by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
John Holdren to testify in Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan: Failure by Design [link]
Overly Honest Social Science? The value of acknowledging bias, subjectivity and the messiness of research http://bit.ly/16C1P9M
Very nice analysis of 3 distinct “public intellectual” groups & their positions on climate policy by @MCNisbet [link]
John Nielsen-Gammon interview with Kirk Englehardt on science communications. [link]
Science: It’s ok to feel stupid [link]
@curryja will speak on the State of the #Climate Debate, hosted by @Marshall_Instit on 09/16/2014. For details: [link]
Andrew Montford: Fraud, bias & public relations: The 97% ‘consensus’ and it’s critics [link]
Dr. Kendrick piece on adding ad hoc hypotheses to explain failures of favorite hypotheses. http://mead.es/1pEhPOj
Matt Ridley: Whatever happened to global warming? @JeffDSachs’s critique of my piece shown to be badly misleading. [link]
Lawrence Solomon: How global warming policies have led to global insecurity http://bit.ly/1qqPS1N
Global warming was worth it [link]
There Are Now 52 Explanations For The Pause In Global Warming [link]
Interesting piece on why negotiating a treaty to fix the ozone layer was easier than getting a climate treaty: http://bit.ly/1pcW8oy
“Strategic use of science is fundamentally political” It’s a ‘tool of influence.’ http://ow.ly/B8ffq
Curry’s Credibility Crumbles [link]
Judith Curry Scores Own Goal in Climate Hockey [link]
Houston Climate Conference: Unsettled science trending optimistically (from master resource) [link]
Last decade’s slow down in warming enhanced by unusual climate anomaly [link]
Interesting report on German #Energiewende in context of EU #energy policy, by K. Tews (from Oliver Geden) [link]
In lieu of a cartoon, watch Monty Python’s sketch The Argument. Very a propos for Climate Etc. this past week, with Bose-Einstein condensate and the hockey stick.
Clinic looks familiar. +10
No it doesn’t.
Q.E.D. +5
The alarmists now have 52 reasons for the pause yet still insist on one reason for the warming of the late 20th century? Priceless.
+1
???
Yes, the same old nonsense.
Leaders of the world want to save more space.
SURVEY: 46% of doctors give Obamacare ‘D’ or ‘F’…
UPDATE: Panel Calls For Sweeping Overhaul of End-of-Life Care…
They are just around the corner waiting to help you.
then there is the proto-pythonic BBC Radio Goon Show…also germane…
Excellent.
Broken link to Montford’s report on the “97% consensus. URL is http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf .
P.S. Please lose the irritating apostrophe in “it’s critics”.
More like Monty Python’s Anne Elk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Elk%27s_Theory_on_Brontosauruses
WHT, you run CSALT, right? Does CSALT run forward projections?
Sure it does, but it also requires knowledge of future carbon emissions. And it requires prediction of ENSO and volcanic activities to reveal the miniscule natural variations that these processes cause — if you care about the details.
That’s why we have a discussion forum on predicting El Ninos going on at the Azimuth Project.
http://contextearth.com/2014/09/13/azimuth-project-on-el-ninos/
webster, “And it requires prediction of ENSO and volcanic activities to reveal the miniscule natural variations that these processes cause.”
Since you seem to have determined peak oil, you should be able to determine peak coal and provide an estimate of the future with no problem at all. Everything else is “minuscule” right?
Once you knock that out determine whether cloud feedback is positive or negative. There are some experts that are in need of assistance there.
Web’s arrogance is breathtaking. Almost Obama like.
Can you run a stochastic simulation using the past ENSO and volcanic statistics? It should be fairly easy to have both inputs, as well as a stochastic presentation of the CO2 and other GHG emissions. I generated a CO2 emissions curve using the BP fact book data, which of course can be used to predict peak points for each fossil fuel. The BP data can be supplanted with a speculative set of figures for additional reserves which have yet to be proved.
Given the ease with which the model runs you should be able to generate 1000 to 5000 runs and create an output ensemble?
Sure, we are doing backcasting on ENSO proxy estimates made by McGregor to check the feasibility of using them to project into the future.
The breakthrough may be in deconstructing the QBO time-series to figure out the source of at least one of the puzzling forcing functions to ENSO.
http://azimuth.mathforge.org/discussion/1471/qbo-and-enso/
Webbly is both reprehensible and incompetent. He has indulged in character assassination on spurious grounds. He comes here to insult and abuse – and goes elsewhere to make snide remarks about the ‘Krackpot’ and her ‘Klown’ denizens.
Here’s the QBO and ENSO – one is not more predictable than the other.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n5/fig_tab/ngeo2138_F2.html
Here are the long ENSO proxies.
Vance et al 2012 use an Antarctic ice core record – more salt is La Nina. They show a 20th century peak in El Nino frequency and intensity – along with 20 to 40 cool and warm regimes.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content.png
Moy et al (2002) present the record of sedimentation shown above which is strongly influenced by ENSO variability. It is based on the presence of greater and less red sediment in a lake core. More sedimentation is associated with El Niño. It has continuous high resolution coverage over 12,000 years. It shows periods of high and low ENSO activity alternating with a period of about 2,000 years. There was a shift from La Niña dominance to El Niño dominance some 5,000 years ago that was identified by Tsonis (2009) as a chaotic bifurcation – and is associated with the drying of the Sahel. There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high ENSO activity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation (Tsonis et al, 2010). It shows ENSO variability considerably in excess of that seen in the modern period.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/moys-20022.png
ENSO is not at all predictable. Should we stop trying? Webbly at least should stop prattling about it because he has not a clue.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/13/week-in-review-22/#comment-627568
Fernando Leanme: WHT, you run CSALT, right? Does CSALT run forward projections?
In his model, the effect of a change in CO2 is 3 ln(new CO2/old CO2), so the effect of a change from 400 to 620 by 2100 is + 1.3C. WebHubTelescope has told us on numerous occasions that the background oscillations, specifically including ENSO, balance out, so figure, as a first degree of approximation, that they all balance out over that time.
The CSALT model aggregates land use changes and CO2 changes. If half of the increase in temp since 1880 is actually due to land use changes, then the forecast change in temp due to an increase in CO2 to 620 by 2100 is close to 0.65C.
If I remember correctly, the idea of simulating a few future ENSOs and such has been suggested to WebHubTelescope a few times already.
My guess, based on graph reading, is that CO2 concentration is growing at a rate of 0.4% per year. If maintained (not likely on grounds such as you cite in your other posts), that would produce a CO2 concentration of 566 in 2100, with a correspondingly smaller CO2-related model temp increase by 2100.
Matthew, I didn’t estimate CO2 concentration increases, I just allowed a fraction of the oil to be burned ( all of the gas, and all of the coal were also assumed to be burned). This was a very simple exercise, I only assumed half the co2 stayed in the air.
I could try to refine this to be a bit more accurate, but to publish it I may need permission from the data owners. Let me see if I can find a public source and do like ex CIA Scheuer did when he wrote about Osama in “imperial hubris”
By the way, based on a couple of emails I got BP doesn’t seem to have been using proved as per USA definition. I think they are closer to p50.
More like a colossal brain fart for which a new expression – chucking a webbly – has had to be devised.
‘A spontaneous stupid (Stupid the noun, not stupid the adjective) usually accompanied by loss of train of thought and saying something fantastically stupid without realising it.’ Urban Dictionary
Rob, the forecasting method I’m suggesting to WHT acknowledges the inability to forecast the system performance. I’m not an expert statistician, but I know the data can be chewed up and digested. The digested results can be used to generate stochastic time series of events. The software runs very fast, so the idea would be to generate thousands of “alternate input realities” which are fed into the system model to deliver a forecast.
Let me give you an example of how we tackled this in the past: lets say I want to navigate over the northern sea route. I have to take the ice coverage and chew it to deliver a set of inputs for a hypothetical vessel sailing the route. We feed the ice data, the model runs the vessel through, and tells us for that run if the vessel made it through and how much time it took. We repeat until we have over a thousand hypothetical trips. Then we change the vessel engine power, the bow shape, and other parameters and we repeat. This allows us to try to optimize the type of vessel we would like to use to sail the NSR.
When I was working on this problem the models were easy to build. What was incredibly difficult was to get the reliable ice data. So we financed our own data gathering expeditions, paid for radarsats and so on, but in the end concluded the ice wouldn’t let us sail through. Seems to have been a good decision.
In this case the data set is proxy, so we do need to take this more as an intellectual exercise. But I do wonder what could come up. If you worried about WHTs model, the principle behind it seems to be sound, but I would use an artificial intelligence and train it. Who knows? Maybe it will work.
“Snicker”. I liked that.
Matthew Marler, in the last year it rose 3 ppm, which is 0.75%. Ignoring that the global emission rate is still increasing and using a 0.75% growth rate gives over 750 ppm by 2100. It is very sensitive to your assumptions and, as a consequence, to policy.
Jim D: in the last year it rose 3 ppm,
The source I saw quoted a figure of 1.86 (not likely as accurate as claimed); but I read 2ppm off a graph. Working with your figure, the CSALT model forecasts 1.89C increase due to CO2; figuring in the confound with land use changes, that comes to about 1C. However, due to the limitations of fossil fuels and the advancing technology of renewables, I think it is unlikely that the rate will be maintained, even with “business as usual”, so (according this that guess and the csalt model) an increase of 1C through the rest of the century is not likely.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
Well, it didn’t make 3.0 last year.
But it might be coupled to El Nino (1998 is bad).
Hasn’t changed much during the pause.
Too early to say if the last two years are a trend or an aberration.
No way we can keep increasing production like that. My estimated peaks can be extended a bit. But nothing will stop us from declining before 2100. Nothing. Renewables are irrelevant in my though chain. We just run out of the ability to keep producing at the same rate. After that it’s turtles all the way down.
My 3 ppm number appears to have come from this WMO report.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/2013-global-greenhouse-gas-report/1297/
Jim D: My 3 ppm number appears to have come from this WMO report.
I treated your number as a respectable alternative to mine, and derived a consequence (from the csalt model), and some conjectures (half of the estimated effect in the csalt model is due to land use and other changes; the rate of increase can not be maintained.) At least I hope I was respectful. Do you calculate a different eventual temperature response to CO2 by 2100?
I decided to estimate the TOTAL CO2 emissions and resulting atmospheric concentration of CO2 which results from the use of ALL the PROVED fossil fuel reserves as documented in the latest BP Factbook of World Energy. The highlights are: total CO2 concentration 623 ppm. Value reached in 2070 is 582 ppm. Concentration increases slowly after that because the proved reserves have run out to a large extent, which means production is way down.
It´s important to note the figures are derived from proved reserves as reported by BP. Critiques of this work should emphasize whether you disagree with BP´s reported worldwide reserves and the curve shapes. I´m not a climatologist, a debate about TCR and issues like that is up to the experts in that field. More details are found here:
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/09/burn-baby-burn-co2-atmospheric.html
I´m trying to anchor discussions about the climate with a slight dose of reality regarding the fossil fuel we do have available. It´s also important to differentiate the different types of fossil fuels when one considers what needs to be done (if anything can be done).
I suspect that proven reserves is a number that is increasing faster than the consumption rate, so it is a moving target and possibly meaningless for planning purposes. Even with the number you have, the 450 ppm target means leaving 80% of those fossil fuels in the ground. It is a target needed for some degree of climate stabilization and requires that level of action. Coasting with current rates pushes us right through 450 ppm by 2035.
jimD
I suggest you don’t tell the Scottish Nationalists that they should leave 80% of their supposed oil wealth in the ground. In the current febrile atmosphere your safety could not be guaranteed
tonyb
The majority of that 80% would be coal, which has other problems anyway.
Jim D. Some of the upwards reserves revisions are for oil we knew was there. For example a few years ago PDVSA booked about 145 billion barrels in the Orinoco Oil Belt. However, that oil was known to exist for many years.
Those of us who work in the industry and actually book reserves are quite familiar with the amounts of oil “on the shelves” which hasn’t been booked because it doesn’t meet SEC guidelines.
To avoid useless arguments I usually point you guys to the oil reserves bookings on file with the SEC. Check the actual figures and you will see the proved oil numbers are dropping. One way to offset the oil shortcoming is to add gas condensate, propane, butane, and some even dare add ethane to their “oil production reports”. The other trick they use is to change their natural gas reserves and production to “oil equivalents”.
Unless one understands reservoir engineering AND surface processing this subject can get very confusing. And this is why there’s so much confusion.
Tell you what. Go to the BP fact book and download their Excel. Then look at the Oil Production tab, and check that against the refinery runs tab. Just look at the world wide totals. Plot them. What you’ll see is the difference between real oil and the other liquids they tend to call oil but they are not. My friend, one thing we do know is that oil is fed to a refinery. So why do we see the gap? I will have the answer next week.
Well, there is 38000 gigatonnes of suspended carbon in the ocean. The total reserves are about 2.5% of this (957 gigatonnes of carbon) so the potential damage the human race can do is pretty limited.
The whole global warming thing is about funneling money to environmental groups and causes, and forcing public policy to support an activist environmental agenda however wrong headed and misguided it is. Since the facts don’t support the goal a lot a deceit and deception is involved.
But trying to reason with zealots is an exercise in futility.
We are going to use less fossil fuel as technologies mature. The zealots want us spend 10-100 times as much to go “carbon free” today with half-baked technology rather than letting nature (and technology evolution) take its course.
“carbon-free” is not the goal. The cult hates nuclear too. They want us to be “always available-free” and “industry-free” and “jobs-free”.
The radical environmental sites talk about reducing the human population up to 99% to save the planet. The energy policies advocated by global warmers are a step towards this goal.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/563
“Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable”
http://skinnyreporter.com/timetocullhumansoverpopulation.html
The EarthFirsters and some in the radical environmental wing are simply crazy.
I’m not a big fan of conventional nuclear. But molten salt/brayton cycle looks like a winner (total burn-up with no disaster).
Leaks in a molten salt plant are easy. You scrap the salt off the pipe with a shovel and toss it back into the reactor.
However, using water cooling in a molten salt plant is unwise. A remote tertiary loop to run steam turbines from the brayton turbine output, and do the final cooling stage is ok.
Interesting analysis Fernando. Good that we don’t hit the lethal 10,000 ppm CO2 level. If your analysis is correct, and I haven’t checked it, then I just don’t see a problem burning fossil fuels. 600 ppm is only slightly more than the current 400. And considering the “forcing” is proportional to the log of concentration, DRILL! DRILL! DRILL!
3rd world fossil fuel consumption (mostly China) has caused a exponential increase in CO2 emissions – but the increase in CO2 the last decade has been linear. The current linear trend would give 620 PPM in 2100.
Since the fossil fuel reserves are limited, the exponential increase will not continue. China’s contribution will taper off after 2030 when China has exhausted 50% of its coal reserves.
A maximum reasonable projection for 2100 would be less than 620 PPM.
That’s unfortunate for my campaign to reach 1000ppm.
Jim2, I only used the BP proved reserves. However, I keep seeing comments suggesting we are supposed to keep 2/3 of the fossil fuel reserves in the ground. I could do a better job, but I felt that was good enough to make the point.
A real model has to include all CO2 emissions, methane, the methane cycle (including things such as cattle and rice). Today when I was watching the football game I kept thinking about how complex the thing can get. I concluded a deterministic projection isn’t worth much (we have too many unknowns). This is why I thought asking WHT about his model may be useful. The actual parameters one uses for such a model aren’t critical. The key is to see if a forward looking projection “stochastic cloud” can be made.
Eventually I think an artificial intelligence module can be trained using regional data? Maybe 20 to 50 regions running in tandem? There has to be a better way to tackle this.
Fernando, a better number is proven and probable reserves. The best number for your purpose is technically recoverable reserves (at any price using any known technology). The US EIA has estimates for the world for oil, gas, and coal. the oil numbers are quite solid as these things go. Gas is shakier. Coal shakiest. EIA for all oil (conventional, unconventional, discovered and to be discovered (done by basin using creaming curves) TRR is 3357Bbbl. Google EIA, Today in Energy Jan 2 2014. Will provide all the needed links.
Rid, I’m aware of the issue. I’m also aware of the way some of those “technical reserves” are dreamed up (I worked in the former Soviet Union and had to train their engineers to de book soviet reserves, many of which were “extremely technical”, to be kind to the GKZ).
I used proved reserves because that’s what the UN nomenklatura mentions. I suspect most of them don’t have any idea of what “proved” means.
I also have a tendency to treat the EIA with a bit of distrust. It’s what I call the “Monterrey hang over factor”.
And then there’s coal. When it comes to coal I do lack the full background. I’m really comfortable with the gas/oil family, but the coal business isn’t as familiar to me.
Finally, all the technical figures are subject to booking only if they meet the eventual commercial test. And when we go from point a to point b we could run into a replacement energy source on the way to b. I guess that’s what we have to hope for.
Rud Istvan,
Do you have a link to an authoritative source for the TRR of all fossil fuels in units of Gt C?
Further to previous question, do you know how much the TRR has changed over the past 50 years, or since say 1950?
If that rate continues, what would be the TRR in 2100?
I am very interest in this too. Manacker (Max Anacker, now deceased, a great loss and much missed) made many comments on this matter. He often referred to the latest estimate of resources from the WEC 2013 report “World Energy Council report confirms global abundance of energy resources and exposes myth of peak oil” http://www.worldenergy.org/news-and-media/press-releases/world-energy-council-report-confirms-global-abundance-of-energy-resources-and-exposes-myth-of-peak-oil/ Manacker concluded much the same as you: i.e. if all the fossil fuels resources were burnt, the CO2 concentration could reach a maximum of about 800 ppmv (his estimate).
William Nordhaus uses 6000 Gt C for the total fossil fuels resources as the default value in his DICE and RICE models. The source for 6000 Gt C is: “Nordhaus and Yohe, Future Paths of Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emissions, NRC, 1982” quoted here: http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Accom_Notes_100507.pdf
I am very interested in what you suggest is the most reliable estimate of TOTAL FOSSIL FUEL RESOURCES, not reserves. By how much do the BP, SEC and WEC estimates of resources differ.
Can you give the figures in Gt C, as these are what is relevant for estimating the maximum total CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels?
Peter, if the question was meant for me I could give you some hints. The problem I have seen is the inconsistency of the “technical recoverable reserves” figures.
But let me think about it and I´ll see if I can show you some diagnostic plots. I´m retired, so I´ll only use public information and my own windage. And I assume there will be cornucopians who toss rocks at my ideas, but so far I can´t find anybody who can give me a concrete example of WHERE and HOW we are going to recover all that extra oil.
Peter Lang, reference that World Energy link, here’s a quote
“the reserves are sufficient to meet even a significant upturn in demand for decades to come”
The “peak” years (the point when production starts declining) using the PROVED reserves range between 2 and 4 decades. As Rud I. And others pointed out there will be reserves added (probable reserves as well as newly discovered fields, reserves even beyond that which emerge due to technology and economic events). Note that peaks are reached sooner if production increases faster. This is why peak oil is a slippery figure.
So what I put together using the BP source data for Proved is only an exercise, converting the reserves into atmospheric ppm for you guys to look at. A similar exercise can be carried out using proved plus probable.
But no matter what volume we use, or how optimistic we want to be, the peak is reached. And I’m fairly sure we will be paying much higher prices by 2035 to delay those peaks. This in turn creates a negative feedback on emissions, so it becomes a very critical issue in the climate wars.
Fernando Leanme,
Thanks you. However, I wasn’t looking for generalities. I was asking for quantitative answers (refer to my last two paragraphs and to my two question addressed to Rud Istvan above:
“Do you have a link to an authoritative source for the TRR of all fossil fuels in units of Gt C?
Do you know how much the TRR has changed over the past 50 years, or since say 1950?
If that rate continues, what would be the TRR in 2100 (in Gt C)?”
Not having been here in quite a while, I didn’t know Manacker (Max Anacker) had passed away. This is sad news. I was fond of Max.
MAX_OK, I guess rumors of your demise were exaggerated :)
Jim Cripwell has also passed.
Max_OK,
Welcome back. Yes, Manacker was a really good person, always pleasant, always respectful of others, very clear thinking, and explained evrything extremely clearly. he thought clearly like a highly competent engineer I am sure he was.
Very nice things were said about him by many people when Judith announced it on a thread. Beth the Serf recently ran a whole edition of her Underground Serf journal dedicated to him.
Max Ok
good to see you back. Yes we were upset about Max. We were also sad to learn that Jim Cripwell had passed away.
tonyb
I want to thank Cap, Peter, and Tony for welcoming me back.
If there is a better place, I’m sure Max Anacker and Jim Cripwell are there.
Peter, I don’t recall seeing TRR since 1950. However since there is no set definition engineers can use, the figure must jump all over. iHS has a data base one could use to prepare an estimate using a set of defined rules, but I seriously doubt its quality.
I’m not a big believer in trendology when it comes to this topic because it can miss discontinuities. If you want to use a TRR figure in an IAM that’s fine because those models have a lot of messy areas anyway.
A more sophisticated approach would be to take the field data base and prepare recovery factor increases one can achieve if prices say double and taxes are reset to allow twice the net cash flow while keeping costs constant and assuming there are no input constraints. That’s very optimistic, it can be used to see what can be achieved. I suspect the increase won’t be nearly as much as many think because in most cases the reservoir depletion process is too far advanced.
Some field or areas really benefit from this approach (currently producing North Sea fields are a good example). However, I’ll wait to see it before I believe they’ll cut taxes that way.
Fernando, please head over to Tim Worstall regarding proven reserves. It doesn’t mean that that’s all there is, nor even that that’s all we can get.
Tom, who is Tim Worstall?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Worstall
Fernando
I love the literate bird. I wonder if fossil-fuels-have-to-stay-in-the-ground Figueres flew to that photo op.
I got that bird from a drilling superintendent. It used to say “How to s…. on drillers”. They get resentfull because exploration managers like to blame them when wells come up dry (if I could only figure out what part of what i know is confidential and what part isn´t I could probably tell you some funny stories about exploration managers).
For planning purposes, perhaps we should, at this point in time anyway, assume the max for CO2 will be 1,000 ppm. That allows some slop for undiscovered fossil resources and for technology improvements. For example, what if someone finds a way to mine clathrates?
Jim2,
People can and do make up any number they like. If you say 1000, why can’t someone else say 2000?
The point is if you can’t provide a basis for estimate it is meaningless. So I am asking those who are across the subject, like you, to give me the best estimates from the most reliable sources of the total resources of fossil fuels in units of Gt C. And to say how the total resources have changed since 1950 and’or over the past 50 years and give a projection of what the resources might be in 2100 if the rate of change continues at that rate. Surely those who are involved in these analyses all the time must know where to find that number.
I’m using Fernando’s estimate and adding some to account for unknowns. There is no method, reliable method that is, to account for unknowns. You basically just have to guess.
So, unless you have a magic crystal ball, I’m thinking 1,000 ppm would be a good working estimate.
1000 isn’t in the whelm of possibility.
1. The last decade the rate of CO2 emission has increased exponentially but the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased linearly. Since we can’t continue to increase fossil fuel consumption exponentially this linear rate of CO2 increase is as bad as it is going to get.
2, The total fossil reserves are 2.5% of the suspended carbon in the ocean. Let’s double the reserves to cover new discoveries. That is a whopping 5% of the carbon in the ocean. Some of this will diffuse into the ocean. The net diffusion rate is related to the partial pressures and will only increase.
3. According to CSIRO from 1982-2010 plant growth increased 11%. Assuming a linear trend, plant growth will be 35% higher in 2100 than today. This removes CO2 from the atmosphere. A 35% increase in biosphere incorporation is about 3 times the current rate of human emission (9.8 gigatonnes of carbon more or less).
4. People burn fossil fuel because it is cheap. New reserves will be more expensive and old reserves get more expensive to extract since the most readily available (and cheapest to extract) reserves are harvest first. Alternative energy sources will look increasingly attractive.
5. There are dozens of studies that say the CO2 lifetime is in the 5-15 year range, not the 100+ years that would be needed to really saturate the atmosphere IPCC style. Most recent study said 5.6 years.
All of this works to make the 620 PPM in 2100 from the current linear trend look like a worst case. We might not hit 500 PPM. But 620 is a safe bet for planning purposes.
Whelm whelf
Rain wealth
Then pelf.
=======
Kim – I just reread it and was going to fix that (I was multitasking and picked an autocorrect suggestion without focusing on the problem).
“1000 PPM CO2 isn’t in the realm of possibility.”
Realm indeed.
PA – just about every prediction concerning how much oil will be produced or when peak oil, with oil defined as oil from any source, will occur has been wrong. You aren’t any different from any other prognosticator. The future is something you just can’t know. The best you can do is a guess. A “guided” guess, but a guess nonetheless.
