the number of extra-solar high energy particles impacting the earth’s upper atmosphere. These particle impacts are known to generate nucleation sites for water droplets in clouds. A small change there could be magnified into a large change by way of clouds changing the overall albedo of the earth.
My advice to the usual suspects is “There’s more in heaven and earth, boys, than is correctly documented in your academic papers.”
James Kaidy | January 19, 2014 at 11:44 am |
Ranks right up with Scafetta for zodiacal reasoning.
Disordered internal orbit?
Give us a break. Isn’t there already enough nonsense in the world?
This can be referred to points #6 thru #3 from http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html.
What is it about this week that’s making so much crackpottery emerge from under the carpet fringe?
Typical of Bart R to miss the point, L Svalgaard stated on WUWT we predicted this 10 years ago.
Theodor Landscheidt predicted the current solar minimum 30 years ago.
Yet he calls it crackpottery?
A C Osborn | January 19, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
Theodor Landscheidt, the renowned astrologer, made a prediction in 1989 with a 50% chance of being right, and was right, and that’s evidence of what, exactly? That all of astrology is therefore valid?
What about the substantial other body of Landscheidt predictions on the same foundations that were dead wrong?
Why do you astrology believers expect to be taken seriously?
I use Scafetta’s measure of the barycentric center of mass of the solar system (CSMM) in the CSALT model:
http://contextearth.com/2014/01/19/reverse-forecasting-via-the-csalt-model/
It is a statistically significant factor in the global temperature time series, but it pales in comparison to the effects of CO2.
You see, that’s the problem — these skeptics seem to think that their own theory is the whole ball-of-wax when it comes to temperature change attribution, whereas it is actually a minor factor, but potentially important for teasing out the secular trends.
The Copernicus Kerfuffle points this out. These “orbital” skeptics have a paper called “General conclusions regarding the planetary–solar–terrestrial interaction” where they conclude:
This is bizarre as it can get. If they didn’t let their ideology get in the way, they might be able to contribute. They just don”t seem to realize that science typically proceeds by incremental improvements in knowledge, not by some absurd belief that they can topple our current understanding.
Bart R
Many others on here have rubbished the science as well.
Let me remind you from his biography of who and what you are rubbishing.
Theodor Landscheidt was a much respected and multi-discipline Scientist who held the following positions
Elected member of the American Geophysical Union, the New York Academy of Sciences, the European Science and Environment Forum,
the European Academy of Environmental Affairs, and the Wittheit zu Bremen.
Director of the International Committee for Research in Environmental Factors of Brussels University.
In 1992 recipient of the. Award of the Edward R. Dewey Institute of Cycle Research, California, in recognition of “outstanding accomplishments in the field of Solar Cycle Research”,
and for “many contributions to the study of solar-terrestrial cycles.
He worked on the nature of solar activity, the solar – terrestrial relations, geophysics, climatology and research of solar cycles,
long-range forecasts of energetic solar erruptions, strong geomagnetic storms, drought periods, maxima and minima in global temperature anomalies, ENSO events, climate trends.
His studies cover the long-term forecast to solar activity, strong geomagnetic storms, drought periods, minima and maxima in global temperature anomalies, climatic change.
Some of his Cyclic Science predictions confirmed later by other scientists include
A forecast experiment covering the period 1979 – 1985 was checked by the Space Environment Center, Boulder, Colorado, and the astronomers Gleissberg, Wohl, and Pfleiderer.
The forecasts reached a hit rate of 90 % even though solar eruptions occur at very irregular intervals.
A forecast in 1984 that the sunspot activity would get weaker past 1990 also turned out to be correct.
The current 23-th sunspot cycle reached only mean level – although a panel of experts had predicted a sunspot maximum as high as in the preceding cycles.
Dependable forecasts of the Sun’s activity, based on solar cycles, made it possible for Landscheidt to correctly predict climatic phenomena years ahead of these events.
His forecasts include the end of the great Sahelian drought; as well as a period of drought in the U.S.A. around 1999 , confirmed by a maximum in the Palmer Drought Index;
the last five extrema in global temperature anomalies; the last three El Niños; and the course of the last La Niña.
Extreme River Po discharges, beginning in October 2000, were predicted 7 months before the event.
His work continued by others also predicted that Cycle 24 would be even lower.
So, the posters on this site are all happy to discuss Cycles, PDO, Enzo, Milankovic to name but a few.
But rubbish the work others trying to extend the work already done on cyclic phenomena.
A C Osborn | January 20, 2014 at 9:43 am |
http://www.astrology.com/
Bart R
Well done, You have just proved yourself a Close Minded Bigot, I don’t need to respond to you again.
A C Osborn | January 20, 2014 at 11:57 am |
If by “close minded bigot” you mean, “doesn’t subscribe to astrology”, then you needn’t have replied the first time, either.
Just start your posts with your sun-sign and that the alignment of the planets has determined what you are about to type, and we can go to http://www.astrology.com and figure out for ourselves what you mean.
If you’re trying to foist astrology in a discussion of science, at least have the decency to say so up front rather than hide it behind pseudomath.
Jim Cripwell, do you believe that there is even a warming signal in the temperature record? If so, how much and over what period?
Threading is broken. Some comments deleted already?
No that was your error. Orphaned comments cannot have a reply that sits a level deeper.
Jim D. you ask “Jim Cripwell, do you believe that there is even a warming signal in the temperature record? If so, how much and over what period.”
Sorry, I don’t understand the question. What is a “warming signal”. A signal, in physics, is caused by something specific; e.g. a change in CO2 concentration. So a CO2 signal makes sense. But I simply dont understand what a “warming signal”. What is specific about warming.
It was a reply to Jim Cripwell’s 11:08am comment that now sits below.