This should be called “Weak in Review”
Team Denier is always getting it wrong
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/scotland-bets-on-north-sea-oil-even-as-the-wells-start-to-run-dry/2014/09/13/e61edfd9-d0ec-4bb2-826b-38c76bb113aa_story.html
Simple stochastic analysis showed that this would happen to UK North Sea oil.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UzuaiWrrgY8/ToZx4dur_tI/AAAAAAAAAjU/nKHKLSjbO78/s320/ukshock1oz.gif
Stumbling scientists have had a long history…
http://blog.acton.org/archives/60978-devils-distractions-whittaker-chambers-satan-age-reason.html
leading the way for the uneducated.
WebBackwardsTelescope –
From the article:
…
“Indeed it is certain, it is clear to see, that the earth itself is currently more cultivated and developed than in earlier times. Now all places are accessible, all are documented, all are full of business. The most charming farms obliterate empty places, ploughed fields vanquish forests, herds drive out wild beasts, sandy places are planted with crops, stones are fixed, swamps drained, and there are such great cities where formerly hardly a hut… everywhere there is a dwelling, everywhere a multitude, everywhere a government, everywhere there is life. The greatest evidence of the large number of people: we are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate to us; and our needs straiten us and complaints are everywhere while already nature does not sustain us.”
In 1865, Stanley Jevons (one of the most recognized 19th century economists) predicted that England would run out of coal by 1900, and that England’s factories would grind to a standstill.
In 1885, the US Geological Survey announced that there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California.
In 1891, it said the same thing about Kansas and Texas. (See Osterfeld, David. Prosperity Versus Planning : How Government Stifles Economic Growth. New York : Oxford University Press, 1992.)
In 1939 the US Department of the Interior said that American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
1944 federal government review predicted that by now [the mid 1970s] the US would exhaust its reserves of 21 of 41 commodities it examined. Among them were tin, nickel, zinc, lead and manganese.
In 1949 the Secretary of the Interior announced that the end of US oil was in sight.
…
http://people.terry.uga.edu/mustard/courses/e2200/pop.htm
“PA – just about every prediction concerning how much oil will be produced or when peak oil, with oil defined as oil from any source, will occur has been wrong. ”
That is true – that is why I said double reserves to be on the safe side.
The further you get from sinking a hole in the ground and pumping the more expensive it gets. Fracking is currently driving up the marginal cost of oil production and Arctic production is worse. These new fields in marginal locations are more expensive and will eventually cross a threshold where other energy sources are cheaper. We will never get all the reserves out of the ground.
Underwater fracking could almost double the amount of recoverable oil and gas in the North Sea, according to oil experts.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/experts-propose-north-sea-fracking.1409834524
Next week I’ll try to do a P+P estimate. However I keep cautioning the audience I’m seeing something odd with the refinery runs. The growth pace in the oil being refined is diverging from the liquids production being reported. This tells me the liquids tend to have an increasing fraction of light hydrocarbons rather than oil. Those light hydrocarbons aren’t really oil.
I often read the argument that “so and so predicted it and was wrong”. But i’m not any of those who predicted anything in the past.
Now lets take you through a mental exercise. Take Indonesia, North Sea, Australia and China. Take their production and plot it. Look at it. So how come they don’t increase oil production forever? They sure have the incentives to do it. What happens when every country has gone past that point? You pray for forgiveness for buying the Mustang GT in 1969?
jim2, I looked at the nature of the BP´s reserves tables and I concluded a lot of that oil is proved plus probable. I also found out it includes a large volume of NGL´s. Because some NGLs are used for plastics and when they burn they don´t generate nearly as much CO2 per barrel, the answer remains about 630 ppm if we use 3100 billion barrels as the ultimate LIQUIDS reserve (cumulative is about 1145 billion barrels).
As I look over what I did I can see there are improvements to be made. However, The answer remains 600 to 700 ppm unless something technologically odd happens. I don´t like to count on oddities. Peak oil according to this work is between 2034 and 2040.
Fernando. The oil companies have begun to use nat gas to power their operations so they don’t have to flare as much. I’m wondering why they can’t use some of the light liquids for power also. They certainly burn well enough.
A whole article on houses of cards built from ad hoc hypotheses, and nary a mention of Kuhn.
Sigh!
All Time Antarctic Sea Ice Extent record set.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-sept-13-2014-new-all-time-record/
We might get 3 standard deviants above average.
I was scanning the comments and your phrase “3 standard deviants” stood out. Until I read the previous comment, I thought you were talking about joshie, mikey, and webby,
For day 255 I show 70,000 sq km above the 3 standard deviation mark.
Don – Thank you. I needed the laugh.
They would be three standard deviants Below average
We have met the consensus, and we are the enemy.
===============
Kim we are the consensus, and they are the enemy! Proposition: the majority of human beings are unconcerned about global warming, either from ignorance or from rational thinking about the state of the science and its politicisation.
Nisbet’s piece reads like the State of Fear, only not as well written.
Regarding Judith speaking at the Marshall Institute event, the comment was made:
“But to speak on behalf of a group heavily funded by fossil fuel companies and conservative donors—a group with a well-known 30 year history of distorting science for political aims—well that may just be career suicide.”
—
If Judith was at the beginning of her career this well might be the case. In any regard, the horse is already well out of the barn and Judith certainly knows where her credibility stands with “established” climate science. It won’t really affect it by speaking for a policy group with specific financial interests on one side of the climate debate as it is simply continued confirmation of what many already knew.
RGates
Whilst you have been away Webby has gone mad whilst all the other warmists have agreed that sceptics were right all along. Consequently this blog closes tomorrow…
Seriously, welcome back. My surmise would be that Judith intends to go into politics at some point but being from the other side of the pond I won’t pretend to know how that would be achieved.
tonyb
Tony, your “surmise would be that Judith intends to go into politics at some point” surprises me. I haven’t seen any grounds for such a surmise.
“career suicide”????
I think his is a complete misundertanding -this will aid Judith’s career, as I’m sure she has calculated.
As long as you understand that her new career is climate-advocate.
For that you need exposure, which helps raise your profile and hence increaes the efficacy of your advocacy.
And it’s a win-win. GMI have always tried to give a reasonable science veneer to their political advoacy, so this is good for them too.
Everyone’s happy!! – except maybe the poor old ‘public-understanding-of-science’ which may be slightly more baffled after this event.
Maybe she is going there to “speak truth to power”.
…or uncertainty to merchants of doubt.
“a group with a well-known 30 year history of distorting science for political aims”
He is referring to the CAGW Cult?
He can’t be talking about Paul R. Ehrlich. That guys been distorting science for far longer then 30 years.
Gates,
Were you on vacation, we missed you.
Although that post sounds a little Joshuaesque; better get back to speed. Wecome back to the fray.
I find this “don’t talk to skeptics concept” to be pretty brain dead.
It doesn’t work.
Not that talking to them works wonders except one on one
One on one? What on earth are you suggesting Mr Mosher?
tonyb
Jesus went where the sinners were. MLK didn’t shy away from talking to white people.
But seriously, speaking at the Marshall Institute will give Joe Romm an instalink the next time he calls Judith decredited, disbunked or whatever he thinks of next.
Too bad nobody’s listening to him any more.
Supposed to shout ‘Flamingo’, spell bind, and loot, showed the paying crowd the rEgrets instead.
==========
Translation: the “settled science” crowd doesn’t like her.
Translation: we hate everybody who’s opposed to our socialist agenda.
“socialist agenda”
LOL.
Tin foil hat territory.
Facing climate change head-on means changing capitalism: Naomi Klein, just to pick one example out of thousands:
[…]
“Social justice” is code for “socialist agenda”. Everybody know it. Many deny it, at least in public. To themselves? …
Really? According to the IPCC, even such deep cuts would have little or no effect for decades. “Captialism”, with proper incentives for technological development, could solve these problems without having to limit “growth for growth’s sake, which is the logic of the core of our economic system.”
Of course, we might have to redirect that growth a little. But anybody who puts on blinders, and tries to put them on everybody else, in support of “cuts […] so deep that they would present a fundamental challenge to the logic of growth for growth’s sake” is pursuing a socialist agenda.
By misrepresenting the science.
“Social justice” is code for “socialist agenda”. Everybody know it.” – AK
Just as it is known that the phrase “everybody knows” is a cover for what is usually little more than IMO.
Weak tea AK.
Michael: Just as it is known that the phrase “everybody knows” is a cover for what is usually little more than IMO.
Maybe so, but AK produced a direct quote that addressed your immediately preceding disparagement.
I don’t think Dr Curry speaks on behalf of that center. I left a comment at that other site trying to help the author’s writing style. I hope it goes through moderation, because I really like to help people (honest).
I find all this angst over the Marshall Institute amusing when the US Administration has been infiltrated by eco-notzees. We NEED organizations like the MI to counteract at least a small part of that problem.
Excellent interview with John Nielsen-Gammon, thanks for linking to it.
I particular liked this: “I don’t care what your position is on global warming, most of what you know about the science of climate change is wrong.”
Many here would agree with that statement, at least as applied to everyone else. ;-)
Also this week “Research shows surprise global warming ‘hiatus’ could have been forecast”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/research-global-warming-hiatus
and
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2357.html
Their new forecasting model involves collecting newspaper clippings for 10 years and then hindcasting for those 10 years.
JimD, ““Research shows surprise global warming ‘hiatus’ could have been forecast”
Isn’t that comforting. Had the models been correct, they could have worked correctly. Reminds me of a frog analogy.
By the by, I was perusing a doctorate thesis that noted how poorly cloud parameterzation was and that improving mixed phase cloud parameterization could greatly improve the performance of climate models. What a boon to climate projections that would be.
It shows it is just known processes, and you don’t have to invent new ones to explain the hiatus.
JimD, Of course it is known processes.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~gc903759/phd/ABarrett_Thesis.pdf
Why else would Barrett consider the topic?
“you don’t have to invent new ones to explain the hiatus”
Or to explain the 1909-1945 and 1980-1998 warming.
Just old processes. Nothing to do with CO2.
Has jimmy dee finally admitted to the hiatus? He was holding out until they could make up at least 50 excuses.
The pause is killing the cause.
I still think if you remove 1998 there is no hiatus. It’s an illusion produced by one large El Nino.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1998/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:12
Looks flat to me.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1998/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend
or…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1998/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1909/to:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1909/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1998/trend
JIm D 52 reasons for a pause put forward by warmists yet as a warmist you do not believe a pause actually exists.
Why would there be so many reasons put forward for something that does not exist?
Or why are you so skeptical of a pause existing ?
Jim, why does my plot look different?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1930/to:1998/mean:48/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:48
Jim D: I still think if you remove 1998 there is no hiatus. It’s an illusion produced by one large El Nino.
There is no hiatus and it could have been predicted from known processes.
Also this week “Research shows surprise global warming ‘hiatus’ could have been forecast”
Would you infer from the lack of the hiatus that it could not have been predicted from the known processes? that the known processes don’t exist.
See also this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/11/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/
Very funny. Green science is scrambling, falling all over itself.
And the skeptics don’t believe any of them, or even that is could be a combination of some of them? Why not ocean cycles, Chinese aerosols, the sun, natural variability,…? The skeptics have fallen behind on denying these one by one, so we don’t yet see their view.
The skeptics are amused by the excuse frenzy, jimmy. You all were in denial for many years and now you all are scrambling to make up excuses. Your lot have recently discovered something called natural variability. The skeptics knew about it all the time. They been telling you about it all along.
Actually some skeptics believe several of them, Jim D. Have you even read them? And by the way, ocean cycles and the sun are part of natural variability.
==> “Very funny. Green science is scrambling, falling all over itself.”
What an interesting take on the scientific process, of the process of using new evidence and data to examine phenomena.
In the eyes of some “skeptics” empirical scientific processes = “falling all over [them]selves.”
Hence, the reason I use quotation marks.
David W, if you can find a skeptic who has said that they agree with explanations for the pause, I would like to see them. This would pull the rug out from under the other skeptics who say with rising CO2 the temperature should not stop rising for any reason, including the above 52. And it wasn’t me who separated the sun from natural variations. Look for how much overlap there is in the WUWT list of 52 reasons, and some are just combinations of others.
Jim D, I do not know of any skeptics who claim that, as you put it, “with rising CO2 the temperature should not stop rising for any reason.” Perhaps you are referring to lukewarmers.
But do at least try to understand that different skeptics have different views. I personally do not believe that the 1978-97 warming shown in the surface statistical models ever actually happened, because the satellites did not see it, and it is the basis for AGW. No warming so no cause of warming. Not all skeptics agree. Some like kirging.
I believe most of them.
Joshua, I agree that exploring possible hypotheses is a good example of scientific process. It is the advocates that are scrambling. You will note that each hypothesis is claimed to be true by its backers and that is not good scientific process. I am reminded of Canadian comedian Red Green’s line about the three little words men hate to say: “I don’t know.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/09/water-vapor-feedback-and-the-global-warming-pause/
According to Spencer the upper troposphere is drying out. What is happening with CO2 is analogous to a window that is dirty on top. The CO2 increase applies dirt to the bottom of the window while cleaning off the top. The net effect is much less than expected from applying dirt to the bottom of the window.
A German atmospheric study said the feedback was 50% negative. That would imply the 20th century CO2 warming was 0.15°C. 0.5°C by 2100 would be beneficial. CSIRO says plant growth increased 11% from 1982 to 2010 due to CO2.
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx
The global warmers are basically saying that something that is benefiting mankind and all the little plants and animals is dangerous and must be stopped. That is a hard position to justify.
We really shouldn’t take any action until 2030. By then it will be obvious if the temperature has gone up or down or stayed the same.
Unless the temperature rises significantly (Hansen said 2-3°C by 2020 in 1988 and has stuck to it) the global warmers will have to go back to the blackboard.
It’s more than laughable to see Joshua dress himself as if he has the slightest interest in AGW as “science”. This being among the oldest self appointments of false rhetorical authority grasping in the Greenshirt handbook. Joshua invokes it in a knee jerk fashion when ever the insidious political culture of AGW becomes especially exposed.
Jim D.,
Denying the pause at this point is prima facie evidence of poor critical thinking. For something that doesn’t exist, it sure has caused quite the frenzy of post hoc excuses, rationalizations, and all around ass covering.
Let’s put it another way, if the heat isn’t missing, why are they looking for it?
The past record shows examples of 15-year declines starting at 1940 and 1960 for example. More recently these 15-year periods have not been declines but pauses or slowed warming. These are part of natural variability. There is no reason to expect a plain rise unless looking at 30-year-filtered trends that smooth out random natural variations.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:240/mean:120
I like kriging. But the devil is in the details.
“I still think if you remove 1998 there is no hiatus. ”
Global warmers always have to adjust this or move that. I guess actual data isn’t good enough for them.
“The past record shows examples of 15-year declines starting at 1940 and 1960 for example.”
According to the McKitrick paper the pause is “19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere.”
So… I guess Jim D now believes the pause is real and global warming theory has problems, since his 15 year criterion has been exceeded. I like it when everyone is on the same page.
I’m a genuine skeptic however – nobody has a good prediction track record so far – climate predictions seem to be as bad as weather predictions for some reason. It is probably prudent to wait 4 more years just to be sure, before we kill off the global warming theory.
Sceptics use different language to scientists. The pause as believed in by sceptics is a myth.
Sceptics claim no warming since 1995, 19 years ago, for example, and call this “the pause”. However the premise of no warming since 1995 is simply false.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Vt-GyxaUz58/VATdRteu_kI/AAAAAAAAGTY/znWiFiVWudM/s1600/GISTemp94.png
needless to say scientists do not believe the claim that there has been no global warming for 19 years.
GISS goes like a wet sock on a cat’s head around here, but
0.153
0.129
0.132
0.176
0.090
0.169
are the calculated trends since 1993, which are the outliers?
Throw out one of the Alabama judges and the modified English judge and average the remaining scores and we get 0.146 C per decade, a nice fruit salad.
It just doesn’t quite round to o.2 C per decade does it
da Pause sure is one of those curious thing ain’t it? Rose related the Pause to the Hadcrut data set kind of poking fun at the confidence the MET office had in predicting warm summers and children never knowing snow. With C&W implying that HADCRU isn’t all that great a product, I doubt Rose would taker much exception to that.
However, because of the pause that never has really existed due to 50 plus reasons, attention was focused on HUGE increases in OHC that will drive “Global” average ocean temperature up by around a degree in a few centuries or more.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-cV-tacbH9O4/VBWnmHAzBSI/AAAAAAAALgc/PPi_xT7LduE/w669-h481-no/da%2Bpause%2Boiv2.png
Looking at the “wet” part of the oceans, there really isn’t a pause, just a continuation of a slight trend that has likely existed since around 1700. Of course, that long term trend cannot possibly exist because “approved” temperature records don’t go back that far and Paleo reconstructions aren’t accurate enough to “positively” identify such a weak long term persisting trend especially when you massage the heck out of them.
So all that brings us back to this;
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc-graph-global-temperature-anomalies-640.jpg
Which looks a lot like something Girma did several years ago before da Pause was recognized to exist, 50 plus excuses or not.
Simply amazing.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/f8.jpg
http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/16/docmartyns-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity-and-forecast-of-future-global-temperatures/
Jim D: Also this week “Research shows surprise global warming ‘hiatus’ could have been forecast”
That’s if they had known which of their current runs was most accurate without knowledge of the hiatus occurring. Most of the computer models did not in fact forecast a hiatus.
And, of course, this ought to go without saying, which is why I repeat it: their new found knowledge and confidence have not been tested on out-of-sample data. Knowing what I know now, I could have predicted the hiatus: it’s an accident of no importance that I happen not to have.
It actually was predicted based on multi-decadal climate regimes that are quite evident in the record. Do they forget the howls of derision that greeted sceptic who said that the fundamental nature of climate was change?
e.g. http://www.expresswaysonline.com/expwys/nino.html
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
‘Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
I was busy wondering how the newly described PDO could possibly have an impact on Australian rainfall when I realized the surface temperature record had precise correspondences as well. This was understood – remember the strident denials of a PDO influence?
I see from the link you provide that Greg Laden now accuses you of joining the “list” of “climate denialists”. His own bio states he is a “biological anthropologist and science communicator”, whose “research has covered North American prehistoric and historic archaeology and African archaeology and human ecology.” I guess that makes him extraordinarily well placed to judge between you and Michael Mann: he obviously has all the expertise in evaluating proxy climate data one could possibly need, after all, as any fule no, this is a very simple field. As for the claim that you are destroying your credibility by speaking at the Marshall Institute: well, words fail me. These are signs of desperation: ad feminam attacks in place of thoughtful argument.
The Marshall Institute is not that far out of the loop. Their ex-Executive Director Jeff Salmon is now Assistant Director of the Energy Department’s Office of Science, which does a lot of climate research and modeling. See http://energy.gov/contributors/jeffrey-salmon and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jeffrey_Salmon
He’s a polymath and a poly-everything and if you don’t believe it just ask him, he’ll tell you.
Sincerely,
The Department of the Assistent Vice-Chancellor of the Vice-Director of the Department of Abuse
The twitter exchange on all this has been highly entertaining, twitter search @curryja for the past 30 hrs
I don’t get this Twitter thing, but here’s an interesting exchange with Curry:
https://twitter.com/DuaeQuartunciae/status/509895395921514496
It just becomes expected that some will be so certain of their facts. Lesson 1) Regarding GAT, look at the oceans – Okay, they did that
2) Regarding CO2, look at the oceans – Work in progress
That last link was a failure. I am sorry. One more try on the 9/8 CO2 conversation:
https://twitter.com/curryja/status/508988664278687744
Ragnaar, Judith was just using a form of rhetoric known as playing dumb. What would your answer to that tweet be if you were dana?
Jim D, I expect that Dana would play dumb as well because he may not wish to open up the issue whether part of the CO2 increase could be natural. His statement implies that ALL CO2 increases is caused by human activity alone, and even a physics chump like me could see that this statement is deeply wrong.
No, he just gave the obvious scientific answer with an exclamation point.
Jim D:
Nuccitelli did reply with words to the effect that the IPCC said they balance out. I’d have qualified that, given that I find no variation a hard position to defend. I suppose if I was Nuccitelli I’d have tried to get her to commit to a number. David Crisp a NASA commenting on the location of the missing 1/4 of the CO2, “Wouldn’t it be nice to know where?”
ATTP almost commits to all the rise in CO2 since 1850 to be caused by man.
Ragnaar, yes, the main questions are around where exactly the net sinks are. We know the main source well enough, and we know the sinks are less effective with warmer temperatures but can absorb up to half of the emissions.
JIm D:
“…the ocean surface continuously absorbs CO2 where the temperature is falling, mostly at high latitudes, and emits CO2 where the water is warming, mostly at lower latitudes.” – Steve Fitzpatrick
Given that Fitzpatrick is correct, it resembles the hydrological cycle. If it’s too warm, speed things up, like meridional CO2 transport. Melt sea ice to increase ocean uptake. Grow trees in Greenland and far North Canada. Would the base of the Northern oceans food chain increase increase with more CO2? I am suggesting the CO2 cycle speeds up and stretches North.
Ragnaar, where is the ocean temperature falling? High latitudes are where it is warming fastest, and yes a warmer ocean is a less effective sink.
So what happens with the warm north pacific and or el nino interact with the jet stream from a weak polar vortex. What happens to CO2 if there is a bunch of rain and snow in the arctic, building massive sea ice?
Jim D:
Where are ocean temperatures falling? Overall I’d say the range is from a slight cooling to a slight warming. I am pretty set in my belief that sea ice is insulation. Lose that and polar ocean surface regions cool. I might guess that sea ice is a barrier to ocean CO2 absorption. I agree that high latitudes are warming fastest. However, water under ice is expected to be close to freezing as here:
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_sealevel/brw2012/BRW_MBS12_currTprof.png
The break points are between snow on ice, ice and sea water. If sea ice is a barrier to ocean CO2 absorption, that’s a nice defensive move, slowing sequestration at the right time as move towards a glacial period. I still believe sea ice is more than a result. It’s a defensive reaction.
Jim D: Judith was just using a form of rhetoric known as playing dumb.
She asked for a clarification of a statement that had an obvious ambiguity (or unstated assumption.)
This is not an argument!
Yes it is.
Possible reference to this
No it isn’t!
Dr. Curry, good on ya for including the drive by smears.
I assume these folks don’t have a preview of your remarks and have no idea what you are planning to say – but it doesn’t slow them down a bit.
Apparently any association with evil people and organizations is ample evidence of your moral decline.
Well, if Curry is wrong to speak at Marshall, then the scientists that speak to left wing think tanks, and environmental groups are equally wrong.
I’m fine with banning people who are members of environmental and other agenda driven groups from receiving climate research grants. The presence of Greenpeace and the WWF (World Wrestling Federation) at IPCC conferences taints and invalidates the result.
AGW is an accumulation of left-wing conspiracy thinking and evolvement over 50 if not 125 years in the U.S. I would start with the Populist Movement of the post Civil War and the rise of Marxist narratives against industry (oil especially) and work forward to the WWF and Sierra Club.
Dr. Curry is being told by the usual suspects (see Kos diatribe linked in list); “You didn’t build that!!!!” and there will be no soup for you when the revolution comes.
I believe the talk is at the national press club. I sure wish I could tap into the NSA wiretap of the event.
And someone needs to explain this “scores in own goal” meme to me.
I went to the site for the first (and last) time – and couldn’t find any intelligible points related to the meme. I guess they are desperate for web traffic.
It’s a phrase that indicates the author is impervious to the pangs of cognitive dissonance.
The basic problem in climatology is a problem that pervades society: The most selfish rise to positions of power.
http://wchildblog.com/2014/09/13/how-so-many-psychopaths-manage-to-reach-positions-of-power/
Yes. Those most willing to, er, fudge a bit can pass by those who are more honest and cooperative, until they are caught. Unfortunately, some (many?) are never caught. Insider trading, phony CVs, lying politicians, outright fraud, etc., can cause one to question whether we are truly cooperative and altruistic behavior is common or we are in a constant competitive struggle for power, status, and reproductive privilege. I think altruistic behavior is uncommon, which is why we make a big deal about it – it’s novel.
“There is a bit of good in the worst of us, and a bit of bad in the best of us.
When I complain about me or about you, I am complaining about God’s handiwork.
I am saying that I know better than God.“
“Research has found that while around 1% of the general population are psychopaths, the level rises to 3% amongst business managers.”
No it doesn’t! It’s more like 97% amongst business menagers.
Climate Etc readers may enjoy listening to the cheerful liberal voices of President Harry Truman and General George Marshall speaking for themselves regarding global economics and global strategic considerations.
Executive Summary The liberal/pragmatic views of the historical George Marshall were fundamentally opposed to the non-rational, faux-conservative, deplorably ignorant, anti-scientific views of today’s (wrongly-named) George Marshall Institute
Conclusion William Buckley would be deeply ashamed of the 21st century’s faux-conservatism eh Climate Etc readers?
Harry Truman was a firm believer in nuclear power. Kaboom.
“Conclusion William Buckley would be deeply ashamed…”
I doubt it:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/#comment-627578
I think it would be more likely he’d be rolling in his grave if he was forced to read Fans mythological muses.
FOMD responds below … Bill-Buckley-style!
The amicable climate science consensus? Surely that was tongue in cheek. No, no name calling from that side at all. I might also remind you , as much as I like Buckley, he didn’t always show restraint when provoked. Just ask Gore Vidal
Ordvic, among the the Consensus-97, did you find even one example of name-calling?
No? Hmmm … and that’s most folks expect nowadays, eh ordvic?
Conclusion Mainstream climate-scientists are emerging as the 21st century’s true heirs to the 20th century Bill-Buckley-brand of science-respecting principled conservatism.
Corollary For anti-scientific character assassination, bad manners, and incivility, the public looks to CEI/Steyn/WUWT/Watts/Heartland/NR (and their ilk).
*THAT’S* increasingly obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
a fan of *MORE* discourse: Mainstream climate-scientists are emerging as the 21st century’s true heirs to the 20th century Bill-Buckley-brand of science-respecting principled conservatism.
Do you mean they support a strong Christianity and a reduction in the size, power and cost of government?
boy you write weird stuff.
Plenty of sincerely religious folks think it makes *ZERO* conservative sense to ship hundreds of billions of American dollars overseas, year after year, to totalitarian governments and oligarchs.
*EVERYONE* appreciates *THAT* brand of conservative science-respecting common-sense, eh Matthew Marler?
a fan of *MORE* discourse: Plenty of sincerely religious folks think it makes *ZERO* conservative sense to ship hundreds of billions of American dollars overseas, year after year, to totalitarian governments and oligarchs.
How does that make climate scientists the true followers of William Buckley?
Fan, you have a very short memory, convenient for you. Mann to JC: climate denier, anti-science, disinformation..
Another appeal to authority?
If William F. Buckley was still alive and hosting Firing Line</i, and decided to put on a debate about global warming, how many consensus scientists would show up? Would Gavin?
Webbly has returned to the usual nonsense repeated again and again after the recent colossal brain fart episode.
Webbly uses a simple multiple linear regression – a bright 10 year could do it.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/MLR1_zps4a53618c.png.html?sort=3&o=80
It has multiple problems. Amongst these are actually selecting all of the relevant parameters and the issue of collinearity. The latter is the problem of having parameters moving in the same direction and thus relying on scaling judgments to make the distinction. The third problem is simply data reliability going back even past the last few decades. You would trust webbly to have the judgment to make a hash of all of this.
Here’s one from Lean and Rind. The projection obviously goes off track immediately.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/LeanandRind20102_zpsa090fb72.png.html?sort=3&o=110
Azimuth are working on pedagogical models that are decades old – they are obviously decades away from meaningful contributions – more so with webbly on board. And while we can all applaud the enthusiasm of citizen scientists we might just hold off on the Nobel Prize for contributions to the science of ENSO for the time being.
Webbly is incapable of interpreting ENSO data even – it conflicts with his preemptive climate narrative.
‘The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
It’s not his fault – it’s a collective insanity of the Borg Collective. He comes here to insult and abuse – and then skulks away to the Collective echo chambers to boast about how he has bested the Krackpot and her Klimate Klowns. And the rationale for allowing this to happen is? I have thought from the beginning that it is a sociological experiment gone feral.
Go easy on WHT, Ellison. He could be feeling suicidal after the oh-so-public science crash-and-burn.
Hahaha, true that!
Oh, he will be fine when his prediction of oil running out at the end of 2014 comes true.
re: Curry’s Credibility Crumbles.
To the tune of Dear Prudence.
Dear Judy, won’t you come out to play?
Dear Judy, greet the brand new day
The sun is up, the sky is blue
It’s falling fast, it’s CO2
Dear Judy, won’t you come out to play?
Dear Judy, open up your eyes
Dear Judy, see the sunny skies
The wind is low, the birds will sing
The climate’s hot, and it will sting
Dear Judy, won’t you open up your eyes?
Look around round
Look around round round
Look around
Dear Judy, let me see you smile
Dear Judy, like a little child
The clouds will be a daisy chain
A deadly water vapour stain
Dear Judy, won’t you let me see you smile?
Dear Judy, won’t you come out to play?
Dear Judy, greet the brand new day
The sun is up, the sky is blue
It’s falling fast, it’s CO2
Dear Judy, won’t you come out to play?
I tried to fit in “jumps the shark”, but couldn’t manage it. :)
Clearly, Judith is capable of ignoring this garbage, which is why she is able to put out this great blog. She is really doing a great thing for all of us.
Justin
JC has shown an admirable, almost saint-like degree, of tolerance and restraint and apparently has the wisdom to avoid feeding trolls.
A reasonable person engages on the facts and issues and lets the rest go under the bridge.
Incidences at Howl Geek Bridge.
Among the ripples of the threads
Thick plaid hatches rise.
Fecund the stream, trilling diamonds,
Thundering onwards, restfully.
==================
Justin Wonder
I agree.
But BallBounces poem is a sign of hope desperate the climate zealots have become. No rational discussion comes from any of them any more.
Actually, you misinterpreted my satirical intent. The “sky is falling” should have been a clue. Same for clouds being a deadly vapour.
He’s the Mann, with a plan,
Got a counterfeit hockey stick in his hand,
He’s Mistra Know-It-All…
Fffft! Fer the closed shop climate coterie it’s CLOSING TIME.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp0r-XQBMGc
So we struggle and we stagger
down climate snakes and up the ladder
to the tower where the modellers’ ruled sublime,
and I swear it happened just like this,
a sigh, a cry, a hockey goal miss,
though the Gates of CRU never budged an inch,
I can’t say much has happened since
but CLOSING TIME.
Northwest Passage (Canadian side) Small boats willing to wait for favorable winds in the (narrow) Bellot Strait are easily making it through the Northwest Passage, in yet another year!
Northern Passage (Russian side) Has been wide-open for weeks, with more than 600 commercial passage-permits issued.
Conclusion James Hansen’s 1981 article (864 citations) Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide was entirely right to predict “opening of the fabled Northwest Passage”!
More Breaking Arctic News At least one of the long-lost ships of the doomed Franklin Expedition has been found!
Largely because waters that were ice-locked in the 19th and 20th centuries, are routinely ice-free in the 21st century.
Needless to say dive teams are rushing to the site !
Fan
If the waters were ice locked how did they get there in the first place?
The previous Franklin expedition got so far that the crew were awarded a substantial cash prize and a medal by the Royal Society. I wrote about the early 19th century warming here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
Did you ever read my expanded article on the arctic warming during the 1920-1950 period? So much warming so many times….
tonyb
Currents are swift in those treacherous waters, TonyB … consult Arctic Tern’s 2014 ships-log for details.
Question Why are skeptics so ardently vigorous in extrapolating the ambiguous-and-scanty evidence of ancient ships logs … and yet so paradoxically reluctant to accept the unanimous affirmation of Arctic-dwelling Inuit elders, that Michael Mann’s hockey-stick climate-changes are transforming the Arctic?
The world wonders … and rightly so, eh TonyB?
FOMT, you will need a convincing explanation of how a Franklin ship got to that location without open water. If it sailed to that point then finding it is no evidence at all that present conditions are shocking or unprecedented. In fact, it suggests, that we are only now beginning to see again the conditions that existed during Franklin’s expedition.
Thank you Tony B. From a lurker who likes reading about your research. Typically I ignore the like of FOMD and WHUT as they seem incapable of reasoned debate.
Fan
Why do you keep trotting this out? We replied to you in detail before.
With Sat Nav more boats than ever before will find routes previously considered closed in previous ages. Mind you the Vikings no doubt managed it even without this device.
The Northern sea route was open in the 1930’s and 1940’s. My brave neighbour was on one of the arctic convoys in the early 1940’s. It was also open I suspect in the 1530’s but I will need another visit to the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge (at my expense as Big oil has stopped the funding) to confirm this.
tonyb
LESSONS-LEARNED FOR TONYB
• Trust the Inuit elders Finding of Franklin wreck vindicates Inuit testimony
• The Inuit elders who testify that the “hockey stick” is real
Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
• Then get to work! How the Franklin wreck was finally found
Fan
I am glad that you like Inuit testimony as in the 1820’s they testified to William Scoresby arctic explorer, sent bŷ the royal society to discover the cause of the melting arctic, that their ancestors knew of times when the ice didn’t cover the high hills of Greenland and the coast was free of ice. It’s all in my previous article.
Now if you believe the current Inuit testimonies that surely means you believe their older ones?
Tonyb
TonyB, all who can read beach terraces say the same.
Definitely I agree that Inuit elders can read the plain evidence of the land they live in!
More recently, it was Milankovitch who scientifically explained why the sea-levels rise, eh TonyB?
Conclusion When Inuit elders say “the climate-change hockey-stick is real“ … we have multiple good reasons believe them!
Also, sell Florida real estate!
Fan
Glad we are agreed the Inuit testimony is interesting as they were referring to the more recent Past of the last dozen generations ( from 1820) not the early Holocene or the bronze age.
Mind you with regards to the latter we have the very interesting buildings from the ipiatuk. There is a real live adventure story there with the wonderful artefacts of a long lost arctic civilisation who built a large town in the arctic beimg found there in the melting arctic f the 1940’s
Unfortunately the ship bearing the artefacts back to the US for examination was lost in a storm and they lie on the ocean floor to this day.
I have been following it up with the university of Fairbanks. Perhaps big oil could finance a salvage operation?
Tonyb
Tony, why do you keep replying? Perhaps the fact that you do encourages Fan to “keep trotting this out.”
Faustino
We have many more lurkers here than commenters. If they see Fan make points that aren’t challenged they will believe his version of events rather than real facts.
Anyway I like to see Fan tied up in knots with his inconsistencies. See his comments about boreholes and the Inuit elders.
tonyb
AFOMD,
You wrote –
“Conclusion When Inuit elders say “the climate-change hockey-stick is real“ … we have multiple good reasons believe them!”
I conclude nonsense. You can no more name one Inuit elder saying that the climate-change hockey-stick is real, than any other delusional Warmist. I suppose the best you can do is provide yet more obscure links to nonsensical unsubstantiated Warmist quasi-religious assertions.
Feel free. You must go where your delusions lead you.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Challenge by Mike Flynn, acceptance by FOMD!
Question Why do denialists ignorantly smear tribal and/or religious sages?
Answer Provided below!
It is a continuing pleasure to help slake your thirst for climate-change knowledge, Mike Flynn!
Wally Broecker’s 1975 (234 citations) ‘Are We on the Brink of Pronounced Global Warming’ seems more to the point.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/broecker-1975.png
It would certainly suggest that we were on the brink of a cooler regime in 1998. Many people were aware of this. There are a couple of profound implications.
Residual warming from CO2 is modest at best – some 0.07 degrees C/decade.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/swanson-et-al-2009.png
Non-warming – or even cooling – is likely to persist for decades.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/swanson-realclimate.png
Climate is a beast as Wally tells us – there is no guarantee that the next climate shift will not be yet cooler conditions as leave behind a 1000 year high.
So who was right? Wally Broecker or Jim Hansen? My moneys on Wally – aye FOMBS?
When it comes to you or Jim Hansen, I think Wally’s money is on Hansen.
At which clueless Borg collective echo chamber did you practice that particular irrelevance?
More particularly – which bit of the science do you object to as not conforming to the Borg climate narrative?
Maybe you should take an arctic cruise, it would be good for you.
Regarding the prediction, even a stopped clock …
The NSIDC tells a different story:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/09/NWP-2014-August.png
Fan, a dose of 2014 NWP reality. 23 vessels registered with CCGS to make the attempt, plus LeMaguier that got stuck last year and oberwintered at Paulatuk. The Sie is so heavy that 4 scratched, 7 have turned around, one has been rescued by USCG icebreaker Healy, ice strengthened cruise ship Silver Star required assistance from a Canadian icebreaker to make the transit. It got stuck in Victoria Straight. 3 other vessels have have made it without assistance. The others are still attempting. Of those, SV Gjoa has announced it will be forced to overwinter.
Hansen go it badly wrong. So did you.
The Arctic Tern’s wonderful weblog will vividly acquaint Climate Etc readers with sailing realities in the Northwest Passage!
Reality No year is simple-sailing in the high Arctic … especially for these very small boats!
This year’s tough stretch has been the Bellot Strait … the rest of the Northwest Passage has been pretty easy!
Indoor air pollution is the world’s biggest environmental problem.
Bjorn Lomborg highlights on FB
Links to:
The everyday hazard that kills over 3 million people each year The Guardian
Household Air Pollution Commission The Lancet, September 3, 2014
See Full Article
These annual deaths from indoor air pollution are more 1200% of the 200,000 to 250,000 additional deaths per year projected from global warming in 2030 to 2050 by the WHO. Yet global warming is projected to cause net benefits at least to 2070.
Why are we not focusing resources on problems with the greatest potential for benefit?
By diverting attention from such far more important and urgent humanitarian needs to “chicken little” fears, Climate alarmism is directly culpable for the failure to reduce this high preventable death rate.
I can see the Daily Kos is on the Grassy Knoll again for your benefit babbling about “big Carbon” and planting The Scarlet “C” on you.
I’ll be looking for your image being burned in effigy in NYC later this month;
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/11/peoples-climate-march-backed-by-communist-socialist-parties/
Maybe you could ask “The One” for your campaign contribution back??
My fav new paper in discussion this week
Recent summer Arctic atmospheric circulation anomalies in a historical perspective
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/8/4823/2014/tcd-8-4823-2014.pdf
It has attempted to reconstruct arctic atmospheric circulation over the past 100-150 years and put the recent conditions and ice declines into perspective. Some very interesting results maybe there’s something that fits with the Stadium Wave, maybe not.
HR thx for this link
Hi Judy – Have a good talk and exchange of views!
I have presented at the George C. Marshall Institute, and am glad I had that opportunity.
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: Human Impacts on Weather and Climate – Recent
Research Results Require That We Adopt A Broader Assessment. Marshall
Climate Science Meeting, Washington, DC, September 14-16, 2008.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/09/ppt-103.pdf
This is how the exchange of viewpoints should be presented, regardless of the venue. Indeed, Mike MacCracken attended my talk at Marshall and
contributed to an open, effective discussion. To Mike’s credit, he
has been an exception as most of those who are controlling the funding
and professional organizations either ignore you, or, in your case, seek to
demean the person.
Weblog posts such as
Curry’s Credibility Crumbles [link]
illustrate how they are seeking to suppress the scientific method. Your weblog, and a number of others, are beacons for those who still value constructive scientific dialog.
Roger Sr.
The Hockey Team’s use of social weapons highlights their lack of science.
But highlights their reach
From Currys Crumbling Credibility:
“Perhaps the bigger story, however, is this event may be the last straw for Curry’s dwindling credibility in academia. It’s one thing to question the consensus or otherwise indirectly assist anti-climate science arguments. But to speak on behalf of a group heavily funded by fossil fuel companies and conservative donors—a group with a well-known 30 year history of distorting science for political aims—well that may just be career suicide. At least, academic career suicide. Unfortunately, if Curry has given up on respectability, this may just be the first of many such events.”
Another last straw…another final nail in the coffin…. another end of credibility. They just keep coming for Judy, she has fallen from grace so many times now, she comes so close to be about sidelined, almost considered not worth reading anymore…. It’s yet another carrier suicide, academic career suicide no less, again and again and again. Its a miracle how she keeps falling and never seems to hit bottom. Same ol same ol eh Joshua?
Oh, not to mention how she has, again, given up on respectability.
Judith might dispute that she is speaking on their “behalf”. Depends how they use it going forwards I guess.
I have excerpted my two recent congressional testimonies into a report that is being published as a report by George Marshall. A link to this is not yet up on their website. They will also post my .ppt file.
I always speak only on my own behalf. People or organizations can make whatever use of this they would like. However, if I am somehow misrepresented, I speak up.
What’s also amazing is that Dr. Curry still can’t publicly identify which political culture represents the core of the AGW leadership. Similar to passing off that Joshua, Angry Michael or deluded Fanboy are just “political” instead of mouth-foaming leftist who are popping gaskets because of a politically incorrect conference she is attending later this month. Why is anything less then 100% honesty in arena suppose to be a good thing???
Spineless Neville Chamberlain skeptics are a good place to start, they come to the table ready to sell themselves and the world out.
Question Why did arch-conservative William Buckley accept the strong scientific evidence that “human enterprises have an effect on climate”?
Question Why did arch-conservative William Buckley scrupulously refrain from the anti-scientific ‘character assassination, bad manners, and incivility’ of CEI/Steyn/WUWT/Watts/Heartland (and their ilk)?
The simple answer Because William Buckley’s brand of conservatism was principled and scientifically informed.
The consequence Nowadays, Buckley’s banner of rationalism, learning, good manners, and principled conservative values has been taken up by … the amicable climate-science consensus!
*EVERYONE* who respects William Buckley’s brand of conservatism appreciates *THAT*, eh Climate Etc readers?
Good on `yah, climate-scientists!
——-
Bonus Breaking News Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s new solar, wind and geothermal energy Gigabattery factory will be carbon-neutral!
Good on `yah, Elon Musk/Tesla!
Bill-Buckley-brand conservatives applaud, eh Climate Etc readers!
Bonus Breaking News Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s new solar, wind and geothermal energy Gigabattery factory will be carbon-neutral!
I am sure that it will be much watched. As has the Boeing assembly plant in S. Carolina.
Don’t go overboard: I doubt that the mining of the ingredients and shipment of the products will be carbon-neutral; I also doubt that the operation of the batteries will be carbon-neutral. Undoubtedly, it is a step. At this rate, humans could probably wean themselves off fossil fuels in about 50 – 100 years.
Just a quick follow-up. Companies that draw their power from nuclear power plants are about equally carbon-neutral already.
Last decade’s slow down in warming enhanced by unusual climate anomaly [link]
Fancy rediscovery of the 1998 spike in global mean temperature. Another confirmation of the hiatus. As described (not that I am really suspicious here, but you never can be absolutely sure that there is no bias in reporting a selection from a large number of results), there is no prior assumption of periodicity or monotonicity in the data. They select the 4 largest eigenvectors of the covariance matrix.
“There Are Now 52 Explanations For The Pause In Global Warming”
I detect a lack of consensus.
You can’t claim that until the magic figure of 97 is reached.
Good news on the Arctic sea ice front. Looks as though the minimum will be about 60% above 2012 for the second year in a row. Thickness is up nicely also. Polly bears are doin’ high fives.
The Franklin ship discovery shows that there has been no decline in ice extent in that region in a century and a half.
All events to celebrate!
Not sure I celebrate that except politically. Arctic ice is a singularly useless thing. Why are we fixated on saving ice?
Sea ice is an impervious barrier to sea/air co2 exchange.(Stephens and keeling 2000)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6774/abs/404171a0.html
Note that the Eu’s Joint Research Centre’s new entry
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/climate-anomaly-causes-global-warming-slow-down
contains the conclusion:
“The authors recommend further scientific investigation of the causes and consequences of this change, in order to address whether the global climate sensitivity has recently changed. Such research is crucial to understanding current climate conditions and creating plausible scenarios of future climate evolution.”
Apparently, even “Team” researchers are now free to investigate Climate Sensitivity without penalty or censure….
Comment from Greg Laden blog, Judy Scores Own Goal
“WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
http://contextearth.com
September 12, 2014
Excellent job, Greg
Tip of the iceberg, read Curry’s previous post by her co-author Vitaly where they furiously backpedal from an IronSun-like theory they put in their just-published textbook on clouds.”
Now that is quite the spin on how that turned out for you eh Paul? You are behaving exactly like the Denialists you so proudly claim are unscientific. Why not try doing like Vitaly and reply with a point by point rebuttal of where he has gone astray? I’m sure Judy would give you all the space you need.
Looking forward to it.
John Carpenter, quoting WebHubTelescope: Tip of the iceberg, read Curry’s previous post by her co-author Vitaly where they furiously backpedal from an IronSun-like theory they put in their just-published textbook on clouds.”
I wonder if he really believes junk like that.
Nope, he’s just trying to discredit me, with a veneer of faux science. Yawn.
Chrysalis anthems,
Pedals of rusty iris
Back paddle the flutterings by.
========================
Matt, to believe that, one would have to be a denialist.
Matthew
He has shown himself to be an activist of the first order so the answer is probably yes. It’s a shame as at times he has been almost reasonable over the last few months.
Tonyb
john
I suggested several days ago that webby should give a point by point rebuttal of vitaly’s rebuttal but to date not a word.
tonyb
Don’t hold your breath Tony. I thought it was worth repeating again after reading his comment.
John –
==> “Why not try doing like Vitaly and reply with a point by point rebuttal of where he has gone astray”
Perhaps it could be a combined post – along with Judith’s response to Gavin’s point-by-point.
I know she’s been so busy for a couple of weeks now that she hasn’t had time to sit down and write that up, but maybe she has a break in her schedule coming up?
I doubt Pukite has the time in his busy schedule…
My schedule is insanely busy through mid Oct. I’ve decided that there is little to be gained from rebutting Gavin’s post. I’ve presented my arguments, he’s presented his. We disagree. I don’t find that any of his arguments refute my points. I would rather spend my time continuing to expand and refine my own arguments, rather than undertake a lawyer like rebuttal of Gavin’s essay.
I can understand why Pukite doesn’t want to respond to Vitaly’s points. But then to keep making insulting comments without responding is very unprofessional.
Well, fortunately Judith doesn’t have to wait for WHT to put up her response to Gavin, since it’s her blog.
I’m also looking forward to Judith’s post about Salby.
Don’t forget, that Brandon had the following to say:
And I’m sure that he’s just completely out of sorts, what with Judith not having explained her “thin gruel” comment about ATTP’s criticism of Salby, yet.
I see, also, that Judith has between tweeting in ways that suggest that she might think that cause of the rise in AtmosphericCO2 is not (only?) human emissions, and so I expect her discussion of Salby to be quite interesting.
As I recall, she was bit unspecific about her scientific views of Sably’s theory a while back, and I’m sure that her upcoming clarification of her views on that topic will be good reading.
I’ve been seeing quite a bit in the “skept-o-sphere” that many of those “skeptics” who don’t doubt that Anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming do doubt that human emissions are causing the rise in Atmospheric CO2 – so Judith’s specific views on the subject should stimulate some interesting discussions.
==> “My schedule is insanely busy through mid Oct. I’ve decided that there is little to be gained from rebutting Gavin’s post. I’ve presented my arguments, he’s presented his.”
That might seem to some like thin gruel, Judith.
You continued to discuss Gavin’s post and to engage in related discussion – so it did seem like it did continue to capture your interest.
You presented some arguments, and Gavin responded in a detailed manner, and then as I recall you simply said that his comments didn’t address your arguments (paraphrasing) without providing any explanation.
I’ll repeat what I said in the earlier thread:
Particularly given that one complaint offered by “skeptics” is that “realist” climates scientists refuse to debate the science (with the resulting conclusion drawn by “skeptics” that the refusal to debate is some kind of protective measure against having to acknowledge error).
Seems to me that this is a great opportunity for you to engage in a discussion of the science, free from name-calling. I think that both of you have made extraneous and counterproductive remarks that have nothing to do with discussion of the science (e.g., that you;re making stuff up, that you and he live in different planets [paraphrasing], but at least the dialog is somewhat higher quality than what is usually found in the blogosphere.
Maybe you could make the most out of this opportunity?
Joshua, I rather thought you shunned ‘but you did it first’ type arguments. Not to mention a ‘look squirrel’ styled argument wrt Salby. Remember, the topic of my comment was about Pukite’s lack of a response to Vitaly. Why change the topic?
And don’t forget this, Judith:
Of course, changing your mind is certainly your prerogative…
Just trying to force her to waste time. I suppose you’re not trying to delay the Salby piece, since you mention that as well, I wonder what you are trying to delay.
John –
==> “Why change the topic?”
I’m only expressing my concern for Brandon and tonyb.
AK –
==> “Just trying to force her to waste time. I suppose you’re not trying to delay the Salby piece, since you mention that as well, I wonder what you are trying to delay.”
You’re a funny guy. Sometimes you write some interesting comments – and then you write garbage like that.
No, I’m not trying to “force” her to waste her time. First, I couldn’t do so even if I wanted to – so there’d be no reason for me to try. 2nd, I don’t consider her answering Gavin’s point-by-point, as she indicated she would, to be a “waste of time (and neither did she a couple of weeks ago). 3rd, I think that she should abide by the same standards that she applies to others
To be honest, I found her response to Gavin to be lacking (weak gruel, as it were) – and given the constant refrains from “skeptics” about how “realist” scientists won’t debate, I find her failure to respond to Gavin to be ironic – as is the lack of criticism from “skeptics” for her failure to respond.