Jim Cripwell, for example, can you detect a warming signal in this?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend/offset:0.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend/offset:-0.1
However threading was broken just not in your reply.
Look at the time stamps on top level comments. If there is no breakage each successive top level comment will have a later time stamp. There is a comment by lolwot which breaks that rule so there was deletia in that thread where he tried to place the reply.
Note the time in these two consecutive top level comments:
DS, I had not even got to the bottom of the page when I replied to Cripwell, whose comment was higher up at the time I started to reply than when I posted it.
Jim D. I am sorry. I need an answer to my question, What is a warming signal?
Jim Cripwell, what do you think a warming signal is? It is a change in temperature. Do you see a change in temperature in the temperature record? I am trying to get back to basics here. If you do see a change in temperature, how much and over what period? Or, let’s make it easy. In the plot I showed do you see a warming signal and how much is it?
Jim D. you write “Jim Cripwell, what do you think a warming signal is? ”
I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what a “warming signal” is. I know what a CO2 signal is in a temperature/time graph, and if that is what you are asking, then no, I can see no CO2 signal at all.
OK, let’s remove the word ‘signal’, and ask if you see a warming in the climate. How much and over what period?
Jim D
Yes. There is a clear “warming signal”, starting in around 1975 and ending in around 2001. Prior to 1975 and after 2001 there is a clear “cooling signal”.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend/offset:0.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1975/trend
Nobody knows if the current cooling trend will continue for another two decades, like the earlier one did, so we’ll just have to wait and see.
Max
JI, D. you write “Jim D | January 19, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
OK, let’s remove the word ‘signal’, and ask if you see a warming in the climate. How much and over what period?”
Obviously, the temperature has increased; there has been warming. We know that here has been warming ever since decent records began around 1850. I am not going to waste my time quoting figures that are already extensively reported in the literature. So far as I am aware, no one has any idea the specific mechanism that has caused the warming, if that is what you are asking. There are, of course, many hypotheses as to what has caused the warming, and I am aware of most of these.
Where is all this leading?
Jim D
The CO2 Temperature correlation is not statistically robust (see below).
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8384/8455300487_526ee69f96_b.jpg
Where there is no robust correlation, the case for causation is weak.
As I see it, this is your dilemma.
Max
manacker, a more direct correlation can be found here.
http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/co2_temp_scatter_regression.png
They don’t say the correlation coefficient but it looks quite high.
Jim Cripwell, manacker showed one place it could lead. You accept a CO2 rise at the same time as, and in phase with, a temperature rise, but rather than link them through known science you will assert that it is random chance.
Jim D. you write “but rather than link them through known science you will assert that it is random chance.”
I hate it when people put words in to my mouth that I have not spoken. I have said absolutely nothing of the sort. What I have said is that CAGW is a very viable hypothesis. I cannot prove that it is wrong. I agree that when you add CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels it will cause global temperatures to rise. Then I state that no-one has measured a CO2 signal any modern temperature/time or OHC/time graph. I cannot prove that this is true, as I cannot prove a negative, but no-one has given me a reference where any CO2 signal has been measured.
What I then infer is that since there is no apparent CO2 signal, then there is a strong indication that the climate sensitivity is 0.0 C to one place of decimals or two significant figures. So far as I am aware, I have never said anything about a link by random chance.
Jim Cripwell, OK, a strong correlation is a signal of some sort, isn’t it?
Jim D. you write “Jim Cripwell, OK, a strong correlation is a signal of some sort, isn’t it?”
Where on earth did the word “correlation” come from? I did not use it. I said “strong INDICATION”. So what on earth are you talking about?
Jim Cripwell, maybe you missed my 5:19pm post above. It shows a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last century or so. As I said, this is a demonstration of a signal of some sort, isn’t it?
Jim D you write “As I said, this is a demonstration of a signal of some sort, isn’t it?:
If you will read what I wrote, I said “measured a signal”. What is the measurement?
Jim Cripwell, on one axis is a CO2 measurement and on the other is a temperature measurement. Between them you have a tell-tale correlation signal.
Yes Jim D. if C02 was flat and temperature went up Cripwell would argue that it was a signal of no relationship. he forget thats.
Here is what he has to face: in 1896 a man looking at the physics of C02 said
If C02 increases, temperature will increase. He even put an estimate on sensitivity. Time went by, we conducted an experiment. we put C02 in the air.
And his prediction came true. Temperature did not stay flat, did not go down, it went up as predicted. In science this is called confirming evidence. One cannot ignore confirming evidence. One could argue that it might be some other cause, but then one has to say what that cause was.
“In science this is called confirming evidence.”
Adjusted Squiggly Line Matching is not “confirming evidence.”
Andrew
I don’t think that MiniMax understands what that phrase means.
Mosh wrote:
Then again, one could also argue that temperature was already going up when he made that prediction.
Physics tells us that CO2 is more likely to increase temperature than decrease it – the BIG question is, and always has been, how much.
Also, he did not attempt to link every unusual weather event and all manner of other pestilence to aCO2.
Neither did he attach derogatory labels to anyone who disagreed with him.
You’re right, Mosh, that WAS science.
Jim D. you write “Jim Cripwell, on one axis is a CO2 measurement and on the other is a temperature measurement. Between them you have a tell-tale correlation signal.”
Fair enough. Now what is the measured value of the CO2 signal, and what is the +/- accuracy?
lol,
Yet somehow *you’ve* chosen to blindly and dogmatically believe that such a rapid change will have an ill effect.
Andrew
no i haven’t
“no i haven’t”
Sure. Other than all comments you’ve ever posted here are pure one-sided Warmerisms, yes, I see your point.
Andrew
Lolwot: As the models themselves demonstrably show, there is no need to “‘believe that such a rapid change WILL have an ill effect.’