And yes, I would like to see her stake out a position on whether the cause of atmospheric rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. Seems like a pretty major issue w/r/t the climate wars – and if she doesn’t think the cause is anthropogenic, then she should come out and say it, IMO.
She’s been cagey, IMO, on the issue – and given how she exploits the “most ‘skeptics’ don’t doubt that Anthropogenic CO2 warms the climate, they only doubt the magnitude of the effect,” misdirection – then it seems to me it should be relevant for her to clarify whether she thinks it viable to argue that human emissions aren’t causing the rise in atmospheric CO2.
It’s hard for me to see how she can make that characterization of “skeptical” arguments if she, herself, thinks that the rise in atmospheric CO2 isn’t even anthropogenic in nature.
Joshua
Sorry, concern for me in what respect?
Tonyb
I see Joshua has delivered a few more cases.
(Willard, Joshua, Michael & Co, Ltd. Purveyors of Bitter Small Beer.)
tonyb –
Just having a little fun with this comment:
Joshua
Fortunately I still agree with myself as its unfinished business. Similarly mr Pukite needs to respond by the excellent rebuttal by vitaly doesn’t he?
Tonyb
@Joshua…
Cause and effect is a myth.
I’m not being facetious, I’m speaking neurologically: our minds are wired to associate important effects with causes, despite the fact that the universe doesn’t really work that way. Thus the ubiquity of scapegoat traditions in many societies. Including modern politics.
I can tell you the answer I think any honest scientist should make: we don’t really know. There’s a very rough correlation with CO2 emissions, but there are a number of other aspects of the Industrial Revolution that also follow such a curve, very roughly. Anybody who’s studied any complex non-linear system (e.g. climate, cellular biology, etc.) will realize the enormity of the complex of carbon sinks and sources, most of them responsive to changes in temperature and rainfall, at the least, as well as atmospheric pCO2. To assume that human activity must be responsible for the late 20th century changes would be unwarranted. Although I think many, perhaps most, scientists would say the odds are very good that way. I would, although much less so for direct emissions.
As for Gavin, he’s talking at cross-purposes with her, and further argument certainly seems like a waste of time to me.
AK
Very much agree with you that scientists should use the expression ‘ I don’t know’ or perhaps ‘I have no idea whatsoever’ or ‘well, this is purely speculation of course’
In the recent past It appears to have been warmer than today and colder than today so it will be another twenty Years of warming before we can begin to resolve if the modern era is unprecedented and the ‘don’t know ‘ can become a ‘probably’
Tonyb
Josh
You have a severe mental block on this one.
What do you think prompted this debate between Curry and Schmidt?
Think hard! (gosh I’m sounding like Mosher)
That’s right it was JCs 50/50 post:
“Pick one:
a.) Warming since 1950 is predominately (more than 50%) caused by humans.
b.) Warming since 1950 is predominately caused by natural processes
When faced with a choice between a.) and b.) I respond: ‘I can’t choose, since I think the most likely slplit between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50/50.’ ….”
‘The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain. ‘
I had this discussion with Gavin – and it is not really worth any ones time to have it again. I agreed with him that the residual rate of warming from 1950 was 0.65 degrees C at a rate of some 0.1 degree C/decade. He then forgot that he said it and denied that he agreed with me. Having reminded him by quoting his comment – he said that the rate increased from 1975 to 1998 and is expected to increase further in future. I said that the expectation from Kyle Swanson at realclimate was certainly not for resumption of the 1976 to 1998 rate any time soon and that the 1976 to 1998 period included ENSO warming. I was then put on some sort of permanent spam list and gave up.
The appropriate period in my view is 1944 to 1998. This is a complete multi-decadal cool regime and a complete warm regime – the transitions are associated with changes in temperature trajectories so we know with some precision. The residual rate of increase is 0.07 degrees C/decade – which is a maximum rate of anthropogenic warming in my view. There is no chance that the warmer to cooler to warmer pattern of the 20th century will be repeated. The next shift in natural variability is more likely to be to a yet cooler influence as we pass a 1000 year high.
But let’s assume that the whole increase from 1944 was anthropogenic. This is certainly not the case for the increase from 1976 to 1998. This was mostly ENSO in the transition between climate states – and excluding this gives you a residual of about 0.1 degrees C/decade. About half the warming.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/swanson-realclimate.png
Most of the rest the satellite data says is cloud changes. The graph from realclimate also suggests a continuing temperature hiatus.
This is hardly rocket science – but it doesn’t pass the Borg collective information filter.
BTW, I tend to agree with Gavin here when he says this: “That this is invalid reasoning should be obvious by simply replacing 50% with any other value and noting that the half/half argument could be made independent of any data.”
I had trouble with JCs reasoning myself , before I read Gavin, although I could understand being in the range of 50%. At times I’ve thought that AGW CO2 could be pretty low (as little as 17%) in my own convoluted reasoning. Since CO2 radiates in any direction most would be headed earthward with the majority toward space. Then all the other natural interactions would have to be taken into account. I’ve also thought AGW CO2 could be a really high % of the warming as mapped out by webs SALT and Vaughan Pratt. I think less that way now as I don’t think him or anyone else knows enough about solar (IPCC low confidence). He could be right about most of the rest over a sixty year period.
I think one thing is certain attribute=uncertainty.
Chief, I fear we may be talking to walls especially if they wont even agree to their own direct quotes.
Another problem with SALT is how the ocean and the land interact with the atmosphere and clouds.
“Um, what’s the name of the word for things not being the same always? You know, I’m sure there is one. Isn’t there? There must be a word for it … the thing that lets you know time is happening. Is there a word?”
“Change.”
Delirium and Dream, in Sandman #43: “Brief Lives: “
tonyb –
==> “Fortunately I still agree with myself as its unfinished business. Similarly mr Pukite needs to respond by the excellent rebuttal by vitaly doesn’t he?”
Sure. They’re roughly parallel situations. Interesting how so many “skeptics” are lining up to denigrate WHT for not responding even as the defend Judith’s lack of response.
It’s double-standard-apolooza around here.
No double standard. WHUT continues to insult me (without having done a rebuttal); I have not been insulting Gavin Schmidt.
AK –
==> “I’m speaking neurologically: our minds are wired to associate important effects with causes, despite the fact that the universe doesn’t really work that way.”
Well, of course, the way we make meaning is by finding patterns. It’s a fundamental building block of our cognitive processes. I talk about that constantly. That (along with attributes of human psychology) explains why “motivated reasoning” is so ubiquitous. But I don’t quite agree with “the universe doesn’t work that way.” Too broad a statement to be useful. (and probably, ironically, a product of your own pattern-finding programming).
==> “Thus the ubiquity of scapegoat traditions in many societies. Including modern politics.”
Disagree with that. I think that the ubiquity of scapegoating is built upon our psychological attributes (identity-protection and identity-defense) and the pattern-finding rests upon that foundation. But maybe it’s a chicken-egg kind of deal.
==> I can tell you the answer I think any honest scientist should make: we don’t really know. There’s a very rough correlation with CO2 emissions, but there are a number of other aspects of the Industrial Revolution that also follow such a curve, very roughly. Anybody who’s studied any complex non-linear system (e.g. climate, cellular biology, etc.) will realize the enormity of the complex of carbon sinks and sources, most of them responsive to changes in temperature and rainfall, at the least, as well as atmospheric pCO2. To assume that human activity must be responsible for the late 20th century changes would be unwarranted. Although I think many, perhaps most, scientists would say the odds are very good that way. I would, although much less so for direct emissions.”
Well, that reasoning wouldn’t justify support for Salby’s theories. The point is that you have a series of correlations along with a series of potential mechanistic explanations. At some point, you evaluate the potential mechanisms so at to lay out the probabilities behind causation. Of course, confusing correlation with causation is a patterned tendency more generally, but the way to control for that is to examine the mechanism theories.
So, then, while understanding that it is theoretically possible that any explanation might be wrong, you’re left with a real wold conundrum of evaluating risk in the face of uncertainties. As such, then you expect those who are knowledgeable to evaluate the proposed mechanisms.
The vast majority of experts support one mechanism. Salby proposes another. The one that Salby proposes is not consistent with a belief of “not doubting that anthropogenic CO2 causes warming, the only question is the magnitude of the effect.”
As such, since Judith pushes that (I think invalid) characterization of “skeptics,” then it seems reasonable for her to explain which mechanisms do a better job of explaining the correlation between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rise. If she thinks Salby’s explanation to be plausible, then it would seem that she certainly does “doubt” whether anthropogenic CO2 causes warming – and it would also call into question whether any “skeptic” who thinks Salby’s theories to be plausible has such a belief also.
I don’t pretend to have my own, independent opinion about the plausibility of Salby’s explanation. And certainly, anyone has a right to their own views on the matter. But if you believe one thing then you shouldn’t say that you believe something else that isn’t consistent with that first belief
Well, if you care about logical consistency.
==> “As for Gavin, he’s talking at cross-purposes with her, and further argument certainly seems like a waste of time to me.”
Wouldn’t seem like a waste of time for me for Judith to exactly what she frequently calls for – reasonable scientific exchange exploring alternate views on the science. If the discussion is at cross-purposes, then it would be beneficial, IMO, for Judith to explain in detail why that is the case, with the goal of finding synergies and commonalities in “purpose.”
Simply digging in with broad characterizations of a differing viewpoint seems not only counterproductive, but in fact contradictory to Judith’s stated intent of “building bridges.” Also, her explanation of not having the time doesn’t seem to hold water – she has already spent time discussing the issue in broad-stroke terms quite a bit even as she says she doesn’t have the time to focus on the issue and after stating previously that she probably “needed” to address his post. It seems to me that there’s something else in play here – that for some reason she’s declined to take an opportunity to move towards her stated goals. Bear in mind, I don’t think for a second that it is some kind of cowardice. Every indication is that Judith is fully convinced that she can present arguments that show flaws in Gavin’s arguments. If this is a matter of her priorities shifting – then why have her priorities shifted away from taking the opportunity for in-depth discussion about fundamental issues at play?
An actual identifiable unique cause->effect relationship is comparatively rare in the universe. Most such relationships involve some sort of tacit “all other things being equal”. Most “pattern-finding” involves cropping out the vast amounts of interfering “irrelevant” information. Depending, of course, on your definition of “irrelevant”. Cause->effect represents a pattern we’re hard-wired to look for. IMO.
Well, you see, Salby appears to be trying to deprecate that whole correlation. If, in fact, the pCO2 has been wandering around at levels higher than today over the last few centuries, without an Industrial Revolution to pump them up, then the correlation becomes an accident. Sort of like what happens to the correlation between “consensus” pCO2 and temperature once you discard the Mann-o-matic “hokey stick”. (sic!)
This is what I get from his discussions of diffusion in ice, but details and ref’s don’t seem to be available from his talks (I’ve screen-printed charts, but haven’t tried to dig out refs). That’s why I want to see his ideas properly published. Till then, all I have is guesswork (my own), and social conclusions based on how he was treated.
Joshua
I can only go by my own standards and I don’t think they are double ones.
Not sure if the parallel is that clear cut as Judith hasn’t been sniping away in an unpleasant manner from the sidelines.
They both however remain unfinished business
tonyb
==> “No double standard. WHUT continues to insult me (without having done a rebuttal); I have not been insulting Gavin Schmidt.”
Please read again.
The double-standard I referred to was on the part of people who support your lack of response to Gavin’s point-by-point arguments even while criticizing WHT for not taking the opportunity to respond to point-by-point arguments.
It just so happens that in this case, I wasn’t referring to your double-standards. I did so earlier on a related issue when I discussed your determination of what is and isn’t a “distraction.”
tony-
==> “I can only go by my own standards and I don’t think they are double ones.”
I acknowledge that you are one of the few “skeptics” here not applying a double-standard in this situation,
I have said before that more generally, your approach in these discussions is more consistent with skepticism as opposed to “skepticism” – so it doesn’t surprise me that you are applying a double-standard in this situation.
Kudos. Maybe some of your fellow “skeptics” will pay attention and follow your model.
I am skeptical about that, however.
I see Joshua has been doubly busy picking nits. No detail is too small and insignificant for him.
(Willard, Joshua, Michael & Co, Ltd. Purveyors of Bitter Small Beer.)
tonyb –
Oy.
Sorry. I’d guess you knew I meant to say”
“…so it doesn’t surprise me that you are not applying a double-standard in this situation…”
but with my obtuse style of writing, it may not have been clear that I just made a mistake…
*yawn!*
Blablabla…”Skeptics”….blabla
I read the “Judith Curry Scores Own Goal in Climate Hockey” blog post and posted this comment:
“Judith Curry’s blog post is not about the hockey stick as such, but about the Mann vs Steyn legal proceedings. So the present blog post is fairly misleading and you won’t understand much of what is going unless you click the link to judithcurry.com and read it. Steyn has said that Mann’s hockey stick is fraudulent; Mann has sued Steyn. Dr Curry reports, quotes, discusses the issue of fraud in general terms and mentions parts of the hockey stick saga which spans many years. To say that her blog post is about making an argument about the hockey is only slightly less misleading than saying that the present blog post is about the price of gold.”
I’ll be interested to see if it makes it through moderation. Irrelevance appears to be the new sure-fire strategy for beating “deniers” like Judy and Matt Ridley.
I simply recommended Greg should read her post.
If you read his post, and understood his “tl:dr” phrase, you can guess he didn’t bother.
I find it interesting how many other alarmist sites are pushing Laden’s hit piece.
IMO these attacks, and the junk going on at “theresphysics” tend to confirm my prediction:
BTW, I didn’t bother trying to comment at Laden’s site (I’m banned there anyway), but I’m sure he reads anything anybody says about it at a high-traffic place like here.
too long: didn’t read. Its astonishing that Laden could make up an entire blog post on an unread post by Judith. I would say, however, that the title was indeed click bait and it possibly would have been better to simply describe it as an update on the Steyn/Mann lawsuits.
Text from George Marshall Institutes page on Climate Change http://marshall.org/climate-change/
Human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels to power our homes and businesses and changes to the land caused by the rise of modern cities and expanded agriculture, undoubtedly affect the global environment. It is the extent of that effect and how it relates to changes in the modern climate which is the subject of current scientific debate.
Wise, effective climate policy flows from a sound scientific foundation and a clear understanding of what science does and does not tell us about human influence and about courses of action to manage risk. Many of the temperature data and computer models used to predict climate change are themselves as uncertain as are our understanding of important interactions in the natural climate.
Are calls about the uncertainty in the state of scientific knowledge a call for no action? Nothing could be further from the truth. The message to policy makers is not to delay actions until uncertainties are reduced. Rather, actions should flow from the state of knowledge, should be related to a long-term strategy and objectives and should be capable of being adjusted- one way or the other- as the understanding of human influences improves. There is a sufficient basis for action because the climate change risk is real. Yet it is equally true that actions must not be predicated on speculative images of an apocalyptic vision of life in the near future.
curryja: Text from George Marshall Institutes page on Climate Change http://marshall.org/climate-change/
Thanks for the link.
Yes, an obviously denialist, fossil fuel funded position if I ever saw one. Greg Laden simply could have done a little research on his own to find this… But then again, why confuse his readership because as he pointed out, ‘reasonably smart, reasonably diligent, not lazy, and well intentioned’ bloggers are expected to do such due diligence when presenting an argument.
“This is an “own goal” for Curry because it is a clear cut case of making up a version of reality in order to denigrate a fellow scientist and discredit his research on the basis of color coding rather than the science. Curry has credentialed herself a denialist.”
In light of Mr Ladens own due diligence skills it makes that statement seem a little… hypocritical… don’t it?
Sorry, I incorrectly confused Mr Laden with ClimateDenierRoundup. Mr Laden did not write on the topic of Judy speaking at the George Marshall Institute. My mistake. Thanks for not reading my above comment.
Greg wrote the Own Goal post. The credibility post was at dailykos by someone going by the name ClimateDenierRoundup.
That sounds all well and good, but what “actions” have they recommended other than opposing the EPA’s emissions rule?
Multidecadal Variability is “Unusual”?!
Only to those who have ignored previous publications documenting such natural variations.
E.g., See Syun Akasofu on global warming from the Little Ice Age.
Nicola Scafetta at Duke
Don Easterbrook
What is really “unusual” is public recognition of a slowing in warming rate.
This only appears to be “unprecedented” in the recent temperature record.
Easterbrook shows much larger changes in the Younger Dryas. E.g. Geological Evidence of Recurring Climatic Cycles
True. Much of the third world still burns wood and animal dung indoors for cooking. I wonder if CO2 emmisions would be lower if they had access to fossil fuel generated electricity. Indoor burning of wood and dung causes many health problems, not to mention local deforestation and it’s consequences, including soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, reduction in forest productivity, and more poverty. What do they do when there is no wood left to cut?
I have a personal experience with this. I was going to buy a 100 +- acre farm in Brazil,, in the process of being reforested, from a former World Bank employee. It was adjacent to a river, an overgrazed cattle ranch, a forest, and one, and only one , house. The house was small and dark, no electricity, and seemed to be inhabited by one, large, extended family. I watched them going in and out of the forest for hours, probably because the house lacked plumbing or even an outhouse. The owner of the farm took us on a tour of the property, which was denuded except for the very widely spaced, caged, six inch high tree seedlings – the “reforestation”. Every single other plant of any size had been hacked away, probably by machete, surreptitiously, during the night or when the owner was away. The owner lived in the city. She pointed out all the patches in the nearby forest. The wood had been harvested illegally, not by corporations, but by those poor people without jobs or electricity, to be burned to create charcoal, which they uesd for cooking. There wasn’t a standing tree on that entire property. I didn’t buy it.
The land was unprotectable without an impenetrable fence and 24/7 security, which is how everyone, except for the poor, live in Brazil. They can’t understand how we can live in the suburbs of the US with gardens and trees without tall, barbed-wire topped fences and 24/7 security. “Wouldn’t everything be stolen?”, they ask.
I imagine this story encapsulates some of the problems of the rural poor in other parts of the third world. They need economic growth and they need electric power.
Justin
This was meant to be a reply to David L. Hagen …” indoor burning”
I messed up.
But stil spot on ;-)
Spot on!
The dailykos and Greg Laden pieces were especially funny. Thanks.
I posted this comment on the Laden “own-goal”, but it hasn’t passed moderation:
Curry scores own-goal? Did you actually read the article? She’s talking about the Mann vs Steyn lawsuit, and she doesn’t take a strong position herself, but rather discusses relevant definitions (fraud, defamation, fabrication . . .) and simply shines a light on the issue. And the issue isn’t exactly the hockey-stick itself; it’s the “hide the decline” issue. Proxies show a decline in modern temperature, while measurements show a rise. Mann curtailed the graphed data to keep from showing this discrepancy . . . and then lied about it in his legal pleading! I urge people to actually read her article!
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/
(As an aside . . . if proxy data (the decline) isn’t reliable in modern times when it can be verified or falsified, how do we trust historical proxy reconstructions that aren’t verifiable?)
(actually posted more than that . . . edited before posting at the site. We’ll see if it shows up . . .)
Jack, “Did you actually read the article?”
See, there you go asking hard questions. Based on most of what I have seen, reading isn’t required in order to have a negative opinion. The whole object of pigeon holing is to reduce the need to read and comprehend. Saves a great deal of time I imagine. webster was able to review a 700 plus page book in no time at all.
Exactly…
He read as much of it as Webdummy did of the new book.
I recommend avoiding using the “own goal” phrase.
Here’s how I explained the meme up the thread:
It’s a phrase that indicates the author is impervious to the pangs of cognitive dissonance.
Don’t let the urge to argue drag you down to their childish tit-for-tat.
From the article:
…
In Massachusetts, Joule and Scatec Solar ASA have signed an MOU to work toward a partnership to support the roll-out of Joule production plants featuring photovoltaic power.
The terms of the MoU anticipate that Scatec Solar ASA will become preferred supplier and operator of photovoltaic power installations for Joule plants, with an initial deployment goal of up to 25,000 acres (~10,000 hectares) and a power requirement of 2 gigawatts. A deployment of this scale would generate up to 625 million gallons (~15 million barrels) of ethanol or 375 million gallons (~9 million barrels) of diesel per year, while consuming about 4 million tonnes of industrial waste CO2 annually in the process.
The use of photovoltaic power for plant operations is expected to reduce Joule’s system-level carbon footprint, netting more than a 90% improvement over conventional fuel production and setting the stage for truly sustainable mobility.
…
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/09/08/joule-scatec-solar-asa-sign-mou-for-partnership-on-photovoltaic-power/
From the article:
…
In Norway, Joule will be hosting a strategic seminar on climate change next Tuesday, September 9th in Oslo. The seminar, entitled “Converting Words to Action on Climate Change: The Role of Technology” will discuss the role of newer technologies that are still advancing towards maturity and economic feasibility, requiring the collective support of government, academia and business for technology cooperation, funding and removal of barriers to adoption in reducing emissions to address climate change
…
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/09/01/joule-to-host-climate-change-seminar-in-norway-jeffrey-sachs-will-headline/
From the article:
…
What’s going on inside the Magic Temple
What’s going on behind the scenes in the world of Joule? Generally, the work falls in four areas.
1. Getting the organism to over-produce the alkane, alkene or alcohol of interest.
2. Getting a cost efficient photobioreactor design.
3. Controlling heat. Systems heat up in the day, when the sun is out. Cooling costs money.
4. Looking at ways to extend an organism’s productivity from “daylight hours” to “round the clock”.
Of all of the four, perhaps the fourth is the most fascinating and elusive of all., Because they would have to endow a photosynthetic organism with heterotrophic properties — train it to extract energy from sunlight by day, then extract if from sugar by night. That’s known as mixotrophic properties, and such organisms do exists. But they don’t, er, happen to naturally secrete diesel and jet fuel.
But there’s been work done, interestingly including Joule, and synecocchus elongatus. Last yearf we reported on efforts out of UC Davis to convert an obligate photoautotroph to a heterotroph is desirable for more efficient, economical and controllable production systems. More on that here.
…
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/07/03/joules-quest-for-fuels-from-co2-sunlight-and-water/
The bullet point about the utilization of sugar causes me to speculate that Joule has run into the same problem solar farms have. Sunlight is too disperse and is only available for about half a day. Now I’m wondering if Joule will be viable.
If that’s the only problem, yes. It may have to wait for a little more maturity in materials technology. Problem is, IMO, they’re pointing at the wrong location. They need to float it on the ocean, cool it with water pumped from the deep. (And perhaps, while they’re at it, let that warmed water float on the surface, with its nutrients, and add to the carbon pump.)
But I still think using methanogens to convert electrolytic H2 will turn out more cost-effective.
Dr. JC
Just read the Daily Kos attack on you
guilt by association … despicable
no other substance
I’ve read complaints on other sites about how “deniers” like you are winning the public relations battle …
no wonder
John S
Agree. Dr Curry’s reasoned responses and restrained commenting on the issues won me over almost ten years ago. I was involved in program management and freedom of information in the area and was stunned by the attacks and name calling on one side and mostly reasoned skeptical questioning on the other. It has been a long and lonely fight for Dr Curry and a few others and now Nature and variations in responses are beginning to influence the arguements and media. It makes the activists side more extreme and wild claims continue to discredit many arguments. The long slow thaw temperatures have gone up, the ocean conveyor belt has dramatically shifted in the past and ice age incursions have swiftly decended. These are important issues and science best addresses them in a restrained and rationale investigation. Thanks Dr Curry.
Scott
thanks Scott
I recently read JC’s post on “hide the decline”
seeing it was from 2011, I realized how far behind the curve I am on this subject (you’re 10 years ahead of me – jealous)
I lived and worked in DC (USA) for many years, once working for a firm that raised money for NRDC and the Cousteau Society among other liberal causes – hard to see myself as a raging conservative “denier”
the tilt that the liberal left has taken is a shock to me
“guilt by association” in my experience was a tactic of the right
I guess they don’t teach the McCarthy HUAC events in school anymore …
it’s a bit disconcerting …I’m glad Climate Etc.is here giving me a chance to vent a little
from where I sit, Judith Curry is looking pretty courageous
the scorn of one’s peers can be really tough
those that have stood up to it, particularly on science, are heroes to me
The NRDC
Dr. Laurie Johnson (NRDC) in an interview with Lars Larson
Lars: Are you telling me my car heats up because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere?
Dr. Laurie Johnson: I’m telling you your car heats up because there are greenhouse gases in your car.
Lars: Is my house filled with greenhouse gas as well?
Dr. Lauri Johnson: Yes! It has carbon dioxide in it!
Lars: Are you telling me my house now gets hotter than it it would 20 years ago because there’s now more carbon dioxide in it?
Dr. Laurie Johnson: I don’t know the exact temperature of your house, what I’m going to say is that the scientists…
goodtogo
my tangential assoc. with NRDC was 30 ago
I don’t remember them being that dumb … though entirely possible –
nepotism and inbreeding have seriously deflated the intellectual currency of the mandarins that currently inhabit my nation’s capitol …
especially since I left :)
The Copenhagen Consensus project is releasing 4 post 2015 MDG economic assessments every week for the rest of the year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u5BDIBRwQ88
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus/education
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus/illicit-financial-flows
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus/conflictandviolence
The CC post 2015 MDG assessment includes 12 ‘phenomenal’ ways to save the world. In climate terms – it is possible to rationally incorporate progress on black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone, nitrous oxide and sulphides – to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through increases in soil fertility, reforestation and ecosystem conservation and restoration – within social and economic development goals.
‘In a world of limited resources, we can’t do everything, so which goals should we prioritize? The Copenhagen Consensus Center provides information on which targets will do the most social good (measured in dollars, but also incorporating e.g. welfare, health and environmental protection), relative to their costs.’ Copenhagen Consensus
1. Achieve full and productive employment for all, reduce barriers to productive employment for all including women and young people.
2. Reduce by 50% or more malnutrition in all its forms, notably stunting and wasting in children under five years of age.
3. By 2030 end the epidemics of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases – reverse the spread of, and significantly reduce deaths from tuberculosis and malaria.
4. Achieve universal health coverage (UHC), including financial risk protection, with particular attention to the most marginalized, assuming a gradual increase in coverage over time, focusing first on diseases where interventions have high benefits-to-costs.
5. Ensure universal access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health for all, including modern methods of family planning.
6. By 2030 ensure universal access to access and complete quality pre-primary education
7. By 2030 ensure equal access to education at all levels.
8. By 2030 ensure increased access to sustainable modern energy services.
9. By 2030 phase out fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption
10. Build resilience and adaptive capacity to climate induced hazards in all vulnerable countries.
11. Promote open, rules-based, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading and financial systems, including complying with the agricultural mandate of the WTO Doha Round.
12 Improve market access for agricultural and industrial exports of developing countries, especially Least Developed Countries, and at least double the share of LDCs’ exports in global exports by 2020
This is a truly comprehensive agenda for the creation of a truly global civilization this century. Rather than new money – it focuses on cost effectively using resources already committed to achieve the biggest social and economic development bang. It is profoundly pragmatic.
Their goals, while admirable are also completely delusional. Take number 3.
Try applying 4 in Liberia. Take 11 in re China and India.
Denmark is a small country. Copenhagen is a lovely city. But this aspirational manifesto will become about as real as its Little Mermaid will come alive.
The focus is on the most cost effective ways to spend resources that are already committed – some 2.5 trillion dollars by 2030.
The devil is in the economic analysis from leading economists – the objective is to prioritise development bang for buck.
‘We hope to influence the deliberation of the post-2015 agenda along three major themes: prioritization of goals; inclusion of economic analysis; and better evidence for ‘zero goals’.
1. Currently there are approximately 600 goals and 1400 targets that have been proposed from 120 organizations (this is based on our analysis of Post2015.org’s tracker here). While this degree of international engagement is applauded, there is a risk of losing focus with this high number of proposals. Within this context, prioritization becomes more difficult – but even more necessary.
2. Very few of the proposed goals and their evidence-base are supported by economic analysis. We propose that the costs and benefits of different interventions should be included in determining which goals and targets should be pursued. The intuition is simple: when faced with lots of choice, we should chase the targets that will do the most good – and we only know which ones these are, if we have all the information.
3. Many of the proposals support ‘zero goals’ – e.g. eradication of extreme poverty, universal access to education, and the end to hunger. These are noble aspirations and we should make efforts to achieve them, but unfortunately the evidence suggests these will be very hard to reach by 2030. For example, reports by the Brookings Institution, the Center for Global Development, and the World Bank show that reducing extreme poverty to zero by 2030 is unlikely. Unfortunately, a more reasonable estimate of extreme poor in 2030 is 4-8%. For hunger, the FAO predicts a staggering 540 million hungry by 2030. In education, a recent UNESCO progress report on Education for All program predicts that the poorest girls in Sub-Saharan Africa will attain universal primary education only in 2086. In health, some are calling for an end to infant deaths – but a recent Lancet report shows that even with very smart interventions, the best outcome is for lower and middle income countries to reach the levels seen in the best performing middle income countries today.
Part of this project will be devoted to bringing better evidence to these discussions of zero goals, so that we know realistically, based on evidence, what we can achieve by 2030. We need to be wary of unrealistic aspirations and instead focus on the most effective goals. While such an approach might feel less rousing, it is moral, because it focuses on actually accomplishing the most good.’ http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus/background
It is a matter of reflecting on the aspirational goals of the UN MDG and focusing on the best ways of reaching multiple goals. You do understand that the Copenhagen Consensus is Bjorn Lomberg’s organization?
‘Bipartisanship made a reappearance in a most unlikely place last Wednesday – at the podium of the United Nations. In his address to the United Nations millennium development goals summit, President Barack Obama unveiled his “new” approach to development, emphasising a focus on results, investing in countries committed to their own development through sound governance and democracy, tapping the forces of economic growth through entrepreneurship and trade, and the need for mutual accountability between developed and developing countries. In doing so, he followed precisely in the footsteps of President George W Bush.
In his speech, President Obama acknowledged “the good efforts of my predecessor” when he talked about the leadership role the United States has taken in the fight against Aids. Yet President Bush’s influence on the current administration’s development policy extends much further.’ http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2010/sep/30/us-development-strategy-bush-obama
The Bush principles for development aid are very much the way to go – providing a truly classic liberal focus.
Rud
Compare the original the UN goals.
Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus are working to bring pragmatic reality to the UN aspirations with concrete quantifiable achievable goals/tasks to allocate funds.
See New OWG Assessment Report, and feature in Financial Times
They systematically take apart and evaluate the UN goals with evaluations and recommendations. See:
Preliminary Benefit-Cost Assessment of Final OWG Targets
e.g. Conflict and violence
Thus if fewer deaths is an objective, then a far more effective goal is to focus on reducing violence at home.
are these the new secular missionaries?
I can’t help but think of !9th century Christians heading for Africa and
China
new paving stones for the road to hell
19th
Well, well, well…
That’s certainly got the trolls frothing, and no mistake, frantically shaking their tiny fists and impotently stamping their little feet!
Spouting arrant nonsense like there’s no tomorrow.
You go, Professor Curry!
They’re losing hand over fist, and they’re desperate, panic is setting in, you can smell the fear clear across the Internet.
The state of the art, £15 million, GlaxoSmithKline Carbon Neutral Laboratory at Nottingham University has just burnt down. All the wooden structure has been completely destroyed in the blaze which needed 60 firefighters to control and Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service said they expected the fire would continue for at least another 24 hours
Heart of stone needed to keep laughter in check.
Hmmm … carbon neutral is it?
They should have used good ole cement and steel, like rational people do.
I really shouldn’t laugh. Are they going to get taxed for the emissions?
DocMartyn,
If only stable isotopes of carbon are involved, then no carbon has either been created or destroyed. Whew! That’s a relief.
It’s obvious that extracting carbon from the atmosphere, concentrating it in the form of wood, and then burning it to cause warming and return the carbon to the atmosphere from whence it came, is merely a cunning government plan to keep firefighters from becoming slack and idle, and create a bit of excess warmth to make up for that which doesn’t seem to occurring naturally.
What a clever government!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I hope this doesn’t mean the world is slipping back into recession. I also wonder if Keynesian i-d*ts like Krugman will learn anything after trillions of stimulus (in the form of debt and other stuff as well) have been spent. I don’t believe the left is capable of learning – or at least they are afraid to buck the main stream “progressives.”
From the article:
…
“The recent slowdown in demand growth is nothing short of remarkable,” the IEA said in a new monthly report on Thursday morning. “While demand growth is still expected to gain momentum, the expected pace of recovery is now looking somewhat more subdued.”
…
Additionally, global oil demand growth for has been lowered to 900,000 million b/d in 2014 and 1.2 million b/d for 2015. The pronounced slowdown in demand growth and a weaker outlook for Europe and China underpinned these changes, it said. In August, the IEA lowered its forecast for 2014, to 1.0 million b/d.
…
“U.S. production continues to surge, and OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) output remains above the group’s official 30 million b/d supply target.”
The euro zone was singled out for particular attention, with the IEA saying that the “macroeconomic malaise” experienced across much of Europe has been the dominant downside influence in terms of global demand. Euro zone economies are getting perilously close to deflation, it said, where consumer prices stop growing and instead start falling.
…
Brent crude, the international benchmark, fell through $100 for the first time in 16 months Monday, and was trading at $97.65 on Thursday morning. West Texas Intermediate is also under pressure, falling to $91.45 per barrel on Monday, trading near levels not seen since May 2013.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101991177
From the article:
…
Waist-high weeds and a crumbling old Chevy mark the entrance to a rust-colored factory complex on the edge of town here, seemingly another monument to the passing of the golden age of American industry.
But deep inside the 14-acre site, the thwack-thwack-thwack sound of metal on metal tells a different story.
“We’re holding our own,” said Greg Hess, who is looking to hire draftsmen and machine operators at the company he runs, Youngstown Bending and Rolling. “I feel good that we saved this place from the wrecking ball.”
The turnaround is part of a transformation spreading across the heartland of the nation, driven by a surge in domestic oil and gas production that is changing the economic calculus for old industries and downtrodden cities alike.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101982185
From the article:
…
“There’s as much as 30 million barrels sitting on floating storage, and it’s got to go somewhere at some point. That has to resolve itself,” said Eric Lee, Citigroup energy analyst. Lee said his long-term forecast for Brent is $70 to $90 per barrel, and it could be starting to head in that direction.
…
Even with geopolitical tensions running high, the oil market has become more bearishly positioned than it’s been for several years, and prices could fall another 10 percent or more.
Brent crude, the international benchmark, fell through $100 for the first time in 16 months Monday, as Chinese import growth fell unexpectedly for a second month. Besides softer demand from China, the developed world is using less oil in general as a supply glut grows in the Atlantic basin.
As a result, crude is being stored for future use, and for the first time in several years, oil is traversing the globe on tankers, waiting for a market.
1971yes | Getty Images
“There’s as much as 30 million barrels sitting on floating storage, and it’s got to go somewhere at some point. That has to resolve itself,” said Eric Lee, Citigroup energy analyst. Lee said his long-term forecast for Brent is $70 to $90 per barrel, and it could be starting to head in that direction.
The oil market of late summer is a far different picture from the market in June, when traders bid up crude on expectations that Islamic extremists in Iraq could disrupt supply. But that seems unlikely, with insurgents focused on areas north of the key southern productions area of Iraq. Traders have also been monitoring the situation in Ukraine, since Russia is a major energy supplier to Europe.
But while those events have provided some support, they have not fired up prices, as there has been no impact on supplies. The rising dollar has also put downward pressure on oil prices in recent weeks.
Read MoreCan Big Oil go from black to green? Shell hopes so
West Texas Intermediate is also under pressure, losing 63 cents Monday to $92.66 per barrel, the lowest level since Jan. 14. Part of the reason supply is so high is a big jump in U.S. oil production, up 1.3 million barrels from year-ago levels in June. The U.S. in late August was producing 8.6 million barrels a day.
John Kilduff of Again Capital said he expects to see WTI fall into the mid-$80s per barrel and then possibly below $80.
The last time oil prices were in as bearish a trend—2008-2009—”we didn’t have this Atlantic basin glut. We didn’t have a lot in storage. This is a global phenomena. You look at the (futures curve). The Dubai curve. They’re all in contango. If you’ve got an empty tanker, you’re stuffing it with oil to lock in this return,” Kilduff said.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101981476
The WMO/UNEP (2014)assessment for ozone (summary for decision makers) was released this week suggesting that climate is a planet of two halves ie (Chiral) an interesting constraint on climate sensitivity studies.
Antarctic lower stratospheric cooling due to ozone depletion is very likely the dominant cause of observed changes in Southern Hemisphere tropospheric summertime circulation over recent decades, with associated impacts on surface temperature, precipitation, and the
oceans. In the Northern Hemisphere, no robust link has been found between stratospheric ozone depletion and tropospheric climate
http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/SAP/SAP2014_Assessment_for_Decision-Makers.pdf
they have also reversed previous thinking that the expansion of the antarctic sea ice is a response to o3 depletion ( a reversal of sign) hence O3 recovery will be a +ve feedback on sea ice expansion.
Judith,
I had no idea that you had forfeited all scientific credibility by talking at the Marshall Institute. Did the folks at Marshall tell you that before you accepted the invitation?
Steve, your opinions are worth what we pay for them here. Nothing.
Judith can speak wherever, on whatever. So, you also think her Congressional testimonies were bought by Republicans?
Please crawl back under your rock.
Almost beneath a response on an unthreaded weekend. But you stooped too low.
You don’t do irony do you Rud?
nope he doest
Now this is why I listen to the game while surfing the net. :)
Has anyone read a critique of this paper that claims a 99.999% certainty that global warming is man made?
A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record
global mean temperature changes.
Philip Kokic a,b,⇑, Steven Crimp c,1, Mark Howden d,2
a CSIRO, CCI, GPO Box 664, ACT 2601, Australia
b CSSM, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
c CSIRO, CES, GPO Box 1700, ACT 2601, Australia
d CSIRO, CAF, GPO Box 1700, ACT 2601, Australia
Climate Risk Management
Volume 3, 2014, Pages 1–12
It seems like junk science to me but I’d have to defer to someone with statistical skills far beyond mine.
“The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that the 304 consecutive months of anomalously warm global temperatures to June 2010 is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The corollary is that it is extremely unlikely (0.001 percent) that the observed anomalous warming is not associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions. Solar radiation was found to be an insignificant contributor to global warming over the last century, which is consistent with the earlier findings of Allen et al. (2000).”
Do you have a link, per chance?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163
The paper is discussed at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/03/laughable-new-paper-claims-99-999-certainty-global-warming-over-past-25-years-is-man-made/
I have no doubt that the statistical analysis was done wrong. I suspect they assumed independence of annual temperature change with no auto-correlation or some such. In fact, there’s no reason to believe any such assumptions hold, so any likelihood estimates are worthless.
Australia’s top government funded science institution, eh. How embarrasing.
It’s not surprising given that Australia’s top climate scientists joined with Lewandowski to write these 13 articles for ‘The Conversation‘, and 85 of Australia’s leading academics, climate scientists and other people of position and influence are signatories to it.
The authors and signatories are listed here:
“Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community” http://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808
WebHubTelescope,
I’m assuming your question about what sort of chumps we take Warmists for, was addressed generally rather than specifically.
In the words of your fellow traveller AFOMD, it is a pleasure to educate you, eh, WebHubTelescope!
Warmists are a wide ranging lot, encompassing many types of chumps, although all are generally in accordance with the general definition of a chump – being a foolish or easily deceived person. However, you appear to want to know what sort of foolish or easily deceived person I take you for.
Although the question you have posed requires much deep thought, I would assign your foolishness to some form of congenital mental deficiency, and I would suggest that you are easily deceived due to an overdeveloped bump of gullibility, in phrenological terms.
You of, course, may have quite different reasons for your self proclaimed chumpiness, and I would be glad to hear your thoughts.
It has been a pleasure to respond to your expression of wonderment.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/errors-and-frauds-of-global-warming-science.375101/
“Scientists said that 5% of the CO2 molecules were effective on the shoulders for creating global warming. This roughly means that radiation would travel 20 times farther before being absorbed. But 20 times 10 meters is only 200 meters. Air mixes in such a short distance, which means there is no temperature change. Absorbing radiation in 200 meters is no different than absorbing it in 10 meters. In other words, the 5% claim was nothing but a fake statement for rationalizing. The shamelessness and gall of making up this subject on whim and then claiming it is science is unprecedented. Real scientists are not that way…
Why do nonscientists assume it is self-evident that greenhouse gases create global warming, when scientists cannot describe a mechanism? Extreme over-simplification appears to be the reason. They assume that absorbing radiation is producing heat. Guess what. A jar of pickles absorbs radiation but it doesn’t heat the kitchen. Total heat effects are complex, and they equilibrate.”
This is apparently the english version of a Russian article.
It is somewhat critical of global warming theory.
The first paragraph is gibberish, so no wonder he doesn’t believe it. It is not a representation of how radiative transfer theory works. He needs to look in some textbooks.
The much-required for scarey-bear reasons water vapour feedback is now peer-reviewed out of the ballpark, with “great clarity”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD021687/abstract
Oh well …
PA said:
PA=Pickling Agent (?)
What kind of chumps do you take us for?
The sort of chump who insults, berates and maligns here and then goes off to whine about the ‘Krackpot’ and her ‘Klimate Klowns’ and cast vicious aspersions on some fraudulent pretext or other?
Do I get a prize?
Webby,
A crudely trepanned lout of a chump?
WebHubTelescope,
I’m assuming your question about what sort of chumps we take Warmists for, was addressed generally rather than specifically.
In the words of your fellow traveller AFOMD, it is a pleasure to educate you, eh, WebHubTelescope!
Warmists are a wide ranging lot, encompassing many types of chumps, although all are generally in accordance with the general definition of a chump – being a foolish or easily deceived person. However, you appear to want to know what sort of foolish or easily deceived person I take you for.
Although the question you have posed requires much deep thought, I would assign your foolishness to some form of congenital mental deficiency, and I would suggest that you are easily deceived due to an overdeveloped bump of gullibility, in phrenological terms.
You of, course, may have quite different reasons for your self proclaimed chumpiness, and I would be glad to hear your thoughts.
It has been a pleasure to respond to your expression of wonderment.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Web
I’m glad you have admitted to it. The kind is not relevant.
I suggest that warmists be called “Type 2 Deniers”. “Type 1 Deniers” deny the science by claiming that the earth hasn’t warmed or by claiming that man’s activity has no impact at all on climate. “Type 2 Deniers” deny the science by claiming that they know that Climate Sensitivity is some high number. In fact, the IPCC scientists say that they don’t know how large or small Climate Sensitivity is. The only thing they’re sure of is that Climate Sensitivity is greater than zero.
It was an interesting article – particularly that the source of the original 3°C estimate for doubling was originally just a guess.
I personally believe the spreading of the CO2 absorption spectrum with an increase in concentration has some effect (the saturated parts of the spectrum are a wash).
But the increase in warming has been disappointingly low. I’m giving the global warmers 4 years to show warming in the raw data or RSS. No warming – failed theory.
The UN’s IPCC would settle this issue in open debate, if they believed the AGW story they told us was “settled science!”
http://junkscience.com/2014/09/13/who-says-the-warmists-refuse-to-debate/
whut: “What kind of chumps do you take us for?”
First Class. (Said Rocky Rococo.)
PA,
A couple points,
1. The law of conservation of energy states that energy must be conserved, so radiation absorbed by a jar of pickles must raise the temperature of said jar of pickles, or the energy must go somewhere else.
Lots of cooling is involved with radiating things
2 For the life of the metric, RSS shows a trend of + 0.125 +/- 0.069 C per decade, no need to wait for your four years.
That satellite might continue to show a lack of recent warming, (since 1998 or so) until it falls out of the sky. Are the adjustments for orbit decay proper or do you just want the raw data?
A consolidation of two bureaucracies in the EU?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/12/eu-dismantles-its-climate-commission-amid-economic-struggles/
This is like Al Gore losing two pounds. It ain’t much, but it’s in the right direction.
ianl8888,
Whats the revised central estimate for ECS and TCR now that water vapour is less significant?
Wow, you blindly trust the hockeyschtick blog to have “interpreted” this science paper correctly?
I linked to the actual *paper*, you dill. First try reading it … then comment
>the hockeyschtick blog
I have no idea what that is, nor do I care
you have no idea full stop.
It’s no coincidence you post a link to that paper just as the hockeyschtick blog misinterprets it, and you make the same error in interpreting it. I find it hard to believe you are being honest.
Opaque the cake, that puff of cloud,
Convect me where that says out loud.
===========
The article by Dr. Kendrick piece on adding ad hoc hypotheses to explain failures of favourite hypotheses is actually based on false information. He claims:
“Now, there are those of us i.e. me who would suggest that this blows a hole in the entire good, bad, cholesterol hypothesis. But no. Why not? Because it was found that torcetrapib raised the blood pressure, and lowered potassium levels. This, it seems, was enough to explain the massive rise in CV mortality. Well, quite reasonable, you might say. Yes, but the rise in BP was minute, and the drop in potassium was equally minute. This could explain, perhaps, a 5% rise (at most) in CV mortality. Which should have been overwhelmed by the massive rise in HDL, and drop in LDL.”
The clinical paper that was published following the trial can be found here:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0706628#t=articleTop
If you read the discussion you will see that there is no claim that the excess CV mortality is caused by raised blood pressure and lowered potassium levels at all. Raised blood pressure is, in fact , essentially ruled out as a cause. An increase is aldosterone is suggested as a possible cause but it is not definitive.
Off-target adverse effects of drugs are extremely common and this is why most drugs never make it to market. Unfortunately in some cases the effects are not picked up until after launch (e.g. Thalidomide and Vioxx)
Dr. Kendrick’s livelihood depends on people believing that high cholesterol is not an issue. He sells books and unproven supplements based on this myth. He provides no credible evidence to dismiss the findings of numerous large scale trials which show that lowering cholesterol reduces cardiovascular deaths.
Dr. Kendrick claims:
Is it true that data (“saturated fat intake”) that calls your preferred theory into question is no longer being published? This would appear to be a case of sweeping inconvenient data under the rug. Unless you can come up with a convincing explanation for that, anything you say is deprecated.
AK, you are confusing two different things. Cholesterol levels in the blood are not necessarily related to saturated fat intake. As I said there are a numerous large scale clinical trials that show reducing cholesterol levels lowers cardiovascular deaths.
As for Dr Kendrick’s absurd claim that data is being hidden, if you go to the 2008 report, you will see that the only data available on saturated fat intake is from a one-off 1998 study. It’s hardly surprising that data this old is no longer included in the 2012 report. The data from the 1998 study is also slightly misleading as it doesn’t show actual saturated fat intake – only the percentage of calories coming from saturated fat. The 2012 report still contains data on total fat intake where more current information is available.
If you look at his table comparing saturated fat intake with CHD death rates, you will see that the countries he has cherry picked which have a low percentage of calories from saturated fat are also less developed countries – the high death rates are likely to be related to poor medical care.
And if you look at the medical publications, you will see that studies on saturated fat are still being published contrary to his claims of a conspiracy. In fact, the most recent meta-analysis shows that saturated fat may not be as bad as once thought – a link is still seen between saturated fat found in meat and palm oil and increases in CV events but saturated fat found in dairy products does not appear to be a problem.
IMO, the main issue with saturated fat is its high calorific content – if you eat too much you will get fat – and obesity is definitely linked to CV disease.
Just had a closer look at the figures from the 2008 British heart foundation report, and Dr. Kendrick’s deception is even worse than I first realised. The countries that he has chosen as so-called examples of low saturated fat intake are all the countries with extremely high smoking rates among males (he has chosen to only show male CHD death rates in his table) so all he is really showing is the correlation between smoking and CHD death.
Those that he claims have a low saturated fat intake include Georgia which has a smoking rate of 53% amongst men, Ukraine (62%) and Russia (61%). Those that he claims have a high saturated fat intake include UK (26%), Switzerland (24%) and France (30%).
It would appear that he is the one sweeping inconvenient data under the rug.
Out of all the selections, I’ve settled on Matthew C. Nisbets article. Initial thoughts: The subjects of this article stand between the scientists doing the research and the public. But they cannot be considered interpreters of science, as I have mentioned here a few months ago. Science interpreters try to make the science easier for the public to understand. The subjects of this article worry about the implications of the results and want the rest of the world to worry also. Although they interpret the results, their conclusions are suspect because they have an agenda. Now I’ll read the rest of the article.
Facing climate change head-on means changing capitalism: Naomi Klein
Capitalism is irreconcilable with a livable climate and as humans can’t change the laws of nature, Naomi Klein argues capitalism will have to change.
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2014/09/13/facing_climate_change_headon_means_changing_capitalism_naomi_klein.html
Brent, the Star article is absurd on so many levels. The title should read “We must maintain global warming alarmism in order to justify the destruction of capitalism.”
It’s got all the alarmist stuff – big oil funded campaign, polar bear cub picture, species extinction, a claim that “.. man-made, carbon-based global warming is a settled fact and an immediate threat to human civilization.”
The Star’s fawning ‘feature writer’ totally supports the Klein’s thesis – talk about hard-hitting journalism!
The road to Damascus enlightening is one thing. Being able to pass on the message is another. The spread of religions is frightening at decadal levels but glacial slow on a blog.
Being able to affect an outcome is another matter.
Skepticism needs more people to break from the ranks, publish their views (and keep their jobs).
A Zeke here, Joshua there may be small fry individually but will add up over time. Who (or what organisation) will be prominent enough to change public opinion and when will they turn?