How is that you say?
Because the temperatures are, as you know, tracking Scenario C rather well and that Scenario makes the assumption that either the level of greenhouse gasses themselves or the effects that come from changing levels of greenhouse gasses have no effect on temperatures.
Logically 0 * x = 0
Null Hypothesis = Scenario C
http://snag.gy/GdnJ0.jpg
You need to frame your argument a little better, Steve. Go for the accuracy that you achieved in describing gatesy, in your deleted comment.
You said above: “No scientific paper exists on planet Earth to prove your case, but plenty of evidence exists to suggest a threat from outer space is a real threat.”
You asked for proof of the CO2 case, but only a suggestion of a threat from meteors. Now you are asking lollie to produce papers that suggest a threat from CO2. Please settle on one or the other, for both cases.
” Go for the accuracy that you achieved in describing gatesy, in your deleted comment.”
____
Yes, go for that kind of accuracy Steve, then you can be continued to be deleted and we won’t have to worry about your “accuracy”.
Yes gatesy, Steve needs to work on delivering insults with sneaky subtlety, to avoid the censor. Would you be willing to school him in the technique? You are much better at it than joshie and the others.
I’d be glad to school Steve. Here’s the first and only lesson:
Don’t make personal attacks. You can criticize organizations (as Judith does the IPCC and I do Heartland), as long as you don’t actually make libelous statements outright and stick to facts. But attacking individuals in a personal way is not helpful or to be tolerated. Otherwise, have fun.
“Don’t make personal attacks…..Otherwise have fun.”
Gates, That works out just fine if you don’t care about shredding your own credibility. Your increasing obsession with the Heartland Institute…a mere pimple on the ass of the climate wars compared with organizations more to your liking… is beginning to have a Captain Queeg, “who stole my quart of strawberries?” quality.
So go ahead and have “fun.” I’m one skeptic that used to take some of your arguments seriously. No more.
Thanks for revealing that wisdom, gatesy. That is just what Steve needs. A good lesson in disingenuous, backhanded slandering. The operative phrase, buried in the camouflage of platitudes:
“don’t actually make libelous statements outright”
Classic gatesy.
pokerguy said:
” I’m one skeptic that used to take some of your arguments seriously. No more.”
____
You can ignore data and science at your own choosing. I would question the “skeptic” label for you though. I’ll shed no tears for you departing from my fan club.
With respect to “#3 Scientists have nearly unlimited room to manipulate data. Bingo” above.
“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as much as you please.” – Mark Twain
Time for Western academia to tell us we need to burn some deniers at the stake or the Sun will refuse to be active?
Regarding invisibility, I had suggested beforehand this was a chance to make waves by telling those Republicans something about the need for action. Whitehouse gave Judith the opportunity when he got her to say that there is a risk, and we have to figure out what to do. He repeated that back to her, but then she backed off. Chance gone.
Maybe Judith doesn’t to make waves. Just practice good ethical science.
Haven’t they been told already? Would one more time make any difference?
I don’t want to say that she would base her words on such a consideration, but influencing politicians does certainly require something else.
I think coming from someone they thought would say the opposite would have more impact than if Dessler said it yet again. A shift in view is a powerful signal.
Give it a rest, jimmy. When you get invited to testify before the Senate committee, you can say whatever you want. Scare the crap out of them. It won’t make any difference. Just like your jabbering here does not make any difference.
Jim D.,
Never give it a rest. You bring a nice balance to things here– much as did Judith with her DC testimony. That’s the biggest benefit to her being “tapped” to testify IMO, although the net result is still to be decided.
You ought to be “tapped”, gatesy.
“You ought to be “tapped”, gatesy.”
_____
Message received. Signal distorted by too much noise though.
Maybe you can work it out, gatesy. I will repeat it every time you write that Judith was “tapped’ to testify.
Thank you Don. “Tapped” was Judith’s phrase for her being called to D.C. When you’re tapped for a policy-related testimony, how can you refuse
I will keep my armor on for those who want to “tap” me.
Are you dropping the distinction that Judith was “tapped’ by the Republicans, along with your implication that she is a tool? Explain why you keep repeating that Judith was “tapped”. What fascinates you about that particular word?
“Tapped” was Judith’s phrase, and it is quite appropriate when the political types want you to come and support their policy. It is a great phrase, and served Judith well in expressing herself. Was she a “tool” of the Republicans? They certainly got what they wanted, needed, and expected from her, but hopefully she got something as well. Sometimes the user and used can be a blurry distinction. Symbiotic comes to mind…
“Tapped” is not a phrase. It’s one innocuous word, interchangeable with some others. Why do you keep using it, in quotes?
Judith used the word once and was asked about the significance of her choice of that particular word:
——————-
NW | January 13, 2014 at 6:39 pm | Reply
When you say “tapped,” does that mean a subpoena, or is it an offer you can’t refuse, or what exactly?
curryja | January 13, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
I have been ‘invited’. Not a command performance, but something not to be turned down lightly. I view it as an important opportunity. Stay tuned . . .
——————–
She was invited. She complied and as far as we know she gave her honest, informed opinion. Implying otherwise is nasty BS.
Don said:
“Implying otherwise is nasty BS.”
____
I appreciate your defense of Judith when no defense is necessary. It was not a dishonorable thing for her to go to Washington to testify. It is important to have a range of perspectives when trying to form policy. Suggesting she was “tapped” or “invited” or “asked” or “requested” or whatever word you want does not change the reality of how the process works. She was not there to support Obama and his climate action plan– quite the contrary– which is just fine. It’s just the way things work. If you think it is “nasty BS”, then that’s probably what you think about American politics– and you might be right.