There is an awakening to reality in climatology, as well as on the road to Damascus
http://wchildblog.com/2014/09/13/how-so-many-psychopaths-manage-to-reach-positions-of-power/
Independence from the UK might mean more complex trading, but having your economic fate in your own hands is a huge benefit.
From the article:
…
Investors have pulled money out of the UK at the fastest pace seen since the financial crisis of 2008 amid fears that Scotland will break away from the Union, triggering a broader political crisis.
…
Deutsche Bank said on Friday: “A Yes vote for Scottish independence on Thursday would go down in history as a political and economic mistake as large as Winston Churchill’s decision in 1925 to return the pound to the Gold Standard or the failure of the Federal Reserve to provide sufficient liquidity to the US banking system, which we now know brought on the Great Depression in the US.”
US investment bank JP Morgan also added its weight to the growing expressions of concern coming from the world’s most authoritative financial institutions by saying that a Yes vote could punish the rest of the UK’s economy, as well as forcing the Bank of England to delay any rise in interest rates by around three months.
…
“We are concerned about the greater complexity of trading across a national border coupled with the uncertainty over big issues such as the single currency and membership of the EU,” they wrote, having praised Scotland as “the home of great products and produce, brands that are famous the world over and a workforce as hard working and dedicated as anywhere”.
“Within our group there is first-hand experience of trading across national borders – in France, Ireland and across the world. Our experience is that it always leads to more red tape and higher costs and we feel it is important to share this experience.
“We know that running a separate pricing system in Scotland will mean taking the difficult decision as to whether or not to pass on the increased costs through higher prices to Scottish consumers.”
…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11093587/Investors-pull-17bn-from-UK-as-banks-ratchet-up-Scottish-independence-pressure.html
In the US, the drought has been beaten back by rain in most of the country. California still has serious issues.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
The rich want more immigrants so they can pay less so they can carry home more. The rich can spend money to deal with onerous regulations in their personal life, so they don’t care as much as the rest of us about losing our personal freedoms. They can buy theirs.
From the article:
…
In a desperate bid to save their manicured lawns and towering topiary, some of Montecito’s multi-millionaires have since been trying to out-spend nature by buying water in from outside.
The home of Tom Cruise in Montecito, California
Each morning at the crack of dawn, trucks laden with precious H₂O trundle down lanes towards parched estates.
The buyers are paying up to $80 (£49) a unit – a unit is 748 gallons – for water that normally costs a maximum of $6.86 (£4.23) a unit from the water district.
The trucks are now a common sight in Montecito, passing by Sotheby’s International Realty and an haute couture clothes store. But the origin of the water is something of a mystery.
…
The Montecito Water District has so far banned the watering of gardens in the middle of the day, filling swimming pools at any time, and the building of new homes.
Meanwhile scores of angry residents have lodged appeals for more water. One asked for a supply to save 300 specimen trees – but was told the trees would have to die.
Tom Mosby, general manager of Montecito Water District, said: “People come to us and say ‘We want to build a swimming pool’ and we say ‘No’. If it doesn’t rain next year the state’s going to go dry. We are talking about a disaster movie in the making.”
…
“Gone are the days in California when you could throw water around. This is a desert and people have to realise if we run out of water it’s going to return to desert.”
…
He trucked water in once but is now drilling his own well instead. Dozens of other Montecito residents have also applied to drill wells, which can cost up to $100,000 – and could eventually cause to the subterranean aquifers beneath their feet to run dry.
…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11094232/Super-rich-make-last-stand-against-California-drought.html
How are the smelt doing?
As the credibility of AGW crumbles, AGW promoters proclaim that “Curry’s Credibility Crumbles”
Such is the perverse way of climate propaganda!
Global warming a threat to Greenwich birds
http://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Global-warming-a-threat-to-Greenwich-birds-5753641.php
Try building Windmills in Greenwich, see where that goes. Another “report” from green ideologues, very influential.
“Justice” like “climate science” depends on the “consensus” (like any mob rule);
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/us/politics/building-legacy-obama-reshapes-appellate-bench.html?src=twr&_r=0&referrer=
Tin foil right Michael???
The Marshall quote that Dr. Curry provided piqued my attention:
“There is a sufficient basis for action because the climate change risk is real. Are calls about the uncertainty in the state of scientific knowledge a call for no action? Nothing could be further from the truth.”
For most of us in the Renewable Energy field, we view statements like these with high skepticism — as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, only giving the appearance of reasonableness.
Dr. Ramanathan’s call for Fast Mitigation is an example of this — where the Wolves embrace this “No Regrets” approach as long as its discussed in generalities. But attempts to implement specific policies in Dr. Ramanathan’s 4 areas would be met with fierce opposition:
1. Black Carbon: The Wolves viciously attack the EPA mercury regs on coal as “Junk Science”; Attempts to address diesel is “Big Government” intrusion; Efforts to help poor countries (e.g., guarantee of Export bank loans) is hammered.
2. HFCs: Fred Singer (associated, and representing the views of conservative Think Tanks) still believes “The data is suspect, the statistical analyses are faulty, science debate has been stifled, the theory has not been validated, and policies have been a great cost to the economy”. [Note: doesn’t this kinda sounds familiar?]
3. Ground-level Ozone: Health benefits claims on smog are labeled “bad science” and “over-kill” as to cost/benefit.
4. Methane: Obama is being hammered that he now wants to regulate cow flatulence.
So what are the “reasonable” current actions? Mitigation? Well, many Republican controlled State Legislators forbid funding to even study the potential impact of GW (e.g., rising sea levels).
Until Conservatives come up and get behind some real specifics, this “reasonableness tack” is nothing but a Red Herring. Jon Huntsman (with a track record a whole lot more conservative than McCain or Romney) tried to do this and was quickly labeled an Al Gore clone.
If you cover your eyes, of course you won’t see any “real specifics”.
AK — and a quick bullet list of all these “real specifics” that I’m covering my eyes to are?????
A “quick bullet list”? With links? And arguments over each? No longer “quick”.
I can tell you “quickly” what I favor: full steam ahead with gas, put the brakes on lightly with coal, and lots or R&D towards solar, biofuels, etc.
You want links, discussion, etc.? You can’t have “quick”. But I’ve made plenty of comments here WRT my fave approach. Others for theirs. Many of these have been documented, with more or less analysis, economic or otherwise.
Maybe in a day or so, I’ll pull together a new discussion from my older comments.
…lots of R&D…
For a minority of us in the environmental mitigation profession, we agree that we are awash in sheepskin wolves, red herrings and (wait for it) Chicken Little’s. It’s the Chicken Littles that have promoted renewable energy and environmental mitigation AT ANY COST. This provides the very real red herrings used by sheepskin wolves to block meaningful action.
Your one-sided “Until Conservatives” recommendation is a non-starter unless your goal is winning theoretical debates rather than changing the world physically.
99.99% of the AGWs here and elsewhere care more about the arguments than getting actual stuff done. Your post indicates you are on the side of the BS wars.
Howard — and a quick bullet list of meaningful actions in the U.S. that have been blocked are??????
Stephen:
Off the top of my head
restoring Ogallalla Aquifer
restoring San Joaquin Aquifers
reducing agricultural nutrient pollution of surface water and ocean dead zones
reducing ocean bacteria from leaking sewers
restoring freshwater fish habitat
reducing industrial particulate emissions
reducing industrial ozone precursor emissions
minimizing coal mining impacts
Instead of blame-gaming we need to move forward by horse trading.
For instance:
I’ll give up coal if you accept fracking.
I’ll require tougher emission standards if you will build more reservoirs
I’ll accept smart growth if you will upgrade infrastructure
I’ll accept higher water quality standards if you support nuclear energy
I’ll accept habitat restoration if you cut out subsidizing low concentration “green” energy.
Finally, the key to understanding the motive and direction of SS’s odd posturing posts–in the form of a pronoun. “For those of us in the Renewable Energy field.” OK, it all makes sense now. Because believe me up to now it never has.
stevepostrel — I’ve never hidden that I’m in the Renewable Energy field (Ag and Engineering). Unlike many “mystery” CE posters, I even gave my background (which includes testifying before the U.S. Congress) in Dr. Curry’s Denizen section.
What you find odd is that all you want to do is fight — while I am trying to find solutions and challenging the cherry-picking that you (and others) do to create very one-sided negative paradigms on renewables.
Sounds like you want CE to be an “echo chamber” only for comments you agree with.
Not everybody. For instance, my “paradigm” is that Solar is coming along so fast that we don’t need any major interference with the current market/capitalism paradigm to solve the CO2 problem.
Maybe some minor interference, such as providing positive incentives for increased R&D in certain directions likely to help.
My observation is that a large subset of those ” in the Renewable Energy field” are actually using the whole thing as a stalking horse for a socialist agenda…
And
mostmany of the rest refuse to disavow them.AK — In a U.S. “context”, it’s the cherry-picking to create these very negative “socialist perceptions” that I have a problem with.
Take wind energy and its “socialist” tax credit. This tax credit is almost identical to that of new nuclear power plants — and even goes beyond, providing Federal guarantees to compensate for construction cost over-runs.
Also, people hammer the DOE Loan Program on solar — but don’t say a word about the fact that one-third of the money in this DOE Program has gone to new nuclear power (primarily, Georgia Power’s Vogtle nuclear plant).
And — what about Price Anderson?????
Two words, SS; power density.
============
AK — There are so many positive things that never see the light of day here at CE. For example, the distribution in the “Socialist” DOE Loan Program has been 1/3 in solar, 1/3 in nuclear, and 1/3 in automotive/trucks.
Cummins (and others) have used funding to further develop a radical downsizing of engine size. By increasing engine efficiency, the aspects that Dr. Ramanathan advocates on GW (Fast Mitigation) are directly addressed.
And — I could go on and on the positives, but folks like Steve Postrel will just pick a fight with me as it doesn’t fit the “Socialist Paradigm”.
OK, OK, two insuffices.
Tax credits to the wind industry paper over an insoluble(short of storage) physical deficiency, to the nuclear power industry to a solve(subject to politically erratic solubility changes) a man-made problem, irrational resistance to implementation. Note, this metaphor damns windy politicians of any stripe.
======================
Kim — Its the one sided structured paradigm of negativity that I’m talking about. You mention power density. Lets take ethanol as an example. Should we only view ethanol in terms of Btus? What about octane?, where just incredible break-throughs are occurring in turbo-charged engine technology — that MIT calls the “incredible shrinking engine” (more efficient).
This is an example of a path to what Dr. Ramanathan is talking about.
Children starve, but, oh, the BTUs; just beautiful.
===========
Oops, I meant ‘Oh, the octane, the agony’.
==========
On Paradigms — Germany just doesn’t fit the ubiquitous model that renewables MUST destroy the economy:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/09/09/developing-countries-most-optimistic-about-economy/
Stephen, I’m shocked. That optimistic blush on the cheek of the Germans is a reflected glow from the banked lignite, not the frost from a Baltic wind.
===========
Kim — It’s you that brought up a “Power Density” paradigm, not me.
No doubt they’d prefer bituminous or anthracite, but you go to war with the coal you have.
And the oil from Baku.
================
Yikes, from Ploesti. I’ve been getting my Twentieth Century Tyrants confused, lately; two peas in a pod.
=========
Kim — I don’t blog much, but I do have a blog. I have a favor to ask you. Read this blog I wrote: http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2013/11/where-obama-is-wrong-on-coal.html
Do I sound like an Obama loving Socialist worshiping Mother Earth and against all coal?
The German economy is relatively competitive in spite of green foolishness:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
Very thoughtful, Stephen, and thanks. You are well worth reading. Nonetheless, many countries which went whole hog for renewables are barfing in retreat, and it’s because of ‘power density’.
===============
Kim —
Doing volunteer work in the Jon Huntsman campaign had a profound effect on me. He was asking “Do we continue to just fight about GW, or can we develop and implement conservative principles to deal with GW?”
Mr. Huntsman talked about how “Liberals” had hijacked the issue — through their command/control top/bottom ideological approaches such as carbon taxes or cap and trade.
Can “no regrets” de-centralized approaches be developed and nurtured — leading to high economic growth (tapping into Mr. Huntsman’s extensive background in international trade)?
I heard “first hand” how he was booed off stage as an “Al Gore Clone” by Tea Party types.
Yes, Stephen. We can do a moon shot program on nuclear power. All but the ecoloons can go for that.
Stephen Segrest: Read this blog I wrote: http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2013/11/where-obama-is-wrong-on-coal.html
Thank you for the link.
Stephen, I admit to being ignorant and bigoted about John Huntsman. His embassy raised a red flag, and he’s a little too much on the scared of catastrophe side for my blood.
==================
@Stephen Segrest…
Wind energy is a worse threat to the climate than CO2. IMO.
Stephen Segrest-
For many of us not in the Renewable Energy field, we also view statements like these with high skepticism.
You ask- “So what are the “reasonable” current actions? Mitigation?”
I am not a republican, but I do not see how most CO2 mitigation actions can be viewed as being an effective use of resources. If you do not know that the proposed action will have any benefit, much less when, it seems difficult to support incurring the cost now.
There has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise and I can see no reliable evidence that there have been any substantial harms created by the increase in CO2 levels. If there have been harms, they appear to have been outweighed by the benefits that humans got as a result of releasing the CO2.
Isn’t the construction and maintenance of robust infrastructure the most sensible action that can be taken? It seems to be the ONLY action that actually reduces harms from adverse weather (regardless of the cause). It also put the responsibility for independent nations to largely take care of their own populations. Look at SW Asia as an example. It isn’t AGW that has caused people to be hurt every year by the weather. It also isn’t the US taxpayers responsibility to help pay for them to fix their problem.
Here’s How Little Time We Have Until Global Warming Is Out Of Control
http://www.businessinsider.in/Heres-How-Little-Time-We-Have-Until-Global-Warming-Is-Out-Of-Control/articleshow/42390940.cms
markus
So I know how to debate this with you is the report you linked to supposed to be satire or parody? thanks
tonyb
It’s both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody
tonyb
I don’t think markus is going to reply
excuse me for interjecting
just read your very interesting post “Long Slow Thaw” (that is you, right?)
fascinated by the winter scene painting
recently visited Hagia Sophia and saw the 12th c mosaics of
Christ and was overwhelmed at how realistic and life like they appear in person
I think we tend to discount medieval and later accounts and art as untrustworthy because they appear primitive to our modern senses
it just struck me that the Bruegel painting may a very realistic portrayal of that very cold LIA period … a sky and light not known to us in the modern era
more to learn from them than many think
John
Thanks for your interesting comment. Medieval art and literature hold many pointers to the climate of the past which combined with observations, crop records and scientific papers eyc should enable us to reconstruct the climate with some degree of certainty. Unfortunately, as you will have seen on this site, such material is routinely derided by warmists as historical anecdotes.
Tonyb
Now marcus, it’s been warmer before, for example the Medieval
Warming period from around 800-1200Ad, ref H.H Lamb, Robert
Bartlett, Tony Brown’s research. Virtually all of Northern Europe,
Britain, Scandinavia, Greenland, Iceland, China, Asia, Americas
were all considerably warmer.
Evidence comes from contemporary reports on weather, oxygen
isotope measurements from Greenland, sea level changes, and
in Europe upper tree limits and human settlements established at
higher altitudes,
Then there’s the Roman Warming Period, marcus …
Well, let’s see…
I’m not convinced by their analysis.
So far in the 21st century (14 years) the warming has been ≈ 0 (zero).
0*100/14 = 0.
The last 50 years – a period with massive CO2 emissions – have warmed the planet at a rate of 0.8°C per century. In lieu of better information from someone with godlike omniscience 0.8°C in 2100 would be a better estimate.
Heh, death per Speth.
========
Government is the worst problem Americans face. No mention of fossil fuels. I guess that’s why Naomi Oreskes is ready to double down on a dictatorial government. She ignores the potential for devastating abuse of the common man and political enemies. The seems to be a problem shared by most eco-notsees.
From the article:
…
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans say the government, immigration, and the economy in general are the most important problems currently facing the country. Mentions of government and the economy have been at the top of the list since the beginning of the year, while mentions of immigration rose sharply in July, in response to the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, and remain high this month.
…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/174809/government-economy-immigration-top-problems.aspx
Madison, Washington…jus’ sayin’ … jim2…
jim2,
Didn’t you hear Sec of State Kerry say 2*C temp raise by 2100 is the most important crises facing the world. Right after we destroy the coal fired power plants and raise the price of electricity he will get right on fixing ISIS.
Beheading aid workers and journalists just reduces the numbers. Also Ukraine invasions by Russia and the dismemberment on Iraq are not as important as problems like a cooling globe solution to CAGW. Plus stopping the sea from rising. keep priorities in order. Economy is last.
Scott
Scott – I believe we need to re-examine this rather asinine idea of a surgical war. Let’s examine it in light of the unsuccessful “containment” wars with WWI and WWII. Collateral damage might be the only way some militants get the message that survival lies at the end of the path to peace. We might also consider cutting off a few heads of the militant hydra also, political, religious, or otherwise if they teach hate.
• Weather Report 2050 — USA Weather Channel
• Climate-change denialists vehemently object
• Climate-scientists insist (albeit gently and rationally)
***************************************************
COGNITIVE POSTULATES FOR RATIONAL SKEPTICISM
***************************************************
• POSTULATE 1 CO2-driven energy imbalance is wrong
Risk Rating Likelihood of fundamental radiation transport errors is small.
• POSTULATE 2 Cloud feedbacks will mitigate AGW
Risk Rating As likely to increase AGW as decrease it.
• POSTULATE 3 Ocean-mixing will absorb excess energy
Risk Rating Mixing delays but does not mitigate AGW
• POSTULATE 4 New CO2 sinks will appear
Risk Rating New CO2 sources are comparably likely to new sinks.
• POSTULATE 5 New “stadium waves” dynamics will nullify AGW
Risk Rating New dynamics is as likely to increase AGW as decrease it.
***************************************************
CONCLUSION I Skeptical assertions that AGW effects will be small have no rational cognitive basis, because all known uncertainties are comparably likely to amplify AGW as dampen it.
CONCLUSION II Non-rational obsessions (like “Michael Mann Derangement Syndrome”) and non-rational economic dogmas (like “Humanity cannot afford carbon neutrality”) are last-ditch cognitive defenses of ideology-driven denialism.
***************************************************
*THESE* common-sense facts are obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
Ah, more of the usual BS.
P1. CO2-driven energy imbalance
Depends on whether they were computing the CO2 effect for a single gas or in a mix atmosphere. Some of the effect is due to absorption spectrum spreading and that will have an effect. In the saturated bands if you shorten the mean absorption from say 100 meters to 80 meters it is a “who cares” situation.
The large problem is heat transport from the surface is a 24/78/56 watts split between convection/latent heat/radiation. At equatorial ocean temperatures a 5 degree increase in temperature causes at 35% increase in heat transport due to latent heat. It only takes a small increase in temperature to transport the “blocked heat” via convection or evaporation.
P2. Cloud feedbacks will mitigate yada yada…
We have a 19 year pause per McKitrick. The clouds clearly aren’t positive feedback – if they caused positive feedback the temperature would be – you know, like warmer or something. Per Joni Mitchell, “I really don’t know clouds at all”, this also applies to climate scientists.
P3. Ocean-mixing
Mixing is for cake batter.
P4. New CO2 sinks
Well, according to global-warming-friendly CSIRO plant growth increased 11% from 1982 to 2010 and the deserts are blooming. That is a big sink.
The ocean has 38000 GT of suspended carbon (vs 9.8 GT of annual human emissions) that was in equilibrium at 280 PPM, the greater the difference in CO2 partial pressures between the atmosphere and the ocean the greater the increase in net diffusion into the ocean.
P5. New “stadium waves”
New stadium waves don’t have much more effect than old or recycled stadium waves.
Stadium waves do mean that there is a lot of natural variation which makes identifying the contribution of the various forcing factors more difficult.
The natural variation also implies that many feedback are wrong. There must have been a lot of mis-attribution of natural warming and responses to natural changes (and land use) to GHG warming.
Excellent point aaron.
a fan of *MORE* discourse: Skeptical assertions that AGW effects will be small have no rational cognitive basis, because all known uncertainties are comparably likely to amplify AGW as dampen it.
Omission of the consideration of changes in the hydrologic cycle likely result in a large upward bias in the calculation of temperature changes that result in future from future CO2 increases. So does the use of equlibrium-based calculations of changes in T^4 in place of the actual space-time distribution.
Non-rational obsessions (like “Michael Mann Derangement Syndrome”) and non-rational economic dogmas (like “Humanity cannot afford carbon neutrality”) are last-ditch cognitive defenses of ideology-driven denialism.
Attention to the details of Mann v Steyn is hardly non-rational obsession — however decided, it is an important First Amendment case; careful consideration of the costs as well as the hypothetical benefits of de-carbonizing the energy economy argue against a crash program.
What is obvious to Climate Etc readers is that you do not care much for the details of the science or the public policy discussion.
Recruitment and sustenance of negative feedbacks is possible, of positive feedbacks likely impossible. Fan’s need is to sustain a narrative, and nearly every mind which comes to bear on the question is a long-lived negative feedback, the few positives feed back unsustainably, and cannibally.
=============
If that were strictly true, then Venus, Mars, the Moon, and the Earth all would be habitable, eh kim?
Yet Venus, Mars, and the Moon all are utterly lifeless (as far as we know).
Why is that? The world wonders!
Soberingly, the Earth itself has undergone multiple mass extinctions.
We hominids are mighty lucky to be alive, eh kim?
Conclusion Available scientific evidence suggests that hominid-habitable biomes are scarce and fragile. That’s why rational conservatism and traditional morality alike require scrupulous stewardship of the biome that sustains humanity!
*THESE* common-sense facts are evident to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
a fan of *MORE* discourse: Available scientific evidence suggests that hominid-habitable biomes are scarce and fragile. That’s why rational conservatism and traditional morality alike require scrupulous stewardship of the biome that sustains humanity!
Earlier Buckley, now Quakers. Notice that the Quakers conflate CO2 with “climate change”. I am glad that you favor “stewardship”, a concept that can be publicly debated; and I am glad that you favor “sustain[ing] humanity!”, unlike the writers who liken humanity to a cancer on the Earth. Do you also take seriously the idea that increased CO2 might increase forest growth, increase crop growth, and promote drought-resistance. “Scrupulous stewardship” and “sustain[ing] humanity!”would seem to require attention to that detail of the possible consequences of CO2 increase.
A natural question Why do denialists vehemently smear quaker, catholic, and even muslim concerns regarding stewardship?
Simple answer The fundamental denialist postulates of (1) robust biomes, and (2) efficient markets are alike irrational, amoral, and unsupported by history *OR* science.
That’s why … smears are all that denialism has left!
It’s obvious … that the denialist community too-readily resorts to [what Climate Etc commeters call] ‘character assassination, bad manners, and incivility’, and then irrationally succumbs to “Michael Mann Derangement Syndrome”, simply because the logical, scientific, and moral foundations of denialism are self-evidently flimsy, eh Matthew R Marler?
Nowadays the *WEAK* foundations of climate-change denialism are evident to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
a fan of *MORE* discourse: Why do denialists vehemently smear quaker, catholic, and even muslim concerns regarding stewardship?
Smear? Vehemently?
I merely pointed out that the authority of the Quakers was not solid.
“Conclusion Available scientific evidence suggests that hominid-habitable biomes are scarce and fragile”
Given that hominids evolved in East Africa and have populated the whole planet, with the exception of Antarctica seem to indicate that you are a deluded fool.
How hominids managed to climb to the top of the food chain, whilst carrying your ancestors, is a source of amazement.
“Why do denialists vehemently smear quaker, catholic, and even muslim concerns regarding stewardship?”
Perhaps ‘denialists’ are not inclined to take self-selected interpreters of the wishes of an all powerful and all knowing supernatural being as entirely rational people.
I personally do not have a problem with people believing in things supernatural, Gods, ghosts or models of energy fluxes in complex systems, but I don’t give them weight for judgement in matters moral, philosophical or scientific.
Why do you despise Bill Buckley, Pope Francis, Jane Goodall, Wendell Berry, Martin Luther King, Francis Collins, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell so much?
Too busy rejoicing in disaster, DocMartyn?
The world wonders!
Conclusion The world has are bigger calamities driven by carbon-energy economies to worry about..
*THAT’S* obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
“Why do you despise Bill Buckley, Pope Francis, Jane Goodall, Wendell Berry, Martin Luther King, Francis Collins, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell so much?”
Despise? I am not a hate driven sociopath. I suggest that you stop mirroring and try to understand the people who disagree with your collective.
From the wrath of the libertarians, may Heaven preserve us!
FOMT talking about “smears” and such brings up a maxim which applies perfectly to FOMT:
“Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue.”
— François La Rochefoucauld —
FOMT whines about “smears” and then proceeds with litanies of smears against those who dare to disagree with him. FOMT, it is possible to disagree, and to argue/debate (even heatedly at times), without hatred or contempt or misrepresentation of one’s opponents. This should be an elementary less of any good education, one you never learned.