At a minimum the AMO appears to be going negative. Even worse it could be the beginning of a long term trend down in poleward heat transport. As far as CO2 mitigation goes, at this point what difference does it make? The industialised world will cool and mitigation efforts will be scoffed at by the voting public.
This seems like more wishful conjecture than fact based. LInks are useful for those who may want to actually consider your conjecture.
Gates, you don’t even read your own links. Hit the link to the Hawkins web page over there —->
Linky, Steven?
Tell me what you doubt, Mr Gates. It can’t be that poleward heat transport is slowing or the Ed Hawkins link would have satisfied your curiousity.
Please re-post your Hawkins link Steve. Never got it. I’d be glad to consider all viable and valid research.
Good God Gates, look over to the right and hit the link.
Steven, use your words. They have a name for that thing over there: blog roll.
Thanks JCH. It would have been easier of course, but sometimes making things easier is not the agenda.
Steven,
I read many of the post and some of the related research links. Very interesting, and worthy of closer study, but I find your phrase “even worse it could be the beginning…” rather revealing of your overall expectation that that 1) This data is indicative of anything other than natural fluctuations, or that 2) There is cause for it to be “even worse”.
Worse than what?
Worse than just 30 years of cooling. It’s part of my agenda to say it could cool for a couple of hundred years (insert dastardly laugh). That and let the dog out, go to the store, and pick up dinner.
I had already read the AMOC article. I did not see an AMO article.
If the there is abrupt climate change, – Chef Bilgologist’s fearsome pot of bilge – I don’t think it makes a bit of difference what happens to the non-existent AMO.
JCH, I wouldn’t call it abrupt. The Lund et al 2006 reconstruction of the Gulf Stream tansport shows OHT going down from the MWP to the LIA and back up to the modern warming period. If it goes back down again I don’t anything abrupt about that.
Regarding statistics, I have often wondered about the statistical certainty of “the pause”. If the annual standard deviation is 0.1 degrees and the decadal trend is 0.1-0.2 C, how long does it take for a pause to become statistically robust?
lolwot | January 19, 2014 at 10:57 am | Reply
“No I took into account craters on the Earth in order to realize just how low the probability is that a city will be struck by a sufficiently large meteorite in the next 200 years.”
Past history is a poor predictor of future events of a close to random occurrence.
Bob Ludwick.
“As the number of papers suggesting (proclaiming) that not only CO2 but ACO2 specifically is an existential threat is N, where N is large, I won’t bother with posting any.”
G’day mate, any chance of a post that people can relate too?
Please help me and others out?
@ Steve R W’
“G’day mate, any chance of a post that people can relate too?”
Truthfully, no. I don’t ‘do’ papers. With no justification at all I was using reports of studies, newspaper stories, magazine stories, classroom lectures in the public schools, stories broadcast by the MSM, speeches by politicians, emails from ‘green advocacy’ groups, ad infinitum, which is where I have been getting my CAGW scare stories for the last 20 odd years, interchangeably with actual scientific papers.
You raise an interesting question: With all the ‘We gotta stamp out ACO2 or life as we know it will end!’ scare mongering, exactly where ARE the scientific papers providing evidence (not ‘this could happen’, not ‘that might happen’, not ‘is consistent with the theory’, not ‘we don’t understand why, so it MUST be ACO2; actual, convincing data driven conclusions) that ACO2 is a problem requiring a solution?
“#5 Many scientists still don’t understand math
#4 . . . And they don’t understand statistics either. This one definitely resonates in the climate community.”
_____
I doubt many professional statisticians are climate contrarians.
The American Statistical Association(ASA) has an Advisory Committee on Climate Change Policy
The members of the advisory committee are Bruno Sanso (Chair), Murali Haran (Vice-Chair), Amy J. Braverman, Daniel S. Cooly, Peter Craigmile. Noel A. Cressise, Christopher J. Paciorek, Leonard Smith, and Michael L. Stein.
All members have done research on climate, mostly working on climate models and uncertainty analysis. I have not looked at their work in any detail, but I doubt any are climate contrarians.
http://www.amstat.org/committees/ccpac/
From the article:
Marcellus Shale: A 20 Bcf Per Day Natural Gas Tsunami
Jan. 16, 2014 10:47 AM ET
…
The Marcellus Shale does not cease to amaze with the sheer scale of its resource and unstoppable growth momentum. Three months ago, in its quarterly Drilling Productivity Report, EIA estimated November 2013 natural gas production from the Marcellus Region at ~12 Bcf/d (the estimate includes legacy conventional production of ~2.0 Bcf/d). Just few years back, the figure would be almost unthinkable even to an optimistic forecaster. This week, the Report’s newly released January 2014 update shows the current production from the region at ~14 Bcf/d, a staggering 2 Bcf/d increase in just three months.
…
EIA October 2013 Report: Marcellus Production
…
One would think that the break-neck growth of natural gas production in the Northeast region cannot continue forever and should at some point hit a wall of difficult to resolve take-away constraints. Indeed, many well established forecasts have suggested imminent saturation in the production growth curve from the Marcellus, as illustrated, for example, by an outlook put out by Wood MacKenzie in the energy consultancy’s Spring 2013 Forecast. The Forecast was widely quoted in the industry and was highlighted in presentations by Dominion Resources (D) and Boardwalk Pipeline Partners (BWP) as recently as a month ago. As evident from Dominion’s slide shown below, the Forecast suggested that the Marcellus volumes (the light-blue area on the graph) would assume a much flatter growth trajectory already in 2014 (compared to the prior several years of straight-line growth), with an additional slowdown in 2015. According to the graph, the Marcellus was expected to reach production of ~14 Bcf/d by 2020 and ~16.5 Bcf/d by 2025 (the figures do not include legacy production).
…
Forecasts may yet again prove to be hopelessly behind the actual growth curve. The Marcellus may surpass 14 Bcf/d production level (ex-legacy) already during the second half of this year. Moreover, a case can be made that the Northeast Region may sustain its very steep, essentially straight-line growth trajectory for another several years, adding 2.5-3.0 Bcf/d of incremental production every year.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1949421-marcellus-shale-a-20-bcf-per-day-natural-gas-tsunami
I spend the money I save using less energy on gifts for the boss . Gifts make her happy. Why don’t fossil-fuel fanatics (aka energy hogs) want my boss to be happy?
From the article:
Researchers may differ about exactly
what’s behind recent natural climate variabil-
ity, but they agree that no sort of natural vari-
ability can hold off greenhouse warming much
longer. “Our prediction is that if past is pro-
logue, the solar component will turn around
and lead to rapid warming in the next 5 years,”
says Rind. Climate modeler David Smith of
the Hadley Centre, who was not involved in the
State of the Climate
analysis, says his group’s
climate model forecasts—made much the way
weather forecasts are made—are still calling
for warming to resume in the next few years as
ocean influences reverse (
Science
, 10 August
2007, p. 746). Whether that’s in time to boost
climate negotiations is anyone’s guess.
–RICHARD A. KER
I’m an unsophisticated onlooker to this brouhaha. (My copy of Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer has been buried somewhere in storage for fifteen years, and I never needed to get very far into it.) Nevertheless, I made a note of What Happened to Global Warming? Scientists Say Just Wait a Bit when it appeared in October 2009. The article is behind a paywall, but I’ve seen a purported extract quoting David Rind of NASA/Goddard Institute/NYC:
The end of the five-year interval is approaching.
Good for Rind for making a prediction.
Well, now they have given up the predictions and are going with excuses.
As far as I know, everyone who has tried to make a solar prediction has been burned, so to speak.
Here you go:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/readings/Kerr.Science.2009.pdf
@Jim D
You mean like pretty much everyone else who has tried to make a prediction recently?
Let me try that in the right place.
From the article:
Researchers may differ about exactly
what’s behind recent natural climate variabil-
ity, but they agree that no sort of natural vari-
ability can hold off greenhouse warming much
longer. “Our prediction is that if past is pro-
logue, the solar component will turn around
and lead to rapid warming in the next 5 years,”
says Rind. Climate modeler David Smith of
the Hadley Centre, who was not involved in the
State of the Climate
analysis, says his group’s
climate model forecasts—made much the way
weather forecasts are made—are still calling
for warming to resume in the next few years as
ocean influences reverse (
Science
, 10 August
2007, p. 746). Whether that’s in time to boost
climate negotiations is anyone’s guess.
–RICHARD A. KER
jim2 | January 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
Here you go:
I messed up and replied here.
Don Monfort | January 19, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
Well, now they have given up the predictions and are going with excuses.
Though presumably the following is obvious to many here, it just crossed my mind and I’ll blurt it out:
There is a major strategic advantage to declaring that “the (AGW) science is settled”: it transforms the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is shifted to those who claim that natural variation is the driver. Once “the science is settled”, AGW proponents, not skeptics, can tsk-tsk and invoke Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What would a week in review be, without a book review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/books/review/the-climate-casino-by-william-nordhaus-and-more.html?_r=0
Nah. Nordhaus still thinks he has to raise overall taxes to price carbon when the two activities are not the same thing, and he pretends the revenue raised by carbon taxes vanishes into the ether unavailable to reduce other worse taxes, in his economic analyses, but is still worth the read.
Instead, I urge a visit to http://standupeconomist.com/ and friend of Climate Etc., Yoram Bauman, and reviewing what’s there.
Is this why Obama put a tax on medical devices to pay for Obamacare?
DocMartyn | January 19, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
You’ll have to ask Bob Dole, who wrote that law; I doubt Obama bothered to read it, any more than that he reviewed the web interfaces.
Of course, a classical economist would argue that a tax on medical devices will discourage people from getting sick.
Steve’s microwave doubles as a radar set in its spare time probably :-)
From the article:
North Pole Ice Set To Melt By Summer 2020
12:20pm UK, Thursday 15 October 2009
Polar Bear on Arctic ice – pic: http://www.martinhartley.com at Catlin Arctic Survey
Video: Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Ever
Enlarge
By Laura Bundock
The frozen Arctic Ocean will become an open sea during the summer within a decade, according to the latest data.
Climate change experts predict a massive melt which will see the ice cover completely disappear throughout the warmer months.
British polar explorer Pen Hadow led an expedition to collect the data behind the alarming prediction.
He told Sky News: “We were able to reach the areas the scientists can’t get to. Our findings are depressing.
“In just ten years or so 80-85 per cent of the Arctic Ocean will be ice free, and within twenty years we’ll have completely lost the summer ice.”
http://news.sky.com/story/732078/north-pole-ice-set-to-melt-by-summer-2020
It’s funny that climate scientists were just flying by the seat of their pants and using the warm weather of their time as proof of global warming. Now they sing a different tune – the current cold weather and the pause have nothing to do with climate – CO2 will STILL catastrophically warm the Earth. Sure it will – we believe you.
Maybe it’s just me but what in Gods name has politics got to do with climate or climate science. Is because I is British (as Ali G would say).
Sorry to anyone from the US who doesn’t understand the humour.
The “silent sun” is a ridiculous phrasing. As far as I know the sun is still producing a TSI of 1360 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere:
http://www.newport.com/Introduction-to-Solar-Radiation/411919/1033/content.aspx
What they mean to say is that the slight perturbation in this output as indicated by sunspot activity is less than predicted.