As for Quakers, Catholics, and Muslims who you think share your ideas of “stewardship”…. once again, you display slovenly intellectual habits here, as you slosh about between signs of disagreement and all sorts of nefarious imaginings your poor feverish brain. Plenty of people can disagree with them without hating or despising them. You may not be young but you think like an adolescent; when I taught university students I rarely encountered any as immature, ignorant, and narcissistic as the FOMT.
Heh, I talk about an unsustainable narrative, and Fan talks about Venus. Are we on the same world, Fan?
===========
A fan of *MORE* discourse: Why do you despise Bill Buckley, Pope Francis, Jane Goodall, Wendell Berry, Martin Luther King, Francis Collins, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell so much?
Can’t you quote anyone correctly? He said he does not give their opinions great weight!
Is it your only contribution to “more discourse” to misquote everyone? Almost everyone? As many as Climate Etc readers will not check?
Meanwhile:
• The sea-level keeps rising without pause or obvious limit
• The polar ice keeps melting without pause or obvious limit
• The oceans keep heating without pause or obvious limit
*THESE* facts are sobering to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
Everyone *EXCEPT* ideology-driven denialists!
`Cuz *NO* amount of sobering science bothers *THOSE* folks!
AFOMD,
Maybe you are exaggerating a tiny bit.
You wrote –
“• The sea-level keeps rising without pause or obvious limit
• The polar ice keeps melting without pause or obvious limit
• The oceans keep heating without pause or obvious limit”
May I point out the blindingly obvious –
The amount of water in the seas is not without limit. The level cannot rise more than the water volume will allow.
The polar ice can only keep melting until it is all gone.
The oceans can only keep heating until all the water boils away, which means that your water levels and polar ice comments become irrelevant and nonsensical.
Maybe you think that faith, fervour, and repeatedly chanting the sacred Warmist Manntra will overcome the limitations of logic and physics. I disagree.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Well…
1. I lost faith in GMSL when the satellite measurements added 0.3 mm per year GIA correction in 2011 to compensate for a theoretical 0.4 mm per year drop in the sea floor. The real reason appears to be that the sea level isn’t rising fast enough to panic over. A satellite reading of 0.3 mm/year means the sea level isn’t changing. Adding this GIA correction requires a BSC view of reality.
The Tidal gauges show about 1.7 mm per year rise and that hasn’t changed in the satellite era.
Since it is hard to tell which is right… the satellite calibration should tested against tidal gauges that have little or no vertical displacement as measured by GPS. If the results are significantly higher (> 10%) than the raw tidal gauge data, the current data analysis groups should be defunded and new groups picked to do the data analysis.
2. Polar Ice… Well the arctic volume is increase (see piomas) and Antarctica is at record levels. The ice sheet mass loss data is kind of iffy. Hard to claim high mass loss in Antarctica when the record sea ice is impeding glacier flow and keeping summer temperatures low. The vast majority of the Greenland had less than a dozen melt days in 2014 – about 1/2 the ice sheet had zero. Greenland gains 337 mm of ice sheet thickness (591 gigatonnes) per year.
3. Sea temp… Well we really monitor the sea temp below 2000 meters and only know the top 2000 meters reasonably accurately since 2003. There doesn’t seem to be much of a trend … Josh Willis said in March 2008:“There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant” and got crucified for it and has since changed his tune.
The viciousness with which skeptical scientists are treated does not inspire faith that the data is being processed in an objective way.
The discrepancies in the sea level measurement need to get resolved before there really is much to discuss. Right now the global warmers are having too much fun playing with the data for it to be viewed as trustworthy. We really don’t care for practical purposes about the poles except for the effect on sea level.
The problem expressing the ocean temperature change in terms of “heat content” is it isn’t clear how much is due to more ocean and how much due to warmer ocean.
PA – I’ve never been able to find the sea level numbers before the application of corrections for this and that. I agree with you that the numbers aren’t to be trusted.
Jim2
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-products/actualitesindicateurs-des-oceansniveau-moyen-des-mersindexhtml.html
Aviso lists the corrections for the various satellites.
Aviso used to let you do various combinations of missions, select the atmospheric correction, and disable GIA. That feature appears to have bit the dust.
The whole sea level issue is a little complicated. What you use as a reference determines what value you get. Much of the land area is sinking because of ground water extraction. Much of it is moving to the left or right (east/west) or up and down (north/south) a couple a of mm per year.
Sea level as ocean surface distance from the center of the geoid is probably the best definition.
With the lower temps/colder winters, there is probably drier air and less snow and more sublimation (and therefor more latent heat transfer). That would lead to some ice loss. Plasticity could move some ice to the sea (very little I would think). Plasticity could also affect measurements of ice mass.
From the article:
How To Annoy A Peak Oil Theorist: The Soft Patch In Oil Prices Is Here To Stay
…
The result of the increased capex is increased oil production, which is growing faster than oil demand. It turns out that the world wasn’t running out of oil, after all. It was running out of easy and cheap oil, but as the economics of the U.S. oil patch demonstrate, even the new and unconventional sources of supply are seeing production costs decline.
So it would appear that we are at the beginning of what could well be an extended patch of soft oil prices. Strong EM demand growth probably precludes a return to an era of overtly “cheap” oil, but don’t expect much upside from these levels. Indeed, there is plenty of oil that is being kept off the market by geopolitics, which, if conditions change, would return to the export channels, and imply an extended period of soggy oil prices.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2492405-how-to-annoy-a-peak-oil-theorist-the-soft-patch-in-oil-prices-is-here-to-stay
Judith –
You forgot to link to the evidence in support of our friend GaryM’s symbol for moral and intellectual superiority of “conservatives” and their “Judeo-Christian values.”
http://www.themudflats.net/archives/44433
Too funny.
16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was assassinated in a drone strike in Yemen while sitting in a cafe.
Still, Palin.
I come here to glance over the articles and scroll down until I see A Fan of More Discourse’s response.
You should know more Tuesday,…
…”And while hundreds of millions of dollars in aid have recently been pledged, under current circumstances it won’t arrive in West Africa for weeks – by which time thousands more will be infected and dead.
Mr. Obama hopes to begin to turn the situation around with the rollout of his new strategy, administration officials said.”…
unless their watch is slow.
If twitter-abstinence strengthens climate science, then Hansen must secretly twitter like a bat out of hell.
When we hear ersatz academics say something like –e.g., we know global warming exists and that humans are causing it, and then proceed to give explanations for the ‘pause’ — all 50 or more of them — the only thing we can truly be sure about is academia has become a simple-minded occupation.
As I haven’t done a City of God rant lately – I think I will fix some typos and repeat this here.
There is a cohort that is perhaps 5% of western populations – they are connected – sometimes powerful individuals – who have an agenda of transforming societies and economies in some utopian (perhaps dystopian) fantasy. We know this because they say so – http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/21/growth-versus-sustainability/#comment-502318
Most people find these sorts of statements to be morally repugnant – they raise the specter of an unimaginable 21st century holocaust. It always puts me in mind of Hayek. ‘From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.’ They require catastrophe to justify societal transformation and so catastrophe becomes the core belief in some infinite regression. The science of uncertainty and complexity is anathema. They require complete faith and sonorous proclamations.
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
They are noisy extremists who are little more than an annoyance. They impede progress on emissions because their goal is transformation of economies – which everyone rightly rejects – rather than practical and pragmatic multi-gas strategies and technological innovation consistent with critical economic and social development. They then whine about the consumer society via their ipad.
They presume that we need and want western civilization to change. We don’t. We have achieved unprecedented health, education, peace and prosperity outcomes.
We have a perfect system based on scientific enlightenment principles of democracy, the rule of law, principled and transparent governance and free markets.
‘Why do some countries experience civil war and others don’t? Is it to do with political systems, perhaps ethnic or religious tensions? Perhaps a more important question is what needs to be put in place so civil war does not happen in the first place?
According to the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom Australia rates third behind Hong Kong and Singapore. New Zealand is ranked at 5, Canada at 6 and Denmark rounds out the top 10. All of the countries in the top 10 are considered to be Free.’ http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/free-markets-and-civil-peace/5671116
peace/5671116
The perfect society involves government at some 25% of GDP – giving optimum growth – personal freedoms, a transparent rule of law, a consensual social contract, efficient and transparent governance and practical things like balancing budgets and managing interest rates.
This is the perfect society and not the perfect world. The two cities – of man and God – are ever separate.
‘As I see that I have still to discuss the fit destinies of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, I must first explain, so far as the limits of this work allow me, the reasonings by which men have attempted to make for themselves a happiness in this unhappy life, in order that it may be evident, not only from divine authority, but also from such reasons as can be adduced to unbelievers, how the empty dreams of the philosophers differ from the hope which God gives to us, and from the substantial fulfillment of it which He will give us as our blessedness.’ St Augustine – The City of God
Nonetheless – the spread of scientific enlightenment – the pinnacle of the reasoning of men – very practically leading to maximum economic growth – is the sin qua non of the creation of a truly global civilization – a shining City of Man – this century.
> They then whine about the consumer society via their ipad
Yep
On a more lowly scale, an (apparently) well-known numptie British actress recently opined that doing without air travel was just too inconvenient – it was really up to the aircraft engineers to redesign planes so they did much less GHG damage
It is little wonder that I have lost hope in a more rational society evolving with any rapidity
A natural question Why does Judith Curry lend her scholarly name to these (apparent) anti-scientific practices?
Is the Marshall Institute’s response to these criticisms adequate in Judith Curry’s eyes?
The world wonders!
Fan
There is no need for the Marshall Institute to make the following observations:
1. A pause in temps.
2. No sea level rise rate in 20 years.
3. Antarctic sea ice at 2 SD above 30 year avg.
4. 3000 days since cat 3 hurricane hitting US mainland.
5. No increase in tornado activity over 50 average.
6. No Great Lakes water levels below 96 years average.
7. No US drought activity that is unprecedented.
8. Arctic sea ice volume apparently making
a rebound.
It doesn’t require a brainwashed populace to see something is very wrong with the warmists mythology. All that is required is a rudimentary reading ability and an affinity for graphs.
Step in the woods here for one day. Look around at all the trees and tell me if there isn’t a large disturbance. Whitebark pine and lodgepole, staples of our forest, are dying in groves. The buildup of fuels is causing larger fires, denitrifying the soil, and causing runoff into the streams. If this continues another century, the land and resources will be unrecognizable. Nothing will be able to grow in its place.
I read the 52 reasons for the pause being cited to undermine warming claims, though it provides no consolation to me. Not when only one needs to be true for temps to climb.
This minority of skeptics are doing no good, Judith Curry and Anthony Twat, the college dropout. They preach to an audience the message they want to hear like mega-church evangelicals. Throughout the climate debate my confidence in democracy has faltered. Too many ignorant and easily mislead. Bring in the Philosopher kings of Plato’s republic, the scientific consensus. Throw out these ear-ticklers, these twitter queens.
So we will need to do without democracy because no one believes them?
The science is quite evident – the rate of warming attributable to greenhouse gases in the latter part of the 20th century was 0.07 degrees C/decade, this is hardly likely to be repeated in the 21st century – even if the climate were not a wild beast – the world is likely not warming for decades at least.
This is a chasm under the ambitions of the left who respond with more vile lies, dishonesty, malice and hatred. The motivation is both psychological and sociological. Psychologically because they have been buttressed by ideas of consensus too long – and abused too many anti-science sceptics – to make acceptance of the science of complexity and uncertainty a bridge too far. Sociologically because it is linked to progressive ambitions to transform societies and economies. They need catastrophe to justify transformation thus catastrophe becomes a core belief in an infinite psychological regression. They abjure practical and pragmatic responses of a multi-gas and energy innovation strategy in the context of a rational social and development context – because this doesn’t serve their transformation imperative.
A world that is not warming undermines both the psychological constructs around in and out groups and the political ambitions that are the most potent expression. The ground they are finding is shifting under them and they are in a desperate and losing struggle to shore up the battlements crumbling around them.
See my latest City of God rant – http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/13/week-in-review-22/#comment-628301
Mont. Vet. – The build up of fuels is due to mismanagement by the government. I’m not sure what the rest of your observations have to do with anthropogenic CO2. I don’t see a connection. And I certainly don’t see any connection between your observations and Dr. Curry.
In fact, if you hang around and read, you might see why you are mistaken.
Montana:
Precipitation:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/24/00/pcp/12/12/1901-2014?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2013
Seems inconclusive.
Temperatures:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/24/00/tavg/12/12/1901-2014?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2013
Adding a degree of temperature would lengthen the growing season and cause some plant adaptations.
Montana Veteran: Look around at all the trees and tell me if there isn’t a large disturbance.
You are no doubt aware that large disturbances are a natural recurrence. Do you have evidence that the disturbances you describe are unusual?
Consider, for example, the virus epidemic that destroyed America’s chestnut forests.
The buildup of unburned timber can hardly be blamed on an increase in the fire rates and intensities: most likely a result of federal fire suppression efforts.
what exactly are the rainfall and temperature trends in Montana? What are the trends in per acre crop yields?
I defer to scientist of repute, not this skeptical circus I see every time I look for a second opinion: British Tories, Bodybuilders, Economist, Coal and mining representatives, creationists, and the few rogues who hold tenure, that by every other source I can find online have been thoroughly debunked. After three tours you learn something, our government has one purpose, that is to defend wealthy interest at the expense of reason, the majorities welfare, and the environment, which some of us, believe it or not, look to for our spiritual well-being. You can not place a price tag on that.
Montana Veteran: I defer to scientist of repute,
Lucky for you no one prevents you from citing them.
You understand that the epizootic that destroyed America’s chestnut trees really occurred, right? And that the accumulation of unburned deadwood did really result from Federal management practices, right? Reviews can be found in the AAAS peer-reviewed journal Science. Should you wish, I can look them up for you.
I used to smoke cigars – but where they used to be on display in wooden boxes where you could compare one to the other – they are now hidden away in locked, plain cabinets where the pure joy of rich tobacco odours is squirreled away from the world like some deadly virus. I looked for some duty free once – and there were the boxes all right. Cuban, Columbian, Mexican, Jamaican, Italian. A United Nations of cigars. There was a sign as well with graphic images and a warning that cigars could give you mouth cancer. I’ll admit to laughing out loud and deciding to take the risk. Cigars, port and Lucinda Williams singing passionate kisses – the once and no more after dinner trinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMGMT3_Dx4k
What we lack from these people is any specificity – a rate of increase attributable to people that is not arbitrary, prediction based on theoretically impossible expectations of chaotic models, incredible claims of the precision of data, unbelievable denial of the climate beast. This is the climate science of complexity and uncertainty. They demand catastrophe as a rationale for societal and economic transition – where the specifics are a little less daunting than we like we may just gloss over. Complete conviction and a heartfelt amen is all that is required from us.
They are at odds with a practical and pragmatic multi-gas and innovation strategy within a solid economic and development framework because this undermines the rationale for transformation into a dystopian – but quite nebulous – future. Billions less people will do for a start. Not surprisingly – we would rather be ignorant.
From the Wiki entry for Nootropic Drugs
[28] Heishman SJ, Kleykamp BA, Singleton EG (June 2010). “Meta-analysis of the acute effects of nicotine and smoking on human performance“. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 210 (4): 453–69. doi:10.1007/s00213-010-1848-1
From the abstract:
Oh God I had a flashback to exam season – coffee and nicotine gum – then alcohol, chips and gravy and pub pool to take the edge off. The good old days – I think not.
Montana Vet
Twitter Queen. I like it. Demonstrate that these conditions have not occurred multiple times over the last 1000 years in your neck
of the woods and I will come over to your side. In fact 20 years ago I was on your side without condition. Digging into the data and doing some reflection made me conclude this whose attribution of caution is infinitely more complex than anyone wants to admit. The human mind instinctively wants easy answers with binary questions from linear thought processes. The scientists of 2200 AD may have the answers. The current crop are woefully lacking.
This is really a Must Read article from the Boston Globe on President Obama’s “War on Coal”:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/09/13/obama-administration-orders-carbon-cuts-fight-global-warming-sells-coal-rights-that-could-increase/0W4zSKgfJJTgXtWmGeJaOP/story.html
Sounds like horse trading. The “war” part is just red meat to keep the Proles on both sides awake enough to heckle the bids up or down, depending who’s sacred ox is being sold down the river.
Wow! Talk about “well-mixed” metaphors!
Good article, Stephen. Obama is already so unpopular, he doesn’t want to kill the chances of other dimowits by banning coal mining – as the article says. I don’t see building roads in “roadless” areas to be all that problematic. The roads can be removed and the land remediated. Glad some good people still have jobs in the coal industries. They even managed to work in the Koch brothers. Great article all around.
I just thought this was an interesting and well written story. What popped into my head: I wonder if the billionaire movers and shakers of this World read (what can be passionate) pro and con comments of blogs like CE and laugh at us.
Stephen. From what I can determine, the biggest billionaires seem to be Dimowits. The Google ones, the Facebook ones, Buffet, Soros … only a few are actually to the right on the political spectrum. Same for the Actor Billionaires.
Not sure if they laugh at us, ignore us, or what. But I know they pay attention, money, and homage to the politicians. Nice little you wash my back and I’ll wash yours game going on there.
From the article, at the very very end, of course: “The annual rent for coal lands is still $3 an acre, with terms enabling a company to control the property for 20 years. (Bidders also pay an upfront fee that varies according to a tract’s size, and they pay an 8.5 to 12.5 percent royalty to the government if they mine the land. )”
It takes a special kind of mind to say that payments to the government of 12.5% of gross sales on top of rent, upfront fees, corporate income tax, licensing and taxes on all equipment and the income taxes on all the employees, is defined in the article (by Markey) as a subsidy to the coal mine.
If the government is supposed to collect the “social cost of carbon” from coal mined on federal property, why isn’t it using the 12.5% of gross for that? Simple- the government has already decided there is a better use for the money than mitigation or adaptation, which is the only reason environmentalists want more money.
As for banning the roads, it’s a good thing windmills and solar plants don’t need roads.
Stephen Segrest: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/09/13/obama-administration-orders-carbon-cuts-fight-global-warming-sells-coal-rights-that-could-increase/0W4zSKgfJJTgXtWmGeJaOP/story.html
thank you for the link.
To your knowledge, has CO Democratic Sen. Udall spoken out on this issue?
Dr. Curry,
MontanaVeteran has added a comment upthread that violates the standards of this blog. While his ridiculous opinions, incoherent writing style and assertions of non-facts are no worse than some here, his mutilation of Anthony Watts name into a vulgarity for a woman’s genitals and ad hominem attack on him as a high school dropout, obviously doesn’t belong in this forum.
John V. – If the guy hangs around and actually begins to learn about the global warming scare, it could be a good thing.
FOMD’s Recommended Reading
To understand the Marshall Institute founders Carter Scholz’ Radiance (2002)
Judith Curry, you will find that the entire senior staff at the Marshall Institute knows Scholz’ book … which is why you should know it too.
AK, you might learn from Scholz as well.
AFOMD,
You mention the book is a novel. A novel is a work of fiction. Warmists accept fiction as fact on a regular basis, but don’t normally acknowledge this, of course.
You are honest at least. I am not sure why you assume that any particular work of fiction is to be preferred to observed fact, by any real scientist. You may have been fooled by such fictions as treemometers, tales of vanishing Himalayan glaciers, hockey sticks, and suchlike. These are often believed to be fact by gullible Warmists.
Of course, I do not wonder that Climatologists might prefer fiction to fact.
What do you think, eh, AFOMD? Which is more the appropriate reference – fact or fiction?
The world wonders, eh, Climate Etc readers!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
IEEE Spectrum associate editor Stephen Cass’thoughtful review of Carter Scholz’ Radiance explains in-depth why Scholz’ book is far better known to physical scientists — including the Marshall Institute’s physical scientists — than to the general public. Sacha Arnold’s review of Radiance for the Quarterly Conversation similarly is well-informed.
Judith (and her students) definitely are well-advised to read Scholz.
It is a pleasure to help increase your appreciation of the science-politics intersection, Mike Flynn!
‘Carter Scholz’s novel is a tale of the dark side of government sponsored
R&D. In it, he examines the workings of a thinly veiled version of the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory known as “the Lab.” It’s the mid-1990s, and the Lab is in search of a post–Cold War mission, and no one, not even its hapless directors, can quite control it. Radiance paints a picture of a research establishment that co-opts brilliant and dedicated individuals into perpetuating its own existence instead of serving the
national interest. Presidents and senators come and go, but the Lab remains. Projects that fall out of political fashion or show no technical merit continue anyway, cloaked by an assortment of more palatable disguises (Star Wars becomes a defense system against rogue asteroids).’
Sounding more like climate science than a private think tank.
Carter Sholz’ Radiance illuminates for us the dark political campaigns that direct covertly-funded denialist thinktanks … and thereby helps us to value all-the-more, the illuminating power of open scientific publication and peer review.
‘But even more convincingly depicted is the Lab’s bureaucracy and its unending stream of meetings, reviews, and reports. Clearly, if Quine is not to lose sight of the forest for the trees, he may have to cut some corners, maybe sign off on a 20-orso-volume report without reading every
last word. But who knows just what has been slipped into those pages?’
Just not seeing it FOMBS.
Maybe it is just coincidence that both Marshall and Heartland can trace their lineage to pro-tobacco positions, or do they just represent the highest bidder, like mercenaries, where it pays them to disregard anything indicating their wrongness?
The Cato Institute also had a pro-tobacco stance. Why is it that all of these ex-pro-tobacco are now pro-fossil-fuels? Did they not lose their scientific credibility with their not even hidden past positions, or were they a plus for advertising their services to certain types?
Guilt by association.
The argument is that because these institutions were wrong on tobacco they must be wrong on climate change.
This is a logical fallacy and an invalid argument.
People and institutions can be wrong on one issue and right on another – you have to look at each position and rebut it by itself – not be reference to a completely separate issue.
What exactly did these think tanks do regarding tobacco?
Cigarettes were known as cancer sticks I thought since the world war era.
I wasn’t around before smoking was known to be bad. Don’t know the history.
See ‘gaspers’. Compare with ‘Not a cough in a carload’, and they meant a railroad car. Once’t upon a time, cigarettes were a treatment for asthma. You could look it up.
=======
It’s funny you mention asthma, Kim. I developed asthma as a young teenager. I started smoking around the age of 17 and the asthma was held at bay. A nurse once told me that it’s because the airway is covered in tar, thus it is protected from allergens. I have not smoked in many, many years now. But I have to use asthma meds.
RickA, more like credibility (or not) by association. If they sold out to one set of backers, they will sell out to others.
Rob Ellison, you ain’t never read Scholz’ book, perhaps?
Maybe you never even heard of Scholz’ book?
So let FOMD make the parallels explicit:
(1) Carbon neutrality is “the threat” … to Big Carbon’s trillion-dollar in-the-ground assets
(2) Denialism is “the defense” against that threat … a defense that is deployed by the hired operatives of the Marshall Institute.
(3) Science is window-dressing … to be jettisoned whenever it conflicts with the dominant denialist agenda.
It is a pleasure to expand your awareness of denialism’s political, scientific, and cognitive dynamics, Rob Ellison!
Sounds like the CAGW/“Global Warming” movement: Science is window-dressing … to be jettisoned whenever it conflicts with the dominant socialist agenda.
In fact, I’d say the attraction this book exerts (as a foil) on CAGW types is probably due to projection: they know that’s how their “Klimate Katastrophe” works, so they imagine that’s how those opposing them work.
AFOMD,
I thank you for your attempts relating to my supposedly necessary appreciation of something apparently called science – politics intersection, which requires reading of fiction selected by yourself.
If I choose to read fiction, I can choose from a wide selection of fantasy by authors such as Hansen, Mann and Schmidt. This increases my appreciation of pseudo-scientific Warmism, and its preoccupation with fiction in lieu of fact. Even though some reviewers have given favourable reviews, their literary worth is minimal, being poorly written to the point of illiteracy, and with significant plot deficiencies.
I commend these authors to you, as their semi-literate hand wavings will probably appeal to your level of literary appreciation.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Have you considered “Brave New World”, “Frankenstein”, “Atlas Shrugged”, “A Canticle for Liebowitz”, “Dr. Jekyll and Mr, Hyde”, and “The Constant Gardener”? I highly recommend “Arrowsmith”. There’s also “Faust”. The list of interesting fiction is long. Of lesser quality than those mentioned but possibly more relevant to climate science is “State of Fear”. There are novels for just about every political persuasion and age group.
Here’s a bit of irony for you.
From the article:
…
GlassPoint Solar last week landed a $53 million investment from Royal Dutch Shell and the sovereign investment fund of Oman for its enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technology. In a twist of irony, GlassPont’s technology runs on solar power, which produces steam to help pump more fossil fuel from conventional crude plays.