The CSALT model incorporates the TSI and demonstrates that this forcing component is but a small portion of the overall natural variability:
http://imageshack.com/a/img28/5309/2sqg.gif
Look at the trace one below the top for TSI and compare to the CO2 forcing.
jim2 | January 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
Here you go:
Yep, thanks, been there, seen that. Hopefully Prof. deMenocal’s good deed won’t be punished with a DMCA take-down notice.
Do you remember Marilyn Vos Savant’s probability puzzle about Monty Hall and the 3 doors? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem The problem wasn’t intuitive, but it was a fairly straightforward application of conditional probability. What I found most striking were Ph.D. scientists who not only got it wrong, but who publicly (and embarrassingly ) continued to promote their wrong answer.
I had a lot of trouble with it. So I modeled it and got a 2:1 ratio of switching to not switching.
I believed the model data.
What I found puzzling is all the people who knew Monty Hall was right after it was proven he was right when there was almost a complete absence of people who knew he was right before it was proven he was right.
Monty Hall was an early prototype of a blogger. When he was trying to get a broadcast gig in NYC, he wrote a weekly letter called Memo from Monty keeping track of his travails. He sent it out to all the studio execs hoping there would be interest. After awhile, he gave up on doing the letter.
One day he got a call from an NBC producer asking what happened to the weekly letter. That lead to his break into show biz.
http://www.gregfalken.com/2013/09/what-monty-hall-can-teach-us-about-blogging/
BTW, I heard it on the original WTF interview and now noticed somebody made the same analogy.
Gotta be persistent.
Omnologos:
In your post of 10:49 a.m., you state: “There is no possible observation or sets of observations that can disprove that a catastrophic global warming of anthropogenic origin is in the making.”
Ah, but there is:
The warming of he 1970’s-1990’s was the result of the Clean Air Act and other similar efforts to remove air pollution, and ended when no further significant pollution was being removed from the air.
It can be considered to be a Law of Nature that natural warming WILL occur
whenever cleansing of the air occurs–as in the global temperature recovery after a large volcanic eruption, for example.
Since natural warming HAD to happen as the result of the Clean Air Act, none of that warming can be attributed to CO2–and there has been no warming since then, in spite of steadily rising CO2 levels.
Thus, any future warming will be dependent upon further significant cleansing of the air (apart from possible changes in solar output), and any rise should be far from catastrophic!
Cleansing the air via the CAA reduces warming by what mechanism? Your mechanism needs to consider the ever increasing air pollution created in China and India that are not subject to the CAA, and yet apparently have not caused significant warming over the time of that pollution has increased.
John Carpenter:
My post pointed out that the CAA resulted in increased warming, not decreased warming, as you state.
The mechanism was simply that fewer pollutants remained in the air to weaken the sun’s rays, resulting in greater insolation..
Regarding emissions from China, India Etc, they are currently largely off-setting continuing efforts at pollution reduction in the western world. When they clean up their air, warming should resume.
“My post pointed out that the CAA resulted in increased warming, not decreased warming, as you state.”
Sorry, I did misread that. So what you are saying is aerosols are responsible for the current hiatus. Or partly responsible…. How much contribution would you attribute aerosols to the hiatus?
Great presentation. As for “Invisible”, please hold the line and don’t be tempted :-). The truth will eventually find it’s way out, whatever it is…
“If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive… you’ve got to go back about 100 years,” he says.
This solar lull is baffling scientists, because right now the Sun should be awash with activity.
Solar amnesia.
Conclusions: Our results and interpretation show the necessity to look backwards in time, more than 80 years ago. Indeed, the Sun seems to be actually returning to a past and hardly explored activity regime ending before the 1955–1995 Grand Maximum, which probably biased our current space-age view of solar activity.
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2012/01/swsc120019/swsc120019.html
The term ‘greenhouse gas’ is just an analogy and not a scientific explanation. It was created by the IPCC to fool a scientifically illiterate public.
A scientific explanation would require reconciling measured Specific Heat of CO2 and Quantum physics with the IPCC conclusions.
Vaughan Pratt told a story about some Swiss guy wandering around the Alps looking for an atmospheric effect that was like a greenhouse. If the IPCC was around a few 100 years old, he’s your huckleberry.
Okay, I generally distrust any opinion expressed which I find myself liking too much, including and especially my own opinions. All the more reason not to play favorites with commentators in any field.
However, http://variable-variability.blogspot.ca/ is certainly a breath of fresh air, for wit, rationality, and .. who needs more than wit and rationality?
Victor Venema, my apologies. I know a hearty endorsement from me is no favor.
Thanks for the survey, Professor Curry. Please allow me to share the comment posted at the end of my survey:
Science is the most reliable way humans have to perceive reality, and contact with reality is critical for our survival.
Therefore, mankind “shot himself in the foot” by supporting misinformation as “settled science.”
We will end deceitful science or we will perish. We have no other option.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Judith Curry
You ask whether or not your strategy is “an effective strategy”?
As the saying goes, “honesty is the best strategy”.
So you are spot on. It will prove to be the most “effective strategy”, as well.
Max
I did the Scottish Sceptic survey, and got an “Internal Server Error” message from the host: “The table “{{surveys}}” for active record class “Survey” cannot be found in the database.
“An internal error occurred while the Web server was processing your request. Please contact the webmaster to report this problem. Thank you.”
Anybody else have a problem?
It worked fine for me. I think it is well worth taking. It would bee good to have more of the warmists, climate scientists, ecologists and public sector types contributing.
It’s dominated by engineers and scientists who work in the real world so far.
Pingback: Reverse Forecasting via the CSALT model | context/Earth
“climate protection in the EU will apparently be pursued on a voluntary basis.”
It’s official: the pause has killed the cause.
Here’s my question for the Scottish survey:
Do you believe in astrology?