GlassPoint has been using this technique in Oman since 2012, and it helped the firm score more than double its initial funding. Given the age of its oil fields, Oman relies on EOR—a complex process that extracts more oil than traditional drilling—to boost production.
Although EOR is common to the oil industry, using the power of the sun “is expanding very rapidly, and is a very new technology” said Rod MacGregor, GlassPoint’s CEO, in an interview. “This application looks like the next step for solar.”
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101995330
TESLA, P/E ratio: 132 times next year’s earnings…
Yep. Even Musk says the stock is (temporarily :) ) overvalued.
Maybe they can make the coal mines solar powered also. That might please O’Bumbles.
A misnomer:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/14/Peoples-Climate-March-will-take-to-streets-of-New-York
They should call it the Progressive Government, “Green” NGO and Crony Capitalist Climate March.
Astroturf has not gotten such a bad rap since Bill Clinton and his El Camino.
Rob Ellison, you ain’t never read Scholz’ book, perhaps?
Maybe you never even heard of Scholz’ book?
So let FOMD make the parallels explicit:
A tale of government science in which bureaucracy and waste triumphs.
(1) Carbon neutrality is “the threat” … to Big Carbon’s trillion-dollar in-the-ground assets
Markets come and go – it is the nature of the beast. The Oil Age too will pass – when something cheaper comes along. It is what business – as opposed to government – does best.
(2) Denialism is “the defense” against that threat … a defense that is deployed by the hired operatives of the Marshall Institute.
No one really gives a rat’s arse at the Marshal Institute – except for rational energy policy.
(3) Science is window-dressing … to be jettisoned whenever it conflicts with the dominant denialist agenda.
Science is still critical to the future – the only thing being denied is that the science is simple – as opposed to complex and uncertain – and that radical transformation of societies and economies are inevitable. Perhaps as well that fringe extremists are psychologically stable.
It is a pleasure to expand your awareness of denialism’s political, scientific, and cognitive dynamics, Rob Ellison!
It is pleasure to puncture your smarmy and unctuous nonsense FOMBS. Anytime.
A tale of government science in which bureaucracy and waste triumphs. – should not be in italics
The Asteroid-Mining Race Begins
[…]
[…]
[…]
Text of the bill
From the article:
…
THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.
Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.
Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?
…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/facts-debunk-global-warming-alarmism/story-e6frg746-1111118607086?nk=075c912ba8335900c27a6294bec86324
We were cooling, folks; and for how much longer after 2009 even kim doesn’t know.
=========
Yes, we’re cooling. That’s why August 2014 was the hottest on record.
This is getting more and more amusing.
August 2014 is weather. Climate is change is something quite different. The human record goes back 300 years, climate’s trajectory goes back millions of years. SnorpleTheThird has come for some laughs, so thanks for making my day!!
Gavin downplays it too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/15/warmest-august_n_5823642.html
Snorp, “Yes, we’re cooling. That’s why August 2014 was the hottest on record.”
Quite a few people here try to discuss the whys instead of tossing out information that might be misleading. So instead of “That’s why August..” consider “Why August …”
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-KBpfAFVzlgI/VBhBO2WBJkI/AAAAAAAALgw/LkRb0n4Zn94/w705-h393-no/giss%2Bv%2Brss%2Bhemi.png
Not every temperature data set indicates that August 2014 is thw warmest August EVAH. The data sets that do indicate that interpolate (krige) isolated typically colder that a witches mammy’s regions in order to create data where there isn’t any. That is perfectly fine for a long term “global” scale reference, but the individual monthly data tends to be smeared and individual monthly anomalies are based on an arbitrary reference period. If you pick a different or longer reference period and remove the “average” seasonal anomaly from that period you can get different “warmest months EVAH”.
Because of that, when a newb shows up with yet another claim of warmest what ever, they tend to get a bit of cold reception.
In a generally rising trend any decade not the hottest lately is cause for alarm. And Whoa!, here we are.
=======================
after 2009? what happened to since 1995 or since 2002?
Cooling date keeps slipping huh.
It’s long looked to be around ’04-’05 to me. That’s about when I first remarked it.
=============
“Yes, we’re cooling. That’s why August 2014 was the hottest on record.”
Pitiful, the grasping at straws by the intellectually halt and lame. NO WARMING IN AT LEAST 16 YEARS,,, BY SOME ACCOUNTING NEARLY 20!
Put that in your alarmist pipe and smoke it.
+1 CaptD.
From the article:
…
Any day now the White House and Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) will attempt to raise taxes on business, while making the U.S. tax code even more complex. The Obama and Schumer plans to punish businesses for moving their legal domicile overseas will arrive even as a new international ranking shows that the U.S. tax burden on business is close to the worst in the industrialized world. Way to go, Washington.
On Monday the Tax Foundation, which manages the widely followed State Business Tax Climate Index, will launch a new global benchmark, the International Tax Competitiveness Index. According to the foundation, the new index measures “the extent to which a country’s tax system adheres to two important principles of tax policy: competitiveness and neutrality.”
A competitive tax code is one that limits the taxation of businesses and investment. Since capital is mobile and businesses can choose where to invest, tax rates that are too high “drive investment elsewhere, leading to slower economic growth,” as the Tax Foundation puts it.
By neutrality the foundation means “a tax code that seeks to raise the most revenue with the fewest economic distortions. This means that it doesn’t favor consumption over saving, as happens with capital gains and dividends taxes, estate taxes, and high progressive income taxes. This also means no targeted tax breaks for businesses for specific business activities.” Crony capitalism that rewards the likes of green energy with lower tax bills while imposing higher bills on other firms is political arbitrage that misallocates capital and reduces economic growth.
The index takes into account more than 40 tax policy variables. And the inaugural ranking puts the U.S. at 32nd out of 34 industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
…
http://online.wsj.com/articles/were-number-32-1410729349
Wolves in green fleece
in charge of and fleecing
a reducing flock.
Are you a foreign government? Do you want to lobby the U.S. government, but not let anyone know about it? Do you have millions to spend to buy the opinions of “independent” think tanks?
“’I am surprised, quite frankly, at how explicit the relationship is between money paid, papers published and policy makers and politicians influenced,’ said Amos Jones, a Washington lawyer who has specialized in the foreign agents act, after reviewing transactions between the Norway government and Brookings, the Center for Global Development and other groups.
At least one of the research groups conceded that it may in fact be violating the federal law.
‘Yikes,’ said Todd Moss, the chief operating officer at the Center for Global Development, after being shown dozens of pages of emails between his organization and the government of Norway, which detail how his group would lobby the White House and Congress on behalf of the Norway government. ‘We will absolutely seek counsel on this.’”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers-buy-influence-at-think-tanks.html
(By way of Daniel Pipes at NRO)
Notice who the crony philosophers are: Brookings, the Center for Global Development; the Atlantic Council, the Center for Strategic and International Studies – progressives all. Nary a Heritage or CATO to be found.
As Daniel Pipes says at NRO:
“The Times article exposed — astonishingly — the corruption of liberal establishments such as the Brookings Institution, the Center for American Progress, and the National Democratic Institute. How honest, honorable, and unexpected from a newspaper that has become the nation’s billboard for unthinking liberal bromides. Conversely, the exposé found not a penny going to conservative institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hudson Institute. (If the Times continues with journalism of this caliber, I might even pay for its iPhone app!)”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387939/think-tanks-sale-or-rent-daniel-pipes
This article has to be a bag of lies, Gary M. We all know the “progressives” seek to feed the hungry, stop all wars, equalize income everywhere, cure all diseases, and achieve world peace. There’s no way they could be interested in money.
jim2,
All I can say is that is a shock to see the Times committing journalism, rather than their typical journolism.
Gary – If you think that’s something, get a gander at this one. The NYT appears to be criticizing O’Bumbles, albeit in the most gentle manner possible. O’Bumbles has ruined a perfectly good country, the USA. Hopefully, it can be rebuilt.
From the article:
…
It was a time of weakness. The most powerful nation on earth was tired of far-flung wars, its will and treasury depleted by absence of victory. An ungrateful world could damn well police itself. The nation had bridges to build and education systems to fix. Civil wars between Arabs could fester. Enemies might even kill other enemies, a low-cost gain. Middle Eastern borders could fade; they were artificial colonial lines on a map. Shiite could battle Sunni, and Sunni Shiite, there was no stopping them. Like Europe’s decades-long religious wars, these wars had to run their course. The nation’s leader mockingly derided his own “wan, diffident, professorial” approach to the world, implying he was none of these things, even if he gave that appearance. He set objectives for which he had no plan. He made commitments he did not keep. In the way of the world these things were noticed. Enemies probed. Allies were neglected, until they were needed to face the decapitators who talked of a Caliphate and called themselves a state. Words like “strength” and “resolve” returned to the leader’s vocabulary. But the world was already adrift, unmoored by the retreat of its ordering power. The rule book had been ripped up.
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/opinion/roger-cohen-the-great-unraveling.html
The world’s conscience, and cop on the beat, has lately been a coalition of the functioning democracies. This state of affairs will likely persist.
==================
Oh yeah. How could I leave out their #1 objective: STOP THIS INSIDIOUS GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Brookings institute and the others cited are neoliberal, not “leftist” liberal. If you need me to explain to you the stark differences that entails, I’ll be happy to.
The Heritage Foundation received money from South Korea’s intelligence agency, btw. Not to mention cult leader SY Moon.
Daniel Pipes was one of the think tank “geniuses” who pushed for the Iraq war and explicitly predicted it would lead to a flowering of democracy and peace in the middle east.
It seems many of you are as deluded regarding climate change (we just had the hottest August on record btw) as you are on political matters.
Snorple
You wrote- “(we just had the hottest August on record btw)”
By what measure did you make that determination, and why is it such a concern? What specifically is your largest concern of a warmer world? Do you believe the CO2 mitigation actions generally make sense? Which ones and why?
Yes, Brookings, supporter of LBJ, Clinton, Obama and Obamacare, scourge of Reagan and his tax cuts, and Bush or any politician with a R after their name, is “neoliberal,” not “‘leftist’ liberal.” (Guess what Brookings’ position is on globalclimatewarmingchange?)
Because central planning stops being central planning when you change its name.
Gary
I was trying to get Snorple to explain what he/she thought with some specifics. I am not sure what to make of your comment.
Rob Starkey,
You should make that I mis-threaded it. It was a response to Snorple himself. :-)
Snorple – I’m very interested to hear the differences between “neoliberal” and “leftist.” Also, if you would be so kind, explain where “progressive” fits into the left.
True Left- Think Occupy (anti-globalist, anti-war, for MORE regulation of banks and corporations, and LESS regulation of individuals qua individuals- hence opposition to NSA, drug laws, etc)
Neoliberal- Think Clinton (Nafta, bombing Serbia, eliminating Glass-Steagall) / Obama (bombing Libya, and too much else to list)/ DLC, Basically a softer version of neoconservativism, combined with some elements of social tolerance (Gay marriage)
Progressivism- This word has become more diffuse than the word hipster, so I don’t find much utility for it, ie people self-identifying as progressives can fall into either of the two previous categories.
All this is a simplification, but serves
And in response to the person denying Brookings is neoliberal, just look at the signatories to the PNAC who are now working with Brooking. The claim that Brookings is leftist just won’t fly. And their work in climate change is a very minor sideline.
Not sure where you got the definitions but I consider the Clintons AND Obama to be left and progressive. Your welcomed to your definitions, but I’ll use mine, thank you very much.
I’ve never heard of a NEO-liberal and don’t really see the need for a new word for lefty.
Also Snorple, I think what you are calling true left actually already has a name: Libertarian.
Pro personal freedom.
Pro small government.
Pro minimal regulations.
Any time anyone starts wanting to rename things, I immediately think 1984.
“Also Snorple, I think what you are calling true left actually already has a name: Libertarian.
Pro personal freedom.
Pro small government.
Pro minimal regulations.
Any time anyone starts wanting to rename things, I immediately think 1984”
Reread what I actually typed, not what you THINK I typed. I made the delineation crystal clear.
Snorple – the difference between your lefties is too small to notice.
“Snorple – the difference between your lefties is too small to notice.”
Wow. You think being FOR a war (or wars) versus AGAINST a war is a tiny distinction?
(Did you miss what transpired with the Iraq War?)
You think being FOR corporate trade agreements versus AGAINST those agreements is just trifle?
Are you a troll?
Snorple – the fact that some lefties do desire to survive, and therefore can tolerate war, isn’t particularly surprising. But they are still lefties.
“Snorple – the fact that some lefties do desire to survive, and therefore can tolerate war, isn’t particularly surprising. But they are still lefties.”
That’s as laughably ignorant as saying “just because neoconservatives and paleo-conservatives disagree on fundamental issues, they are nevertheless the same thing”
I don’t subscribe to the use of neo-conservative or paleo-conservative either. Each individual conservative is different from every other. We don’t need false distinctions that are typically propaganda devices anyway.
SnorIII diverts with a petty partisan irrelevancy, ignores the critique and parts with an ad pipinem. Keep ’em comin’ Snorp, you’re looking stellar.
================
What is irrelevant about noting that, contrary to the claim made here, that the Heritage Foundation has in fact received foreign money from various Asian nations, as well as the pernicious cult leader SY Moon?
None of the think tanks mentioned are leftist in actuality was the broader point. Just as an example : One of the most prominent analysts at the Brookings Institute supported the Iraq War, military invention in Syria, and at least the threat of force for Iran (Michael O’Hanlon).
Real leftists were out in the street protesting against the Iraq war, and oppose other such wars in the middle east waged by the US.
I suppose making a pun is simpler than actually having your facts lined up
Heh, it’s certainly more fun than lining up facts from your supernova.
===========
Snorp, six years ago Al Gore bragged that he had $300,000,000 to spend on a global warming campaign. When asked the source of the funding, he replied that it was from internet and anonymous donors. Even Andy Revkin blanched at that. So should you.
=========================
Well, bringing up Al Gore certainly completely disproves NASA and NOAA data regarding the temp records set for this year. Kudos.
The series with the most uniform sampling and consistent method of calculation puts the lie to this “warmest ever” BS you are slinging.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah
How is Tim, mate?
Snorp, you diverted off the money trail. Crumby records won’t help you find your way back.
===========
From the article:
…
Summary
There is little question that the rebound in Libyan production will continue. However, August OPEC production estimates have been unusually varied among reporting agencies.
The developing consensus is that global economic activity is slowing, with a particularly weak outlook in Europe and China.
The pace of North American inventory growth raises questions about the health of the US economy and potential for US oil demand growth.
Regardless of what set of OPEC output estimates we chose, the velocity of global supply increases is clearly outpacing demand prospects heading into 2015.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2496375-opecs-convoluted-supply-picture-faces-clearly-weaker-global-demand-prospects
Report – emails reveal ‘collusion’ with green activist groups over EPA climate agenda
…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/15/report-emails-reveal-collusion-with-green-activist-groups-over-epa-climate-agenda/
A putsch.
======
From the article:
…
Call it a crude conundrum: global oil production is surging, demand is falling and prices are dropping fast. Brent Crude fell under $100 a barrel this week and hit a 17-month low on Thursday, and West Texas Intermediate was trading close to $90 a barrel. All of which has some traders asking when—or if—producers will cut output in order to buttress prices.
…
While crude demand typically drops in the fourth quarter, traders are increasingly concerned about longer-term global growth and its overall effect on crude demand. Specifically, problems in the euro zone and signs that China is importing less crude are making the market anxious.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101992387
From the article:
…
Production from the Marcellus region is now over 15 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas, and by 2020 that could grow to 20 Bcf/d according to Wood Mackenzie. The emerging of the Utica play in Ohio could provide more production upside. As output rises, E&P players will more need gas processing capacity.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2497535-surging-marcellus-output-with-utica-upside-makes-markwest-a-solid-buy
From the same article:
…
Utica upside
The Utica shale is a developing play that E&P players are starting to realize the potential of. Chesapeake Energy (NYSE:CHK) has over 1 million net acres in the play with over 5,500 potential drilling locations. Those locations could end up recovering 4 billion BOE of resources, a sizable amount that will keep output growing for years. By developing its large position, Chesapeake thinks it can grow its Utica output by 300% this year versus last year. The growth won’t stop in 2015, as Chesapeake is guiding for 30%-60% output growth from its Utica operations.
…
In regard to the 50/50 argument
by Judith Curry Pick one:
a) Warming since 1950 is predominantly (more than 50%) caused by humans.b) Warming since 1950 is predominantly caused by natural processes.
When faced with a choice between a) and b), I respond: ‘I can’t choose, since i think the most likely split between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50-50′. Gavin thinks I’m ‘making things up’, so I promised yet another post on this topic.
The issue here is of the likelihood of human induced CO2 production causing the global warming detected from 1950 to 2014.
The basis of this argument is that CO2 increasing at 1.3 ppm a year [2.07 for last decade] from a base of 312 to now 400 PPM is all human induced and that this should cause a rise in average global temperature of 0.2 degrees a decade.
The attribution of the warming is made from assumptions [G and Curry] from models and the models are all programmed to input 0.2 degrees rise a decade [the rise that “must “occur when CO2 is going up at this rate”]. ” the climate models ‘detect’ AGW by comparing natural forcing simulations with anthropogenically forced simulations.
Gavin writes
The basis of the AR5 calculation is summarised in figure 10.5:
Figure 10.5 IPCC AR5
and herein lie a number of problems
Firstly anthropogenic global warming is really GHG [greenhouse gas] warming as humans are supposed to make all of the excess GHG. This is a lot more than the observed warming over this time as 0.2 degrees a decade for 64 years is 1.28 degrees. Strangely this is 130% of the observed warming that has occured, Guess the models did not predict the pause after all.
Secondly CO2 levels are increasing per decade from 0.75 ppm to 2.07 ppm but the models were set with the lower levels. At the same time as we should be seeing an increase in temperature rise we instead have a pause.
Thirdly anthropogenic global warming [ANT] is still put at greater than 100%, ie 110 %, after taking off the supposed negative aerosol effect [OA], which is so unknown that the error bars are bigger than the guesstimate.This is where Gavin obtains his 110% likely range of Anthropogenic warming that he attributes to the IPCC. This is 1.28 degrees minus largest guesstimate with a straight face for aerosol effect.
Fourthly Natural Variation gets a guernsey with the ridiculously low figure of 0.1 degree over 64 years either way, no guesswork here. Judith’s point that AO and PO oscillations and multidecadal waves which may go in 60 ,80 or 100 year cycles is completely ignored by saying that Natural variation should be ignored over a long time as it reverts to the mean. In the time frame given there is every possibility that natural variation, possibly in the order of 0.2 degrees a decade, Could be happening, but this could mean that the 1990’s rise was not caused by humans at all. In a different context on another matter Gavin himself said “in framing this as a binary choice, it gives implicit (but invalid) support to the idea that each choice is equally likely. That this is invalid reasoning should be obvious by simply replacing 50% with any other value and noting that the half/half argument could be made independent of any data.”
Fifthly, as kindly pointed out by Tom Curtis at Skeptical science to the maths challenged Russ R statement that G = +0.9±0.4°C and OA = -0.25±0.35°C. So, by simple math, ANT = 0.65± 0.75°C. So, the PDF would would be centered around 100% (not 110%) of the observed warming with (5-95%) uncertainty of ± 115%. [see first comment at blog , Judith, Russ R. at 06:27 AM on 16 September, 2014 ] , that would be a giant variability due to the OA uncertainty range if correct
That raises a good question, why did 27% of the rise in CO2 concentrations happen when 18% of emissions happened?
And more recently (2000-2008), 15% of concentration increase happened when 20% or emissions happened.
The sea ice is looking very healthy. It ain’t dropping, that’s for sure.
…
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
I’m not endorsing this, but found it interesting.
From the article:
…
It is that time of the year again. For the last two decades, every year in November or December. the world gets together to try to carve out a deal to prevent catastrophic climate change. After so many years, one might be tempted to think that the whole process holds little surprises. But fear not, because this year the Polish government has decided to spice things up to make sure things are a little different this time around.
Poland’s Premier Tusk decided that it was about time when corporate sponsorship would enter the world of climate negotiations. And he did not invite just any corporations. For the first time ever the negotiations are sponsored by some of the most polluting companies in the world.
So we find ourselves in an absurd situation here. While 30 of our colleagues are being held in prison because they peacefully protested against the madness of drilling for oil in the Arctic, we spend our days at climate negotiations sponsored by companies like BMW, who has done just about everything to stop stricter CO2emissions standards in Europe, to make sure we keep our addiction to oil.
But BMW is far from being alone. The list of sponsors reads like a who’s who of corporate polluters. Among them the French conglomerate Alstrom Power which has built some of Poland’s biggest coal-fired power plants. Another sponsor, ArcelorMittal has also been busy building things. As the world’s leading steel and mining company it has sponsored the construction of the plenary halls at the conference center where the negotiations are taking place. In a way, countries are literally negotiating a new climate agreement in the belly of the beast paid for by the company that has for years lobbied governments to avoid tighter emissions reduction targets in the European Union.
Unfortunately it does not stop there. Another partner in crime is PGE, Poland’s largest energy company and the operator of the infamous Belchatów lignite power plant. It is the very plant that we protested at last weekbecause, not only is lignite one of the dirtiest and most polluting fuels, but Belchatów also holds the sad record of being the single biggest source of carbon emissions in all of Europe. If you want to take a wild guess of who built part of Belchatów, here’s a hint: scroll up a little bit.
And the list goes on. Although the Polish government stopped short of giving these companies a seat at the negotiating table, they invited them – again, for the first time ever – to directly meet with UN leaders at the newly established “Caring for Climate Business Forum”. As if all that wasn’t enough, the government also decided to host one of the world’s biggest coal summits to coincide with the climate negotiations. This morning, our protestat the very heart of the coal industry was joined by civil society organizations from all over the world. At a time when almost 90% of the Polish people have clearly said that they want more energy to come from renewable sources, the Polish government is not only betraying its own people but also the world.
…
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/bankrolling-climate-change-corporate-sponsors/blog/47429/
“Poland’s Premier Tusk decided that it was about time when corporate sponsorship would enter the world of climate negotiations. And he did not invite just any corporations. For the first time ever the negotiations are sponsored by some of the most polluting companies in the world.”
Maybe this is a better idea than not giving them a place at the table.
From the article:
…
The analysis shows that capex nearly matches total revenues every year, and net cash flow is becoming negative while debt keeps rising. There are other factors, such as the close link between rising debt and production, the rising cost of debt to total revenues and negative cash flow, which add to concerns about the sustainability of the business. Company data also shows that the cash flow per share of US independents, many of which are investing in shale and tight oil prospects, is negative and has been trending more negative with time.
However, although the market (and some industrial investors) may be wrong, or unable to distinguish profitable from unprofitable opportunities, there remain a large number of investors who have made substantial investment as well as many that believe that these companies will eventually make money, especially from M&A activity.
A key finding of a broader US E&P benchmark study carried out by Ernst & Young in 2013 was that both exploration and development costs are increasing rapidly – by more than 20 per cent in 2012 alone. The oil and gas industry has experienced falling net income margins over the past few years, and shale gas has played a significant part in this trend. It is a complex system, and not the subject of this paper, but it is important to note that, returns and cash flow are all under pressure even at these current high prices and a significant capex and cost reduction is needed. Additionally, production and revenue increases are needed to rebalance the industry’s financial and strategic model. The impact of shale gas and tight oil business activity on these trends is a subject of much debate.
No doubt the industry is bringing more oil to the market. But as an investor the real question is if they are making a profit doing this? As of now, the question has no definitive answer. So for now, investing in these companies is really more about speculating than about purchasing an asset that is creating significant cash flow and income to its owners. Perhaps in the future, but for now it is an open question about profits.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2498635-should-you-invest-in-n-a-tight-oil
From the article:
…
Washington D.C.- A total blackout of a House Science committee occurred during a House Hearing on Climate Change and the EPA’s power plans. The lights went out and the room was plunged into total darkness at 10:23 AM in the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing was titled: Full Committee Hearing – “The Administration’s Climate Plan: Failure by Design” – 2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 | Sep 17, 2014 10:00am
…
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/17/55840/
The Gore Effect evolves.
=============
On refiners use of lighter crudes.
From the article:
…
Ways refiners shift to use more light sweet crude oil
• Back out light sweet imports
• Use any “unused” light sweet capacity
• Back down intermediate crudes (especially sweet) to use more light
sweet
• If light-heavy price differentials are small enough, back down heavier
crude oils, reducing use of coking unit to use more light
• Invest in changes to use more
Financial incentives are large enough to encourage change
Refiners have at least 1 MMB/D of capability to process more light crude in
the short term
…
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.eia.gov/conference/2014/pdf/presentations/shore.pdf&sa=U&ei=ngIbVPatBMPj8gGt0IHwBw&ved=0CAgQFjACOAo&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHZi3ccEaMMF9o4qAWcByKxtCWf8g