By the way, how would you answer that question?
We see Dr. Curry repeatedly endorsing Scafetta, or ‘barycentric analyses of the solar system’ or ‘turbulent aetheric perturbations of the planets’ and the like, so I for one would like to know from each of you, do you believe in astrology?
If not, how do you explain being taken in repeatedly by astrologers?
Mosh wrote:
quote
That data is explained by AGW which includes
a role for the sun, a role for natural variability, and a role for GHGs.
unquote
Go on, Mosh, please tell. How do the first two contribute to AGW?
JF
Yes, I know. Try recasting the sentence.
Null Hypothesis = Scenario C
http://snag.gy/GdnJ0.jpg
A more scientific, statistical, claim that can be made about the above is
The longer that Global Surface Temperatures track Scenario C, the more likely it Is that Climate Sensitivity is ~0.0.
There are only two questions that need answering.
1. Is it true that Global Surface Temperatures are tracking Scenario C?
2. Is it fair to characterise Scenario C as having a Climate Sensitivity of ~0.0 given that greenhouse gasses did NOT track the levels after 2000 as proposed but that Global Surface Temperatures HAVE?
Null Hypothesis = Scenario C
http://snag.gy/GdnJ0.jpg
A more scientific, statistical, claim that can be made about the above is
The longer that Global Surface Temperatures track Scenario C, the more likely it is that Climate Sensitivity is ~0.0.
There are only two questions that need answering.
1. Is it true that Global Surface Temperatures are tracking Scenario C?
2. Is it fair to characterise Scenario C as having a Climate Sensitivity of ~0.0 given that greenhouse gasses did NOT track the levels after 2000 as proposed but that Global Surface Temperatures HAVE?
British Columbia (pop. 4.4 million) reduced fossil fuel consumption by 18% since 2008 through a carbon tax.
Big deal. The US since 2006 reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 13% without any new wealth redistribution schemes.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf
This advocating carbon taxes don’t realise the high cost and the fact they deliver no benefits (no change significant change to global CO2 concentrations, no change to the climate, no climate damages avoided).
Workers would lose 2.7 years income under the ETS, 2010 to 2050
According to Treasury projections (updated 2011) the ETS would cause a loss of about 2.7 years of income per worker to 2050.
This raises the question of why Treasury didn’t make this important fact clear in its spin of the ETS titled: “Strong Growth Low Pollution” (SGLP), (presumably at the direction of the then Treasurer, Wayne Swan). This is an indication of how politicised Treasury became under the recently dumped Labor Government. And how we can’t trust, without checking, the documents they were instructed to produce during Labor’s time in Government.
A more honest title for the modelling of Labor’s carbon tax/ETS would be “High Cost, No Benefits under Labor-Greens carbon reduction scheme”.
Here is the basis of estimate using the figures from Treasury’s 2011 update, “Table 2: Headline indicators” http://carbonpricemodelling.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/update/Modelling_update.asp
GNI per person, 2010 $55,800
GNI per person, MGA reference, 2050 $91,200
GNI per person, SGLP, 2050 $86,900
Change from reference -4.71%
Average annual growth rate, reference case 1.24%
Average annual growth rate, SGLP core 1.11%
Total GNI per person, Reference case $2,955,797
Total GNI per person, SGLP $2,879,606
Total GNI per person, difference -$76,191
Total GNI per worker, difference -$152,383
Ratio -2.7
The note below Treasury’s Table 2 says: “Note: All dollar values are in Australian dollars at 2010 prices. Annual growth rates are from 2010. Initial employment is for 2011. …”
Correction: the ratio is 1.4, not 2.7. The title should read:
“Workers would lose 1.4 years income under the ETS, 2010 to 2050”. The correction also applies to the relevant text and last line of the table.
From the BC auditor:
“The biggest concern to Doyle is that tens of millions of dollars that are being collected each year from schools, hospitals and other public sector bodies to buy carbon offsets are not being credibly spent.”
Imagine that, a government not spending tax revenue in a credible way. Who would have thought that could happen?
Jan. 19, 2014
Dear Readers,
On Monday, Jan. 20, New Energy Times will publish “Federal Investigations Reveal Academic Backstabbing at Purdue University.”
The report is about the controversy surrounding Rusi Taleyarkhan, a professor in the Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering, and his research. Taleyarkhan has said that his group’s nuclear cavitation research may lead to a new carbon-free clean-energy technology, yet it has never been independently replicated. The research is sometimes called sonofusion or bubble fusion.
In 2002, he and five colleagues at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory claimed that they were the first group to experimentally demonstrate and confirm the long-predicted phenomenon of nuclear reactions in cavitating liquids. According to independent audits performed by Oak Ridge peers Dan Shapria, Michael Saltmarsh and Michael Murray, they succeeded.
The experiments were replicated by a team at Purdue in 2003, with some help from Taleyarkhan. Another team at Purdue replicated the results in 2005, and the experiments were also demonstrated in 2006 in front of a DARPA-sponsored review team. According to witnesses at that review, Taleyarkhan succeeded.
Nevertheless, academic peers and competitors of Taleyarkhans coordinated to make accusations against him of research misconduct and/or fraud.
Through multiple Freedom of Information Act requests, New Energy Times has obtained inter-university correspondence and documents from federal investigations revealing that Eugenie Reich, a freelance journalist writing for Nature’s news service, conspired with Lefteri Tsoukalas, at the time the head of the Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering. Reich also collaborated with physicist Seth Putterman at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chemist Kenneth Suslick at the University of Illinois.
All four of them sent allegations to Holly Adams, at the time the inspector general of the U.S. Office of Naval Research, claiming that Taleyarkhan had committed research misconduct and, in some cases, fraud.
Yet, after several years of extensive and costly federally mandated investigations, no evidence of fraud was found.
In response to pressure from the media, the inspector general, and Congress, a Purdue University committee, under the direction of an outside law firm, eventually created two specious allegations of research misconduct and adjudicated those same allegations against Taleyarkhan.
Meanwhile, some of his accusers – fellow scientists – manipulated and withheld their own confirmatory data, misled the media, and misled federal investigators to advance their own diverse agendas.
In response to investigations by New Energy Times, three federal offices conducted their own investigations. On Monday, we will report for the first time that documents obtained over the course of several years by New Energy Times from the federal government in response to FOIA requests show that Adams inappropriately collaborated with Tsoukalas.
The Department of Defense put Adams on administrative leave, revoked her security clearance, and later reassigned her and reinstated her clearance. By that time, Purdue had forced Tsoukalas to resign as the head of the School of Nuclear Engineering.
Taleyarkhan remains a professor in the school; however, Purdue has not rescinded most of its sanctions against him. His research has ground to a halt, and his reputation remains tainted by the accusations of fraud.
Steven B. Krivit
Publisher and Senior Editor
New Energy Times
Well, I can’t get my post in the right place. It was supposed to follow Bob Ludwick’s post of January 20, 2014 at 7:52 am. Sorry, Bob.
Paging Thomas Friedman, and all the other sino-philes in love with “state run” capitalism.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2014/01/19/mega-default-in-china-scheduled-for-january-31/
“Reply” isn’t working.
There is a striking similarity to all comments made on these blogs, but no response to my question “What happens to all the heat emitted by our energy consumption?” It is four times the amount accounted for by the actual rise in atmospheric temperature. It doesn’t simply disappear. What is the half life of a sudden injection of heat into the atmosphere? Into the ocean? Actual heat is introduced into both mediums.
It is four orders of magnitude less than the energy received from the sun, so it is dwarfed by the natural input to the system.
John Carpenter:
You wrote on Jan. 19, 10:05 pm:
“So what you are saying is aerosols are responsible for the current hiatus. Or partly responsible…How much contribution would you attribute aerosols to the hiatus”
The current hiatus represents a new “norm” for average global temperatures, and was reached by the CAA reduction in atmospheric aerosols.
Further cleansing, unless offset by other pollution sources (China, etc.) should result in a higher “norm” (although there is the possibility that today’s temperatures–which mirror those of the 1930’s–represent a plateau maintained by various feedback mechanisms).
So, yes, one could basically say that the current hiatus was entirely caused by the behavior of aerosols.
and critiques that my verbal delivery is ‘boring’ even if on target.
That’s a tough one. Your delivery would be fascinating to someone like me who is interested in the topic, because you are “on target”. But to lots of people, and I expect most Senators, it is the topic that is boring and has to be “spruced up” with exciting tangents. Stephen Schneider said something along the lines of “you need to scare people” in order to get them to pay attention to climate science.
“Boring” and on target carry more weight in the long run, I think, whereas excitable people like James Hansen eventually will be disregarded for their extremes and inaccuracies. It may, however, feel like an “extremely long” run.
The BBC report that “Binding national targets on renewable energy are expected to be dropped from new EU proposals due to be unveiled on Wednesday. … green groups said the proposals lacked ambition and were the acts of a “burnt out” Commission.”
The UK, Poland and others “have argued strongly that the mandatory target approach was too restrictive, and was preventing them cutting emissions in the most financially efficient way. Along with France and Spain, they have lobbied hard to have it removed from the new proposals for 2030.
“”It makes no sense to impose artificial constraints on how individual countries meet emissions targets,” said a spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC). “We are determined to keep people’s energy bills as low as possible and that means having the flexibility to cut emissions in the most cost effective way”. “
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25828181
BBC: Why did Antarctic expedition ship get stranded in ice?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25833307
New Truths That Only One Can See
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/science/new-truths-that-only-one-can-see.html?_r=0
Can it be?. The Scientism crowd will be upset. The mere concept of “Limits to Science” will be considered heresy. : )
Nearly 4000 responses to this survey now:
“Professional Background & Attitude to Climate”
http://scef.org.uk/survey/index.php/statistics_user/action/surveyid/868721/language/en
About 60% of responses so far are by engineers and scientists.
Peter Lang, it might had been useful for this survey to also ask respondents if they had been informed of the survey through reading (A) a “skeptic” blog, (B) a “cagw” blog or (C) another source.
I suspect they are probably trying to avoid anything that would open them up to a criticism of potential bias. So I suspect it is a good thing they didn’t ask such a question.
My suggestion: I feel they should have provided separate categories for economists, policy analysts, diplomats.
Over 5000 responses to this survey now. The number of responses increased 25% since yesterday.
“Professional Background & Attitude to Climate”
http://scef.org.uk/survey/index.php/statistics_user/action/surveyid/868721/language/en
Unfortunately, it seems most of the responses are coming from people who read the sceptical blog sites. That is unfortunate. It would be much more valuable if it had a proper balance with appropriately proportional number of responses from the “blogs that are in general convinced that manmade warming is a problem such as Skeptical Science, Real Climate, DeSmogBlog, Celsias, George Monbiot, The Carbon Brief, Cliff Mass, Tamino’s Open Mind, Climate Ark or Hotwhopper, etc.”
If the survey ends with a poor representation from the CAGW alarmists, what does that say about the blog sites that are promoting the CAGW alarmist position?
Does it suggest they are objective, impartial, unbiased and want to get to the truth about what are the real differences between the alarmists and sceptics understandings, beliefs and what they hold those different positions?
Or does it suggest they are more interested in advocacy for a set of beliefs that driven by some other agenda than an objective search for truth and genuine understanding of how to reach a common understanding and policies that can be widely supported?